• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Religion... why?

Nonsensical

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2008
Messages
4,006
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7
I feel that science, as is everything else "concrete" on this earth, is merely a raindrop on a flower in the field that is God. Sure, you can rationalize everything you want, but science only goes a few millimeters on the scale in which irrationality wins by a mile. How can we be sure there is no God? For all I know, there is..I feel it..others feel it..and of course, some don't and try to restrain it with words and concepts that is science. Science only covers a small portion of the ever existing spirit that is divided into each and everyones souls..those who can find it hold the light close to them, those who don't want to believe that it's true, try to make up excuses for it, try to cage it..almost like trying to restrain air in a cage..there is simply, simply no way to hold it back..and sure, you don't have to believe it..we're meant to question, but sometimes you have to feel..feel with your heart instead of your mind..and once you do, you can become high..you know, you have the feeling, you light the ever lighten candle deep inside your soul that will stay with you through this fraction of a lifetime and for eternity. After all, science covers such a small overview of this world. This world is pin-point in an ever extending sea of a million suns, that sea is a bead of dew on a blade of grass that grows in the ever rolling hills that is far beyond anything that anyone can ever describe with words, farther then any science concept can ever brush, yet something so simple that if you light your candle, hold it dear to you, will lead you into this field where you will rejoice in the blissful tranquility of the one superior being..the creator of everything that is, will be, and ever was on this pin-point of a place that we call Earth.

I feel strongly about my point, and sure, you can say it's idealistic, you can say it's only in my head, you can say what you want, but my candle is lit..nothing in this fraction of a lifetime will extinguish things, I'm off to far bigger and better things!
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
Savages rely on religion for a worldview.

This is largely an ad hominem attack. Whether or not savages rely on religion is besides the point, and does not disprove religious claims. Not to mention it is grossly inaccurate. Religious people come in all shapes and forms.


Those thinkers did not, they relied on their own thinking, religion was but an unnecessary burden for them imposed upon them purely incidentally. They were religious as a result of errors of thought they incurred due to the kind of education and culture that was ingrained upon them.

If they were able to extricate themselves from such biases, they would renounce their religion upon the realization of the implausibility of such views.
And you somehow have secret access to their minds, to discern what they really thought about matters religious?

Ideology need not be complex as they are today, it is merely a guide of political and social behavior for people to abide by. They have existed ever since people functioned in a group, as obviously they always needed to organize their activities.

You're confusing ideology with social-political philosophy. As far that ditchomy is concerned, religious thinkers have clearly favored the latter over the former. Some examples off the top of my head: Karl Barth, Jacques Maritain, Russell Kirk, Michael Oakeshott, etc.


All the religious wars that were fought in the name of the holy text?
Wars occur for endless reasons, religion is but one. And often religious conflicts were heavily mixed in with political and econonic disputes. Yet we could look at this from a different perspective: religious wars involve men fighting for what are their deepest held beliefs.

Rousseau himself made some interesting comments about this:
"Fanaticism, though sanguinary and cruel, is nevertheless a great and powerful passion, which exalts the heart of man, which inspires him with a contempt of death, which gives him prodigious energy, and which only requires to judiciously directed in order to produce the most sublime virtues. On the other hand, irreligion, and a reasoning and philosophic spirit in general, strengthens the attachment to life, debases the soul and renders it effeminate, concentrates all the passions in the meanness of private interest, in the abject motive of self, and thus silently saps the real foundations of society; for so trifling are the points in which private interests are united, that they will never counterbalance those in which they oppose one another."


No, not really. Modern Christianity is different from Islam because it was heavily influenced by the Western Culture which values independency of thought and action.

That doesn't make any sense, since Western culture has it's birth in the early Medieval period when the Christian faith was spreading across Europe in wake of the collaspe of the Roman Empire. Along with the faith, missionaries also brought with them the Classical heritage of Greece and Rome. This is why Novalis once remarked that Western culture is built on three main pillars: the philosophy of Greece, the laws of Rome, and the spirituality of Christianity.

Religion in itself offers a very short leash. The fence encompasses a very small area.
Maybe according to your definition of religion, which is nothing more than a strawman you set up in order to knock down.

