the
case for God |
Whenever
I criticize something related to religion, it turns out it is an
institution and its codex I’m pointing at - Catholic Church is my
favorite quarry. Going back in my thoughts on what I said or what I
wrote, I can’t reason the animosity to religion in general. The
excerpt below gives me at least a partial explanation. |
From
Epilogue in The Case for God
by
Karen Armstrong (2009)
We
have become used to thinking that religion should provide us with
information. Is there a God? How did the world come into being? But
this is a modern preoccupa- tion. Religion was never supposed to
provide answers to questions that lay within the reach of human
reason. That was the role of logos. Religion’s task,
closely allied to that of art, was to help us to live creatively,
peacefully, and even joyously with realities for which there were no
easy explanations and problems that we could not solve: mortality,
pain, grief, despair, and outrage at the injustice and cruelty of
life. Over the centuries people in all cultu- res discovered that
pushing their reasoning powers to the limit, stretching language to
the end of its tether, and living as selflessly and compassionately
as possible, they experienced a transcendence that enabled them to
affirm their suffering with serenity and courage. Scientific
rationality can tell us why we have cancer; it can even cure us of
our disease. But it cannot assuage the terror, disappointment, and
sorrow that come with the diagno- sis, nor can it help us to die
well. That is not within its competence. Religion will not work
automatically, how- ever; it requires a great deal of effort and
cannot succeed it it is facile, false, idolatrous, or
self-indulgent.
Religion
is a practical discipline, and its insights are not derived from
abstract speculation but from spiritual exer- cises and a dedicated
lifestyle. Without such practice, it is impossible to understand the
truth of its doctrines. photos
by LAA : my grandson, 15 months |
 |