No. It has no authority. It was brought up as an historical document to illustrate the human intuition regarding the conflict between Mind(knowing) and Body(being).For example, Does the Bible have any prima facie authority at all on matters of philosophy? — Constance
I agree. Pain requires nerves. That organism with nerves is the agent of the pain. But the suffering we construct to displace pain, is all in the constructing and projecting of the Mind without agency.I say a "disembodied" pain is impossible, — Constance
That may be.A thing which suffers? Nobody argues this — Constance
I do not. I think about the self and human so called dasein (I'm not sure why that concept is treated as a given) as NO THINGAt any rate, if you think about the self, human dasein, as a thing, you are deep in scientific reductive territory. — Constance
to be not religious means that you cannot think, that you do not believe in anything, and that you cannot reach any conclusions of any kind. — Ray Liikanen
e often seek by nature a very strong position, like demanding (as so popular in the arena of politics) as d — Ray Liikanen
Apparently, you've not read this thread from the beginning. A little more than semantic quibbles is going on here. Besides, definitions are not "verifiable" (unless they are tautologies). :roll:... 'religious' has not been defined in a concrete, understandable, verifiable manner. — Ray Liikanen
Ok, my apology. I read your OP a couple of times and now I know what you are arguing about. To me, the essence of religion is not about ethics at all but about spiritual and mystical experiences. Although there are religions with a set of commands, what we ought to do and what we ought not to do, but to my understanding there is no religion that provides reasons why an act, good or evil, is right or wrong. Therefore, religion is not about ethics. — MoK
Glad to see that you agree that the pain is not bad for all agents. — MoK
that you not only have no false gods before you but you reject also the one true God; and remain as an innocent babe--someone deserving of no condemnation for there is nothing in you deserving of judgment. This is why I assume my default position: what exactly do you mean by religion? Define it, or remain silent, else you enter a world of perhaps potentially meaningful dialogue, but much more likely, only meaninglessness masquerading as wisdom. — Ray Liikanen
A favorite pastime especially today in politics (witness the backbitting back and forth between Democrats and Repulbicans) is this infantile labelling of the opponent. We never learn, seems to be an inherent thing in the human mind. — Ray Liikanen
I agree. Pain requires nerves. That organism with nerves is the agent of the pain. But the suffering we construct to displace pain, is all in the constructing and projecting of the Mind without agency. — ENOAH
I do not. I think about the self and human so called dasein (I'm not sure why that concept is treated as a given) as NO THING — ENOAH
Well, if they say so. But that does not make God a moral foundation. The reason for that is the very diverse range of religions with different teachings. Most religions give teachings that contradict the teachings of others. There are even contradictions within a single religion. Not all religions are the same and all of them could not be possibly true. So even if accept the premise that God is the moral foundation then we still face a problem: Which religion is true?But of course religion "provides reasons why an act, good or evil, is right or wrong." Religion tells us that God is moral foundation of such "reasons". — Constance
Why have you forsaken me?" He became sin for us. Our transgressions, all of them, died with him on the cross; God the Father, turns His face away from evil (sin). — Ray Liikanen
Well, if they say so. But that does not make God a moral foundation. The reason for that is the very diverse range of religions with different teachings. Most religions give teachings that contradict the teachings of others. There are even contradictions within a single religion. Not all religions are the same and all of them could not be possibly true. So even if accept the premise that God is the moral foundation then we still face a problem: Which religion is true? — MoK
Well, if they say so. But that does not make God a moral foundation. The reason for that is the very diverse range of religions with different teachings. Most religions give teachings that contradict the teachings of others. There are even contradictions within a single religion. Not all religions are the same and all of them could not be possibly true. So even if accept the premise that God is the moral foundation then we still face a problem: Which religion is true? — MoK
Yes, I know. The problem is if there is one God then why are religions so diverse and inconsistent?If you approach religion like that, you will find no solution to the question at all. — Constance
Yes, science is consistent, religions are not.Ask, why doesn't science have this problem? It is the consistency of results: put nitroglycerin in the same experimental context, the results will be the same. — Constance
There are many reasons why people believe in religion, such as fear of death, fear of punishment, the promised rewards, and the like. Why do religions survive? Because of the mentioned reasons. Because people do not realize the conflict between religions and the conflict within a single religion.If you treat religion like a culture, like you seem to be doing, then all you get is cultural differences, but if you look for the essence of religion to see if there is something just as unwavering, and you look "through" the narratives, the churchy fetishes, the bad metaphysics, and so forth, to what survives after all of these contingencies are suspended, and you find the metaethical indeterminacy of our existence. This is what religion is all about. — Constance
We have a common conscience and we can establish a stable society based on that. Moreover, harming others is a very common concept within different religions, like stoning to death, cutting hands or fingers, and killing those who do not believe in God.Very long story short: a determinate ethics is simple to understand. We see it in our laws, rules, principles, explicit or implicit, and so on. The ethical normativity of our existence. Indeterminacy is what we run into when we ask for basic rationality on which these are founded: why pay taxes? Because we need money to run a society. What is the point of that? See contract theory: it's better than the state of nature; much better, because people are safer from harm. What is wrong with harm? Errrr, What do you mean? This is an indeterminacy that runs through all of our affairs, hidden beneath the veneer of conversation. The prima facie moral call not to cause harm really has NO justification beyond it being stand alone bad, which is weird for anyone who likes explanations.
But take those ethical complaints that intrinsically deal with harm, and there you are stricken with plague or burning to death in a car somewhere, and there are no laws to protect you, no authority to redress the wrongs, that is, the intrinsic wrong of it being there AT ALL. Take the broad context of our ethical issues in the world, and see that ultimately, no redress is forthcoming at the foundational level! THIS is where religion has its essence, why, that is, societies "came up with" religion, and why religion is in all cultures. We are all "thrown into" a world of unredeemed suffering and unconsummated desire. This is the essence of religion: to bring these to their completion. — Constance
. I think when you get to that rarified "space" of a phenomenologically reduced world and thought is free of the clutter or habituated assumptions, THERE you discover the transcendental self. — Constance
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.