smart, capable, and intelligent religious thinkers are most definitely familiar with the criticisms of non-religious thinkers. They are familiar with the criticisms that religion is dogmatic, oppressive, or irrational, and are familiar with the philosophical arguments against their own religion. Yet they continue to believe. — Darthbarracuda
I find it hard to believe that something as organized as the Catholic Church can be so irrevocably wrong in everything it says. — DarthBarracuda
So what is religion according to the OP? Is it a set of beliefs and/or practices? Is it a benevolent social institution (which uses particular sets of beliefs and practices)? A harmful social institution (which uses particular sets of beliefs and practices)? Something in between? A form of self therapy? Are these categories mutually exclusive or some of them can contain others? Is it a social phenomenon which may include some -or all- of the previous? More importantly, can there be a definition of religion which is value free? That is to say, a definition which is not an expression of power relations? — Πετροκότσυφας
And Dennett today asks us how we are to tell a theologian that they wasted their entire lives pursuing a bunk field. — DarthBarracuda
While it is true that materialism tells us a human being is nothing more than a “moist robot”—a phrase Dennett took from a Dilbert comic—we run a risk when we let this cat, or robot, out of the bag. If we repeatedly tell folks that their sense of free will or belief in objective morality is essentially an illusion, such knowledge has the potential to undermine civilization itself, Dennett believes. Civil order requires the general acceptance of personal responsibility, which is closely linked to the notion of free will. Better, said Dennett, if the public were told that “for general purposes” the self and free will and objective morality do indeed exist—that colors and sounds exist, too—“just not in the way they think.” They “exist in a special way" - which is to say, ultimately, not at all.
a secularization movement against dogma and religious power as opposed to a legitimate philosophical movement. — darthbarracuda
I kind of agree with this, but from a perspective of thinking that a significant percentage of non-religious-oriented philosophical conclusions are just as absurd as the religious stuff.Anyway, like I said, this left a bruise in my perspective of religion. Yet when I get the chance to study religious philosophy (perhaps not the religious texts themselves, though), I am struck by how rigorous the argumentation is. It is on-par with any other sort of philosophizing. — darthbarracuda
I want to see if it is possible to reject religion and yet accept it as a legitimate avenue in itself, or if non-religious belief is entirely incompatible with religious tolerance on the philosophical and practical levels — darthbarracuda
You can certainly be begotten of the Wittgenstein of the P I and feel this way. But I think it involves you being doubtful of most systems, even the appealing ones, and building a philosophy for yourself brick by brick, mostly sans isms. — mcdoodle
I feel some strong relationship between what's called aesthetic and what's called religious experience. — MacDoodle
My own spirit recoils from a (personal) God in the same way my heart sinks when I see a lion pacing neurotically back and forth in a small zoo cage. I know, I know the lion is beautiful but dangerous; if you let the lion roam free, it would kill me. Safety demands that it be put in a cage. Safety demands that religions be put in cages, too... — Daniel Dennett
I want to see if it is possible to reject religion and yet accept it as a legitimate avenue in itself — darthbarracuda
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books.
The root and foundation of Origen’s exegetical method was his belief in the divine inspiration of both Old and New Testament scripture, interpreted within the context of the church and in harmony with the faith as it was handed down by apostolic succession. The fundamental reason why scripture is misunderstood is because it is interpreted exclusively on the literal level without taking into account its spiritual or non-literal meaning. However, even when its potential for meaning beyond the literal level is recognized, it is still necessary to interpret scripture according to divine intentionality. In other words, without proper exegetical method, the interpreter may discover levels of meaning not intended by the Spirit….
Origen believed that scripture should be interpreted according to three levels of meaning. Origen claims to derive this principle from Proverbs 22:20-21, which in the Septuagint says, “Moreover, you shall write these things down for yourself in a threefold way on the breadth of your heart, for counsel and knowledge…so that you may answer those who question you with true words.” These three levels of meaning correspond in broad terms to the needs Christians have on the various stages of their spiritual journey: the literal level is for the simple Christian, the moral level is for those who have made some spiritual progress, and the spiritual level is for those whom Paul refers to as the perfect (2 Cor. 2:6-7), that is, spiritually mature Christians who are capable of receiving solid food and understanding the deeper things of God (Heb. 5:13-14; cf. 2 Cor. 2:10)
When, starting in the Enlightenment, freedom of speech and religion slowly began to be inaugurated throughout much of Western society, esoteric writing all but disappeared — Thorongil
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.