DNA and Music (General)

by dhw, Thursday, July 22, 2010, 20:21 (5050 days ago) @ George Jelliss

GEORGE: dhw seems to be trying to make a distinction between "religions" which in my experience are divisive, and "religion" which he sees as some "core of truth", or "unifying factor" or "common ground" between religions or cultures. If there is some common ground I would see it as being our common humanity. If you take all the religious elements out of religion you end up with humanism. Many exponents of the Church of England come close to being humanists, when they say that the teaching of Jesus is "Love your neighbour as yourself". The trouble is they are not able to divest themselves of all the rest of the superstitious baggage.-Although this post overlaps with the one under Categories, you have raised an additional point which I'd like to respond to. The "core of truth" that binds religions and cultures is what I've referred to in the two posts as a "life force" or "a basic force of Nature". I described it as "an ungraspable, harmonious essence of life that lies way beyond the scope of language" and went on: "You don't even need to believe in a god or gods to appreciate the wonder of it all." Your reference to humanism concerns a social code, with which I wholeheartedly agree, but I think you can also extend it to appreciation of all things "spiritual", in a non-religious sense. Whether you believe in God or not, you can still love your fellow human, marvel at Nature (one of the few features of Dawkins' work which I much admire), or revel in Verdi's Requiem, Berlioz's Grande Messe des morts, or for that matter Fanshawe's African Sanctus. And so in case I have not already made it clear, I identify with the thoughts underlying your post, and I categorize myself as an agnostic humanist.
---