DISCUSSION
Passage about Mysterium Tremendum:
Numinous: “The Idea of The Holy”
Is being numinous more satisfying when you don't have moral concepts to add on to that belief?
How can Mysterium Tremendum be good for your health?
Should we take out the connection between religion and moral concepts?
I chose Mysterium Tremendum because it is religion without the morals and characteristics like that. For example the characteristics for Mysterium Tremendum is the awe we feel when we thing of a wholly being who is above us or greater than us. It gives us this feeling of energy and the feeling of not being alone on being dependent on someone who can not let us down in a sense because we are so humble compared to them.
Going off a bit
on mysterium tremendum, numinous is similar because it’s the belief of something out their divine that is looking over us or in existence. It is something holy that we seem to cling to and to need it as a feeling. However, it’s without the moral concepts in it, being the defining matter.
...can not compare the two. Since the Church of Scientology is new more research and scholarly articles need to be created to show both spectrums of any new religious movement because without it, it is imbalanced and our own perspective will be skewed due the perspective with more evidence and in this case, the reader would believe that the Church of Scientology is not a legitimate religion and could be classified as a cult. This study could be improved with more information pertaining to the insider’s positive perspective of the committed members, as well as government backed organizations should organize their data and claims in more of a professional manner oppose to blogs, discussion forums. Overall, until there is a balance of the insiders and outsider’s perspective of the new religious movement, we cannot consider the Church of Scientology a real religion.
ABSTRACT: To the question "Why should I be moral?" there is a simple answer (SA) that some philosophers find tempting. There is also a response, common enough to be dubbed the standard response (SR), to the simple answer. In what follows, I show that the SA and SR are unsatisfactory; they share a serious defect.
While the Trobrianders and the Azande that Bronislaw Malinowski and E.E. Evans-Pritchard describe in their respective ethnographies are miles apart in terms of physical distance, both groups place a great emphasis on magic in their society. In describing such a concept that in Western terms is associated with fiction and skepticism, Malinowski and Evans-Pritchard differ in the way they explain the role magic has in each community.
The short story "The Chrysanthemums" gives insight into the life of its author. John Steinbeck was born on February 27, 1902, in Salinas, California. The locale of the story is of key resemblance to the Salinas in which Steinbeck was born and bread. "Salinas was a typical American small town, [differing] only in location and a few distinctive features" (McCarthy 3). The protagonist of this story, Elisa Allen, also resembles Steinbeck's first wife. "Steinbeck probably based the character of Elisa Allen on his own first wife, Carol Henning Steinbeck. Like Elisa, Carol was a woman of considerable talent and energy who wore 'masculine clothes' and was 'strong, large-boned' and 'handsome rather than pretty'" (Hughes 23). Similar to the time frame in which Steinbeck lived, the theme of the story comes across as being male dominant and the rustic setting allows us to visualize this.
first have an idea of the tenets and beliefs on which the religion is based.
Other philosophical materialists suggest that objective moral values do exist, however, they are not founded by God. Objective moral values are the product of naturalistic evolution. We have evolved to have objective moral values in order to survive. Theists object by testifying that objective moral values never change. If they did change they would not be objective. And because objective moral values never change and are not circumstantial, the theory of naturalistic evolution does not disprove the moral argument for God.
Taking this to be true, Kaufman argues that there is every reason to believe that on the whole our moral judgments will tend to be true. Furthermore, when we take the moral realist’s argument that morality has a deep connection with human flourishing, there are evolutionary reasons, Kaufman believes, for believing that there is a connection between moral judgments and actions that for the most part promote our well being.
In conclusion, I find that these two religions are very interesting. I really have learned a lot about these two different religions. I could have gone on and on about all the similarities and differences of these two religions. It was very informative to look at two completely different religions than mine and made me think about how little I actually know about my own.
I was raised in a religious family with god moral values, but with different situations those moral values are not always set in stone. I say this because as a individual I feel that whatever will embrace a more bearable outcome for me to cope with often neglecting moral values I see as right. I don 't necessarily approve of the way I think or go about things; but I know I am not alone in this thinking process either. If I was to put a label on it I would say that I think in terms of a egoism theory to base judgments on ethical dilemmas; And pass judgments on right and
Typically many religious people claim that ethics and morality relies on what God rules them to be and fail to see that morality can still be just as significant to a person that doesn't believe in God. Theists, followers of God presume religion to be a substantial reason for our moral conduct. Nonbelievers such as atheists are still capable of understanding the difference between what is right and wrong without religion. John, believes that if there wasn't a higher power to give us the set rules and reasons of how to behave then anything we do would be measured equally. Whereas Andrea, who is against this theory points out that God is not the key for having moral values. Her argument seems to be more convincing because an atheist can still to do the right thing based on their own interest if it has a rational explanation for moral values. The only difference is that non-believers don't have a supreme ruler to measure the intensity of how moral their actions are. Doing the right or wrong thing should be justified on a level of whether or not your actions hurt or harm someone in any w...
Smith’s Externalist ‘Moral Fetishist’ A Critique of Smith’s depiction of the moral fetishist; the morally perfect person. Abstract The argument between the internalists and externalists in metaethical moral psychology is one that is at a stalemate. One of the most important debates took place in Analysis between Michael Smith and Alexander MIller, both of whom seem to fail in presenting a wholly conclusive and convincing argument.
Why be moral? This is a question that I’ve asked myself for many weeks since the beginning of this class. I wanted to know why is being moral so important to some people myself included. This also lead me to another question, which is why is it easier for some people and harder for others to be moral? First, let 's understand what it is to be moral. One definition of moral is concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. Another definition is a person 's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do. From both of these definitions, we get that being moral concerns right and wrong and being able to differentiation from both of those and having your actions reflect what you believe is right and wrong.
... But if you don't believe in God, can you still believe in objective morality? To explain more do you believe that What are "right" and "wrong" today will be that way for all times and all cultures?. I don’t think so as we discussed earlier for the homosexuality.
(CITE) With roughly one billion people in the world defined, as nonreligious one has to question do you need religion to be moral? Are those one billion people running around committed unlawful acts? Theists would argue, if nonreligious people were capable of possessing morals then where would their ethics come from, if not from God? I do not plan to argue against God’s existence, rather, I intend to defend that one does not need to have a religious basis to possess morals.
I would like to start with Hinduism because I feel this religion had the biggest impact on me not only as a student but also as a person. I had always previously been interested in this religion therefore; my drive to understand this religion was stronger in my opinion than it was for most of the other religions we learned. Before taking religions,