Religion and Philosphy

@Fido,

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

To say "believe" is as much as to say "said already",

so what else is there then to say?

1 Reply

@perplexity,

perplexity wrote:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

To say "believe" is as much as to say "said already",

so what else is there then to say?

Just for example, Logos is not 'word'. Epos, hense epic in English, or rhema, from which rhetoric, meaning, first, the spoken word, and second, the word as a spoken entity, like the secondary meaning of verb, might have each offered a superior alternative to Logos. Logos is more the outward expression of a concept, as opposed to a mere name, and as the concept itself. One might have to agree that the concept preceeded the being, but even that point is debatable. The concept and the god, or the chicken and the egg. Is it not rather pointless?
Lest you think I am a scholar, let me clarify. I have a book on the subject of the Greek alphabet: Alpha to Omega, the life and times of the Greek Alphabet. Period. I am expert in no discipline, and aware only of many subjects.

1 Reply

@Fido,

The word "religion" comes from the Latin, to tie together, and is not just about whichever God.

There are all sorts of ways to believe, to tie together, some of which are not so aware that what they do is tantamount to religious ritual.

Axioms bind the work of science, and if you dare to object to those the reaction is much the same as it was with the heretics they burnt at the stake, before Martin Luther.

0 Replies

@cdenlpz1,

Fido, I read your posts and there's a lot of things I'd like to respond to but I get the feeling that you are seeing God differently than I would. This is why there are differences and this is why there are different Religions.

If you describe God as being something separate and unreachable from yourself, you will see God differently. There are people who believe that God is a separate deity and that he has feet big enough to squash throats of the weak. If that were the case, I think he would have already been down here.

The belief and thoughts of each man, (individually) will directly effect the results. If he believes he is separate from God and that God is different or a deity, then that is his belief and that's all the further he will go. If he believes he is destined to obscurity and that he will have cancer and die, then those thoughts and beliefs will express themselves. We will put a ceiling our own development with our thoughts alone.

Knowing and believing are two different things. When a person knows, there's no need for faith and believing.

What if God were thought? Rather than a being or separate Gods for separate religions, what if God were light? God to me is something totally different than what you've described in your posts. As a majority, we are trained to believe this but it's not the case at all.

Quote:

God may not support corruption, but those who support God do. I believe in God, but I lead my life as though I believe in something better: reason, because reason is not so easily perverted, or turned into a tool of vanity. Religion is not a source of wisdom, but of power. Faith may be a source of wisdom for some, but is a general cause of the inequality of wealth, resources, power, and education. Faith does not add to the goodness of the individual, nor to the happiness of the society.

Supporting God... Is that what we're supposed to be doing here on earth?

You mentioned that you believe in God but lead your life as though you believe in something better... What do you believe God is? That would be the first place to start.

Faith is a good way to describe believing in something that is not understood. Living your life as though you believe in something better... could it be recognition of something else you can't put your finger on... keep looking! Smile

1 Reply

@Justin,

Justin wrote:

Fido, I read your posts and there's a lot of things I'd like to respond to but I get the feeling that you are seeing God differently than I would. This is why there are differences and this is why there are different Religions.

If you describe God as being something separate and unreachable from yourself, you will see God differently. There are people who believe that God is a separate deity and that he has feet big enough to squash throats of the weak. If that were the case, I think he would have already been down here.

Come on. it is all nonsense for the weak minded to feast upon. Would god do this ,would god do that, can god do this or that? If we extended an ininitely small morsel on an infinitly long fulcrum, and we set an angel on the far end for good measure and used the sun as a fulcrum could we lift the moon with the help of god? It defies belief.

Quote:

The belief and thoughts of each man, (individually) will directly effect the results. If he believes he is separate from God and that God is different or a deity, then that is his belief and that's all the further he will go. If he believes he is destined to obscurity and that he will have cancer and die, then those thoughts and beliefs will express themselves. We will put a ceiling our own development with our thoughts alone.

