How do you know if RE is not just insanity? I don't mean to demean anyone but it seems that it might just be a mild form of schizophrenia brought on by religion.
the tell tale sign of this might be that the non-religious don't experience RE in the same sense.
@Hexdoll You don't really know, it could be just a perspectival difference or perhaps it is those who don't experience RE that are insane, especially if they come from a society where RE is the norm.
true enough, as sanity is subjective,but i don't think the bandwagon argument holds as truth is not a democracy or is sanity measured by one social norm.
@Hexdoll I would agree with you about "TRUTH", I would say it's absolute, sanity on the other hand is definately measured as a social norm. If the question is whether or not Religious Experiences are TRUE, and one of the reasons to not believe they are true is because the non-religious do not experience them, then let me address that question in three different ways. Having a Religious Experience and that experience being valid or "true" are two different things. (to be continued)
@Hexdoll (continued) Religious Experiences usually take place within the context of a particular Religous community. There are certain rules, guidelines, and restrictions within each Religious community. When a member of that community claims to have a Religious expericenc, especially one that is revelatory (contains revealed truth) it must be crossexamined and verified within the traditions, experiences and previous revelations of that particular community. (to be continued)
@Hexdoll (continued) If the Religious Experience is radically different, it's validity will be questioned by the community and often even by the experiencer, then a choice has to be made, either to conform to the consensus of the community or to follow your own Religious experience, this is how new relgions or cults are often formed. Religious experience however can be much less dramatic, like feeling inspired by the sunset, or closer to God when you see a baby smile. (to be continued)
@Hexdoll (conclusion) The last thing I would say is that the non-religous don't have religious experiences is true by definition, because if they ever had a religious experience and couldn't rationalize it away, then they would themselves become believers. Thanks for your comments and I hope my responses helped address at least some of your questions.
I think if something is contingent on religion it cause by such. Now everyone has numinous experiences and the religious call it RE, but beyond that they add what is so obvious self motivated explanations, this is the bit that seems to cross the line of rational thinking. its a kin to thinking you have prophetic knowledge because you experience de ja vue.
@darkwaterhermit , The Divine Command Theory is the view in which acts are morally required and morally prohibited just because God commands these acts to be and not to be performed. Moreover, in this theory, there is no good or bad act by itself; instead there is only what god commands.
That is what I was trying to explain to my Philosophy professor, but he gave me back my paper with most it my writing as marked wrong. I have sent you an inbox, Id appreciate you get back to me.
There are major problems with Divine Command Theory. Firstly Divine Command Theory entails that whatever God says is good. But this makes morality merely arbitrary! Also Divine Command Theory seems incompatible with God's moral perfection. If 'moral goodness' is defined as whatever God commands, then to assert that God is morally perfect is just to say that God acts in accordance with what God commands. Therefore it reduces to the trivial claim that "God wills what God wills"...
Your examples of religious experience & the interpretation of the Physical reality around you are ALL subjective. If Divne Command Theory is dependent on anyway of these things, then Divine Command Theory is unworkable.
You seem to imply that the religious experience is subjective, "...you think?...(chuckles)..."
I would agree that DCT is subjective, which is interesting sense it's supposed to be an absolute moral standard. It very well may be an Absolute Moral Standard, but as soon as it is communicated to humans, i.e. subjective individuals, it takes on a rather subjective nature. It's amazing how many people are willing to tell you God's will for your life. I explore this subjective aspect of Ethics in greater detail in my existential ethics vids.
I do not want to be a slave to someone that doesn't exists. I think you have been drinking that "dark water" to long.
ccoodd11 4 months ago
@ccoodd11 Its a three part series, you may want to check out the other two parts and see if you have the same feeling.
darkwaterhermit 4 months ago
Not gonna lie, you look exactly like Obi-Wan in Star Wars when he came out to save Luke from the sandpeople.
hotelmario 1 year ago 3
@hotelmario thats because I am Obi-Wan
darkwaterhermit 1 year ago 5
How do you know if RE is not just insanity? I don't mean to demean anyone but it seems that it might just be a mild form of schizophrenia brought on by religion.
the tell tale sign of this might be that the non-religious don't experience RE in the same sense.
