My comment stems from a desire for something better. I know the power of religion, belief, and a community with a shared worldview. I was raised religiously.
However the major belief systems on offer today are stunted with so much baggage (e.g. wild claims of the supernatural, conflict with science, outdated morals, etc.) that they don't work for a growing number of people.
As long as there are great unknowns in the universe and in life, which I think there will always be, then there will be an important role for some form of spirituality. And ethics will always be important as well.
We need something better than the major religions of today. They are insufficient. They are not what they claim.
In my own life, having been unable to take on the belief system of my parents, the best thing I've found so far is meditation of the breath along with a dash of Buddhist ethics and philosophy. Of course, I have kept many of the moral teachings from my upbringing, which I appreciate. But it's not the same.
There's more to say, but I don't yet have all of the words. I want better, and if I can tactfully push others to help me find a new way, then I'll try to do so.
I realize my initial comment probably didn't do this very well. Perhaps this isn't even the right venue. Much to think about.
Don't think of me as invoking religion- you could simplify it to invoking some universal constants (like "truth prevails" and "good > evil") and take out the mention of God
I'm not a student of philosophy, but I would think that for the two examples you gave, their meanings are still very contingent on one's world view.
I.e., depending on context, there might not be much use on agreeing about those sentences while still leaving the definitions of "truth", "evil", etc. up to individuals' iterpretation.
For sure. I'm suggesting moral absolutism at a very high level, which some may disagree with. Still, I believe the parent commenter was making some leaps to "wild claims" and "outdated morals" that I never had in mind to bring into discussion.
Not much of a contribution, though; it's just a string of rhetorical questions that have no relevance if you're not a believer. The follow-up comment below is from the same POV but has some substance.
