Religous views

[mahawirasd]

humans are actually inherently unable to really know anything.

^ Makes no sense without a definition of knowledge.


I recommend this to everyone ----> http://www.amazon.fr/LExistentialisme-es...2070329135

thank you for the reference, but please let me elaborate;

humans too often forget that what they consider "knowledge" is most of the time based on empirical reasoning. Empiricism takes for granted the certainty of our ability to perceive our surrounding. Thus too often we forget that the validity of our senses are an assumption...
even "reason" for that matter may be debatable as this world may well just be so unreasonable that all the things we have attributed to "reason" is based on false assumptions...

we are unable to access an external point of reference to verify our existence, thus we are inherently unable to actually really know anything past present and future (without assuming things a priori)...


-w-

[Général_Argos]

I agree, yea.??The best thinker on this root is Ren? Descartes in Discours de la m?thode.??Very good but is a shame that he defended existence of god :/

Link in english:??http:////records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/descar...artes1.htm

[Sepharius]

I agree, yea.??The best thinker on this root is Ren? Descartes in Discours de la m?thode.??Very good but is a shame that he defended existence of god :/

Unlike today, religion was a pretty central part of society during those times, so it is rather to be expected that he would defend God (that and the fact that the Vatican/Church actually had military power, or something similar).

All this talk about perceiving our surroundings makes me think of objectivism.

Sorry if my post has no relevance to the topic. >.<

[mahawirasd]

I agree, yea. The best thinker on this root is Ren? Descartes in Discours de la m?thode. Very good but is a shame that he defended existence of god :/

Link in english: http:////records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/descar...artes1.htm

i am aware of his stance. However, i wouldn't go saying that he defended god. However, I would agree that, sadly, he too succumbed to the reasoning and responsibility-evading mentality of the masses. He didn't go so far as "defending" god, what he actually did is similar to what any religious leader would do: to use god as a divine justification to support his claims.
For his all-too-popular claim to be true, he used an assumption rarely recognized/discussed -> which is that things which "think" must "exist". How can he be so bold as to make that assumption?
He simply classified animals and other beings as "automatons", existing like robots. With what data can he support that claim? Can anyone really verify that animals do not actually think? I would think that as we study then more and more we will find that they also conduct thought processes...
personally i would choose the humbler approach; that humans just happen to be a bit "lucky" in the sense that we developed more flexible limbs and appendages as well as muscle tissues...

Descartes had good intentions, however it seems he could not bear the possibility of humans existing totally alone, adrift in an endless sea where they can't see the bottom or find an anchor...

why?
again, i would say (as Nietzsche had put it): human, all too human...
humans fear responsibility, they would gladly forgo parts of their freedom just so that they won't have to think and actually take responsibility for their actions...


-w-

[Général_Argos]

It was written in 1637, I think we can all disregard what he has written about animals and automatons lol.

-------------

And he do try to prove existence of god (Paragraph starting with "After that I wanted to look for other truths,") "and that, as a result, it is at just as certain that God, this perfect being, is or exists".

------------

Thankfully, Sartre gave a good solution about responsability and to "morality" issues when discarting god and religions.

[Monkey Feet]

*Looks at thread*

*Backs off*

I'm not sure what y'alls talkin about *Is too lazy to read the link* but yea, people like to believe in different things to make themselves feel safer, such as Christians (which I am) : God, Muslims : Alah, drug addicts : drugs.

[danny-kins]

I don't see why one side or the other has to be correct... I'd like to believe that both scientific/religious sides have real and valid points that can use each other to build off of.

Certainly the bible can't be taken literally, but perhaps, as an example, God created the earth/etc -> Big Bang...? Or perhaps I'm just skipping over a lot of details so it makes sense to me...

(I say this, but I'm sure the next post will have me eat my words somehow... )

[rams365]

EAT YOUR WORDS

[Herman]

Oh joy, this thread is actually interesting.. I'm at work at the moment, but I'm sure I can throw in a few cents (majoring in Theology and minoring in Religion [amung other things] while in college) when I get home/feel like it. =p

[Lance]

A problem with "religion" is that every person has the ability to make their own decisions. Most "religions" are ridiculous in their origin and in their "worship". Many of them have also been proven wrong or their own doctrine contridicts itself and yet many people stubbornly cling to their beliefs. If you don't believe in a God or gods, then you fall into this same category just on the opposite side of the spectrum. Since most of the religions in the world today were spawned from another religion, or were started by a human being, one just as prone to make mistakes like the rest of us. Since no one truly Knows for a fact what the origin of life is, the only thing we can do is study the fields that have yet to be proven wrong. The most popular one's being intelligent design and evolution. However, the fact of the matter is the majority of the scientific community viciously oppose the idea of life being created by an intelligent designer, or believe if we were created by intelligent life, then our creator(s) had to have come about by evolution. What should be happening is scientists should be allowed to study ALL posible choices before that try and make "informed" decisions one way or the other.