You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #29: I don't completely [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU
manic expression Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-21-06 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #21
29. I don't completely
They're fine to work off of, but I wish they were more broad. Providing others isn't required, nor is it necessary.

Faith is pretty much believing in certain things, certain beliefs (specifically, when there isn't 100% evidence in favor of them). However, how do you get to those certain things in the first place? Many religions use logic to get to them, and then the faith is simply believing in the results of that logic.

Secondly, how are those beliefs inherently irrational? They aren't. They CAN be, but they don't have to be. There is a lack of definitive evidence that proves divinity, but there is a lack of definitive evidence that disproves divinity, so it can't be irrational automatically. If you start with a concept, you can think rationally about it and come to different conclusions.

There are many ways to think rationally about divinity. First, we know that people can indirectly observe things, much like knowing that there is a fire when one sees smoke. Keeping this in mind, we can ask ourselves different questions. How do systems organize? To what influence does matter become what we see around us? These questions and others like them can lead us to the conclusion that divinity exists. For example, since matter organizes itself in certain and common ways, there must be a common source of that organization. We can also look at the way the world works on the physical level, and apply them to things that are not so readily observable (remember the smoke and fire, however). For instance, we know that water can be solid, liquid or gas without changing. Applying this (along with other concurring observations) in a deeper way, individual things can take different forms without changing on the truest level (to me, for instance, this would have to do with reincarnation, the eternal nature of the soul and other things). There are so many other things I could expand on right now, but that should be enough for us to talk about.

That's the way I take it. Others would take it other ways, and you take it your way. That's all. I'm not trying to say that I'm right and that you're wrong, but that rationality is present in many religions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC