The thing that stuck out to me the most this reading was something Cleanthes said on page 82. Cleanthes says, "Religion, however corrupted, is still better than no religion at all." When I first read this, I thought that was a ridiculous idea. I thought there was no way that something like a corrupted religion could be better than not believing in anything. I thought that anything not corrupted, would be better than anything corrupted. Then I realized what I was saying. I came to the conclusion I was a big dummy for a whole 5 minutes. There is absolutely no way that no religion was better than a corrupted religion.
Saying that no religion is better than a corrupted or incorrect one is a ridiculous idea in my opinion. I think saying there was no god or no creator is an illogical conclusion to come to. Spencer has said it more than once in class, that God has revealed Himself in creation. Not only that, but I think it is more reasonable to say that a creative, all-powerful, all-knowing, personable, and intelligent being created everything than it would be to say that nothing exploded into something. Basically, this stuck out to me because I thought one thing, then argued myself and changed my mind. I agree with Cleanthes when he says that religion is better than no religion, no matter how corrupt.
I commented on Addison's and Anna Grace's posts.
I commented on Addison's and Anna Grace's posts.
Comments