Will we survive religion?

[Montalban]

I don’t know. But it seems that religion, any religion, is an attempt to express a certain kind of truth.

If you don’t know this, how do you know where it’s not?

And you can explain the same truth with different stories.

Then why not say that they all have the ultimate truth, but told in different ways?

 

[Montalban]

Or the same stories interpreted differently. People confuse Faith, which is a firm belief in something without any proof, with Truth, which can be proven.

Once someone thinks they know a Truth that others do not, they develop a superiority complex. Religion feeds into this complex by teaching that only those who believe as they do will be saved (whatever form that takes) in the afterlife.

Not all religions believe this exclusiveness of salvation. You are guilty of generalisation. That’s the truth!

 

[Theist]

Not all religions believe this exclusiveness of salvation. You are guilty of generalisation. That’s the truth!

Which ones do not?

 

[Montalban]

Which ones do not?

Orthodoxy does not judge how God judges people.

I wouldn’t expect Buddhism to make a judgement call excluding others either.

 

[Theist]

Orthodoxy does not judge how God judges people.

I wouldn’t expect Buddhism to make a judgement call excluding others either.

Does the Doctorine of the Othodox Church not state:
The true church is made up of all those individuals who have put their trust in Christ as their Savior. It is not merely the attending of church or having a name on the membership list that makes on a member of Christ’s true church. Only the transforming work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the repentant sinner qualifies one for membership in the true body of Christ.

Clearly it says that if you do not believe In Christ you do not “qualify” for membership in the tru body of Christ.

Buddhism might be the only exception though.

 

[Montalban]

Does the Doctorine of the Othodox Church not state:
The true church is made up of all those individuals who have put their trust in Christ as their Savior. It is not merely the attending of church or having a name on the membership list that makes on a member of Christ’s true church. Only the transforming work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the repentant sinner qualifies one for membership in the true body of Christ.

Clearly it says that if you do not believe In Christ you do not “qualify” for membership in the tru body of Christ.

There is no doubt that Orthodoxy states that what we believe is ‘the truth’; Christianity was also once called “the way”.

The results of not following ‘the way’ for other people of other faiths is not for Orthodox to guess; we don’t second-guess God. Whether God sends the ‘transforming spirit’ (as you state) to others is up to God.

 

[Keikiolu]

I swear, this thread… it’s been a year, for crying out loud!

Quote:Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif *That’s a perfetly acceptable opinion. Except that it’s more a non-opinion than an opinion, really. It screams, “I don’t want to deal with it!” to me,… which entices me to wonder why your DO like to “deal with it” in this forum? Hmmmm…*I have dealt with it, that’s the thing. I hold God unknowable – and that is not a declaration of faith, but of mere lack of deductive and inductive evidence. If God makes himself known to me, I’ll have inductive evidence, and quite possibly change that stance.

If you won’t accept that what you “hear” from God as being from God, even if it is, then, to you, it isn’t from God, regardless of it’s true (or even untrue) source,… which either is or isn’t God.

In other words,… it doesn’t matter to you where “God’s voice” is coming from, as you’ve already decided that it can’t possibly come from God.

Therefore, God doesn’t exist, as you’ve never “heard” from Him,… and never CAN hear from Him.

You’ve successfully disproved the existence of God. Good for “you” (your ego). Bad for “you” (your soul).

So be it.

Quote:We can agree on this IF we can each agree to allow each other our own definitions of “religion”. Are you willing to do that? No. Your definition of religion includes its ubiquity, a trait I deny it possesses. How could we agree on that?

We can each agree that we each HAVE differing definitions of “religion”.

That they’re mutually exclusive is irrelevant to our agreeing that we each have those two differing definitions.

We’re not agreeing to the TRUTH of what religion means. We’re simply agreeing that religion means different things to each of us. Which we CAN do.

Quote:An “outsider” can’t. That’s why it’s called a,… wait for it,… wait for it…

FAITH…!! Exactly!

Quote:God,… via the Magisterium.

Quote:Well done. A beautiful act of faith. You stated your belief without defining the terms. Boldly asserted facts you don’t have, and added a lovely dose of emotionality to the mix. Why would I have faith – trust in the unknown – in something I know altogether well enough? I believe in no deity not because I have faith in no-God, but because I do not have knowledge of any God.

