He's got his reasons. If you ask me, the big one is that it wastes time and thought on things that have no material effect. There are far more productive sources of all those things you cite, I'm certain of it. Surely, there are alternatives to obtaining the positives of religion without religion, yes?
Your definition of religion is... odd to say the least. It's much too broad and can accept things that should never be religions. By your definition, the Materialist worldview is a religion. Since it rejects any notion of the spiritual at all, I can't believe that you actually mean that. It's not a response to the immensity of the universe, it has no answer to why bad things happen. But it is how I, at the very least, make sense of the world we live in. Likewise, I must disagree with your assessment of Atheism as more focused on the question of God's existence than Agnosticism. Most Atheists have for all intents and purposes answered the question and moved on, only returning to it when prompted. Agnostics on the other hand, have a big gaping unknown in their worldview and ought to be looking for some sort of definitive answer one way or the other. Both of these seem to be differences in definitions, which may be hampering out attempts to communicate significantly. Because to me, any argument that calls atheism a religion is as absurd as an argument that 1+2=4.
Yes, I know that the Unitarian church is very soft in such matters compared to others. Erasmus Darwin described it as a 'Featherbed for falling Christians' in the 18th century. I thought you deserved to know his opinions as best as I could remember and summarize them into a few sentences, since they seemed to directly impinge upon you in this particular.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-10-29 12:10 am (UTC)Your definition of religion is... odd to say the least. It's much too broad and can accept things that should never be religions. By your definition, the Materialist worldview is a religion. Since it rejects any notion of the spiritual at all, I can't believe that you actually mean that. It's not a response to the immensity of the universe, it has no answer to why bad things happen. But it is how I, at the very least, make sense of the world we live in. Likewise, I must disagree with your assessment of Atheism as more focused on the question of God's existence than Agnosticism. Most Atheists have for all intents and purposes answered the question and moved on, only returning to it when prompted. Agnostics on the other hand, have a big gaping unknown in their worldview and ought to be looking for some sort of definitive answer one way or the other. Both of these seem to be differences in definitions, which may be hampering out attempts to communicate significantly. Because to me, any argument that calls atheism a religion is as absurd as an argument that 1+2=4.
Yes, I know that the Unitarian church is very soft in such matters compared to others. Erasmus Darwin described it as a 'Featherbed for falling Christians' in the 18th century. I thought you deserved to know his opinions as best as I could remember and summarize them into a few sentences, since they seemed to directly impinge upon you in this particular.