Knowing and believing are two different things. When a person knows, there's no need for faith and believing.

What if God were thought? Rather than a being or separate Gods for separate religions, what if God were light? God to me is something totally different than what you've described in your posts. As a majority, we are trained to believe this but it's not the case at all.
Supporting God... Is that what we're supposed to be doing here on earth?

What can we know with certainty? If it is enough to know we know enough already. We know how to treat our neighbors. Our mother teaches us that at her knees. We think we need to know more to justify human treatment of humans? Give me a break. And yes, we have to inflate God just like we inflate hope, not because we cannot live without it, but because when we choose to live with it, with god, and magic, and belief; we are stuck with it. It forces us into faith, into a trust of human authority figures or drivel from old texts. It is not reason. It is insane. What if God were thought? The believers would burn him to have faith.

Quote:

You mentioned that you believe in God but lead your life as though you believe in something better... What do you believe God is? That would be the first place to start.

Faith is a good way to describe believing in something that is not understood. Living your life as though you believe in something better... could it be recognition of something else you can't put your finger on... keep looking!

God is a used up whore of an idea. It is all sorts of conjured up mystery garble. It is something to every body and nothing to some body. It is not good, because faith is fickle. God is not better, because he offers the primitive, the retreat into ignorence; but gives the modern. Where is the peace? Where is the peace in the vision of God? Everyone who claims a relationship with God is a beakon of hate. Why do I say this? Is it not obvious that no matter what they say that they hate the sinner? Actually they hate the powerless. They crave their wealth, and dispise the weak. Earthly power is the source of all corruption whether one hides behind belief of not. It is all about justifying every thing you need to do to hang onto your wealth and privilege. There are reasons to be good. A person can only be good through faith accidently.

0 Replies

@cdenlpz1,

Do we need to lift the moon?

As far as inflating hope and inflating God, that is your perception of it and you are entitled to it. That is not how I perceive things though.

God gives the modern? I don't understand... I thought man created the modern society. Beacon of hate for everyone that claims to have a relationship with God?... You lost me here as well. No need to explain though, I think I'd rather be lost...

Everyone has their own perception of the world and through that perception creates the world in which they live. That's the beauty of being unique I guess.

2 Replies

@Justin,

Back into the fray:

Would those who are posting comments opposed to religion, care to be more precise with examples. These postings make reference to a set of abstract, anonymous religions in order to condemn those same religions. I cannot imagine that, given the zealousness with which religion is attacked in this thread, that this lack of specificity should be due to some element of 'political correct-ness'. This thread is heavily laden with unjustified arguments, known as opinions. One must understand before one can critise, that is how philosophy operates ...

For a specific example, I offer the analogy of a painting n? 20 from 1957 by Mark Rothko. A painting which, in the artist's own terms, 'seek(s) to redeem man from the terrors of a mortal life.' This concept of 'redemption from the terrors of a mortal life' is one of the universal tenants of religion. To extend my analogy: the direct visual and emotional experience in viewing a painting by Mark Rothko brings to mind the rituals of Shakti yoga, in which the participant seeks a direct vision of God. In the example of the painting (and subsequently in the context of a Shakti ritual) the failure to have this intended experience, does not dis-prove the existence of the painting, nor does it render invalid the artist's intent. And it certainly does not dis-credit the potential for another individual to experience the intended event. I may state, based on personal experience, that both Mark Rothko's painting and Shakti lead me to understand higher truths about my existence. My failure to have this experience however, would not permit me to dis-credit a group of individuals who have shared and validated the experience and formalised the experience as a religion.

Both the artist and the Gurus (in the case of Shakti) have a conscious awareness of the process that will attune a participant to an inevitable outcome - this experience, or ritual, shuts out the rational mind in order to achieve another level of understanding of human experience. Artist & priest, in this model, are leading us to transcendental experiences in order to provide knowledge unobtainable through the filters of a normal Alpha-state consciousness. So far, I don't see that this is at all incompatible with seeking understanding through philosophy.