You have “no knowledge” of God because you have recieved no knowledge of God, because your faith (your exclusionary mechanism which prohibits any experience of God as “phantasy”) disallows any knowledge of God, as experience OF God, as at all possible.

Your faith prohibits faith in God, while allowing only faith in that which gives you comfort, which is the illusion of your “adequacy to understand that which is important to understand”.

Quote:“You’d EXPECT” some procedure-of-YOUR-choosing from God whom you now know does exist who TOLD YOU explicitly how you were to act (which you didn’t) and TOLD YOU explicitly what the consequences of not obeying Him would be…!?

Why? Because Catholicism tells me that that’s about what I’ll get, and I’m discussing it with a Catholic.

I do not know God exists.

You are dorrect in that, but you are only correct because you insist on “defining God” as that which can’t be known to exist.

…continued below →

 

[Keikiolu]

…continued from above:

If he does and has made some pronouncement on right action, I do not know whom to trust for an accurate transmission of that statement;

That is because your capability for “discernment of conscience” has not been adequately developed.

Since you insist on having “hard evidence” of the “correctness of God’s representatives”, however you define that, whom you further define as being able to prove to you the existence to you of that which you have defined as the unprovable (God’s existence), you are perfectly secure in your knowledge that there ARE no legitimate representatives of God, and therefore only have yourself to rely upon for measures of what good and evil mean.

if there is some punishment for not following this code, I do not know which portrayal of that is correct – and if I am to be eternally punished for ignorance in spite of my best efforts to do good by my fellow humans, I will go joyfully to that punishment giving that deity both figs, because I could never stand an eternity with a malevolent God.

This is one of the lovely things about the revealed God. The first principle is that He is love, and only wishes that which is best for you.

Your obsession with “punishment” bespeaks a trauma of some sort regarding a misapplication of “punishment” done to you, which was labeled “for your own good”, which you disagreed with, for some reason.

You don’t wish to be with a Father who would punish you for being “obstinant”, regardless of your Father’s correctness or incorrectness.

What you dislike about this Father is not that He is correct or incorrect, but that He will demand that you see reality and truth, and will deliver you to “one place” if you do see the truth, and “another place” if you don’t see the truth.

He must give you what you demand, in the form you demand it, or you’ll show Him by girding your loins and marching triumphantly into “the other place”, where those who insist on not seeing the truth simply must go, of their own free will.

So be it.

Quote: You can leave the question whereever you like, but that doesn’t make it disappear. It’s still out there, somewhere, gnawing at you.
No, it really isn’t. Trust me on this.

You don’t trust anything but yourself. Why should I trust anyone but whom I trust, which wouldn’t be you?

The fact that you’re in this forum tells me all I need to know about your gnawing “problems with reality”.

Quote: Heck YEAH…!! My point is that even though you are a “non-believer” you STILL do God’s work. Nothing is wasted in God’s efforts, as not even the most obstinate are not parts of God’s work.
Well then, what’s your problem with my disbelief? I’m not at all obstinate about it – assuming God’s work includes stuff like ‘not being a jerk’ (my first commandment).

I don’t have a problem with your faith (what you call your “disbelief”). I’m obliged to tell you that your faith is “flawed”, and how so.

Quote: You value immediacy, I see. Do you value long term value? Your “nearsightedness” is interesting, and typical of non-believers, and may you be successful in getting what you want, as it may well show you what you need.
Depends, long-term as in ‘when I reach retirement age’, long-term as in ‘my grandkids will like this’, long-term as in ‘you know, we need to have a plan for when the Sun goes red giant’, or long-term as in ‘forever and ever, amen’?

Long term, as in from just after now till forever and three weeks.

It’s not so much the defined length of time. It’s the attitude that “immediacy” and “practicality” are the “god” of “morality of decision”.

Quote: Take your pick of religions, or invent your own. That, actually, inventing your own, is precisely what you ARE doing, which is why we can really agree that “religion is intrinsic to humans” if we accept “why you act” as your “religion”.
Why should we accept that? Religion has a fairly strict definition, and ‘explanation for why someone acts’ is not part of it.

