RE: Two studies of Atheism and Theism.
April 5, 2013 at 9:01 am
(This post was last modified: April 5, 2013 at 9:03 am by Mystic.)
I tend to agree with what all you said...what I meant with morality however was not in the details of it, but the over all belief in it. But you do bring a relevant point that analytically, we can better distinguish what moral beliefs are wrong (produce harm when we think produce good), yet at the same time, without intuition, morality would fall, and a lot of details of it, are not relied upon analytically by humanity. So analysing would better morality, yet without intuition, we couldn't condemn anyone for any wrong actions no matter what degree.
What I saying with regards to morality was mainly the point - if there was a God, perhaps we have a spiritual path of ascension towards him, perhaps not, but if our intuition suggests we do, what is wrong with living according to that? It doesn't harm anyone or ourselves.
Analytically, "what soul" "what path" "what stages for ascension" etc...and it's all terribly confusing.
At the same time, because most religions are false to the say the least, and it seems only one can be correct (although this is not conclusive), obviously relying on intuition alone by Theists has not lead them over all to the truth even if leads some of them towards it.
So analysis is needed. What I'm suggesting, if we grant the possibility that Theism has a basis (ie. God is knowable through direct experience/can be known through intuition)...would that suggest a balance of intuition and analytical reasoning is what is required to find the middle path, not fanatical Wahabism for example or complete total moral and existential nihilism for example on the other hand?
(As I said in the beginning, there of course can be significant exceptions to the rule)
What I saying with regards to morality was mainly the point - if there was a God, perhaps we have a spiritual path of ascension towards him, perhaps not, but if our intuition suggests we do, what is wrong with living according to that? It doesn't harm anyone or ourselves.
Analytically, "what soul" "what path" "what stages for ascension" etc...and it's all terribly confusing.
At the same time, because most religions are false to the say the least, and it seems only one can be correct (although this is not conclusive), obviously relying on intuition alone by Theists has not lead them over all to the truth even if leads some of them towards it.
So analysis is needed. What I'm suggesting, if we grant the possibility that Theism has a basis (ie. God is knowable through direct experience/can be known through intuition)...would that suggest a balance of intuition and analytical reasoning is what is required to find the middle path, not fanatical Wahabism for example or complete total moral and existential nihilism for example on the other hand?
(As I said in the beginning, there of course can be significant exceptions to the rule)
