Quote:
Originally Posted by Alawen Everywhere
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Do you understand that pathos and ethos are both parts of rhetoric besides logos? Your entire premise here is that logos is all that matters.
Most people in religion don't care about the dogma and they never read their sacred texts aside from hearing someone drone on about it once a week or whatever. Most organized religion is about socializing and community. Sometimes it's about a really charismatic religious leader.
Many people are much more affected by things like emotion, reputation, authority and tradition than they are by reason and pointing out their lack of reason is insulting to them.
Now can we talk about the giant turtle?
|
To extend this. When we consider science do you realize how much trust is placed in the findings of others? The scientific method is supposed to insure repeatability but tell me guys, what have you done to personally try and verify the theory of evolution? How many quantum physic experiments have you done? What makes the word of a researcher any more valid then the words of a priest? Because the "science" has been verified? By who? Why do you trust them?
Can you explain exactly, in detail, how a car works, and be able to build one yourself from just raw materials? A television? A computer? A steam engine? Did you drive a vehicle before you learned the science behind how a vehicle was constructed and how it worked? Not just the broad idea - every little tiny mechanism. Did you examine the source code for your OS before you used it and make sure you knew how every tiny part worked? If you do all this stuff then you're some kind of uber-man but for most people there is considerable implicit trust placed in scientific findings and the technology and consumer products that result from the findings.
Perhaps many of you are emotionally-repressed and secretly angry all the time but there is a very rich realm of experiences that can be learned from feeling. Especially in the US, people tend to think of and treat their body like some sort of slave to their mind, however, if you want to look at (science), our body is, for the most part, driving the mind. Concerning feelings though, what makes ones emotional experience of life any less legitimate then the light entering their eyes to create an image or vibrations creating sound? Is it because we can somehow measure and categorize these things that they are more legitimate? Does that seem right/feel right to people?
If you want to reduce human experience and living down to only the scientific facts then you'd be ignoring a large part of being human. Why choose to do that? Religion is largely an emotional experience - which is probably why many of you attack it - and unless you've genuinely experienced religion you're ignorantly attacking something that you don't understand.
Look at this entire thread. Everybody here seems caught up in information like gods existence, the evils of the church, reasons why religion shouldn't exist, but nobody is considering how religion makes people feel. What some people call indoctrination and mind control, others call sharing a very beautiful and terrific feeling.
You might notice that the consequences of religion really isn't that different from the consequences of science technology. Nuclear technology can provide energy or it can level entire cities. Religion can provide aid and community or it can lead to murder and destruction. We continue to do science, why can't we continue to do religion too? Perhaps to YOU the benefits of religion doesn't out way the costs, but for many people the rich emotional experience that religion provides out ways the cost.