I love scrupulous anti-religionist monks.

Best to you, Pope Mirdath the First.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Peregrino]

I am becoming more and more convinced that civilization cannot survive religion unless we are all willing to acknowledge that no religion has a monoply on absolute truth; that our scriptures are flawed, human documents; and that it is the height of folly to assume that the road to faith was perfected 3,500, 2,000 or 1400 years ago.

Any religous system that imposes ethical behavior, promotes civilization and discourages violence, must be respected, acknowledged and given equal value to one’s own religious system. Anything in one’s own religous system that does not fit this criteria needs to be changed. Otherwise, we’re doomed.

People are willing to die for beliefs that have as much evidence to support them as we have to support the belief that Zeus exists. In fact, people would rather kill or die their own set of stories than to acknowledge that their neighbors stories are just as “true.”

This has led to disasterous results in the past. In a nuclear age, it can only lead to the annihilation of civilization, unless things change.
If that doesn’t change, we’re doomed.

Excellent post. I agree with you. As we become more advanced I believe that we will stare into the “existential gulf” with increasing trepidation and people will latch onto some form of fundamentalism to counteract this fear.

Each of us needs to acknowledge that the large “variety of religious experiences” and faith traditions points to the universality of religious experience and just as there exist different languages, there are different faith traditions which speak about this spiritual dimension differently. No one language is superior and no one faith has a monopoly on that truth.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Oh religion will survive. It will diminish but it will survive. As long as there is poverty and lack of education, it will survive.

 

[Mirdath]

If you won’t accept that what you “hear” from God as being from God, even if it is, then, to you, it isn’t from God, regardless of it’s true (or even untrue) source,… which either is or isn’t God.

In other words,… it doesn’t matter to you where “God’s voice” is coming from, as you’ve already decided that it can’t possibly come from God.

I have said no such thing. Don’t put words in my mouth.

We’re not agreeing to the TRUTH of what religion means. We’re simply agreeing that religion means different things to each of us. Which we CAN do.

An utterly pointless exercise in assent if ever there were one. What purpose would that serve?

You have “no knowledge” of God because you have recieved no knowledge of God, because your faith (your exclusionary mechanism which prohibits any experience of God as “phantasy”) disallows any knowledge of God, as experience OF God, as at all possible.

You’re correct up until that first comma. As above, don’t tell me what I believe: I know it better than you.

That is because your capability for “discernment of conscience” has not been adequately developed.

My conscience operates just fine. What I lack is faith in an unseen and as yet unseeable divinity.

Since you insist on having “hard evidence” of the “correctness of God’s representatives”, however you define that, whom you further define as being able to prove to you the existence to you of that which you have defined as the unprovable (God’s existence), you are perfectly secure in your knowledge that there ARE no legitimate representatives of God, and therefore only have yourself to rely upon for measures of what good and evil mean.

God’s representatives can’t prove him. Only God himself, if such exists, can. So far he hasn’t seen fit to.

This is one of the lovely things about the revealed God. The first principle is that He is love, and only wishes that which is best for you.

If he truly wished what was best for me, then why don’t we assume he’s done it? Obviously, then, ignorance of truth is ‘best’! Does a truly loving father reach out and hold his blind child’s hand, or does he let the kid run into the street?

You don’t wish to be with a Father who would punish you for being “obstinant”, regardless of your Father’s correctness or incorrectness.

Not obstinate, ignorant – and that not willfully. Why should I be punished for that?

You don’t trust anything but yourself. Why should I trust anyone but whom I trust, which wouldn’t be you?

Once again, don’t tell me what I do and do not. I have a great trust in many people; simply not on this particular question.

 

[Sixtus]

I have said no such thing. Don’t put words in my mouth.

An utterly pointless exercise in assent if ever there were one. What purpose would that serve?

 

[Mirdath]

You are absolutely correct. the Divinity cannot be seen since it is beyond human imagination and human capacity to grasp. But that does not mean that He does not reveal Himself to whom He pleases in a manner that they are capable of understanding.

