|
I don't understand the distinction you are drawing. I thought about theology, and then I thought about philosophy (in the broad sense, not just analytic), and it seems like they are both simply concerned with fundamental questions of reality... I don't really see the difference. Aren't they both asking the same questions?
Can you answer the question you posed and give me an idea of what you are getting at? When I think about what theologians do and what philosophers do, it seems like they are doing the same thing, only theologians have more baggage.
Of course, I think theism is an enormous dead-end in the western tradition, so if "theology" is limited to theisms then maybe the source of the dispute is just that I don't think theology is a legitimate field, or that it doesn't have any legitimacy except insofar as it attempts to answer questions that are fundamentally philosophical.
edit: this is not supposed to be a diss on theologians; I spend a lot of time thinking about "god"
|
I have respect for spirituality. I don't have a lot of respect for religion... yet.
"What is happening in the world? You have a Christian God, Hindu Gods, Mohammedans with their particular conception of God, each little sect with their particular truth; and all these truths are becoming like so many diseases in the world, separating people. These truths, in the hands of the few, are becoming the means of exploitation. You go to each, one after the other, tasting them all, because you begin to lose all sense of discrimination, because you are suffering and you want a remedy, and you accept any remedy that is offered by any sect, whether Christian, Hindu, or any other sect. So, what is happening? Your gods are dividing you, your beliefs in God are dividing you and yet you talk about the brotherhood of man, unity in God, and at the same time deny the very thing that you want to find out, because you cling to these beliefs as the most potent means of destroying limitation, whereas they but intensify it. These things are so obvious."
|
I dislike religion because it's wrong. And I use that with both definitions: incorrect and immoral.
However, religious people are pretty much like anyone else. The main reason (that I see) that people are christian or jewish or muslim or whatever is that they want to be good people, and they think being a good christian or whatever is how you be a good person. This is a positive thing when considering humanity. We want to be good people.
Consider: how many people have you met that you think did not actually want to be good people? Maybe a few, possibly, but I've met nearly none. Most people just want to be good people.
The religions themselves are pretty terrible though. Whenever I've spoken to religious people (even quite moderate religious people) about their religion they say the most outrageous, random, idiotic, and downright immoral things. And usually this is from perfectly reasonable, nice people. For instance, I've heard a nice person say "I've made peace with my god so I'm not afraid to die." Now what I hear is downright suicidal, and so I back off. And of course anything to do with Hell always sounds childish, threatening, sadomasochistic, or immoral to me.
|
On May 20 2012 02:38 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2012 02:22 GrayArea wrote:On May 19 2012 15:35 sam!zdat wrote:On May 19 2012 15:25 GrayArea wrote:
As a person who graduated with a degree in Religious Studies, this is the one thing I learned: Religion is what you interpret it to be. Did you ask for your money back? Dont make conclusions if you havent experienced something for yourself. If you spend 4 years studying religions and draw a differenr conclusion, i will be happy to hear it. Well, I have spend <4 years, but I feel that there's certainly more to it than YMMV. At the very least, philosophical traditions within religions are not deserving of being dismissed. Augustine, to name just one, is not simply "what you interpret it to be." There may be a weaker form of your thesis which I might endorse. edit: And I'll say that I don't believe there's any difference between religion and philosophy, pace Heidegger above edit again: And sorry if I sounded "belittling," but I do feel that if that was the ONLY thing you learned I don't see why you did it. Out of curiosity, what topic have you studied in particular? and I do apologize for being flippant
Obviously that is not the only thing I learned from it. If that were it, there wouldn't be a degree, they could just write that on a paper and give it to me. It takes people a lifetime to even try to understand religion, and sometimes even that much time is not enough. For me to summarize not just one but all religions into one sentence is simply ridiculous. But if I could summarize something so vast and rich with content, culture, beliefs, history, key figures, etc. down to its fundamental in one sentence, that statement I made is my best shot.
|
I think its great that u had a revelation, however there is one distinction that I would like to make.
In the case of Hitler and Stalin, yes they both were atheists, but it was not their atheism that made them do the stuff they did, to quote the great Richard Dawkins: "Both Hitler and Stalin had moustaches, yet we dont blame their moustaches for all the stuff they did" (not exactly correct, but the meaning is right)
As opposed to for example the crusades which were Holy Wars and therefore motivated by religion.
That being said, people can have their own opinions/Religions
|
Yes, atheism is like mustaches.
And how did you find this thread?
|
It was revealed to him in a vision.
|
On May 18 2012 15:56 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 15:50 Lixler wrote:
I don't think you had a serious grasp of Nietzsche or Camus if appeals to the facts that religious people are just "normal legit people living their lives" and that atheists can do amoral things swayed you from your assent to their views. Nietzsche's entire thing against religion wasn't that it was immoral and caused people to do bad things and was illogical, but that it represented a lowering of the species of man. The moral impulse cultivated by (some) religions represented a weakening of man that shaped him into a herd animal. None of this is refuted by the fact that religious people are normal and legit, and in fact that fact just reinforces Nietzsche's views. To be fair, Nietzsche is specifically talking about monotheism.
Nietzsche was also batshit insane:
"The word Übermensch [designates] a type of supreme achievement, as opposed to 'modern' men, 'good' men, Christians, and other nihilists ... When I whispered into the ears of some people that they were better off looking for a Cesare Borgia than a Parsifal, they did not believe their ears."
-Nietzsche, Ecce Homo
nietzsche's prefect man was a real piece of shit.
|
Nietzsche would put the emphasis on "real."
(whether he would be right to do so is another question)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
