Medicine or Ice Cream?

Another classroom discussion, this time on the effects of either the removal of religion and it's effects or on teaching about all religions. The person pondering this question posts legitimate comments and genuine questions (as opposed to just subjective outbursts), as the focus of his research paper is on how a society sets up it's moral standards. His question is from an earlier post I made about the fact that to remove all mention of God is support for the religion of humanism.

His question: Will humanism be the effect of multiple religious teachings in the classroom? For example, will a Christian that learns about Buddhism, become a Buddhist? Probably not, but they might find some relevant similarities that make them expand their beliefs.

My response:
Good questions that you ponder. And I agree that it probably wouldn't be a bad thing for people to study other religions in the classroom setting, for the sake of understanding and relating to other people in a more amicable and compassionate manner.
I believe humanism (and by that, meaning the belief that man is the "supreme", or most advanced being there is, the natural result of evolutionary advancement-for those who ascribe to that belief system) would be the result if we tried to eliminate the acknowledgment of God, defined as being a divine creator. To arbitrarily dismiss references to creation, religious systems and faith is an investment in the doctrine of secularism. If that is the case, great difficulties arise in trying to build and maintain any sense of moral expectations other than pragmatism (what is beneficial to me) or a loose reference to “what’s good for society”. But with no absolute standard, how do you create a definition of what’s good? To Lenin and Stalin it was “good” for Communist controlled Russia to kill millions (if not tens of millions) of people in their attempts to eliminate God from culture.
The elimination of God generally leads to anarchy, or at least apathy and nihilism (Look at Europe in it’s present state). That would tend to eliminate it as a viable contributing worldview. After all, what good is a society where nobody cares about anything except themselves, if they even care at all? This conclusion would theoretically lead a society down a pathway to a search for truth (absolute) and meaning.
What we must then look at is not , “Which religion makes me feel good?”, but rather, “Which religion is true, and therefore offering me a hope and purpose while I live and the assurance of existence continuation for the better after I die”. See, truth is like medicine. Preference is like ice cream. If my life hangs in the balance, I don’t really want ice cream, I want medicine. That begs the question: Are matters of faith and religion medicine or ice cream? Is religion a preference, or is it the cure? And if so, which medicine? I don’t take allergy medicine if I’m dying of cancer. I must have the right medicine.
If we find the most viable and evidentially supported belief system for eternal purposes, we’ll probably find our best option for setting up moral boundaries in our temporal state.