You may believe [or chose to diseblieve] the eye-witness testimony of those who have experienced Him in mystical encounters with Him. I can vouch that He is vaster than the universe. That He is infinitely more powerful, that makes human power pale into insignificance. He is ‘all in all’ wanting but not requiring our love. He CHOSES to love us. That is His gift to us. We can accept or reject it since He has also given us freewill by which so to do.

His most unworthy servant, can vouch for His existence, but you may disagree if you wish. There are none so blind as those who ‘chose’ not to see!

From my point of view, eyewitness testimony is an excellent reason to believe – for the eyewitness! Many people have a hard enough time taking the word of others for how they spent their vacation time, that creatures adapt to fit their environment over time, or even (as shown in another thread in Apologetics) that the earth revolves around the sun; doesn’t it stand to reason that the question of God is deserving of even more scrutiny and that any claims of an answer, either pro or con, are justly treated with skepticism?

God ‘is’, we are ‘maybe’. We elevate ourselves to an all importance whereas in reality, we are so small in comparison to the rest of creation and created beings that they forgive us for our human fraility and lack of understanding but they must really cringe at our audacity and arrogance

Very true, even without belief in a deity. We are tiny.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*If you won’t accept that what you “hear” from God as being from God, even if it is, then, to you, it isn’t from God, regardless of it’s true (or even untrue) source,… which either is or isn’t God.

In other words,… it doesn’t matter to you where “God’s voice” is coming from, as you’ve already decided that it can’t possibly come from God.*

I have said no such thing. Don’t put words in my mouth.

It’s not what you literallistically say, it’s quite obviously who you are, demonstrated by what you’ve actually said.

Quote:
We’re not agreeing to the TRUTH of what religion means. We’re simply agreeing that religion means different things to each of us. Which we CAN do.

An utterly pointless exercise in assent if ever there were one. What purpose would that serve?

It serves the purpose of delineating what we’re discussing.

Quote:
You have “no knowledge” of God because you have recieved no knowledge of God, because your faith (your exclusionary mechanism which prohibits any experience of God as “phantasy”) disallows any knowledge of God, as experience OF God, as at all possible.

You’re correct up until that first comma. As above, don’t tell me what I believe: I know it better than you.

I’m telling you what I see by what you’ve said, which is that your faith is the faith in the impossibility of experiencing God.

The child argues that people are putting words in their mouths. The adult knows that is impossible, and knows that accusing others of putting words in one’s mouth is a juvenile attempt at looking like a victim so that people will feel sorry for them.

Quote:
That is because your capability for “discernment of conscience” has not been adequately developed.

My conscience operates just fine. What I lack is faith in an unseen and as yet unseeable divinity.

I imagine your conscience DOES operate just fine, but you might check to see what actually does, and has, informed your conscience.

Your “problem” is not the “operation” of your conscience, but rather your blindness as to how it is “informed”. A conscience can only be informed by conformance to God’s will, which you do (to the extent that it is correctly done) without realizing that you do that.

Quote:
Since you insist on having “hard evidence” of the “correctness of God’s representatives”, however you define that, whom you further define as being able to prove to you the existence to you of that which you have defined as the unprovable (God’s existence), you are perfectly secure in your knowledge that there ARE no legitimate representatives of God, and therefore only have yourself to rely upon for measures of what good and evil mean.

God’s representatives can’t prove him. Only God himself, if such exists, can. So far he hasn’t seen fit to.

Nothing, not even God, can take away your free will to an actual choice, therefore nothing can take away your free choice to NOT BELIEVE in God by “prefectly and absolutely” PROVING to you that God exists.

Thus, what you ask is for the utterly impossible,… which won’t happen,… ever.

…continued below →

 

[Keikiolu]

…continued from above:

Quote:
This is one of the lovely things about the revealed God. The first principle is that He is love, and only wishes that which is best for you.

If he truly wished what was best for me, then why don’t we assume he’s done it?

He has and does…! The fact that you do as you do, which is to not accept Him, says only that you possess “free will”. Nothing more.

Obviously, then, ignorance of truth is ‘best’! Does a truly loving father reach out and hold his blind child’s hand, or does he let the kid run into the street?

You’re hand is being held, but you aren’t interested in having your hand held. You are fixated on wanting your “eyes back”, blind child, which is not who you are. What you get is what is best for you, but you are under no obligation to accept it as such.