What does making referrences to philosophy have to do with endorsing philosophical thought?

I honestly amazed you would even ask such an absurd question.



Scripture is the cornerstone of religious literature as it is the description of what a religion is like and how it ought to be observed. All else is irrelevant

You're obviously taking too much of a Protestant and "Minimalist" approach to religion. This does not apply to either Catholicism or Orthodoxy.


Christians preach the message explicitly. You are rotten. Only God is good. Man is dead in his sins. Submit, you wicked sinner. The purpose of this mentality is to teach man to devalue his inner being so he may be more docile to the will of authority.

I think Pascal summs up the Christian message better:
"What kind of freak is man! What a novelty he is, how absurd he is, how chaotic and what a mass of contradictions, and yet what a prodigy! He is judge of all things, yet a feeble worm. He is repository of truth, and yet sinks into such doubt and error. He is the glory and the scum of the universe!"

Man is indeed a sinner, but he is also created in God's image. Christ became man in order to save man, which shows how important man is to God and the closeness between human and divine natures. Vladimir Soloviev even taught how the God-Man(ie Christ) showed the way to God-Manhood.


Very irreligious. Those are rebels against Conventional religious thought.

Catholicism is an irreligious tradition? Am I understanding you correctly?

:rolli:

Non-literalist perspective is not an accurate interpretation of the word.

That's absurd especially considering the various forms of literature contained within the Bible. Not only historical books like Judges, but even "Wisdom" literature like Job, Proverbs, Psalms, and Song of Songs.

How can one apply a literalist approach to Pslams or even especially Song of Songs- which is an allegorical telling of God's love for Israel through the prism of the love between a man and a woman.

??????

I do not get what relevance all your anecdotes have to this.

So you fail to see how the historical origins of Christianity are relevant to this discussion?

Obviously.
How can a religious thinker be secretly irreligious? That's pure bullshit, and you know it!
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
This is largely an ad hominem attack. Whether or not savages rely on religion is besides the point, and does not disprove religious claims. Not to mention it is grossly inaccurate. Religious people come in all shapes and forms.



And you somehow have secret access to their minds, to discern what they really thought about matters religious?



You're confusing ideology with social-political philosophy. As far that ditchomy is concerned, religious thinkers have clearly favored the latter over the former. Some examples off the top of my head: Karl Barth, Jacques Maritain, Russell Kirk, Michael Oakeshott, etc.



Wars occur for endless reasons, religion is but one. And often religious conflicts were heavily mixed in with political and econonic disputes. Yet we could look at this from a different perspective: religious wars involve men fighting for what are their deepest held beliefs.

Rousseau himself made some interesting comments about this:





That doesn't make any sense, since Western culture has it's birth in the early Medieval period when the Christian faith was spreading across Europe in wake of the collaspe of the Roman Empire. Along with the faith, missionaries also brought with them the Classical heritage of Greece and Rome. This is why Novalis once remarked that Western culture is built on three main pillars: the philosophy of Greece, the laws of Rome, and the spirituality of Christianity.


Maybe according to your definition of religion, which is nothing more than a strawman you set up in order to knock down.



I honestly amazed you would even ask such an absurd question.





You're obviously taking too much of a Protestant and "Minimalist" approach to religion. This does not apply to either Catholicism or Orthodoxy.




I think Pascal summs up the Christian message better:


Man is indeed a sinner, but he is also created in God's image. Christ became man in order to save man, which shows how important man is to God and the closeness between human and divine natures. Vladimir Soloviev even taught how the God-Man(ie Christ) showed the way to God-Manhood.




Catholicism is an irreligious tradition? Am I understanding you correctly?


:rolli:



That's absurd especially considering the various forms of literature contained within the Bible. Not only historical books like Judges, but even "Wisdom" literature like Job, Proverbs, Psalms, and Song of Songs.

How can one apply a literalist approach to Pslams or even especially Song of Songs- which is an allegorical telling of God's love for Israel through the prism of the love between a man and a woman.



So you fail to see how the historical origins of Christianity are relevant to this discussion?


How can a religious thinker be secretly irreligious? That's pure bullshit, and you know it!

1) If you think my definition of religion is inaccurate provide your own with reasoning to support the definition you propound, otherwise do not comment on this matter.

2) Show the distinction between ideology and social-political theory.

3) You can make dozens of referrences to philosophy without thinking like a philosopher as means of political propaganda. This technique is often employed by preachers and politicians in order to use the authority of the philosopher they are referring to in order to justify their ideas.

4) Biblical claims which cannot be interpreted directly or literally must be dropped altogether as they do not make a clear and a coherent statement. Attempting to interpret them invariably leads to the misunderstanding of the perpsective of the author.

You need to define your terms clearly, if you do not do this you are merely uttering non-sense. A claim is meaningless outside of the specific context it is mentioned in. The onus is on you to clearly explicate your context and establish the definitions of your terms.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
That's a pretty weak response Bluewing, considering all that I mentioned.

I was in the middle of posting a response to your latest, untill my computer shut down my window unexpectedly.

Oh well I was about to link you to Pierre Manant's take on the issue of political philosophy and ideology, which was written in a journal dedicated to spreading religious ideals in the public square.
FIRST THINGS: A Journal of Religion, Culture, and Public Life
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
That's a pretty weak response Bluewing, considering all that I mentioned.

I was in the middle of posting a response to your latest, untill my computer shut down my window unexpectedly.

Oh well I was about to link you to Pierre Manant's take on the issue of political philosophy and ideology, which was written in a journal dedicated to spreading religious ideals in the public square.
FIRST THINGS: A Journal of Religion, Culture, and Public Life


You have said almost nothing because you never defined your terms clearly.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Nothing, you say huh? I could've swore I just typed out several long posts in this discussion. Must've been my imagination.

Define religion, ideology, spirituality and philosophy. Each one seperately.
 

Owl

desert pelican
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
717
MBTI Type
INTP
Under this definition, what exactly is not religion? As all of science, mythology, philosophy you name it, try to interpret their experiences.

Essentially my definition of religion is meant to depict what we traditionally refer to as religion, where worldviews such as Islam, Christianity and Buddhism are traditionally regarded as religious. I ask, why such views are the quintissence of religion.

1) If you think my definition of religion is inaccurate provide your own with reasoning to support the definition you propound, otherwise do not comment on this matter.

4) Biblical claims which cannot be interpreted directly or literally must be dropped altogether as they do not make a clear and a coherent statement. Attempting to interpret them invariably leads to the misunderstanding of the perpsective of the author.

You need to define your terms clearly, if you do not do this you are merely uttering non-sense. A claim is meaningless outside of the specific context it is mentioned in. The onus is on you to clearly explicate your context and establish the definitions of your terms.

If you two don't mind, I'll wedge in another response...

BW, your definition of religion does a good job of capturing a broad range of religious traditions, but should you visit the religious studies department at your local university, you'd surely meet some teachers and students there who were studying worldviews that fell outside of your definition. (Peguy and myself are good examples of religious persons you'd label as "rebels", yet, I assure you, both he and I are religious).

You might say that my definition is too broad, because it means everyone is religious. This is fine with me--it's just a word, and I'm more interested in what it means to be "human" than in what it means to be "religious". According to your definition, I'm not religious. Great! I'd be offended if you called me "religious", because I know what you mean. Indeed, anyone who is religious according to your definition has failed at being human according to mine.

In response to #4 above: thought is presuppositional--some concepts are prior epistemologically or ontologically to other concepts--thought is contextual, and so the bible ought to be interpreted contextually. Trying to interpret the bible dircetly apart from context is impossible, and interpreting it literally when the context calls for another method ignores the nature of thought.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
If you two don't mind, I'll wedge in another response...

BW, your definition of religion does a good job of capturing a broad range of religious traditions, but should you visit the religious studies department at your local university, you'd surely meet some teachers and students there who were studying worldviews that fell outside of your definition. (Peguy and myself are good examples of religious persons you'd label as "rebels", yet, I assure you, both he and I are religious).

You might say that my definition is too broad, because it means everyone is religious. This is fine with me--it's just a word, and I'm more interested in what it means to be "human" than in what it means to be "religious". According to your definition, I'm not religious. Great! I'd be offended if you called me "religious", because I know what you mean. Indeed, anyone who is religious according to your definition has failed at being human according to mine..

