1. One thing that has always troubled me is the exclusively post-Medieval mentality buried within the heart of the philosophy of religion. Granted, the tying up of morality and religion in Catholicism and the validity of the existence of G/god are the main concerns of the philosophers we cover in that area, but does it have to continue as such in our time? There are religions which are not centered around gods as the Judeo-Christian-Islam traditions are, there are cultures with moral standards that clash with each other, and there are moral structures and bases of moral structures (religious or not) that are similar to each other. Why are these not discussed as often when they clearly should be to avoid under/over-representations, misunderstandings, and distortions of knowledge?
2. In the blurb of a copy of Umberto Eco's "Five Moral Pieces":
What does it mean to be moral and ethical when one doesn't believe in God?
Regardless of whether or not one believes in a G/god, why does she/he/ze ("ze" is a ridiculous-sounding pronoun, but it'll do) necessarily have to be the center of morality and ethics when, in the first place, it's already been discussed that no human mind can handle the Truth? Note that our concept of God is usually equated with Truth. The problem with this, however, is the presumption of religion that man does know the nature of God, and thus bases this whole social structure around that assumed knowledge. See the contradiction here? It's absurd and utterly arrogant of a person to think of his/her concept of a being in constant change as a static reality. What more if that other being is presumed to be the
3. After years of having these thoughts in my head, they are now in writing. Finally.
There are likely fragments still floating around my subconscious, but ehn.