Because the knowledge which may result from a 'mystic' experience can be verified, philosophy enable us to assimilate this new information and can thereby prove, or dis-prove the resulting knowledge obtained. That which is above the realm of ordinary human experience is studied through physics, mathmatics, etc. Moral realisations can be tested against a philosophical structure. The whole history of philosophy is advanced through a series of intuitive reasoning which is then tested against logic for accuracy.

I don't understand why, in spite of this, this thread seems to completely discard the argument for religion. It can't be due to a lack of imperical understanding. Is it a due to the rejection of a particular form of religiosity currently existing in North America ...?

Should one conclude, that given the ongoing arguments of this thread, that Philosophy has abandoned soph?a in favour of science? And that Philosophy, as it seems to have evolved into its off-spring science, must reject the wisdom obtained through Religion as a myth? Is philosophy not concerned with the qualia of a subjective experience?!

As far as Religion creating power hungry gods and immoral acts in its name, one easily refutes this concept as a gross generalisation based on local events. Still, I counter that it is political philosophy and individual greed that are the sources of this evil. The church that manipulates its congregation for political objectives with threats against its moral and spiritual well being, holds no Truth whatsoever.

1 Reply

@Justin,

Justin wrote:

Do we need to lift the moon?

As far as inflating hope and inflating God, that is your perception of it and you are entitled to it. That is not how I perceive things though.

God gives the modern? I don't understand... I thought man created the modern society. Beacon of hate for everyone that claims to have a relationship with God?... You lost me here as well. No need to explain though, I think I'd rather be lost...

Everyone has their own perception of the world and through that perception creates the world in which they live. That's the beauty of being unique I guess.

People retreat into religion. It is a sign that the modern world is not answering their needs. In fact, many feel it is endangering their souls and their lives. And they have a practical need for community, which as a matter of fact, Christianity has done the greatest damage to, and in so damaging, made possible the nation state, and Western Law. But law does not work. It does not protect nor give justice. It binds us and injures us, but all religions that are established are legal corporations, recognized by law. They are the problem in one sense, and part of the problem in another sense. Either way they are not part of the solution. They support the status quo. Hell, they are the status quo. All the people running to church are like mice running to cat for protection from a dog.

0 Replies

@Doorsopen,

Doorsopen wrote:

Back into the fray:

Would those who are posting comments opposed to religion, care to be more precise with examples. These postings make reference to a set of abstract, anonymous religions in order to condemn those same religions. I cannot imagine that, given the zealousness with which religion is attacked in this thread, that this lack of specificity should be due to some element of 'political correct-ness'. This thread is heavily laden with unjustified arguments, known as opinions. One must understand before one can critise, that is how philosophy operates ...

For a specific example, I offer the analogy of a painting n? 20 from 1957 by Mark Rothko. A painting which, in the artist's own terms, 'seek(s) to redeem man from the terrors of a mortal life.' This concept of 'redemption from the terrors of a mortal life' is one of the universal tenants of religion. To extend my analogy: the direct visual and emotional experience in viewing a painting by Mark Rothko brings to mind the rituals of Shakti yoga, in which the participant seeks a direct vision of God. In the example of the painting (and subsequently in the context of a Shakti ritual) the failure to have this intended experience, does not dis-prove the existence of the painting, nor does it render invalid the artist's intent. And it certainly does not dis-credit the potential for another individual to experience the intended event. I may state, based on personal experience, that both Mark Rothko's painting and Shakti lead me to understand higher truths about my existence. My failure to have this experience however, would not permit me to dis-credit a group of individuals who have shared and validated the experience and formalised the experience as a religion.

