Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

Trooperman said:

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
And to me, this makes the message and the medium of religion - in any of its current forms - an almost hilarious concept that by definition misses the point.

What alternative form would you propose?

I prefer science. The main reason is actually opposite what most people think. Most people think that science is about truth and religion is about rules. Actually, religion is fixated on "truth", and just about every religion claims ownership of it. Science (good science, at least), on the other hand, rarely even mentions the word "truth".

Science is a process of coming up with better and better models ("theories") of the world around us based on ever-improving methods of observation. Theories change and improve over time - at least they are better informed by better observations/measurements.

By contrast, religion presupposes that truth has already been laid out some two or three thousand years ago, and never changes. I prefer to believe that we as humans can improve ourselves, improve our methods and our insights, refine our beliefs, etc. over time. I don't agree that whatever we came up with in 0.BC is THE truth and must never change.

There are also some things within particular religions that I find highly unlikely (logically), but my main beef regards the notion of "truth". As far as said truth being the result of divine inspiration or divine intervention - I don't think we are capable of that, for the reasons I outlined in my earlier post.

Fair enough. I believe there is truth and that science attempts to explain the environment we find around us, but can never address the question: why?