Just like a religious believer who states “god loves us” but can’t explain the contradiction of evil in the world, believers qualify their statements by explaining god’s love is not like humans love he calls this “death by a thousand qualifications”. Therefore religious language is meaningless. However religion has responded to the falsification principle. R.B Braithwaite argued that the falsification principle explains religious language as cognitive when it if in fact non cognitive and therefore cannot be falsified, religious language is therefore still meaningful. Hare also responds to the falsification principle, showing that religious statements are meaningful even though they cannot be falsified because they have a significant impact for the people using the statement.
Daniel Greenblatt PHIL 1600 Evaluation of The Argument From Religious Experience By first analyzing C.B Broad’s “Argument from Religious Experience, then anaylzing how he explains the arguement, this essay will conclude that religious experiences are indeed not veridical. First and foremost it is important to note that Broad does not say that claims pertaining to the natural world from religious experience should be taken as veridical. While he does not explicitly say so, he does not consider the argument from religious experience as a confirmation of God’s existence. Broad concentrates on the credibility of the experience and any claims related to it. He states that it is logical to agree that when there is a core agreement in the religious experiences of people in different places, times, and ways of life, and when they have the same rational explanations of the experiences, it makes sense to conclude that they are all in contact with some objective aspect of reality, unless there is evidence to believe otherwise.
This presents an issue with the moral and rational reasoning behind the deeds. It’s understood that the act is warranted by the divine and therefore the ethical is no longer in effect. The next term to define is the one that most of us would be familiar with and can relate to. If you’re a religious individual or have some faith in the ultimate, you might consider yourself labeled under this category. As previously stated, in order to be a KoF, you must be willing to nullify the ethical standards you are most accustomed to in order to comply to the declaration of God or any other divine or spiritual medium.
For example, on Damascus Road, Saint Paul’s religious experience transformed his moral outlook. It would appear that all religious experiences demonstrate a revelation of truth, but one could argue that this does not indicate they are true. As Freud would argue that religious experiences are a way of externalising deep, repressed personal truths. In such a view, religious experiences are unverifiable and cannot be thought to prove the existence of God, as they are merely manifestations of the human subconsciousness. A transient experience short, and cannot be sustained for a long duration of time.
For this instance, this is not the case, society must constantly correct immoral actions performed by certain individuals. These individuals originate from diverse backgrounds and religions, and where as there is no specific religion that can be solely liable. Therefore, it becomes necessary to determine how violence and religion can simultaneously exist because the nature of these two elements seems to be contradictory. To begin with, there are two particular explanations in which introduce some historical examples of religion and violence intertwining, and illustrate how those two entities (religion and violence) can coexist. One explanation states that certain individuals feel that violence is relatively harmless, and therefore feel no remorse in performing violent acts.
When different beliefs become encountered with one another they can sometimes cloud the judgment of those responsible for making decisions. It becomes difficult for the individual to concentrate on the real issue at hand when they cannot simply get past the differences of religious beliefs. With the separation between the State and Religion this problem can remain a thing of the past. Also, issues of discrimination in matters of property and voting due to religion have subsided. During the colonial era, individuals of some
In the quote below Rand explains why she rejects religion outright, and she believes man himself deserves the attention: Just as religion has preempted the field of ethics, turning morality against man, so it has usurped the highest moral concepts of our language, placing them outside this earth and beyond man’s reach. “Exaltation” is usually taken to mean an emotional state evoked by contemplating the supernatural. “Worship” means the emotional experience of loyalty and dedication to something higher than man… But such concepts do name actual emotions, even though no supernatural dimension exists; and these emotions are experienced as uplifting or ennobling, without the self-abasement required by religious definitions.
George Washington, for example, is not known to have taken communion, and one bishop who knew him was confident he was not a believer. Jefferson's scissored-down New Testament is well known. In the realm of what Meacham calls "public religion" the founding fathers thus assiduously avoided any sectarian bias. They strongly protected the right of every citizen to freely exercise "private faith," or no faith at all, as each individual conscience saw fit. Such was the paradox between political liberty and religious faith: "Many, if not most, believed; but none
Faith is what truly kills doubt. To have faith is a great thing because it helps us believe in a religion, without it people would not have religions. The foundation for religion is faith, if everything was proven then we would not need religion, but science cannot answer everything. Anyone who is mentally stable and can think for themselves knows that science cannot answer all of life’s questions and it is based on theories that cannot be proven. Bill Maher had the audacity to say “religion is a neurological disorder”.
It understands rejects belief that religions are equal. It is also not an attempt to join different religious traditions, but it aims at respecting diversity of beliefs thus allowing different religions to appreciate the uniqueness of each other. This dialogue should not form a debate forum or encourage evangelization. Fundamental misunderstandings of beliefs are accepted, and no one should attempt to try and prove that one belief system is superior to the other. However, some common grounds may be achieved from these discussions.