The discussion in class, as well as the papers, revealed that most of the people in class are compatibilists, believing that reason and religion can coexist in a peaceful and productive way, with the majority of folks declaring themselves as NOMA type compatibilists, with religion focused on the role of values and reason/science focused on the role of facts. One problem with this type of compatibilism is that it does not seem to allow for any criticism from a rational perspective of religious moral views. But then how do you criticize the suicide bomber? Or the San Bernadino terrorists? If you want to say that there exists some rational criterion they failed to meet in their actions, then you are no longer giving sole domain over values to religion but are saying that religion must be checked and guided by reason.
This might seem to make the position of religion within the bounds of reason attractive. But before you accept this view, you should realize the extent to which this position weakens the status of religion. If any moral claim needs to be checked and verified by rationality, one might well ask what the force of any religious command is, since it would seem always to require verification by reason. Why not just use reason as your standard for morality to begin with?
This leads to a dilemma for the compatibilist. A dilemma has a very specific meaning in an argumentative situation. It involves a situation where one is presented with two logically exhaustive alternative, each of which has unacceptable consequences. A mastery of dilemmas--how to create and how to respond--is necessary to learn the art of argument. So here is the dilemma for the compatabilist.
Either reason and religion have separate realms or religion must be carried out only within the bounds of reason
If reason and religion have separate realms, then there seems no way to criticize the suicide bomber, since the realm of values on this interpretation is given over to religion
If religion must be carried out only within the bounds of reason, then it seems religion is redundant and unnceccesary, since what me must ultimately appeal to is reason
So either we cannot criticize terrorism or religion is redundant
Here is the logical form:
Either A or B
If A then C
If B then D
Either C or D
ANy thought?
This might seem to make the position of religion within the bounds of reason attractive. But before you accept this view, you should realize the extent to which this position weakens the status of religion. If any moral claim needs to be checked and verified by rationality, one might well ask what the force of any religious command is, since it would seem always to require verification by reason. Why not just use reason as your standard for morality to begin with?
This leads to a dilemma for the compatibilist. A dilemma has a very specific meaning in an argumentative situation. It involves a situation where one is presented with two logically exhaustive alternative, each of which has unacceptable consequences. A mastery of dilemmas--how to create and how to respond--is necessary to learn the art of argument. So here is the dilemma for the compatabilist.
Either reason and religion have separate realms or religion must be carried out only within the bounds of reason
If reason and religion have separate realms, then there seems no way to criticize the suicide bomber, since the realm of values on this interpretation is given over to religion
If religion must be carried out only within the bounds of reason, then it seems religion is redundant and unnceccesary, since what me must ultimately appeal to is reason
So either we cannot criticize terrorism or religion is redundant
Here is the logical form:
Either A or B
If A then C
If B then D
Either C or D
ANy thought?
No comments:
Post a Comment