Posted: Jul 03, 2010 10:53 am
archibald wrote:
But I've heard religious people trivialise the swop for various, often elaborate reasons, but I've yet to hear anything which makes any actual sense.
Here's another critique of pure reason for you:
NineOneFour wrote:
It's like those stupid studies that show Christians are more happy. Really? In a country that's 70% Christian with zero expectation of discrimination? Who'd have thunk that?
Most of these philosophical ruminations can be traced back to something empirical. The rest are wibbling.
It brings to mind the old aphorism that the secret to great art is hiding your sources. The whole business about Kant is a misdirection of that kind, trying to get you to run off on a wild goose chase. Most people who follow up on that too seriously appear to me to be barking mad. Dinesh d'Souza strikes me as one of these. Very well-spoken chap, though.
Will S wrote:
As I was trying to argue in the OP, it's perfectly reasonable to harp on about the weakness of the human intellect, and the limitations of human understanding.
But, if you do that, then you must be content just to DO it! There's no way in which you can follow up by plonking down a 'Therefore ...' and lead on to some new revelation or insight.
I confess that I've never read any book of Wittgenstein's from beginning to end, but isn't that what he's saying in his famous dictum: 'What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence'? (If so, it strikes me are being pretty obvious - once you set wishful thinking aside, that is.)
What I always return to in this context is that the vast majority of believers are not online trying to recapitulate their faith rationally. They're either comfily liberal and private or trying to institute a theocracy via the ballot box. The ones who are here doing all the barking are obviously disturbed by the rational challenges to faith. They look to drive everyone else barking mad because they love congregation, and now their misery needs company.