Both the artist and the Gurus (in the case of Shakti) have a conscious awareness of the process that will attune a participant to an inevitable outcome - this experience, or ritual, shuts out the rational mind in order to achieve another level of understanding of human experience. Artist & priest, in this model, are leading us to transcendental experiences in order to provide knowledge unobtainable through the filters of a normal Alpha-state consciousness. So far, I don't see that this is at all incompatible with seeking understanding through philosophy.

Because the knowledge which may result from a 'mystic' experience can be verified, philosophy enable us to assimilate this new information and can thereby prove, or dis-prove the resulting knowledge obtained. That which is above the realm of ordinary human experience is studied through physics, mathmatics, etc. Moral realisations can be tested against a philosophical structure. The whole history of philosophy is advanced through a series of intuitive reasoning which is then tested against logic for accuracy.

I don't understand why, in spite of this, this thread seems to completely discard the argument for religion. It can't be due to a lack of imperical understanding. Is it a due to the rejection of a particular form of religiosity currently existing in North America ...?

Should one conclude, that given the ongoing arguments of this thread, that Philosophy has abandoned soph?a in favour of science? And that Philosophy, as it seems to have evolved into its off-spring science, must reject the wisdom obtained through Religion as a myth? Is philosophy not concerned with the qualia of a subjective experience?!

As far as Religion creating power hungry gods and immoral acts in its name, one easily refutes this concept as a gross generalisation based on local events. Still, I counter that it is political philosophy and individual greed that are the sources of this evil. The church that manipulates its congregation for political objectives with threats against its moral and spiritual well being, holds no Truth whatsoever.

If one looks at western religions, one can see a conscious rejection of science and knowledge as the understanding of God through reason for the notion that one can only approach God through uncritical faith rejecting all reason. And, given enough time, and if there were any money in it I would bet that I could produce statements from some of the most influential philosophers of the various faiths stating to this effect, that the good must control the strong, and the few must control the many if society is not to return to brutality. Now, how one would interperate such terms as good, and define the few who should control society might reasonably be an issue. Yet, because as educated, and educators these philosphers showed no doubt as to who were the good, and who comprised the few who should rule. It puts me to mind of the language of the sanhedron, at the trial of Jesus, where the chief priest said: better that one should die than many, my paraphrase. And even though the Christians themselves use this to justify the sacrifice of Jesus to save many souls, it is in the end a very expediant conclusion that the sacrifice of another individual to save your self from a revolution that might reveal to all your equality, your vanity, and your human failings -is justified. Religions cover their asses. They take care of their power structure first. The eternal plays no part in the majority of their beliefs, as the form of social relationship does. It is like the Christians saying there is only one path to salvation when Jesus took every path and every tack to reach people.

And, I would differ with you as to the point of ritual, as ritual is far older than modern religons. I would say that for primitives it was a way of driving reality forward through a cycle that is not always clear. Some people thought of a human sacrifice as a door to a day, and that a file of human sacrifices could give a people a lifetime. In some creation myths the world was begun with a sacrifice, and sacrifice has always, universally been the price of membership in any relationship or community. And, ritual recreates a certain mood, and order of events. In the Catholic mass, one hears the word of Jesus in the Gospels, and makes a sacrifice of goods before sharing the last supper, and being made an apostle sent to preach the word, and live the Christian life. It is no imitation. You are there. It is not Hocus Pocus, but Hoc es Corpus: this is the body (of Christ).

I resent the hypocisy of my faith even if I am blind to my own. I resent that they attack the fundamental dsicoveries of science, and yet use science, in the form of the computer to do so, and will run to the doctor like the rest of us heathens when sick. Do they not hang on to their wealth while infants perish? Don't they waste their love in political organizations to make laws that curb only freedom when it is by freedom that people are saved? Do they not spend all they possess to buy another moment of life when they say they believe they are saved. Is it not all about control of the beast in mankind, that they do so much to feed and to goad? If Christianity were the answer there would be no question. Instead, they must advertize to fill their benches. Why? Should it not be the truth that draws people to it. Shouldn't the church be in two worn shoes going always where people need, and pray for the help of God? As long as religion is about power, the powerful will be supported by the church, and the church will be supported by the powerful.

