@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;121212 wrote:Of course religion is subject to empirical analysis. Not only is this just possible, but empirical consideration is central in a great deal of religious teaching. It's everywhere in Buddhism, from the words of the Buddha himself to modern teachers like Lama Yeshe reminding us again and again to "check up for yourselves". Thomas Merton criticizes fellow Catholic priests for their actions based upon the results of their actions.
And in the Gospel of Mathew: "7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits."
Which seems to have been the basis for Merton's criticism.
Didymos Thomas;121212 wrote:
Religion changes over time, and as it changes, it evolves, due to empirical understanding. Muhammad recognized that the Arabs were destroying themselves due to ancient pagan beliefs that had become largely self destructive due to a booming population and increasing relations with cultures outside of the Arabian peninsula. Thus Islam. Jesus recognized that Temple practices had become riddled with materialistic corruption, so he spoke out and acted. The Buddha recognized that Hinduism of his time was elitist, so he taught. These men looked at the conditions around them, and based upon their empirical understanding, set out to improve conditions. Whether or not they failed or succeeded and how much so is not the point: the point is that religion is not above empirical understanding and consideration. Religion is driven by empirical consideration.
This is an interesting idea regarding why each of the above Founders of a religion taught. I think that each of them had an inner source of knowledge that was far beyond mere empirical observation. The writings of each of them confirms this. But what is most cogent in what you have said is that each one's teachings addressed the needs of the times. You have given only one small example for each of these, but I am guessing that you will agree that there were many other problems that each addressed in what they taught and in way they taught and how they acted, and how they led their followers.
Didymos Thomas;121212 wrote:
As for a perfect religion: it's there. It's right in front of you and all around you all of the time and always has been there. If you want a perfect set of scriptures, or a perfect compilation of prayers, you're fooling yourself: there is no perfect novel. Instead, there are many great novels and many great novels yet to be written. So it is with religion.
Prothero got it right: God is too big for one perfect expression in human language and fallible human understanding, and there are simply too many individual people with individual lives for one path up the mountain to accommodate all of that traffic. But this is exactly why there is perfect religion, and why perfect religion is always right there in front of you: because each of us does have our own unique path up that mountain, and each of us can start our trail this very instant. And it doesn't get any better than that.
I have to agree with you that there are many paths. I want to say that they are "paths toward perfection", or "paths toward the fulfillment of our highest potential", or something along those lines.
I also agree that religion evolves/has evolved. I recognize, for example, that Hinduism as an institutionalized religion, had degenerated into an excuse for a cast system and that the worship of a huge pantheon of gods had split the society further, so Buddha's teaching totally avoided any mention of deity and focused on looking within for perfection. When I wish to learn more about how to meditate and be detached from the world, I look towards Buddhism.
In the present day, Buddhism is splintered into a plethora of sects with different practices and doctrines. It has happened to all religions in time due to people twisting the institution of religion and the interpretation of the scriptures to their own uses and biases. But for each, the original teaching can inspire and guide a person on their spiritual path.
This brings me to the point of suggesting that an improvement on the religions of the past would be a very strong "clause" that says that
no one has the authority to interpret the original text for anyone else! That each person should investigate and think about the text(s) of any religion for himself. (This would not be to say that people should not share their insights and ideas about the texts, but no one, no "clergy" could dictate the "correct" interpretation.)
( I was referring to the inner sense that leads to religion...)
