The Gnostics were right, to know yourself is to know the divine.
Like attracts like. Yes. The law of sympathy. It could be argued it’s necessary for our very survival.
I heard one interesting idea. The moment when the idea of God entered into mans evolution was when they started to throw the spear. For the first time there was a time lag between cause (throw the spear) and effect (dead animal) and to bridge that gap between cause and effect, God was created in the psyche of man. Science is art. Science is the art of rules, and as clever as we have been with creating useful rules, causative relationships in the environment are still not well understood. All early science was religion. The idea you shared is absolutely true.
So it is perhaps a useful and plausible deduction? Yes. Sciences attempts to discern physical laws = religions attempts to discern the way and or will of the Divine. Both are seeking meaning, therefore both are religion and both have codes of practice so both have creeds. Both have bodies of learning so both have dogmas/doctrine, and both either change their assumptions to meet new insights or get worn down by the process of change both in the world and human nature/the mind.
Are the sick religions the ones who don’t change? The sick religions are those that teach and hold to beliefs that run counter to survival. Ultimately, it’s very common for one religion to call another sick, but in fact, to the degree that a religion allows comprehension of both the human element of their lives and how they relate to the world at large, it is actually valid.
I’m thinking they all have at least a minor flu, crusades and such. Very often religions have done that, and some have even recanted hate speech. To date, most have not.
Scientology? Scientology teaches that older religions and philosophies were the source of our current social ills, and however effectively or ineffectively, they attempt to address the problems as they understand them. I don’t generally side with one religion over another in this conflict, and I don’t mean the judgements of Scientology. I don’t side with any one faith over any other, not as a rule for myself but as a tendency and observation of my own thinking. Where I am very clear in the religious conflict is religious exclusivism.
Like Jehovah Witnesses? It’s a choice. If they can abandon an agenda of hedging out other choices, I can respect their choice no matter how sterile I might personally find it.
Due to the way my life went (before I was 19), I ended up in that one for at least 6 years. I hated it. I have heard of many unhappy young people whose parents converted to the Jehovah Witness doctrine.
There are many views of the Divine and there should be. Go where your spirit calls you, and I won’t be surprised if you find spiritual kin. This is the best attitude, I think. There are many ways of relating to it and pursuing the relationship with the Divine, and there should be.
To thine own self be true! That is one of my own beliefs, but there is a second and vital part. To thine own self be true, and thus as the night follows the day thou canst be false to any man. Stated in a less Shakespearean way, in my religion they teach the practice of indulgence to the exclusion of compulsion. What that phrase means, that if you are true to yourself you won’t be either able or inclined to be false or dishonest with other people. You don’t have to lie to anyone if you don’t lie to yourself about who you are or what you want. Since I practice indulging myself, I can very easily indulge other peoples desires, as well, without resentment. Because I’m fully willing to just do what I want, I don’t get frustrated when my wife asks me for something. I’m happy and even enjoy doing whatever she asks. Seeing her happy just adds even more to my own indulgence/satisfaction.
It is just one of my own personal religious beliefs. Because I indulge in it, I have no reason to debate anyone else’s.
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well, and even better, enjoy your beliefs.