0 Replies

@Fido,

Boagie, I agree with you. George Smith also shares the sentiment in his "Why Atheism?"
One should not bray at Existence for not providing meaning and purpose for us as Albert Ellis would say [ See his" The Myth of Self-Esteem." This Sally Field life, human love and our own purposes do so count. We can have abundant lives without a future state, divine love and purpose. Life is its own validation and purpose and meaning. :flowers:
It is such a twisted notion to cry out that things do not endure. The breakfast that I had this morning did its purpose for me. What our Revolutionary soldiers did still counts.
Yes, the arguments go ever on. I find that theists just cannot make their case, and that we naturalists make ours.But naturalistic fallibilism enters the scene such that we might be wrong.:shocked:

2 Replies

@skeptic griggsy,

skeptic griggsy wrote:

Boagie, I agree with you. George Smith also shares the sentiment in his "Why Atheism?"
One should not bray at Existence for not providing meaning and purpose for us as Albert Ellis would say [ See his" The Myth of Self-Esteem." This Sally Field life, human love and our own purposes do so count. We can have abundant lives without a future state, divine love and purpose. Life is its own validation and purpose and meaning. :flowers:
It is such a twisted notion to cry out that things do not endure. The breakfast that I had this morning did its purpose for me. What our Revolutionary soldiers did still counts.
Yes, the arguments go ever on. I find that theists just cannot make their case, and that we naturalists make ours.But naturalistic fallibilism enters the scene such that we might be wrong.:shocked:

Who says existence does not provide meaning? Isn't the value judgement of no meaning a meaning? It is not that all people don't have meaning, but just like rich folks who have to get richer because they feel poor, some people feel poor in meaning, and don't see what they have for what they want.

And what future state? I mean, the future is an abstraction of reality based upon a sense of time projected beyond the moment. A state is a form of reality, and not an abstraction of reality which is itself an abstraction. What do you think

1 Reply

@Fido,

:detective: Fido, the Universe is ever so indifferent to us. It is comprehensible, so, it has meaning itself. We are our own meanings. The future state, not existing, has no meaning.
:surrender: The ignostic notion pervades natural theology. As the first cause is nothing, it has no meaning. As there cans be no designer, design here has no meaning.I use the term meaning as Michael Martin does in '"Atheism: a Philosophical Justification," and not as David Ramsay Steele does in "Atheism Explained: from Folly to Philosophy." The latter finds ignosticsm out of date since sixty years ago. I find it ever so meaningful : it shows how nonsensical God-talk really is.:flowers:

1 Reply

@skeptic griggsy,

skeptic griggsy wrote:

:detective: Fido, the Universe is ever so indifferent to us. It is comprehensible, so, it has meaning itself. We are our own meanings. The future state, not existing, has no meaning.
:surrender: The ignostic notion pervades natural theology. As the first cause is nothing, it has no meaning. As there cans be no designer, design here has no meaning.I use the term meaning as Michael Martin does in '"Atheism: a Philosophical Justification," and not as David Ramsay Steele does in "Atheism Explained: from Folly to Philosophy." The latter finds ignosticsm out of date since sixty years ago. I find it ever so meaningful : it shows how nonsensical God-talk really is.:flowers:

