week 1 discussion post #2

On the topic of Ways of relating Science & Religion
Discussion post below altered slightly for the purposes of this blog

(Disclaimer: I'm not well-versed on religion nor science; my posts are just a collection of personal experiences and thoughts developed on bits and pieces of reading/media/et al.)

In response to a recent post by another, I agree with them when they say that "the relationship of a person to religion in this world becomes complicated". People can 'subscribe' to a general form of belief/religion, e.g. Christianity, Catholicism, Buddhism et al - but to say that you're a Buddhist or that you're a Hindu or whatever, the listener can't help but generalise. And even the generalisation will differ from person to person, depending on their personal experiences with people of that particular religion (whether it's a lot, a little, or no contact at all), and the surrounding influences they choose (consciously or no) to absorb.

Every single individual will indeed be different in terms of their level of faith, and how literally they interpret a holy text or commandment, amongst other things - and I guess that in a sense, this is a kind of human 'corruption' of religion in its purest form. What the purest form of religion is, I wouldn't be able to say. But one thing's for sure, religion is definitely very subjective, not only on an individual basis but also on a congregational basis.

Different congregations have different leaders, who in turn present their own viewpoints and sway their 'sheep' (to take a Christian term) with their preaching to share a common perspective of the faith. For example - there are so many Christian denominations out there its almost ridiculous! Some focus only on Jesus, others on Mary, and others still on Mary and Jesus (and God, i.e. the Trinity?).

I can't help but use Christianity as an example in most cases, as it's the one religion I probably know the most about, having been personally involved in one of its streams for a short while. That said, I'm hoping to learn more about Judaism, Buddhism and the Hindu and Muslim faiths - I guess they're the other main religions, but more importantly they're also well-established faiths, i.e. they've been around for a while; like Christianity there must be some element of truth to them, yes?

Buddhism (and Hinduism to a lesser extent) seems a bit 'earthier' to me.. while Judaism seems more 'pure' than Christianity (even the word "Christianity" sounds commercialised! Probably because you hear it so often). And I know the least about Muslim religion - so for me it has a general air of mysteriousness and curiosity. I'm sure I could talk to at least 10 different people for each religion and get 10 similar yet significantly different viewpoints/interpretations of their faith.

I'm bit of an old-school person, I enjoy things the way they 'used to be' and can be pretty stubborn to changes (sometimes). So the concept of religion changing with the times, just doesn't seem right in a way. That said, there's no way we could continue to interpret religious texts in the same way humans were doing it say, 100 years ago, right? And surely religion can never be 'out-dated' and therefore obsolete.. that doesn't make sense either.

I suppose that if you were to treat science and religion as being of similar 'personalities', so to speak, it would make sense that religion can change with the times. After all, people used to believe the world was flat, but now we know its not. What I mean to say is that maybe what we once thought was a certain message in a religious text, really doesn't mean that at all, and the words have been misinterpreted for a long time, so changes must be made to the way people preach and believe.

Curious how it's easy to see science as an everchanging object, but the stereotype of religion (for me) is that it's the one rock-steady foundation in people's lives, its constancy calms people and helps them believe. Perhaps. :)