Quote:
You don’t wish to be with a Father who would punish you for being “obstinant”, regardless of your Father’s correctness or incorrectness.

Not obstinate, ignorant – and that not willfully. Why should I be punished for that?

You are the only one “punishing” you. The Father doesn’t punish anyone, period. We punish ourselves for not accepting wisdom.

You THINK that the Father would (or does) punish you for your “obstinance”, but in truth you punish yourself by the natural course of things due to your non-acceptance of wise choice, aka God’s will.

Quote:
You don’t trust anything but yourself. Why should I trust anyone but whom I trust, which wouldn’t be you?

Once again, don’t tell me what I do and do not. I have a great trust in many people; simply not on this particular question.

You “trust” in what you see, which is perfectly valid and correct for all realms EXCEPT religion.

You can’t accept religion as valid because your version of trust doesn’t apply there, which you insist upon due to not knowing WHY your version of trust is not appropriate for that realm.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Mirdath]

It’s not what you literallistically say, it’s quite obviously who you are, demonstrated by what you’ve actually said.

Then you, I’m afraid, are not good at all at reading people.

The child argues that people are putting words in their mouths. The adult knows that is impossible, and knows that accusing others of putting words in one’s mouth is a juvenile attempt at looking like a victim so that people will feel sorry for them.

Would that that were true; there’d be no such thing as defamation of character!

I imagine your conscience DOES operate just fine, but you might check to see what actually does, and has, informed your conscience.

Enlightened self-interest.

Nothing, not even God, can take away your free will to an actual choice, therefore nothing can take away your free choice to NOT BELIEVE in God by “prefectly and absolutely” PROVING to you that God exists.

Thus, what you ask is for the utterly impossible,… which won’t happen,… ever.

Aren’t ‘all things’ possible with God? Don’t you believe he walked among us? Do you deny that Thomas the Apostle put his fingers in the Christ’s hands?

You’re hand is being held, but you aren’t interested in having your hand held. You are fixated on wanting your “eyes back”, blind child, which is not who you are. What you get is what is best for you, but you are under no obligation to accept it as such.

Is not seeing a good thing? Then I am denied it by a being who has the power to bring it about. My metaphoric eyes are in a state of absence of Good – and that is more popularly known as Evil. Since I happen to have the Summa handy, let’s look into that: Evil is divided into punishment and fault (1.48.6). Fault does not apply, since I do not lack sight as an act of will; therefore, I am being punished. What crime did I commit to be deserving of this inability to see God? Why am I already in a state Catholics call ‘hell’, yet have not died?

(ps: hell ain’t as bad as you think, from this vantage point)

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
It’s not what you literallistically say, it’s quite obviously who you are, demonstrated by what you’ve actually said.

Then you, I’m afraid, are not good at all at reading people.

Yet another thing we can disagree about. What a surprise…!!

Quote:
The child argues that people are putting words in their mouths. The adult knows that is impossible, and knows that accusing others of putting words in one’s mouth is a juvenile attempt at looking like a victim so that people will feel sorry for them.

Would that that were true; there’d be no such thing as defamation of character!

“Putting words in someone’s mouth” is not defamation.

It is impossible. Do you think I’m defaming you, or putting words in your mouth, or both,… or neither?

Quote:
I imagine your conscience DOES operate just fine, but you might check to see what actually does, and has, informed your conscience.

Enlightened self-interest.

Where do you get your “enlightenment” from? What do you consider your “self-interest”, and how did you arrive at that definition?

Quote:
Nothing, not even God, can take away your free will to an actual choice, therefore nothing can take away your free choice to NOT BELIEVE in God by “prefectly and absolutely” PROVING to you that God exists.

Thus, what you ask is for the utterly impossible,… which won’t happen,… ever.

Aren’t ‘all things’ possible with God? Don’t you believe he walked among us? Do you deny that Thomas the Apostle put his fingers in the Christ’s hands?

Even Thomas, after probing Christ’s wounds could have freely chosen to not believe Jesus’ divinity. Nowhere does God utterly convincingly PROVE that He is God such that men can’t simply say that “something amazing but not divine” happened.

