Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Smart is widely known for his seven-part definition of religion, or rather scheme of study; as this approach avoids the problem of defining altogether. Whatever else religion may or may not be – whether theistic or non-theistic, religions possess certain recognisable elements, which can be studied.
This image might not be in the public domain outside of the United States; this especially applies in the countries and areas that do not apply the rule of the shorter term for US works, such as Canada, Mainland China (not Hong Kong or Macao), Germany, Mexico, and Switzerland.
The definition of religion is a controversial and complicated subject in religious studies with scholars failing to agree on any one definition. Oxford Dictionaries defines religion as the belief in and/or worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
Religion is the substance, the ground, and the depth of man's spiritual life." [83] When religion is seen in terms of sacred, divine, intensive valuing, or ultimate concern, then it is possible to understand why scientific findings and philosophical criticisms (e.g., those made by Richard Dawkins) do not necessarily disturb its adherents. [84]
Irreligion is the absence or rejection of religious beliefs or practices.It encompasses a wide range of viewpoints drawn from various philosophical and intellectual perspectives, including atheism, agnosticism, religious skepticism, rationalism, secularism, and non-religious spirituality.
The intersections of morality and religion involve the relationship between religious views and morals. It is common for religions to have value frameworks regarding personal behavior meant to guide adherents in determining between right and wrong.
Original file (697 × 1,056 pixels, file size: 2.01 MB, MIME type: application/pdf, 16 pages) This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons . Information from its description page there is shown below.
It is intolerance that uses religion", that "The leaders of such movements [are] using moral and religious language as a cloak for evil and irreligious ends", [3] and that "religions are not the causes of evil, but they do naturally share in the general moral state of the societies in which they exist". [4]