Hexdoll 1 year ago
@Hexdoll You don't really know, it could be just a perspectival difference or perhaps it is those who don't experience RE that are insane, especially if they come from a society where RE is the norm.
darkwaterhermit 1 year ago
@darkwaterhermit
true enough, as sanity is subjective,but i don't think the bandwagon argument holds as truth is not a democracy or is sanity measured by one social norm.
Hexdoll 1 year ago
@Hexdoll I would agree with you about "TRUTH", I would say it's absolute, sanity on the other hand is definately measured as a social norm. If the question is whether or not Religious Experiences are TRUE, and one of the reasons to not believe they are true is because the non-religious do not experience them, then let me address that question in three different ways. Having a Religious Experience and that experience being valid or "true" are two different things. (to be continued)
darkwaterhermit 1 year ago
@Hexdoll (continued) Religious Experiences usually take place within the context of a particular Religous community. There are certain rules, guidelines, and restrictions within each Religious community. When a member of that community claims to have a Religious expericenc, especially one that is revelatory (contains revealed truth) it must be crossexamined and verified within the traditions, experiences and previous revelations of that particular community. (to be continued)
darkwaterhermit 1 year ago
@Hexdoll (continued) If the Religious Experience is radically different, it's validity will be questioned by the community and often even by the experiencer, then a choice has to be made, either to conform to the consensus of the community or to follow your own Religious experience, this is how new relgions or cults are often formed. Religious experience however can be much less dramatic, like feeling inspired by the sunset, or closer to God when you see a baby smile. (to be continued)
darkwaterhermit 1 year ago
@Hexdoll (conclusion) The last thing I would say is that the non-religous don't have religious experiences is true by definition, because if they ever had a religious experience and couldn't rationalize it away, then they would themselves become believers. Thanks for your comments and I hope my responses helped address at least some of your questions.
darkwaterhermit 1 year ago
@darkwaterhermit
yes it was very coherent explanation, thanks.
I think if something is contingent on religion it cause by such. Now everyone has numinous experiences and the religious call it RE, but beyond that they add what is so obvious self motivated explanations, this is the bit that seems to cross the line of rational thinking. its a kin to thinking you have prophetic knowledge because you experience de ja vue.
Hexdoll 1 year ago
@darkwaterhermit , The Divine Command Theory is the view in which acts are morally required and morally prohibited just because God commands these acts to be and not to be performed. Moreover, in this theory, there is no good or bad act by itself; instead there is only what god commands.
alizin2008 3 months ago
@alizin2008 yes, the only good or bad act in and of itself would be obedience or disobedience to God
darkwaterhermit 3 months ago
@darkwaterhermit , EXACTLY.
That is what I was trying to explain to my Philosophy professor, but he gave me back my paper with most it my writing as marked wrong. I have sent you an inbox, Id appreciate you get back to me.
alizin2008 3 months ago
There are major problems with Divine Command Theory. Firstly Divine Command Theory entails that whatever God says is good. But this makes morality merely arbitrary! Also Divine Command Theory seems incompatible with God's moral perfection. If 'moral goodness' is defined as whatever God commands, then to assert that God is morally perfect is just to say that God acts in accordance with what God commands. Therefore it reduces to the trivial claim that "God wills what God wills"...
soultorment27 1 year ago
@soultorment27 Great comments, you basically boiled down into one paragraph what it took me three videos to get accross
darkwaterhermit 1 year ago
Your examples of religious experience & the interpretation of the Physical reality around you are ALL subjective. If Divne Command Theory is dependent on anyway of these things, then Divine Command Theory is unworkable.
You seem to imply that the religious experience is subjective, "...you think?...(chuckles)..."
kommissarw 1 year ago
@kommissarw
I would agree that DCT is subjective, which is interesting sense it's supposed to be an absolute moral standard. It very well may be an Absolute Moral Standard, but as soon as it is communicated to humans, i.e. subjective individuals, it takes on a rather subjective nature. It's amazing how many people are willing to tell you God's will for your life. I explore this subjective aspect of Ethics in greater detail in my existential ethics vids.
darkwaterhermit 1 year ago