Religion and faith can bring one greater understanding of oneself, your place in the universe, and can be mind expanding - much like philosophy. It brings about questions and seeks answers. Those answers are those of our ancestors, which have served them well over the centuries, and has a track record as being a successful way to live one’s life.
So even in a non-religious way religion is a good thing.
I agree that having a greater understanding and seeking answers are good things. Religion doesn’t always do that, and in my biased opinion, generally suggests or mandates answers rather than encouraging open and critical dialogue.
I wouldn’t point to the historical role of religion as a good thing, either. At least, not without serious qualifications and exceptions. And I don’t think a strong argument can be made for the temporal invariance of religious answers.
What you describe sounds great in terms of an individual personal search. For my money, the problem comes in, as it often does, when organizations are involved.
Well, it would be nice if it was a place where people from all parts of the spectrum could just speak up, without taking offence, without storming off in a huff. It would also be nice if people could voice their disagreement without it being assumed that they’d taken offence.
Hentor the Barbarian religion can be blindly followed or not, it really is up to the person and can be used either way.
As for the historical role, groups of people who followed religions and procedures that did not work died out, religious practices and procedures from people who survived and prospered is a good indication that they have something right. Sort of like a ‘way to live’ natural selection, sometimes called a mime if I understand that term.
If I’ve misunderstood anyone’s statement about this discussion being personally insulting, I do apologize.
It might be that I’ve misunderstood yours - I took your post #18 to be generally addressing the respondents to the OP, rather than specifically addressing Lib
Too bad for you that’s not the entirety of their claim. They claim that not only do the species become the flesh and blood of the Savior, but that it cannot be scientifically proven to do so. It is a matter of belief. As such, it has its uses as humans apparently like to believe things.
First and foremost, why do you insist on drawing a distinction between persons’ religious faith and all other subjective non-rational attitudes? (Notice that I am not talking about the question of whether God objectively really exists and if so in what form or with what characteristics; that question is directly focused on the subjective choice of the individual.)
Second, you’re entirely right. A commission consisting of Pope Benedict, ME Buckner (atheist), Monty (Mormon), zev steinhart (Orthodox Jew), matt_mcl (pagan), and myself (Anglican) would unanimously reach the same conclusions: The characteristics apprehensible to human senses or to any scientific test demonstrate the continuance of the accidentes of bread and wine. There is nothing we can do in terms of running tests that would demonstrate anything but. Precisely as Aquinas and the Council of Trent both specified.
As to the underlying substance in Aquinian metaphysics, we’d come to the same conclusion: “Catholics and some other Christians believe that its inherent nature has been transformed into a means whereby God in a unique way enters into the believer to strengthen him and join him into the divine community.”
At Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there were people caught in the bomb blasts who were literally vaporized. No corpse, no ashes – their material selves were transformed into plasma and dispersed as colloidal fallout. Did they suddenly become un-persons, ones which had not existed? There’s no longer evidence for the existence of some of them. No proof they were there.
However, the whole issue of metaphysical explanations of sacrament and “theological anthropology” (you will be sorry you asked! ;)) seem to do very little towards proving the “pro” side of the question inherent in your thread title. What’s being thrown away? Why? Is this beneficial (as in disposing properly of hazardous waste) or malific (as in vandalism)? Why is religion equated with a place, and a waste transfer site to boot?
Sure, leave out the Assembly of God/Hopeful Universalist guy… sniff
Is the scientific method the only valid means by which beliefs should be acquired?
If they are beliefs about objective phenomenon. Subjectve phenomenon can be justified in other ways.
Why do you have to look at their existence only from the post-bomb time. If they actually existed before the bomb, then they existed. there would be plenty of evidence at the time. Further, there may still be evidence today. Birth records, school records, people who remeber them. IS that as good of evidence as was available when they were actually alive? No, but it is not as if there is no evidence. And even if there is no evidence of specific people there will be evidence of people in general of lived there.
Crtical evaluation of beliefs to see if they are justified because religious beliefs that make claims about reality are tested.
Okay. So you’re saying “The scientific method is the only valid means by which beliefs on objective phenomena should be acquired.” Correct?
Is that objectively true? If so, which scientific studies have demonstrated this belief to be true?
If it is, what are the tax implications?
You have the most blase opinion about being at Ground Zero of an atomic blast of anybody this side of Jake Stonebender. Odds are all those records and anyone who knew them were vaporised along with them.
But I thought hearsay evidence of experiences of those in the past was unacceptable.
Hey, I make critical judgments about my own beliefs; that’s how I’ve arrived at the set I have. And you have no right to judge the validity of my beliefs. Any more than I do yours.
Do you believe that ALL of your beliefs about objective phenomenon were arrived at through the scientific method?
For smart people, I have no clue why they chose religion.
For dumb people, they are influenced by someone.
For those in the middle, I think it can be a refuge from facts, which they always seem to be on the wrong side of. When C students can only recall half of a science class, they are cheered by news reports of past theories that have been revised by new data. Instead of concluding that new inquiry brings new knowledge, they conclude that all past and present knowledge is unsupported.
The devil made me do it.