Comrade! My admiration of Spinoza's worldview and lifestyle renders me an observer of a religious tradition.

In response to #4 above: thought is presuppositional--some concepts are prior epistemologically or ontologically to other concepts--thought is contextual, and so the bible ought to be interpreted contextually. Trying to interpret the bible dircetly apart from context is impossible, and interpreting it literally when the context calls for another method ignores the nature of thought.


That is correct. As I have stated to Peguy, his ideas are meaningless unless he clearly defines his terms and sheds more light on the context he presents them in.

Have I suggested that the Bible ought to be interpreted independently of context? I cannot imagine such an exegesis of literature of any kind.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
That is correct. As I have stated to Peguy, his ideas are meaningless unless he clearly defines his terms and sheds more light on the context he presents them in.

The problem is that we're dealing with very broad topics here: religion, philosophy, ideology, etc. that they can't be clearly defined per se, at least not totally and certainly not within 50 words or less.

At best, you can give a rough idea of what you're talking about in order to gain a basic understanding, but one should use that as a foundation to move forward. The further you move along in the discussion, the more clear the concept becomes.

That's problem as I see it when you're constantly asking me to define these broad concepts. Not only that, you do so when we haven't even scratched the surface of discussing one of the concepts mentioned.

Seriously, explaining the relationship between religion and philosophy will take up more than enough time in of itself. Same goes for the relationship between religion and spirituality. To discuss both to a comprehensive length is one discussion is literally impossible - there's simply too much to discuss!

It's better to deal with one topic at a time - which I see as the basic relationship between religion and philosophy mostly. There'll be plenty of time later to discuss religion and spirituality.

Also bear in mind, INFJs have the common trait of being abstract in communication.

Have I suggested that the Bible ought to be interpreted independently of context?

In many ways yes. I brought up the historical context of Christianity emerging out of the allegorical traditions of Hellenic Judaism, and you dismissed that as an irrelevant anecdote. In fact any type of historical context I bring up you dismiss as an irrelevant anecdote.

If one is to understand the Bible on any scholarly basis, then one must take into account the historical contexts in which it emerged. And how one understands the Bible is also related to such.

There's plenty of discussion within Christian circles on how this relates to the truth of scriptures. There are those who insist the Bible is true 100% "true"(as in error free), since it comes directly from God. There's also the perspective that the Bible is inspired literature, that the spiritual truths it contained are directly from God, but since it was composed through human vehicles - errors do occur, but they are irrelevant.

And plenty more. Yet whenever any of this is ever brought up, you immediately are dismissive of it - which betrays an unwillingness(if not just plain stubborness) on your part to address this issue on a more comprehensive level.

That's the basic difference between you and me and Owl): Owl and I are willing to discuss this more comprehensively, while you seem determined to narrow the discussion as much as possible.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
The problem is that we're dealing with very broad topics here: religion, philosophy, ideology, etc. that they can't be clearly defined per se, at least not totally and certainly not within 50 words or less.

At best, you can give a rough idea of what you're talking about in order to gain a basic understanding, but one should use that as a foundation to move forward. The further you move along in the discussion, the more clear the concept becomes.

That's problem as I see it when you're constantly asking me to define these broad concepts. Not only that, you do so when we haven't even scratched the surface of discussing one of the concepts mentioned.

Seriously, explaining the relationship between religion and philosophy will take up more than enough time in of itself. Same goes for the relationship between religion and spirituality. To discuss both to a comprehensive length is one discussion is literally impossible - there's simply too much to discuss!

It's better to deal with one topic at a time - which I see as the basic relationship between religion and philosophy mostly. There'll be plenty of time later to discuss religion and spirituality.

Also bear in mind, INFJs have the common trait of being abstract in communication.



In many ways yes. I brought up the historical context of Christianity emerging out of the allegorical traditions of Hellenic Judaism, and you dismissed that as an irrelevant anecdote. In fact any type of historical context I bring up you dismiss as an irrelevant anecdote.

If one is to understand the Bible on any scholarly basis, then one must take into account the historical contexts in which it emerged. And how one understands the Bible is also related to such.

