22 Sep '09 05:08>
Originally posted by Palynkaedit: "But if you define religion as an apparatus of collectiveness, then you implicitly deny the possibility of a purely personal view of religion. Surely you agree that a purely personal view on a creator is a religious belief?"
But if you define religion as an apparatus of collectiveness, then you implicitly deny the possibility of a purely personal view of religion. Surely you agree that a purely personal view on a creator is a religious belief?
It also seems you equate all social dogmatists (dogma in the authoritarian sense) with religion. Although this is an interesting euph ...[text shortened]... le) and, conversely, labelling all social dogmas as religious is then a purely literary device.
A "purely personal view" is a result of one's theory of reality, and we could maybe agree that some theories of reality are indeed religious.
Therefore I see not how do I deny the possibility of a personal view of religion since the individuals who share a specific view -which is anyway a social product!- are free to recognise and classify it as both "personal" and "universal". On the other hand, this is how a religion expands in the societies -and it seems to me that this is also the basis of the myth of the idea known as "absolute truth".
Furthermore, I do equate any given dogma with religionism because I see no contradition; and methinks that a religion -this is the case of the Abrahamic religions amongst else, no?- is indeed dogmatic to the hilt.
But I may be wrong; could you inform me about a religion that it is not based on a specific religious core belief that it must be blindly accepted in full by the believers of that religion?
😵