Forms of Religious Thought - Professor Keith Ward

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 31 ธ.ค. 2024

ความคิดเห็น • 25

  • @silvajurin9601
    @silvajurin9601 9 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    I swear the very next time I come to visit London it will be just to see and hear this mans lecture!

    • @truthlivingetc88
      @truthlivingetc88 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      this guy bridges the 20th 21st 22nd centuries - and will be acknowledged as a great explainer once we humans get over his unfashionableness

  • @MealsBeast
    @MealsBeast 9 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    this kind of logic is the future of social evolution if we are to move forward in an empathetic compassionate world

  • @Anna-mc3ll
    @Anna-mc3ll 6 ปีที่แล้ว

    Great! Thank you so much!

  • @HamidSain
    @HamidSain 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    the esoteric extreme and violent minority is being taken as representative of Islam with 1.6b adherents in this Gresham lecture is very unfortunate indeed😞

    • @johnmott8047
      @johnmott8047 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I did not take him to be suggest that Jihadi Islam is typical or representative of all of Islam. I think you missed the point.

  • @rahowhero
    @rahowhero 9 ปีที่แล้ว

    The morality of pre teen sex slaves? Or just abortion as paternity test, type morality?

  • @sevven1
    @sevven1 9 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    GreshamCollege *"Is a belief in God a natural outcome of logical and cohesive approach to our experience of the world?"*
    No. A belief in the god of the bible is clearly an irrational and *illogical* delusion.
    Our sentience, _and_ the moralities that some of us can actually come to agree upon, are both products of humanity's evolution. And omniscient creator gods, such as the god of the bible, are self-refuting logical fallacies.

    • @sevven1
      @sevven1 9 ปีที่แล้ว

      Nathan Smith Evolution is a fact. Deal with it.

    • @rahowhero
      @rahowhero 9 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I agree, this college always has this twit and his lectures, and whose reasoning boils down to....coz I say so, and it makes me feel good. Proffesor of fallacy aceptence, and intellectual dishonesty.

    • @rahowhero
      @rahowhero 9 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Nathan Smith evolution is fact. Tis why you are not a clone, but a new entity of your own. Science 101.

    • @rahowhero
      @rahowhero 9 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Nathan Smith . Ah, so you merely do not understand evolution. More fool you, for denying it.

    • @Gongasoso
      @Gongasoso 9 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      sevven1 You do realise that a concept as vast and as vague as "God" eliminates all possible attempts of saying it can't be real, right?
      The religious thought is more than pure logic.
      Logic deals with what is, what you can prove.
      There's far more in your mind than what's real... at least I hope, otherwise you'll be a really boring person.
      Anyway, I see your point... a creator god makes you ask "and who created it", falling into an argumental whirlpool.
      However, as hard as that may be for your extremely logical mind, consider that all the physical universe is a thought inside the mind of a being, and didn't exist before he thought about it.
      Now, assume conscious time works differently in relation to both the being and it's thought (our Universe)...
      Wanna take a step forward?
      Consider our physical universe is in this being's mind, and this being's physical world is inside the mind of every human. Like little rooms in which it dwells all at the same time.
      This means our universe is in this being's mind, but this being's universe IS ALSO our mind.
      Ok...
      Now consider both worlds can influence each other in an unconscious way. Thus far this being has thought about a physical Universe on which it can dwell in BECAUSE it was also created on his mind.
      See, logic doesn't apply here, because logic is a material, physical thing.
      Logic applies to one physical reality, not to the interlockings of two separate (although united), different realities.
      In fact, this is where logic fails. Because logic requires questions to function: why? how?
      Here, the answer is simple AND a logical fallacy becomes valid: Why not?
      However, I'll give you this: this takes all the serious and important status quo away from any religious organization, as it states that Religion isn't reliably real.
      If you need to mentally disconnect from the physical reality, and enter the unknown weaves of both realities WITHOUT the so familiar logic, Religion starts to be a mere exercise of imagination, creation and mental exploration, as it tries to apply adapted broken logic and far-fetched concepts to the unprovable with varying degrees of success...
      But I believe the Internet will agree, Religion this way would be much better.