People of faith, religion, or reason (from Askers’ view) have this failing of sorts to argue from their present stand point.
They are more likely than not be unable to associate with their secular reasoning to form a convincing platform with which to lay their beliefs on upon conversion to the former, or religious and faithful in the latter secular aspect.
Having converted to their choice belief, why do they have difficulty in explaining their beliefs from the viewpoints once held so dearly (on assumption having experienced both) ?
As illustration:
One claims the spiritual effects is physically evident which probably cannot be verified by empirical means or is dismissed as coincidental.
The other demonstrates empirical evidence for which spiritually cannot be proven.
Kindly refrain, if you please, ad hominem attacks of all parties participating. Thank you.
2007-01-24 23:43:30 · 7 answers · asked by pax veritas 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
ADHOC (Queries posed in partial rhetorical way without implying personal bias.)
Andre.. ::
Do we have to loose one set of beliefs to adhere to another ?
Why are advocates of one belief system unable to explain the other belief system although they have been through it at some stage of their existence ?
2007-01-25 00:15:39 · update #1
eifio :: A nice way to say two points.
2007-01-25 00:44:01 · update #2
COMMENT
Indeed. Pascal’s wager raised by Bukak..:
“It makes more sense to believe in God than to not believe. If you believe, and God exists, you will be rewarded in the afterlife. If you do not believe, and He exists, you will be punished for your disbelief. If He does not exist, you have lost nothing either way.”
Rephrased:
“It is better to live your life as if there are no Gods, and try to make the world a better place for your being in it. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, He will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in Him.”
However, it does not answer the question.
2007-01-26 06:30:43 · update #3
Pete J.. :: The conundrum on both methods:
World view based on experiences is precisely a finite problem of simple deduction failing to encounter the next nth number of experiences to alter opinion.
Perception likewise does not surpass the spiritual in seeking empirical evidence until someone comes out with some sort of detection apparatus equivalent.
2007-01-26 06:35:26 · update #4
You assume that on conversion an individual is moving from one sense of reasoned understanding to another.
Some potential problems.
There may not have been a conversion (reasoned or otherwise) just an upbringing in one particular dogma
The conversion may have been from one blindly accepted "truth" to another. Just accepting the language (code) of the "truth" without understanding the substance. This applies equally to a religious "truth" or a secular/scientific "truth".
You term reason as seperate from both faith and religion (ignoring that it is also seperate from some generally accepted thoughts that are currently termed scientific etc).
Reason is important in all these areas (faith, religion or secular) and all should be able to stand up to reasonable debate
However is it reasonable to believe God exists? Yes I think we can say it is reasonable and debate the matter. There is no proof though. Not all can things can be measured. Is reason science?
On the other hand there are some pretty kooky beliefs just ask the flying spaghetti god.
2007-01-25 01:49:31 · answer #1 · answered by phil_the_sane 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's because of the old religions that one held at one point become dismissed as inaccurate due to the teachings of the new religion, of which would cause a coherent explination to be lost when trying to mix with the beliefs of the new. They supposedly find loopholes in the previous religion, existent or not, and become unsure about how to word the explination so as not to eclipse their current religion...I found it very difficult to understand all that speach, you have good wording.
2007-01-24 23:50:09 · answer #2 · answered by Ghost Wolf 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
An interesting question indeed, but not one that you're likely to obtain a definitive answer to.
It all boils down to subjective views of objective reality. Who can detach themselves from their inherent subjectivity to observe what really is?
In the end, maybe the best we do is form a world view based on our experiences, whilst always remaining open and remoulding that view in the light of further experience.
2007-01-25 02:05:42 · answer #3 · answered by Pete J 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is completely dependent upon the score at 16:50 on a Saturday afternoon.
2007-01-24 23:51:51 · answer #4 · answered by Del Piero 10 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Can you hold two viewpoints at once? People are driven by their desires, and ultimately choose to allow their greatest desires to dictate their beliefs. It's hard for them to identify with previous pressing desires in the same way that it is hard to feel hungry when you are full and thirsty.
2007-01-24 23:55:13 · answer #5 · answered by Garius 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Sorry, I've no idea what you're on about.
2007-01-25 00:37:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
have you considered pachals wager
2007-01-24 23:49:33 · answer #7 · answered by bukakke 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