2007-02-02 01:46:43 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
This important to remember when discussing religion or politics > Your genius is directly related to how closely your opinion matches mine! Now, what are you trying to say?
2007-02-02 03:00:56 · answer #1 · answered by BANANA 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The only things that can be proven are facts that can be verified. For example, you can say that there are two major political parties in the United States. You can say that the Pope lives in the Vatican. But you cannot prove that one political party or political idea is better than another any more than you can prove that one religion is right and the rest are wrong.
The closest you can get to deciding about the ideas of politics and dogma of religion is to look at the outcomes of actions taken because of the ideas or dogma. But even then this will only be an interpretation, and not something factual.
2007-02-02 09:53:41 · answer #2 · answered by KCBA 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Quite difficult...
Both these are dependent on perception of each individual which does differ from person to person. Even concurrence is mostly forced upon by the situation, rather than deep understanding. And strangely enough, those with real deep perception in either religion or politics throw surprises of unexpected , unique and isolated 'standpoints' quite courageously, and in a bluntly outspoken manner !
The 'clubbing' of these two issues is itself quite appreciable and at once demonstrates the ability of the asker to maintain a very keen awareness about the collective nature of minds of people at large !
2007-02-02 10:07:16 · answer #3 · answered by Spiritualseeker 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You could probably prove something Political but not Religious. All and all it's a moot point. You can prove something but that doesn't mean the opposing party will be convinced, even if your facts are valid.
2007-02-02 09:58:07 · answer #4 · answered by Sara 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The only thing you can prove is that a given position is logically consistent with a given set of values. For example, you may prove whether your position on the legality of abortion is consistent with respect for human beings, and you may prove whether the federal reserve system is consistent with capitalism or whether it is constitutional. Of course, you'd have to define your values explicitly and empirically - have agreement all around on exactly what all of your terms mean, so that they're virtually facts - or else it's just another exercise in futility. Like, "constitutional" and "human beings" are undefined terms in my example.
2007-02-02 10:07:46 · answer #5 · answered by zilmag 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think a better question is "what is knowledge" and then "How can I know anything." because along with these questions, comes the idea of what evidence is, and what is within my epistemic rights to declare as truth. I think things within there realms of religion and politics can be shown probable through these means.
2007-02-02 11:26:46 · answer #6 · answered by Emmy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who ever is in power at the moment is "right", but in the long run it is time and history that will be the judge of proving everything.
2007-02-02 09:51:37 · answer #7 · answered by D R 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The incorruptible Saints, like St Bernadette.
2007-02-02 10:01:24 · answer #8 · answered by Young Lass 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There used to be a general rule back in the old days.. A gentleman never talked about either of them in public..
Do we need to wonder why?
But to answer your question, No, not as long as people keep talking about either one of them..
2007-02-02 10:05:22 · answer #9 · answered by tiny b 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope, only evidence. I can't even "prove" that the sun will rise tomorrow, just show evidence on it's probability
2007-02-02 10:04:46 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