Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffC
Or does religion seek to explain that which is otherwise unexplainable?
One of the issues I have with religion is the changes the message has undergone over centuries. Changes in interpretation, errors in translation, decisions by copyists to adjust statements so that they conform to the accepted morals/ideals of the age. How can we, now, be sure that the events now written in the sacred scriptures say the same as their original author, and messages not twisted to suit, especially as the author themself may be transcribing an event that happened many years before.
Science, on the other hand, tends to adjust earlier assumptions by further investigation, experimentation and realisation. Building on the shoulders of giants .....
|
We can't, but why would they be more or less right than their successors? Is a religious belief only valid in its very first version? Then we're all doomed, or we should be studying Lascaux. But not even Lascaux is a reflection of the first religious beliefs.
For me that invalidates the whole thing. If beliefs can evolve over time, can be different for different people at the same time, even in the same country or city, what makes one belief better than the other? Since there is no external validation...
It's fascinating how Christians (and, I suppose, also Jews and Muslims) built a whole set of rules based on a book that says completely different things. Even when we have access to the original text, we keep sticking to traditional interpretations that have nothing to do whith what the text says. So who's right? In my view, neither. The Bible is a fascinating set of stories and an insight into the history and tradition of a group of people, nothing more.