Is it egocentric when a religion favors humans?

[Philomath]

I find it pretty egocentric when a religion considers humans to solely be at the epicenter of it's Theology and Cosmology .

I.E. "Earth was created for humans", "Humans have a special place in God's heart" and etc

Sometimes it's not even just humans but a specific subset of humans which an added emphasis is placed upon.

Sure animals cannot process the complex doctrines and nature of religions, but there's no question that at least many animals are worth recognizing as complete of a moral agent as any human

I think any worldview worth discussing would and should encompass more lifeforms than humans and would not be so heavily centered around us.

Thoughts?

 

[Apple Sugar]

Yes, it's egocentric when a religion favors humans. But then again, religion is an autogenous invention of human ego so it has to be self-centered.
Even pagan religions are self-centered.

It is also self-centered when we believe the source of all that is, including what exists beyond our comprehension or understanding or knowledge, cares about how we behave in order for it to be glorified in its realm as supreme creator of all else besides us.

And another thing, , the most ultra-right fundamentalist in any faith demonstrates a craven predisposition. Requiring policing and self-deprecating ideology in order to feel sustained in that deficit.

Humans are weird. That's why we we put a name and a fence around omnipotence, then turn it toward us so that our narcissism makes us to believe it loves us best and so as to give us hope we can be better than we feel we are left to our own devices.
If "god" saved people from themselves, religions dedicated to a god wouldn't have a history of people like Jim Jones and others to contend with as examples of what faith can make people become.

I find it pretty egocentric when a religion considers humans to solely be at the epicenter of it's Theology and Cosmology .

I.E. "Earth was created for humans", "Humans have a special place in God's heart" and etc

Sometimes it's not even just humans but a specific group of humans which an added emphasis is placed upon.

Sure animals cannot process the complex doctrines and nature of religions, but there's no question that at least many animals are worth recognizing as complete of a moral agent as any human

I think any worldview worth discussing would and should encompass more lifeforms than humans and would not be so heavily centered around us.

Thoughts?

 

[Sleeppy]

Yes, it's egocentric when a religion favors humans. But then again, religion is an autogenous invention of human ego so it has to be self-centered.
Even pagan religions are self-centered.

It is also self-centered when we believe the source of all that is, including what exists beyond our comprehension or understanding or knowledge, cares about how we behave in order for it to be glorified in its realm as supreme creator of all else besides us.

And another thing, , the most ultra-right fundamentalist in any faith demonstrates a craven predisposition. Requiring policing and self-deprecating ideology in order to feel sustained in that deficit.

Humans are weird. That's why we we put a name and a fence around omnipotence, then turn it toward us so that our narcissism makes us to believe it loves us best and so as to give us hope we can be better than we feel we are left to our own devices.
If "god" saved people from themselves, religions dedicated to a god wouldn't have a history of people like Jim Jones and others to contend with as examples of what faith can make people become.

Looking forward to seeing more from you. I agree.

 

[Sees]

I think worldview should touch on all the different parts of reality, all of our many connections and relationships - yet it's natural for focus/importance to emanate from ourselves to other humans close or important to us, then humanity in general, then other mammals, and on and on...

 

[LuisDantas]

While I sympathise with the OP, in practice we will have to wait until some other sentients manifest themselves (which I fully expect to happen some centuries in the future) before a practical difference exists.

A practical difference that goes beyond the very present and obvious need to challenge ethnocentrism and racism, that is.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

It is egocentric, in a way, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing exactly.

 

[Etritonakin]

Ecc 3:19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
Ecc 3:20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
Ecc 3:21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?
Ecc 3:22 Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion: for who shall bring him to see what shall be after him?

also translated...
Who knows whether the spirit of human beings ascends, and whether the spirit of animals descends to the earth?


Proverbs 12:10

Whoever is righteous has regard for the life of his beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel.



1 Timothy 5:18

For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”