Religion

Argument is unprofitable –worse than that, unintelligible-when opponents do not share some common ground. Between the complete skeptic who denies reasons competence and the philosopher or scientist who appeals to it, no common ground exists. Between the man who obeys the rule not to contradict himself and the man who finds nothing repugnant in answering yes and no to the same question, there can be no argument. There is an issue between them, but the position each takes reduces the other to silence.

Lack of a common measure for judging opposed view tends to render them incommunicable to one another. For men to be in this plight is the exception in science and philosophy, but it seems to be the typical situation where the basic issues of religion are concerned. Of all subjects the most controversial, religious issues seem to be the least capable of being settled by controversy. No divisions among men-certainly no those which separate philosophers or scientist-are as unbridgeable as the chasm between the faithful and those they call infidels, between Jew and gentile, or Christian and pagan. Faith and lack of faith, or the diversity of faiths, seem to render certain questions as imponderable as they are weighty.

On the definition of religion itself, the deepest issue lies between those who conceive it as having a supernatural foundation in God’s revelation and authority, and those who think of religion as having a purely natural origin in certain human tendencies, which make it no different from philosophy and science as an element of culture. But religion can be supernatural only for those whose faith declares it to be so. Those who deny that it is supernatural may offer many reasons for thinking so, and try in many ways to explain away faith. What they have come to is that it is an illusion to suppose faith is God gift rather than mans own will to believe. To the man of faith this only means that his critic lacks the gift of faith or even the wish to have it.

Many consequences follow from this unarguable difference concerning the meaning of religion. Religion to the man of faith usually means much more than the acceptance of a creed. It means acts of piety and worship, recourse to prayer, the partaking of sacraments, the observance of certain rituals, the performance of sacrifices and purifications. It means rendering to God what is His due, obeying his commandments, beseeching and gaining the help of His grace, whereby to lead a life which shall seem worthy to Him. When religion is conceived as nothing more than a set of beliefs, which men have adopted, it is restricted to one part of life. It may or may nt involve action as well as thought, but it is not the fabric of a whole life. It does not qualify every other part of it. It does not demand that inner devotion and external conduct constitute the practice of a man’s belief if he is to avoid hypocrisy.

Nice essay, though I disagree with your characterization of “God,” but what are we supposed to be debating?

./sick and tired of talking about religion

Therefore…

Thank you. :rolleyes:

So what you are saying is that a productive argument can only occur when there is/are initial premise(s) accepted by both parties?

For the sake of argument (any argument): Nothing reduces a Doper to silence.