Religious beliefes provide a strong moral compass as a semi-coherent set that lets you define stances about a lot of things in your life without having to gs through the hassle and difficulties of building them. As long as it's a serious belief and adherence to the provided guidelines and not just posturing used to justify decadent conducts.
I am not religious and personally i think is best to develop this on your own than taking a prepackaged system, but the utility and practicality of having ssmething already done and battle-tested is undeniable.
Just like you don't need to reinvent the wheel and write a complex library on your own when there's one available, sometimes is best to just use a prepackaged beliefs set and moral system to follow.
Many people are even unable to produce that on their own and epd up disparaged, aimless, living their lives without any understanding of right, wrong, good, bad, moral, immoral.
For what religions are and what they do provide, i personally think some branches of buddhism are better, like the Sokka Gakkai International's approach provides.
I don't agree with the sentence that religious scholars are the best psychologists because they only can provide guidance inside what fits this prepackaged framework-for-living they adopted, and in many many cases (i.e. mentall illnesses, deep issues, moral hardship in grey areas, etc) they are unable to effectively help in any significant way.
Good news is that psychology isn't incompatible with religion and both can coexist peacefully, and one can get the best of both worlds wathout thinking one is best; they work in different ways and provide different things, and IMO they aren't directly comparable, as a psychologist cannot help you very well in terms of religion, and a religious scholar cannot help you very well in terms of psychology (except for the thinfs that fit witin the religious framework chosen).
So all in all, i agree that religion as a valid choice and should be part of discourse, as sometimes it can very well be the best course of action.
Just don't agree with throwing blanket statements of what's best or not in a world as plastic and complex as the one we live in.
I am not religious and personally i think is best to develop this on your own than taking a prepackaged system, but the utility and practicality of having ssmething already done and battle-tested is undeniable.
Just like you don't need to reinvent the wheel and write a complex library on your own when there's one available, sometimes is best to just use a prepackaged beliefs set and moral system to follow.
Many people are even unable to produce that on their own and epd up disparaged, aimless, living their lives without any understanding of right, wrong, good, bad, moral, immoral.
For what religions are and what they do provide, i personally think some branches of buddhism are better, like the Sokka Gakkai International's approach provides.
I don't agree with the sentence that religious scholars are the best psychologists because they only can provide guidance inside what fits this prepackaged framework-for-living they adopted, and in many many cases (i.e. mentall illnesses, deep issues, moral hardship in grey areas, etc) they are unable to effectively help in any significant way.
Good news is that psychology isn't incompatible with religion and both can coexist peacefully, and one can get the best of both worlds wathout thinking one is best; they work in different ways and provide different things, and IMO they aren't directly comparable, as a psychologist cannot help you very well in terms of religion, and a religious scholar cannot help you very well in terms of psychology (except for the thinfs that fit witin the religious framework chosen).
So all in all, i agree that religion as a valid choice and should be part of discourse, as sometimes it can very well be the best course of action.
Just don't agree with throwing blanket statements of what's best or not in a world as plastic and complex as the one we live in.