See, that’s insulting. If your definition of religion is “fake stuff”, then you’re calling anything you do accept as a religion fake. Nobody would want you to call their beliefs a religion. I don’t see any benefit to this model, and I see a huge drawback.
I’m not defining religion as “fake stuff”, but I am saying that it’s not a religion if there isn’t an inherent element of uncertainty. You ask any Catholic priest and they will tell you that part of what is integral to their religion is the “mystery of faith”. In other words, their religion intrinsically relies on a lack of certainty about the nature of their beliefs. If a religion was provable, it wouldn’t be a religion. It would be science.
See, that’s insulting. If your definition of religion is “fake stuff”, then you’re calling anything you do accept as a religion fake. Nobody would want you to call their beliefs a religion. I don’t see any benefit to this model, and I see a huge drawback.
I’m not defining religion as “fake stuff”, but I am saying that it’s not a religion if there isn’t an inherent element of uncertainty. You ask any Catholic priest and they will tell you that part of what is integral to their religion is the “mystery of faith”. In other words, their religion intrinsically relies on a lack of certainty about the nature of their beliefs. If a religion was provable, it wouldn’t be a religion. It would be science.
My religion doesn’t require faith and it’s provable.