Of all known religious beliefs which one seems most reasonable?

by The Berean 76 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    metatron,

    good points, but it's no wonder that the Western, post-Christian definition of reason seems to fit the intellectual paradigm of Christianity better than any other; moreover, the kind of Christianity that was the background for Enlightenment is that which had developed through the (re-)discovery of a long-forgotten part of Greek philosophical tradition (physical and metaphysical, i.e. Aristotle), through the mediation of Jewish and Muslim scholars in the late middle-ages, paving the way for the neo-classicism of the Renaissance. And, otoh, there are many economic and political reasons why other types of approach to knowledge ("ethno-methods") lost their ground to the post-Enlightenment Western understanding of reason as the only "modern" paradigm. Iow, what we term reason is the product of a historical, contingent and arbitrary process throughout... And while this process does seem to conquer the whole world in globalisation ("globalatinisation" as Derrida puts it, in French mondialatinisation) the Western counter-trends are no less real: philosophical "post-modernism" of course, but religious fundamentalism, "New Age" and many other things too, are not simply "vestiges of a doomed past"; they are as much a part of the "21th century" as the Internet and quantum physics... and symptoms of the limits of Western type of "reason," the narrow definition of which has contributed to the expansion and appeal of the unreasonable, or "irrational".

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut

    Religion, all religion, is a snare and a racket.

    If you find good, it is not due to the religious aspect of a religion. It is good in the people.
    Religion by itself is a money-making racket. Many times, people within a religion manage to be charitable and generous and kind.

  • metatron
    metatron

    Great post, Narkissos.

    I think we need to understand that, relative to this JW board, we as humans aren't as rational as we think. We all got here because we wholeheartedly believed in a religion that now appears to be idiotic. Somehow it all seemed to make sense at the time.

    but maybe we need to step back and realize that Jehovah's Witnesses are not a separate species of human relative to us. Deeply deceived and stubbornly so, but there's mountains of deception for everyone to wallow in.

    Examples: I avoided formal engineering because the math was over the top difficult. However, some young men managed to become engineers, with all that entails, because they were inspired by the image of Scotty on StarTrek! This was discovered in one or more surveys of the geeks who graduated. Do we need myths to inspire us? Yes!

    Did the habit of intense study of the Talmud lead directly to intense academic study by Jews in other fields? Some Jewish scholars think so.

    How many highly educated people wholeheartedly believed in the myth of Communism? How many people currently object to Obama's desperate measures to shore up the economy because they believe in the myth of free markets? ( What happens to a garden if you apply 'free market', non-inteventionist principles? Bugs and weeds take over)

    We need myths. With Christianity, we've had the "right" ones to get us going on the path to progress. The Chinese got gunpowder and paper money ahead of Europe but then stagnated for centuries. Islam peaked out and then got straight-jacked by sterile orthodoxy. Hindus see billions of years of cycles and it's all eternal and a futile struggle.

    I could go further but you'll really think I'm nuts if I suggest that Christianity was started by an external intelligence that understands how to intervene in a culture successfully as opposed to what the US did in Iraq.

    metatron

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    gubberningbuddy,

    I think you make a very interesting point too as to the relationship of religion and morals. They are both historical (not "timeless"), influence each other but never fully identify with each other. Which leaves room for "conscientious objection" to religion on the one hand, and to an excess of religion over morality on the other hand.

    As to the former, Job is perhaps an even better example than Abraham; God's justice can be questioned precisely because it is not tautologically identified with God's will or action, as if whatever God did was just by definition (as in tyranny). In a sense God is not above justice. But in another sense he is (whence the possibility of grace). You could find similar examples in Greek tragedy (or even earlier in Mesopotamian texts): the hero is subject to the will of the gods but he can complain: might doesn't make right.

    A rather interesting example of the interaction between theology and ethics is the evolution of the notion of retribution in the Bible. Deuteronomy illustrates a state of affairs where the principle of collective retribution (punishing the sons for the sins of the fathers) is no longer acceptable in judicial proceedings (24:16), but this ethical standard does not yet apply to Yhwh (5:9f)! However in Ezekiel 18 it does...

    Iow we can play morals against the gods and the gods against morals, as long as they are neither completely unrelated nor completely identified with each other; as long as difference subsists.

  • quietlyleaving
    quietlyleaving

    religion needn't be bureaucratic and always explicable. I wonder if by tying religious beliefs to reason we tend to make it so. But on the other hand we need forms of bureaucracy for some structure and for navigation but I guess its important not to get carried away with making religion highly intelligible.

  • Perry
    Perry
    Which is more reasonable to believe: The time/space/material universe came from nothing. Or, God will judge sinners. These are the two ultimate religious paradigms that every thinking person must answer IMO.
    Perry, those are not the only two options. There are quite a number of others.

    Gubberningbuddy,

    I never claimed those were the only two, just the most important. Either the universe came from nothing, or a Being outside time/space created everything. The question is whether or not this Being will judge sin.

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips

    We are, generally speaking, all rational, based on the premises we choose.

    BTS

  • Narkissos
  • Perry
    Perry
    There we see Abraham asking Jehovah "Is the God of all the earth NOT going to do what is RIGHT?" In his question, Abraham lays claim to his right to make moral judgments even of the creator. In this he was not condemned in the narrative, and later in the book of James he's referred to as "God's friend". Abraham did not defer his judgment to a "higher power" as many theists do. He took responsibility. This is where I find myself.

    Abraham did not lay hold any kind of claim to some sort of right to make moral judgments of God. Quite the contrary. God sharpened his morality. Abraham simply asked a question about something that didn't seem to add up in his mind...something that only appeared to make God look bad. Lots of people today have the same problem that Abraham had, a faulty premise leading to faulty judgments.

    Abraham assumed that there were righteous people living there and that God shouldn't destroy everyone because of the righteous. God patiently allowed Abraham to work through his argument until it was finally decided that not even ten righteous men could be found there. Abraham's assumptions were wrong. God corrected those.

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips

    Metatron, I really appreciate your comments on this thread.

    BTS

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit