I was just surfing the OSU article databases looking for possible articles to use in my WR 121 class next term, and I came across this one: “Conceptualizing “Religion”: How Language Shapes and Constrains Knowledge in the Study of Religion and Health” by Hall, Daniel E. et al., in Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 47.3 (Summer 2004): 386-401.
All I want, though, is one of the sentences in the abstract. When it says,
Contrary to common understanding, the secularism essential to the Enlightenment paradigm does not enjoy any special privilege over religious ways of seeing the world, because both religious and secular worldviews constitute self-referentially complete interpretations of the human condition,
I realized that is what I meant to say in a post several weeks ago (October 11th) but struggled to express. I said
Religions are just as valuable as any well-developed thought system (like political or philosophical ideologies). And maybe even better? because many religions have a much deeper and richer tradition of discussion within their communities…
Yes, that’s it: “self-referentially complete interpretations of the human condition” Yes, exactly. Thanks, Hall et al. :)