3 ms·
This is a site by journalists who cover religion, so their motivation for wanting the public to have some level of religious aptitude is probably different than
by jawns 3y ago
This is a site by journalists who cover religion, so their motivation for wanting the public to have some level of religious aptitude is probably different than religious adherents at large.
Yet your comment suggests that a greater religious aptitude among the public is a good thing, because it helps clear up misconceptions, and thus (arguably) is in furtherance of the truth.
For instance, it is a misconception that all religions are defined by dogma that its supporters say is the absolute truth. It is also a misconception that no religious people acknowledge that they might be wrong.
- galaxyLogic 3y ago> It is also a misconception that no religious people acknowledge that they might be wrong. Right but very few I assume. I don't think preachers ordained by the Church ever tell you in public they actually might be wrong. If they did that, surely someone would then ask: "Why do you think you might be wrong?" And they would have to answer: Because there is no evidence that what I'm saying is true. The next logical question then would be: If you have no evidence, why are you telling us it is true? Why? People of course have the right to believe what they want. I am sure people who attend church do so because it makes them feel better, more connected, more worthy of God's love, etc. But I find it morally questionable to try to make other people believe in something for which there is no evidence at all. Wouldn't you?