TED Conversations

Al Smith

This conversation is closed.

What do religions all have in common?

Today's internet driven, knowledge seeking person has seen the rapid evolution of religious philosophies from around the world. From a past of rare encounters with foreign thoughts, comes a whirlwind of new ideas and everyone's version of "the ultimate truth." So what do these truths all have in common?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Sep 10 2011: Sorry I didn't mean to post that last comment in its incomplete form.

    I included that quote in my last post to point out that inquiry into the nature of the world is the source of science, not religion. Religion requires a stance of certainty about the nature of things that science is never arrogant enough to assert. Religions have come and gone based on whatever the current generations view of what the true nature of the world and existence is in a particular area. Science has continually updated its view on the world to reflect the current best estimation of the nature of the world. This is must different from saying, as most religions do, that the nature of the world is due to a divine creator and is too complex for humans to understand. These types of ideologies simplify the existence question because simplicity is appealing to most people. It is more comfortable to 'know' through religious faith than it is to admit ignorance and attempt to come up with the right answer.

    Another thing that I object to is forgiving religion when religious figures, who are supposed to be in contact with and under the influence of the divine, have committed serious crimes. From catholic priest molestation of children to islamic suicide bomers, religions can be very dangerous and detrimental to society. I won't list all of the atrocities caused by religion here but a divine figure, if he is truly divine, should act like one and not violated basic humanistic, moral principles (such as do no harm to others). If religion is to be taken seriously, religious people should be moral leaders(since they would clearly have better moral guidance from their one true god....) and this is not always, or even often, the case. When a religious ideology leads to the death and harm of innocents, it needs to be seriously reconsidered as a viable mode of thought.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.