News20 mins ago
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by nailit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Theland //modern day politicians are free of the divine influence of God? //
Believers try to insert unnecessary influence of God into everything.
There are plenty of influential Zionists who were quite capable of getting the modern state of Israel without the assistance of any god.
Same with cosmology and evolution which, to various extent, some believers argue are the mechanisms that God used to do His work.
God is superfluous.
Believers try to insert unnecessary influence of God into everything.
There are plenty of influential Zionists who were quite capable of getting the modern state of Israel without the assistance of any god.
Same with cosmology and evolution which, to various extent, some believers argue are the mechanisms that God used to do His work.
God is superfluous.
//The will is held captive by the limits of our knowledge of what options are available to us which through reason enables us
to choose the path that frees us from the shackles of ignorance.//
Therefore, does it not follow that without a reasonably comprehensive knowledge of what religion is you are not equipped to reject it?
You can only "reason" when you understand the available choices, or are your conclusions arrived at purely by intuition and ignorance?
I personally don't mind if this is the case.
to choose the path that frees us from the shackles of ignorance.//
Therefore, does it not follow that without a reasonably comprehensive knowledge of what religion is you are not equipped to reject it?
You can only "reason" when you understand the available choices, or are your conclusions arrived at purely by intuition and ignorance?
I personally don't mind if this is the case.
Khandro
//The will is held captive by the limits of our knowledge of what options are available to us which through reason enables us
to choose the path that frees us from the shackles of ignorance.//
Therefore, does it not follow that without a reasonably comprehensive knowledge of what religion is you are not equipped to reject it?
You can only "reason" when you understand the available choices, or are your conclusions arrived at purely by intuition and ignorance?
I personally don't mind if this is the case.
19:05 Thu 25th Jan 2018
As a human construct there's a tendency towards disagreement on what 'religion' is, (let alone whether any one religion is 'the right one'). I have resisted any compulsion to subscribe to any ideology I don't understand nor do I subscribe to the requirement to reject an ideology I've never adopted.
I choose to live as best I can within the confines of reason, (however restrictive my own abilities in that regard might be), given my personal experience with the consequences of following my inherited intuitions, acquired incidentally from a 'religious upbringing'.
I endeavor not to draw conclusions based on presumptions, no less on presumptions of what I do or do not know. Such knowledge lies at the forefront of any rational determination of what is and what can never be.
//The will is held captive by the limits of our knowledge of what options are available to us which through reason enables us
to choose the path that frees us from the shackles of ignorance.//
Therefore, does it not follow that without a reasonably comprehensive knowledge of what religion is you are not equipped to reject it?
You can only "reason" when you understand the available choices, or are your conclusions arrived at purely by intuition and ignorance?
I personally don't mind if this is the case.
19:05 Thu 25th Jan 2018
As a human construct there's a tendency towards disagreement on what 'religion' is, (let alone whether any one religion is 'the right one'). I have resisted any compulsion to subscribe to any ideology I don't understand nor do I subscribe to the requirement to reject an ideology I've never adopted.
I choose to live as best I can within the confines of reason, (however restrictive my own abilities in that regard might be), given my personal experience with the consequences of following my inherited intuitions, acquired incidentally from a 'religious upbringing'.
I endeavor not to draw conclusions based on presumptions, no less on presumptions of what I do or do not know. Such knowledge lies at the forefront of any rational determination of what is and what can never be.
mibn. I understand what you are saying, however, when you assert that "Such knowledge lies at the forefront of any rational determination of what is and what can never be." you are, I believe, stating that you cannot see any 'reason' to embrace religion because of its irrational nature, which comes back to the arguments of the dismissal of religion on rational scientific grounds, but when the two classes of 'scientific rationality' and 'religion' are juxtaposed it is easy to think of a conflictual relationship between them, as if they compete for the same territory, which is far from true.
Khandro,
Science has proven to be highly successful at doing what science does, investigating the nature of the physical realm. What science does not do is directly answer questions regarding such things as right and wrong, although an understanding of how the world around us as well as inside us works is crucial to making such determinations. Such questions have largely been relegated to philosophy. My position is that questions regarding how to live as humankind can only be answered likewise using rational, logical methods. In my experience 'religion' provides many guiding principles but for me it was only with an understanding of why and how some are good and some not so good that I found reason to follow some and discard others. Given the right rules to follow we can stumble through life but it is only by virtue of understanding the reasons why some rules serve us well we are enable to advance beyond our previous limitations.
It's late, but I hope this gives you some idea where I'm coming from.
Science has proven to be highly successful at doing what science does, investigating the nature of the physical realm. What science does not do is directly answer questions regarding such things as right and wrong, although an understanding of how the world around us as well as inside us works is crucial to making such determinations. Such questions have largely been relegated to philosophy. My position is that questions regarding how to live as humankind can only be answered likewise using rational, logical methods. In my experience 'religion' provides many guiding principles but for me it was only with an understanding of why and how some are good and some not so good that I found reason to follow some and discard others. Given the right rules to follow we can stumble through life but it is only by virtue of understanding the reasons why some rules serve us well we are enable to advance beyond our previous limitations.
It's late, but I hope this gives you some idea where I'm coming from.
