+JTB Pred By that stunted definition you gave, I would agree
with you. But a slightly more authoritative definition might be:
"A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural
systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of
existence. Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred
histories that are intended to explain the meaning of life
and/or to explain the origin of life or the Universe." Via
Wikipedia although I can find other definitions that fit. It's
easy to bring up a straw man and then attack it. Give a stunted
definition and then saying, "And that's not what x is" But it's
much harder to hold on to that idea by being more accurate in
your definitions. I'm not defending religion nor am I saying
anything bad about science. I've just found the trend in recent
years of some theoretical physicists deciding that now is the
time to convert the masses that is somewhat disturbing. I was
especially disappointed in Hawking. He is one of my idols (lol
idols) - a hero in so many ways. And he still is. But when I saw
his special about "Why God isn't necessary" and showed his
theory of a possible Universe that created itself; well I'm
personally ok with that theory - it's as fine as any other
theory. But his descriptions of religion were way slanted and
offbase. He was preaching to the choir and characterising what
he perceived as opposition in a manner that would fit his
theories. But knowing both parts quite well - having studied
religion (my 20s) and science (my 30s) heavily (and concluding
personally that NEITHER has "it all" yet) - I've been studying
the gaps. I'm not talking about the "God of the gaps" thing or
any absurdities like that. Rather, it's the gaps in logic - the
blind spots - to see where they stem from and see where the
prejudices lie in the different worldviews. As it stands, I can
easily get someone who is passionate about one side or the other
angry at me: science lovers think I'm religious, and religion
lovers think I'm an atheist. I'm neither. It puts me in an
awkward position, in the gaps with no ideological support from
either side. But it's only in the awkward places that any growth
can take place. Otherwise, it's just a continual process of
defending someone or something's honor all of the time. I'm
finding the awkward missing pieces - and they're there, so far
in all systems of human knowledge.
