Rational Religion
Jan 25, 2024 14:21:24 GMT -8
Post by The Ninevite on Jan 25, 2024 14:21:24 GMT -8
Saying that you're rational about something is different than saying that the thing you thinking itself is relational. It is obvious that religion itself is rational, because it compares good to evil by nature, without that it's not religion. While your religion may be perfectly rational in and of itself, are you rational about it, meaning do you compare it to your other obligation, the state? The United States leaves your religious proactive to you, privately, but the Bible is still in Hebrew. Most republicans compare their state to their religion in terms of "Conservative Republicanism" (just how Anglican are you, what's the comparison?) You could also compare your English language religiosity to the State of Israel.
I would compare the republicans to the Likuds. Democracy is supposed to be the require union substrate of any political state, but laws vary in complexion, and language from place to place.
That religion of itself is not irrational is non-obvious, and I realize that. Religious observation over the course of your life goes a little bit further in thought than scientific observation predicated on the five senses. The simple fact that something exists and that you can describe the whole thing in terms of sense data doesn't mean that it is either good or evil in and of itself. Many modern scholars of both religion and public morals compare the good and evil principle in religion to technology, functioning and out of order, although the use of that is limited. Artillery canons work, but some people are antiwar protesters. Automotive design also works, but when the tires blow, the fan belt ruptures, and the gas tank goes empty all at once, you'll suddenly become an accountant, instead of a preacher.
That rationality is required is clear to most people, but proportionality under the law and the contentious marking of time are also required. The most important reason to put state rather than science in the place of the second ratio when considering a moral proportion is that the state is longer lived than a series of scientific observations, the course of a repeatable experiment, or the amortization lifespan of a technological artifact, including the private dwelling, the automobile, or even a state architectural edifice or an extremely powerful machine such as the Space Shuttle.
Good and Evil are logical identities (the "it is what it is" rule of thumb). A finished theologian will be able to tell you that good comes from God, but evil comes from Satan, nevertheless the scholar has to admit that both God and Satan are invisible. This tends to greatly invalidate proportional comparisons of religious thought with rational science. This leads to incommensurable debates between the two fields of study.
I would compare the republicans to the Likuds. Democracy is supposed to be the require union substrate of any political state, but laws vary in complexion, and language from place to place.
That religion of itself is not irrational is non-obvious, and I realize that. Religious observation over the course of your life goes a little bit further in thought than scientific observation predicated on the five senses. The simple fact that something exists and that you can describe the whole thing in terms of sense data doesn't mean that it is either good or evil in and of itself. Many modern scholars of both religion and public morals compare the good and evil principle in religion to technology, functioning and out of order, although the use of that is limited. Artillery canons work, but some people are antiwar protesters. Automotive design also works, but when the tires blow, the fan belt ruptures, and the gas tank goes empty all at once, you'll suddenly become an accountant, instead of a preacher.
That rationality is required is clear to most people, but proportionality under the law and the contentious marking of time are also required. The most important reason to put state rather than science in the place of the second ratio when considering a moral proportion is that the state is longer lived than a series of scientific observations, the course of a repeatable experiment, or the amortization lifespan of a technological artifact, including the private dwelling, the automobile, or even a state architectural edifice or an extremely powerful machine such as the Space Shuttle.
Good and Evil are logical identities (the "it is what it is" rule of thumb). A finished theologian will be able to tell you that good comes from God, but evil comes from Satan, nevertheless the scholar has to admit that both God and Satan are invisible. This tends to greatly invalidate proportional comparisons of religious thought with rational science. This leads to incommensurable debates between the two fields of study.