Clearly, no one believes in God, and most especially those who go to church on sunday. They still realize a certain moral value, and they still mouth their prayers, and they will still crusify you if you dispute with them on the existence of God. But no one will make real their beliefs or bring the kingdom of God to earth by respect and love of fellow human beings. It is all moot, meaningless, and a distraction from the problem at hand, which is to do good which people do with or without the help of God, but never without the help of knowledge. So profess God if you wish, or practice your religion, or preach if that is your talent. I will give you no grief, and neither will I give you time. You know, and I know that people flock to religon because it is the key to political power, and that form has always supported any form of government because both forms are self serving to the extreme minority of society and the vast majority support each only because they have no perspective from which to judge them. We must understand, that if the society does not work for us, it will not work for them, and the wealth and power of the wealthy and the powerful can be snatched away like candy from a baby. They are on quicksand, and we are on solid ground. Only be care full that the monster in its agony does not drag you into the grave with it.
As far as the universe having meaning. I doubt it. Life is eternal, but my life is not, and while I may imagine meaning existing beyond my own life and even act as though it does, it does not exist for me, nor I for it after death.

0 Replies

@Fido,

Fido remarked:

"Religion is only as good as it does not hurt us since it is mostly placebo. But it is still more than placebo. It is an institution of great power controlled by people intent upon maintaining their power, who ultimately have no regard for truth, good, or people".

Nietzsche interpreted likewise, and he also failed to see the power of faith in the he felt it was about power. The power of religion is not in the whip, it is link to that is innate in man, though inexplicable; it is that link that attaches him to the universe. We are a part of it, we are just not smart enough to figure out the role we play in it. Knowledge is what separates the two; those of faith and those who are really too intelligent to concede a higher understanding as there experiences in this reality gives them reason to find logic that will satisfy their tremendous intellectual egos. Nietzsche view religion as weakness as he efforted to find morality in power and there is no such thing. IMO.
William

1 Reply

@William,

William wrote:

Fido remarked:

"Religion is only as good as it does not hurt us since it is mostly placebo. But it is still more than placebo. It is an institution of great power controlled by people intent upon maintaining their power, who ultimately have no regard for truth, good, or people".

Nietzsche interpreted likewise, and he also failed to see the power of faith in the he felt it was about power. The power of religion is not in the whip, it is link to that is innate in man, though inexplicable; it is that link that attaches him to the universe. We are a part of it, we are just not smart enough to figure out the role we play in it. Knowledge is what separates the two; those of faith and those who are really too intelligent to concede a higher understanding as there experiences in this reality gives them reason to find logic that will satisfy their tremendous intellectual egos. Nietzsche view religion as weakness as he efforted to find morality in power and there is no such thing. IMO.
William

You offend me to suggest Nietzsche and I ever saw anything alike. I might have thought God was a stinker when I was 5 and had the chicken pox, but that is as close as I think I have ever been to N.

You know, just as our brains have all the stages our evolution has taken us through, so does our society. Religion is an early technology that is based, not on what we know, but upon what we believe, and the recogniton of power is there just as in naturalism, and in animism. It is the notion that a being much like ourselves controls our destinies, and that our fates are not set in stone, and can be modified by our own behavior in pleading and sacrificing to this being. As we have gained greater sight, God has grown more distant. Where once we could reach heaven with Jacob's ladder, or Jack's beanstaulk, or touch it with an arrow; now it is beyond the cosmos. But the main thing is the human ability to modify fate, and it makes me think of a line from Beowulf, about a brave man changing his fate. But we believe this of virtuous people too; and it is a theory that is often justified because everyone threatened with danger prays, and that means that all who survived have prayed, and so they testify. But those who prayed and died lie silent.

I know it is a poor proof of a poor theory; but it is all we have in favor of religion. The worst thing is that as a form of relationship it gives power to the worst sorts of rascal, many of whom prey upon their parishes. Yet this is only fair because ignorance demands contempt, and no educated priest would buy the hogwash he sells.

2 Replies

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

It is the notion that a being much like ourselves controls our destinies, and that our fates are not set in stone, and can be modified by our own behavior in pleading and sacrificing to this being. As we have gained greater sight, God has grown more distant. Where once we could reach heaven with Jacob's ladder, or Jack's beanstaulk, or touch it with an arrow; now it is beyond the cosmos.

