mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
True. It should apply to all of us. But a lot of people do tend to use their religion as their justification for wanting to control the behavior of those around them.
True.
Regards
Mikkel
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
True. It should apply to all of us. But a lot of people do tend to use their religion as their justification for wanting to control the behavior of those around them.
For many people it's more comforting to think there is no God. No consequences. Just live your life and do what you want and then you die and there is no reason to worry about right or wrong. No fear when you die. You just cease to exist (as a consciousness).Not everyone appreciates rational thought. Some prefer simple, comforting platitudes. They need their opiate.
For many people it's more comforting to think there is no God. No consequences. Just live your life and do what you want and then you die and there is no reason to worry about right or wrong. No fear when you die. You just cease to exist (as a consciousness).
So, that is actually the "comforting platitude" for many.
Atheism is not the same as libertinism (or extreme hedonism.)For many people it's more comforting to think there is no God. No consequences. Just live your life and do what you want and then you die and there is no reason to worry about right or wrong. No fear when you die. You just cease to exist (as a consciousness).
So, that is actually the "comforting platitude" for many.
For many people it's more comforting to think there is no God. No consequences. Just live your life and do what you want and then you die and there is no reason to worry about right or wrong. No fear when you die. You just cease to exist (as a consciousness).
So, that is actually the "comforting platitude" for many.
Except that there is no evidence for life after death and there is irrefutable evidence that everything dies.
I believe in God. It is a fact, that I can do so. Is that good enough?
Depends what that belief leads to, I guess. In and of itself, more power to you.
I am a functional Scandinavian social democrat for what it is worth.
Regards
Mikkel
I have quite a few friends who would describe themselves similarly (with varied theistic and non-theistic beliefs).
I'm almost certain our respective religious positions wouldn't matter much to each other in terms of how we view the world and people.
Do you think it's a good idea to demand a rational basis for religious truth-claims? Why or why not?
As I understand it, the notion that religious truth-claims (such as "the gods exist", etc) need to be justified by some rational means dates all the way back in Western thought to Thales of Miletus, who lived around 600 BCE in what is now Asia Minor.
As with most things, the details are sometimes disputed, but it seems most scholars agree that Thales began the Western tradition of assuming that all natural events have natural causes which can be discovered by reason. (This 'assumption' appears to be strongly supported by the explanatory success of the sciences.) It should be easy to see how such an assumption can morph over time into a demand that even religious truth-claims make rational sense. Indeed, the rise of theology in the West is almost certainly a consequence of Thales' revolutionary idea that the nature of things can be discovered by reason for theology is basically an attempt to figure out rational reasons for religious truth-claims (whether it succeeds in doing that is up to you to decide).
Do you think it's a good idea to demand a rational basis for religious truth-claims? Why or why not?
Actually, I don't think that most scholars believe that — and we certainly don't have enough data about Thales to decide the matter.As I understand it, the notion that religious truth-claims (such as "the gods exist", etc) need to be justified by some rational means dates all the way back in Western thought to Thales of Miletus, who lived around 600 BCE in what is now Asia Minor. As with most things, the details are sometimes disputed, but it seems most scholars agree that Thales began the Western tradition of assuming that all natural events have natural causes which can be discovered by reason.
@Sunstone I truly hope that you are in good health of mind and body at this trying time of global pandemic.
A couple of points, first of all, on Thales (before I address your question substantively):
I don't necessarily concur that Thales "began the Western tradition of assuming that all natural events have natural causes which can be discovered by reason". In fact, I think this is strongly contradicted by the surviving textual evidence from the later secondary classical sources on him. One of the greatest deficiencies of classical, Greco-Roman thought (for all its sophistication and profundity) was that they really lacked empiricism and any comprehension of the need for making testable predictions. Thales was no exception.
Philosophers generally distinguish rationalism from empiricism. The obvious contrast, in the sciences, is between Descartes, who thought that he could work out the nature of the universe by logical argument, and Newton, who disagreed. We all know how that one ended. We can see the same thing in theology: Aquinas and Shankara thought that you could prove religion by pure logic, Kierkegaard and Ramanuja rejected the idea. The only way you can learn about anything is to consider the evidence.
If by rational you mean "acceptable to reason", then surely everyone aspires to be rational — people didn't suddenly decide it was a good idea in 600 BC.
Thank you so much for the well-wishes, Vouthon. I hope you too are doing well and will continue to do so through these "interesting" times.
Second, I am at fault for saying that Thales thought all natural things had a natural cause. That was sloppy of me. I was trying to convey the thought that he believed all things had a cause that could be discovered through -- and discerned by -- reason, and somehow let the bit about "natural causes" slip in without thinking too much about it. Thales was only sometimes of the opinion that things had natural causes, but not always of that opinion. Arguably, he probably thought supernatural causes were the ultimate causes.
As I understand it, the notion that religious truth-claims (such as "the gods exist", etc) need to be justified by some rational means dates all the way back in Western thought to Thales of Miletus, who lived around 600 BCE in what is now Asia Minor.
As with most things, the details are sometimes disputed, but it seems most scholars agree that Thales began the Western tradition of assuming that all natural events have natural causes which can be discovered by reason. (This 'assumption' appears to be strongly supported by the explanatory success of the sciences.) It should be easy to see how such an assumption can morph over time into a demand that even religious truth-claims make rational sense. Indeed, the rise of theology in the West is almost certainly a consequence of Thales' revolutionary idea that the nature of things can be discovered by reason for theology is basically an attempt to figure out rational reasons for religious truth-claims (whether it succeeds in doing that is up to you to decide).
Do you think it's a good idea to demand a rational basis for religious truth-claims? Why or why not?
____________________________
Thales even in ancient Greece was called a phusikos 'physicist' from phusis, in this context generally translated as 'nature'. However (says Aristotle) Thales explained motion and animation by attributing them to the action of psukhoi (psyches) meaning souls; thus he thought iron could be magnetic because it had a soul. Not a bad try at the dawn of philosophy. he also thought souls were immortal.As I understand it, the notion that religious truth-claims (such as "the gods exist", etc) need to be justified by some rational means dates all the way back in Western thought to Thales of Miletus, who lived around 600 BCE in what is now Asia Minor.
That's a question for each individual. There's be different answers depending on culture, education, experience and temperament.Do you think it's a good idea to demand a rational basis for religious truth-claims? Why or why not?
You are not at fault, it was an ambitious thread title and the fault may lie with me for misinterpreting your meaning.