muso wrote on Sep 29
th, 2010 at 11:01am:
Religious knowledge has very little to do with personal religious belief, and even less to do with spirituality.
Having been raised in a religious family, I disagree. The knowledge and soul feed the belief.
Quote:Good general knowledge about the Bible, the Torah, the Qu'ran or the Vedda just means that the person is well read. It certainly doesn't mean that they will be more compassionate towards others.
On what do you base this? Good knowledge found in the religious texts not only show people how to behave morally, but also in the face of adversity. It allows the religious to identify with those who came before them and use that knowledge to act. It also allows them to reflect in meditation on what it means to be religious. The list goes on... but really, a person that is engaged in bible study on a regular basis, is nearer to god and his design for humanity.
Compassion for those outside of the religion is not necessarily a religious concept. Compassion for those within the religion is not always required of the faith base. In essence: Faith does not equal compassion. Why you think it does is beyond me.
Quote:The question remains - Can an atheist really understand religion without understanding gods?
Can an atheist or agnostic have an understanding of gods without believing in gods? Yes... but you must be studied in that which you seek.
Quote:When it comes down to the nitty gritty, most people in religious circles will agree that theologists understand religions best. However, the paradox remains that a fair proportion of theologists (even Christian theologists) are actually atheists.
If the religious were bothered with their faith, then they too would have a deeper understanding of what that faith means for them and their kind. That they do not bother themselves with their religious text, but rather move with the humanist and political flow of things is a sad indictment upon them. Quite frankly, a religious view can in many instances be preferable to the humanist view. For one thing, it clearly defines persons' responsibilities to the 'other', which humanism nor politics does not.