In continuation of my previous blog post, which focused specifically on Pope Urban II and the complex legacy of Christianity, it's intriguing to observe how Christianity, despite its widespread popularity, has become intertwined with concepts such as imperialism, white superiority, and controversy. This interplay prompts a deeper examination of the dichotomy between religion and faith: What precisely is the overarching purpose of religion? Does it predominantly serve altruistic or detrimental functions within society? Moreover, how can we establish criteria to gauge one's piety and depth of faith? Throughout history, philosophers have consistently grappled with the intersections of human purpose, consciousness, and religious revelations. This exploration spans the spectrum, from Aristotle's skepticism towards religion's validity to the Daoist principle of wuwei and the myriad perspectives of modern Western thinkers. Intriguingly, religion not only captivates intellectual curiosity but also lays claim to foundational tenets that arguably birthed philosophy itself. However, a recurring critique emerges: Why do numerous esteemed philosophers critique or outright condemn religious institutions? At the heart of this skepticism lies the intrinsic nature of religious hierarchies. Even within Buddhism, renowned for its decentralized leadership and spiritual emphasis, we find hierarchies manifesting in dharma ranks and diverse institutions within Zen Buddhism. Such hierarchical structures often engender disparities, potentially leading to the marginalization or exclusion of specific groups. Disturbingly, religious establishments occasionally manipulate scriptures to advance agendas that compromise equitable access to a fulfilling life or afterlife, irrespective of an individual's adherence to the religion's moral tenets.
----Avi
コメント