ZaraDurden said:
[/font]
Reason is the faculty by which we acquire knowledge. How else can we gather knowledge but through our senses? Rational demonstration is the process by which we verify our knowledge claims. Just because history may have practiced other philosophies lends nothing to the validity of those philosophies.
The traditional philosphical view of reason was not as limiting as the one that people adhere to today. It is evident to me at least that humans relate to the world in a variety of qualitatively different ways. Reality is revealed to us not just through our cognition, but through our emotions, or feelings, through our appreciation, or sense of taste, though what we strive for, and through our actions. Reason traditionally meant more than merely to attain scientific knowledge, and just because a feeling, for example, is outside of the realm of the scientific, does not mean that it cannot be rational.
To the extent that any culture excludes truth exclusively to the realm of empirical science, the consequences are appalling. The result will be a society with impressive technical capability, and a complete lack of conviction that anything is really worthwhile striving for.
ZaraDurden said:
[/font]
The question I would like answered is why then and not now? Doesn't seem to fair to me when an eternity of torment may be on the line... Or a million other punishments. Or are we supposed to live a way because our ancestors did? (see my signiture)
God's plan is that all will be saved. My focus will always be on the reality of my life, rather than upon the mystery of an afterlife. In terms of what has changed, I would suggest that it is the very success of science that has led to believe that only science holds the answers, and we relate to our world only through our five empirical senses. Because I cannot express the concept of "God" scientifically, must I therefore be embarrassed to express the related values that are the basis for my existence as a human being. Values, and a sense of self-worth transcend science and empiricism.
ZaraDurden said:
Good thing for Aquinas, seeing that his "proofs" don't hold up under scrutiny.
Good thing, indeed! Of course, strictly speaking it is not possible to prove anything, as the futile discussions between realists and phenomenenalists on this question demonstrate. Reality must manifests itself to us.
ZaraDurden said:
Maybe it does for the christian, but I feel that my life has value, that good exists, and that my life has purpose without a belief in god.
Exactly! You
feel your life has value, and you
know that your life has purpose.
These are nevertheless rational beliefs
and they fall outside the realm of empirical discussion. And yet that are absolutely essential to our existence as sentient human beings. Likewise, 'good' exists for you because you understand that you are a moral human being, capable of moral choice. You hence must be more than just the sum of empirical physiological biochemical processes.
Empirical reasoning is important. But it is not all there is to being a rational being.
Just because one cannot believe in that God with a white beard who punishes bad people by sending them down to be tormented by a red devil with a pitchfork does not mean that there is no grounds for a belief in God. To speak of God is to speak of He who is the foundation of our worth and our value, and who we may experience even today.
In terms of whether we should we do things just because our ancestors did, my response would be an emphatic no. However, it also does not make sense to me to be forever recreating the same wheel. Those who have listened to Nieztsches rhetorical question " What, 2000 years and no new gods?!!" apparently have found it exceedingly difficult to build a better society based on a totally new set of values. My own basic conservative nature recognizes the utility of building a society based on the "wisdom of the ages " as expressed by those that went before.