There's plenty of discussion within Christian circles on how this relates to the truth of scriptures. There are those who insist the Bible is true 100% "true"(as in error free), since it comes directly from God. There's also the perspective that the Bible is inspired literature, that the spiritual truths it contained are directly from God, but since it was composed through human vehicles - errors do occur, but they are irrelevant.

And plenty more. Yet whenever any of this is ever brought up, you immediately are dismissive of it - which betrays an unwillingness(if not just plain stubborness) on your part to address this issue on a more comprehensive level.

That's the basic difference between you and me and Owl): Owl and I are willing to discuss this more comprehensively, while you seem determined to narrow the discussion as much as possible.

I am an Intuitive too. I do enjoy and think it to be very important to discuss abstractions, see the big picture as you may say, to approach ideas 'comprehensively'. However, in order for us to have a clear and logically rigorous perspective of those abstractions, we must start with something very simple, concrete and very basic. Such as the definitions of the fundamentals of the ideas we are interested in. Slowly, we can work our way up to clearly defining even the most complex of our ideas. This way, we do not sacrifice a big picture view for clarity, we have both. But first, we must postpone dealing with complex issues until we have very clearly defined the basics, we will get to the complexities eventually, almost certainly.

It is possible to discuss complex ideas with great clarity and logical rigor. Consider theoretical mathematics. Arguably the most complicated intellectual enterprise a human mind has embarked upon, yet also the clearest and exactest of representations of human thought. I speculate that most concepts in pure mathematics is far more complex than the idea of religion, philosophy and spirituality, or even a concept that intricately interplays all 3 amidsts each other. Thinkers were able to bring clarity and rigor to the former, I see no reason why they should not be able to do so with respect to the latter. Mathematics works from the concrete to the abstract, by first defining the basics and then proceeding onto the complexities, this is precisely how we ought to attempt to bring clarity and rigor to philosophy, religion and spirituality. Quite clearly we could discover the basic axioms for all 3 of those, from which we could deduce the answers to all the complex questions our mind may pose with regard to those subjects.

In conclusion, it is not the case that I adamantly resist contemplating abstract notions which you invite us to, but only insist on postponing doing so until we have clarity and logical rigor with respect to the basics of those ideas and a method which will allow us to remain clear and exact in our thinking as we embark upon the more complicated ideas.

We know things because of the clear-cut and logically rigorous definitions attached to them. The definitions for complex ideas could only be devised through establishment of definitions to the simple ideas first, from which the definitions of the complex ideas shall derive. Accordingly, it is meaningless to talk of complexities like religion, philosophy and spirituality (as you invite us to) until we have carefully worked out (from simplicities to complexities) the definitions of those terms. If we were to do as you invite us to, we would not know exactly what we are talking about. We would be simply entertaining vague hunches and sentiments which likely harbor incomplete and often contradictory notions. This is an inevitable consequence of omitting a careful organization of one's thinking, as indeed it will not organize itself, if you do not organize it, it will be disorganized. Disorganized thoughts tend to be in most cases in complete, and in the few cases they are complete often attached to ideas contradictory to their identity.

Thus, this justifies my choice to forego the discussion you have initiated until the prerequisite for such a discourse has been fulfilled.
 

riel

New member
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
204
MBTI Type
ISFP
Science deals with what we can inquire into, hence what is within the bounds of reason. Religion claims to give us insight into what science can not grasp.

Yes, I totally agree with you. For example, how can we explain miracles?

They can't clash into one another because they are exploring totally different fields.

So true! Science explains things that pertain to Mother Nature, its compositions and everything under Mother Nature. As for Religion, it pertains to abstract ideas like 'heaven', 'angels', and 'God'...things that we can't physically see, but must be drawn upon faith.
 

uberrogo

New member
Joined
Mar 26, 2009
Messages
131
MBTI Type
istj
In our age of scientific discovery I would like to pose the question...

Why is religion still relevant in out time?

Obviously in past centuries it was a form of mind control and personality cults. Myths and legends to explain our Earth and the Universe and why we were here and to be good people or we shall rot in hell or be reborn as amoebas... but now in the year 2007, why is religion still relevant?

Mind control and power acquisition will always be relevant.
 