The worst thing is that as a form of relationship it gives power to the worst sorts of rascal, many of whom prey upon their parishes. Yet this is only fair because ignorance demands contempt, and no educated priest would buy the hogwash he sells.

I only drew a similarity between you an N. because of the way you view religion. I, in a different light, also see the power of those who control it's wealth and see corruption there. It is the underlying perception of "more to life than this", is what keeps the herd in the corral. Nevertheless any attempt to stir the herd no matter how persuasiive the argument, will only stir their ire.

I have always attempted to stir those of intellect who pound on religions interpretation of ancient interpretations to effort to read between the lines from a scientific perception base on pure logic and deductive reasoning as to the thread that flows through all religions and that is this notion of "eternal life".

This IMO is more than a just a religions belief, it makes all the sense in the unverse. No we can't touch it for it is so far beyond our empirical little minds can conceive. I understand both sides of the debate and being in the middle have a hard time with both.

I honestly feel the truth will eliminate the need for religion once we realize the error of our ways as we assume this planet for sale as we charge a fee to dwell here. How universally wrong. I am a secular humanist and absolute believe in a reason for our being. Once we begin to cooperate, rather than compete, will we begin to understand what it is to be truly human.

Sorry, I never know what I am going to say. It just comes out. i hope it help clarify things a little. I am not a Nietzsche fan either, but I do understand what confused him so, I think. IMO.
William

1 Reply

@William,

Your herd, are human beings, dangerous at times, often stupid, banding together out of fear or loneliness; and also decent, loving, and caring, sometimes even forgiving, much as they imagine their God to be. They do what they can with what they have, and I trust that I may be different, but it is by accident, or illness that I see differently. So, to be kind, and also honest, they are not a herd, but a society, or a community that as all societies or communities exists because it protects the rights of its members, for no one belongs where their rights are not protected. Much as some think that they can judge better what is best for another than he can for himself, I know I can no more tell him what is best for him than I can tell if his sugar is sweet because mine is. I hope you take this in the spirit intended, which is friendship and respect. Thanks.

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Your herd, are human beings, dangerous at times, often stupid, banding together out of fear or loneliness; and also decent, loving, and caring, sometimes even forgiving, much as they imagine their God to be. They do what they can with what they have, and I trust that I may be different, but it is by accident, or illness that I see differently. So, to be kind, and also honest, they are not a herd, but a society, or a community that as all societies or communities exists because it protects the rights of its members, for no one belongs where their rights are not protected. Much as some think that they can judge better what is best for another than he can for himself, I know I can no more tell him what is best for him than I can tell if his sugar is sweet because mine is. I hope you take this in the spirit intended, which is friendship and respect. Thanks.

Are we not capable of applying that same logic to the planet we live on?
As you and I view the over all landscape, are we not obligated to offer what we can so as not to disturb any one of those "societies or communities" out of respect for that which binds them. Is that not what "morality" is about. Are we so imprisoned by the "I" we can't see over our parapets to better understand why our opponent is an opponent? I have often said I am to ignorant to know all the universe has to offer and I am not smart enough to be an atheist, so that sorta puts me in a position to feel obligated to see if I can narrow the gap between the two. Thanks again for your cordial response.
William

1 Reply

@William,

Just to eradicate a false claim made early in the thread, philosophy did not beget religion. Religion beget philosophy.

Not to say that secular philosophy is impossible - modern history has shown us that secular philosophy is, not only possible, but a great field to explore. But let's get the history right. Religion came first, and philosophy grew out of those religious traditions.

0 Replies

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

You offend me to suggest Nietzsche and I ever saw anything alike.

Don't worry - he got Nietzsche profoundly wrong. Nietzsche understood the power of faith much more clearly than the priests and physicists he harangued. The only similarity I see between you and N is that you both take for granted that god is dead. The light in which you two view the consequences, however, seems to come from different stars, entirely.

3 Replies

Religion and Philosphy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know