I see the problem. Here let me restate the question. What do you think is going to happen to make the world end?
A) The guy from the sky comes down B) Extinction C) Humanity is perfected, we all live forever D) Everyone reaches enlightenment E) Aliens reveal themselves ??? [br][/br]Edited by merge: Yeah. Using blockbusters to form arguments, nbd
everything is absolute fundamentally. but believing is definitely binary. you can't half believe, that would be being unsure and so not believe. agnostics are believers in the possibility of a god, theists in the actuality, and atheists in the impossibility. (interchangeable with probability if you like)
Then how would you explain why most religious practitioners are in a constant struggle of doubt within their faith? I wouldn't argue that there may be some genetic character that makes it impossible to believe,
Kantianism and Utilitarianism can't justify prostitution. Virtue theory isn't exactly universal. Point being: Nobody really goes for absolutism anymore except the religious folk. I think there are morally questionable things that non-religious philosophies can't account for.
Well we don't claim that our theory of everything is complete, in fact it's subject to constant revision.
If you are Christian or Muslim, they are gifted, if Jewish they are granted. If Atheist, they are innate.
Look at the principle of suboptimization. Each person can act for the collective optimal good and ignore their "rational" individual good.. but it could degenerate into the "tragedy of the commons," where there is no collective optimization, just a manifestation of each individual's desires. In the "tragedy of hte commons," the loss of profit for the owner because of reduced grass is smaller than the gain because of an additional animal. Thus, for each individual shepherd, the optimal decision is to increase his herd. What I'm getting at: The whole is larger than the sum of its parts. I think religion, at least Christianity, involves a much more inclusive goal that asks of each individual to treat others with love and compassion, not for the good of oneself, but for the good of God.
the sale of indulgences. the belief in god is to submit, and excludes those who do not share the faith.
like mit romney baptizes his dead atheist father in law? thanks but no thanks. though it wont matter, i'd rather be condemned than theists try to convert my remains to their faith.
I see humanity as being mislead, we naturally want what's best for ourselves and it's hard for us to see a big picture (as I've mentioned above). We're in a world that resonates empirical data, which is used to prove and predict truth. To understand something beyond empirical data involves faith and experience, as proclaimed in the Biblical text. To me, it's okay to accept this because it's logically plausible, and the doctrine kindles it. Plus, I personally see more good than bad in it. 20% of the world holds 50% of the world's wealth. I think it's so difficult for people of wealth to understand religion because we have little to no idea what it's like to experience suffering or to blindly blunder in the darkness of despair. I've been with the richest of the rich, believe me, and the lowest of the low. I don't want to put so much pride in my image, but more so in my experience. I think there's definitely something to blind deference toward a belief beyond pure nature-based capability.