In this wondrous land of acronyms, here's one I thought up recently.
PIQUE stands for Philosophically Interesting Questions for You to Examine.
I think it's quite nice.
END
Tuesday 9 November 2010
Philosophy of religion
The cartoon strip "Non Sequitur" in The Straits Times of 6 November 2010 has Danae setting up her own church. She says: "I'm taking the doctrines from all the mainstream religions into one church to end all the fighting over who has the most peaceful religion."
It's a nice thought. Her strategy is that if all the main ideas from the mainstream religions are all incorporated into a single religion, then there will be no more reason for dispute -- since everyone would now agree on everything.
It's a fashionable thing to say these days: that all religions basically teach the same thing. It's nice diplomacy. Is it good philosophy?
I do not see how it is possible to integrate the various doctrines of a single God (eg. in the Judaeo-Christian tradition), multiple gods (eg. in Hinduism) and no god (eg. Buddhism). Or the various doctrines of going to a single place after death, returning to this earth in another life form after death, and passing into oblivion after death. These doctrines are mutually contradictory.
The mind is a voluntary organ. We let into it, or keep out of it, whatever ideas we choose. Those who wish to believe in a God or gods or no-god are free to do so. Those who wish to believe in a great posthumous reward or punishment, or reincarnation, or oblivion are also free to do so. Whether by reason of argument, faith or revelation, they are free to believe whatever they will.
The trouble begins when three additional steps are taken:
1. The religious doctrines I believe in are true.
2. You must also believe in the same doctrines that I believe in.
3. You must behave as my beliefs say you should believe.
Avoid these three additional steps, and Danae's ambition of peaceful religions can be realised.
END
It's a nice thought. Her strategy is that if all the main ideas from the mainstream religions are all incorporated into a single religion, then there will be no more reason for dispute -- since everyone would now agree on everything.
It's a fashionable thing to say these days: that all religions basically teach the same thing. It's nice diplomacy. Is it good philosophy?
I do not see how it is possible to integrate the various doctrines of a single God (eg. in the Judaeo-Christian tradition), multiple gods (eg. in Hinduism) and no god (eg. Buddhism). Or the various doctrines of going to a single place after death, returning to this earth in another life form after death, and passing into oblivion after death. These doctrines are mutually contradictory.
The mind is a voluntary organ. We let into it, or keep out of it, whatever ideas we choose. Those who wish to believe in a God or gods or no-god are free to do so. Those who wish to believe in a great posthumous reward or punishment, or reincarnation, or oblivion are also free to do so. Whether by reason of argument, faith or revelation, they are free to believe whatever they will.
The trouble begins when three additional steps are taken:
1. The religious doctrines I believe in are true.
2. You must also believe in the same doctrines that I believe in.
3. You must behave as my beliefs say you should believe.
Avoid these three additional steps, and Danae's ambition of peaceful religions can be realised.
END
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)