ColonelGadaafi

New member
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
773
MBTI Type
ESTJ
Enneagram
Si
Faith is a essential need for humans, given the fact that we posses conciousness in a reality ruled by sub-conciousness(Animalia kingdom) and unconciousness(fabric of reality, the cube we call the universe, the ultimate force).

We as the possibly only sapient beings in existence, need to believe that we have a meaning or a purpose. When we realize that we are but a mistake of the unconcious eco-system that surrounds us, a coincidental mistake in another wise sterile world. We become depressed and empty, totally meaningless.

Thus we need to believe to thrive and be happy, we need the obscure and unanswerable, to have a quest of spirtuality, to avoid the abyss of questioning our very own existence.

Hence religion comes into the equation. It is a tool for us humans to keep ourselves spiritually healthy, A blockage of spiritual rationality. It offers a haven and a teacher for our existence, in whatever form.

It is there to satisfy the urge.
 

hokie912

New member
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Messages
271
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Yes, I totally agree with you. For example, how can we explain miracles?

The fact that we can't currently explain something scientifically doesn't mean that it's miraculous. It just means that we can't currently explain it. A lot of people seem so uncomfortable with the idea of uncertainty, but I think it's dangerous to take the vast scope of things we don't understand and lump them all under the "religion, not science" umbrella. Our understanding of the world is constantly changing. A few thousand years ago, people had a complex system of beliefs to explain things like the rising of the sun (Apollo in his chariot, for example) that we now understand on a scientific level. Personally, I'm okay with admitting that there are things that we can't understand or even comprehend, but that doesn't mean I think we should say that it must be God at work and stop trying.
 

antireconciler

it's a nuclear device
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
866
MBTI Type
Intj
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
so
A lot of people seem so uncomfortable with the idea of uncertainty, but I think it's dangerous to take the vast scope of things we don't understand and lump them all under the "religion, not science" umbrella. Our understanding of the world is constantly changing. A few thousand years ago, people had a complex system of beliefs to explain things like the rising of the sun (Apollo in his chariot, for example) that we now understand on a scientific level. Personally, I'm okay with admitting that there are things that we can't understand or even comprehend, but that doesn't mean I think we should say that it must be God at work and stop trying.

This is true, and it can feel threatening to a theist to think that the whole of religious experience may be explainable within a system consistent with empirical science, but this fear is, AS WE HAVE JUST ADMITTED, irrational.

Only systems and relationshipsare rational, and negation is a preserving relation. This is a short and powerful demonstration against the fear of loss of ANYTHING. The theist, thus, has nothing to fear. He assumes that all of the wonder and awe of religion will be destroyed by science, but since nothing can be negated without being preserved, wonder and awe must be preserved...

Hahaha, do you understand the implication? By the very virtue of the fact that wonder and awe and miracles and such CAN be negated by reason, they can only be themselves preserved in reason, AS reason-class content. Negation could not touch the irrational because there could never be communication between the reasonable, which has the power to negate, and the unreasonable. The two would be split absolutely into non-existence EVEN IN CONCEPTION.

That you can THINK, that you can PERCEIVE of anything is sufficient to guarantee its preservation in reason. Hegel said it so wonderfully: "the real is rational and the rational real." Negation only touches itself!

*dances around excitedly* It's magnificent!
 

plaguerat

New member
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
195
MBTI Type
INTJ
I think it has something to do with the evolution of concious "human" thought. Maybe some form of expression of the collective whole (or whatever 'whole' practices the religion) and has been used as both a community catalyst and tie, and a source by which to manipulate the masses. Some sort of deep expression of human nature or something.
 

Cool

New member
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
50
MBTI Type
ENTP
Yes we have science... but science can't explain everything. For example it can only look at whether something exists or not, the mechanics how something works. It cannot and will never explain the "why questions". Why are humans the only dominant species on this planet? What's the purpose of life etc. The mind craves explainations for everything... I suppose that's why many people turn to religion.

Yes the mind does crave for an explanation. But if we crave it then won't we search for it? Going into religion won't give us the detail we need to find but just some bullshit one (sorry offending religous people) to make our "fear" go awat or make us feel secure.
 
L

Lasting_Pain

Guest
Wow after reading 10 or so pages, I only have one question, why are we arguing religion?
 
Top