Religion as a Non-fundamental Ideology

I once read this interesting post, and now I am wondering. What causes that? There must be something underneath that affects the decision whether one follows which approach in interpreting the verses in the (supposedly) holy books. What is it? I don’t know. Maybe it is the characteristic, as in if George W Bush were a Moslem then he would be like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and vice versa. But if Fransiscus of Assisi had been a Buddhist then he would have been the next Buddha who came after Siddharta Gautama, and vice versa. One will entirely change her/his worldview only if this underlying thing also changes. In the case of Paul, for example, it is said that he happened to witness a miracle and this caused him to repent and spread Christianity, instead of opposing it. Maybe bad analogies, but meh. 😆

A friend, who recently quit his religion citing the many sins it commits, then asked me, so of what use are religions? I just gave him a rhetorical answer, of what use are ideologies? That was because I didn’t know. But basically they are philosphically similar, and religions only add those absurd things that tell you how to pray, what to say when you pray, etc.

Well, I just want to say, if you consider religion as a fundamental part of your life, on which your morality and (maybe) logic systems are built, think again. 😀

The end of part I, which is hardly an end. Still a long journey to go. To be continued kapan-kapan.

Advertisements