The fact that God doesn’t go to “extreme measures” to “be convincing” with you simply means that one thing that you, personally, need to work on is what WOULD be convincing to you, and why.

Quote:
You’re hand is being held, but you aren’t interested in having your hand held. You are fixated on wanting your “eyes back”, blind child, which is not who you are. What you get is what is best for you, but you are under no obligation to accept it as such.

Is not seeing a good thing? Then I am denied it by a being who has the power to bring it about.

Seeing is a good thing. But not seeing, for you, is “better for you”.

A typical refrain of “poor little me” types is that if God exists He would fix everything, which He doesn’t, therefore He doesn’t exist.

Your patently narrow and “selfish” DEMAND for that which is not best for you, which God will not give you as it’s not the wisest thing to do, speaks only to your qualities, and not to God’s.

…continued below →

 

[Keikiolu]

…continued from above:

My metaphoric eyes are in a state of absence of Good – and that is more popularly known as Evil.

No. Your eyes are in a state of “being your eyes”, which don’t let you see in the way that others do, with their “functioning” eyes.

You are (apparently) meant to learn to “see” in another way. That is your task. Your wise Father holds your hand to guide you, and you despise His hand because you want eyes.

Eyes are one gift that God gives us to guide us. Sometimes that gift is not given so that another gift might be used to show that GOD’S GUIDANCE, and not the particular gift used by us, is the important thing.

God’s job is not to “fix” us, but to guide us.

Since I happen to have the Summa handy, let’s look into that: Evil is divided into punishment and fault (1.48.6). Fault does not apply, since I do not lack sight as an act of will; therefore, I am being punished.

Your lack of eyes is not evil, therefore your analogy doesn’t apply.

Is someone born “imperfect” being punished?

What crime did I commit to be deserving of this inability to see God? Why am I already in a state Catholics call ‘hell’, yet have not died?

Your self absorption in your victimhood is self imposed, and is precisely why HELL (the real one) is a very good possibility for you.

You actively refuse God, because you feel “unworthy”, because you aren’t given what you THINK believers get, which is that they have “proof” that God exists.

We’re all in the same boat. We all feel unworthy, as we should, but we know that God, who is love and mercy, will help us anyway.

If someone insists that they’re unworthy of God’s grace, because they don’t “get it”, and they simply misidentify what God offers as “nothing related to God”, which “PROVES” that nothing comes from God, then they have freely chosen to be alienated from God.

(ps: hell ain’t as bad as you think, from this vantage point)

If God doesn’t exist, then hell holds no fear because justice is an utter illusion.

If justice is only an illusion, then any action can be justified.

If any action can be justified, then any depravity is acceptable, as the difference between good and evil is a matter of personal opinion.

If this is how you live, then hell has already come for you, but since you become nothing at death, because “life after death” is silly, then this LIVING hell is just as “pleasant” as you can now materialistically make it for yourself.

When this is your life heaven and hell merge, and “you being comfy” becomes the last and ultimate commandment.

Let’s hope that the best (winning) “Comfort Seeker” isn’t a “bad” person.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[jimmy85]

I am becoming more and more convinced that civilization cannot survive religion unless we are all willing to acknowledge that no religion has a monoply on absolute truth; that our scriptures are flawed, human documents; and that it is the height of folly to assume that the road to faith was perfected 3,500, 2,000 or 1400 years ago.

Any religous system that imposes ethical behavior, promotes civilization and discourages violence, must be respected, acknowledged and given equal value to one’s own religious system. Anything in one’s own religous system that does not fit this criteria needs to be changed. Otherwise, we’re doomed.

People are willing to die for beliefs that have as much evidence to support them as we have to support the belief that Zeus exists. In fact, people would rather kill or die their own set of stories than to acknowledge that their neighbors stories are just as “true.”

This has led to disasterous results in the past. In a nuclear age, it can only lead to the annihilation of civilization, unless things change.
If that doesn’t change, we’re doomed.

We must get rid of fundamentalism and not of the religions, they are really good if we follow them with reason.

The religions are not wrong, but the interpratations that people make of them are the main problem.
Nowadays this happens normally in religions that have a book as the ultimate authority, their interpratations tend to vary a lot, and this people could become more fundamental about their own religious interpretations.