The Greek etymology for agnostic will indicate the word meant/means "unknown, unknowable."
Not to belabor too much the point, don't all religions of the book concede that their deity is certainly "unknowable," if not "unknown?"
Doesn't it follow, then, that we are all, ultimately, agnostics?
Doesn't that then make adherents of book religions virtual blasphemers? What could be more blasphemous than to assign all too human characteristics such as jealousy and pettiness to whatever power created this limitless universe? What could be more blasphemous than to murder fellow human beings in the name of this deity?
Religions most probably originated from the needs of small families, tribes, communities to develop rules for survival. That made sense.
It still makes sense to gather as a community for safety and survival. It does not make sense to allow lore to become a justification for thuggery and murder.
This "ideological struggle" in which we are engaged is a struggle to re-cast religion into a beneficial institution for the sake of the peoples of the earth.
So far there are no such policies being discussed, much less being developed.
Before we place too much trust in religious dogma, we must seek some method for verification. An anthropomorphized godhead is not verifiable.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Agnostic? Of course!
Posted by Unknown at 7:15 AM
Labels: Ideological Struggle, Religion
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
The courage of your conviction virtually demands your name, if we don't know you.