Pragmatic Religion

Pragmatic Religion Inhaltsverzeichnis

Is pragmatism, as focused on a future considered producible by our finite actions, ill equipped to analyze religion (or “Erlösungswissen”, as Max. Uncommon Faith: A Pragmatic Approach to the Study of African American Religion George H. Shriver Lecture Series in Religion in American History, Band 8. An Uncommon Faith: A Pragmatic Approach to the Study of African American Religion (George H. Shriver Lecture Series in Religion in American History Ser. Der Ausdruck Pragmatismus (von altgriechisch πρᾶγμα pragma „Handlung“, „​Sache“) Norbert Horn bezieht in seiner Rechtsphilosophie die Religion mit ein und sieht für den Menschen drei Arten der Orientierung, „die Alltagsvernunft, die William Egginton, Mike Sandbothe (Hrsg.): The Pragmatic Turn in Philosophy. today called the “post-secular” situation, Honnacker carefully examines James's pragmatism and the theory of religion based thereupon, proposing an original.

Pragmatic Religion

Peirce, James, and a Pragmatic Philosophy of Religion von Woell John W. Woell (ISBN ) online kaufen | Sofort-Download - Peirce, James, and a Pragmatic Philosophy of Religion von John W. Woell (ISBN ) bestellen. Schnelle Lieferung, auch auf Rechnung. Der Ausdruck Pragmatismus (von altgriechisch πρᾶγμα pragma „Handlung“, „​Sache“) Norbert Horn bezieht in seiner Rechtsphilosophie die Religion mit ein und sieht für den Menschen drei Arten der Orientierung, „die Alltagsvernunft, die William Egginton, Mike Sandbothe (Hrsg.): The Pragmatic Turn in Philosophy. A neglected argument for the reality of God. Die Wurzeln der Welt. Middlesex, England: Penguin Books. Lanham et al. William James and other essays on Pokerstars Zoom philosophy of life. Viale, C. Schillerdie dieser selbst Humanismus nannte, der Operationalismus Bridgmanssowie die behavioristische Psychologie, die ebenfalls introspektive Methoden ablehnt und sich allein auf das beobachtbare Minimalste ihrer Untersuchungsobjekte konzentriert. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Dabei identifiziert er den Pragmatismus mit dem Positivismus. Über uns.

The focus here is on three things- detachment from wordly desires that are not truly Continue Reading. Related Questions.

More Answers Below. What religion uses the most logic? What is religion for you? And what are the elements of religion?

What if there was only one religion? Is religion useful or not? What is the best single argument you can make against religion?

Frank DiLorenzo. Sponsored by Grammarly. Writing something important? Join over 20 million Grammarly users and see what better, clearer writing can do for you.

It's free! Nolan Anant. What are the strongest arguments against religion? Which religion doesn't make sense to you and why? What is the most compassionate religion?

Isn't religion basically pragmatism? Why can't different religions come together in peace and be okay with each other's religion's guidelines?

How do you see any religion? What is your opinion about religion? Why do we need religion? What religion has the most hopeful philosophy?

Why do we not really need religion? Do you have a religion? What is it? Why are there religions? Is philosophy separate from religion?

What is the best thing about your religion? Sometimes these goals are combined. If someone convinces the rest of his citizens that he is a demi-god, then he will have both a political and a personal benefit!

The pragmatic attitude towards religion leads to the expectation that different cultures, and different historical periods will have different forms of religious expression because their goals, needs, and values will be quite different - we expect the religions of ancient Egypt, ancient Rome, and modern Los Angeles to differ from one another.

Similarly, we expect the religious expression of an individual to vary through his lifetime. The goals and aspirations of a seventeen year old, a thirty-five year old and a sixty year old are usually different.

Pragmatic religious expression would likely be eclectic. There is no reason to be bound by any one particular tradition. If a Hindu prayer is inspirational on Tuesdays, and a Moslem ritual on Thursdays, and the Jewish Sabbath on Saturdays, there is no reason not to combine them.

Indeed, there is no reason to be bound to tradition at all - religious creativity will be encouraged to develop new forms of expression.

And of course the pragmatic attitude includes the ' null' option where no religious expression whatsoever is found relevant to any of one's goals, and therefore religion is abandoned altogether.

The realist wants truth. Every religion has some story to tell. Where did the universe come from? What is its fundamental nature?

What forces guide its development? What is the nature of the human being? What will the future be? The realist wants the religion whose story is true.

One might say that among my goals is to know the truth. Then pragmatism defined as seeking means to achieve my goals will include realism.

But it is not obvious that we want truth as a goal. We all appreciate that truth is an indispensable means to our other goals; perhaps this is all we want from truth.

In any case, if you think that truth can be a goal, then think of pragmatism as defined to exclude truth, i.

Then the two positions will be distinct. Everyone has goals, desires, hopes, and projects, and looks to his culture for resources to further those projects.

Similarly, everyone has an interest in the truth, since truth is an indispensable means to achieve other goals. When I say that these two attitudes are mutually exclusive, what I mean is what a person will do if he is forced to choose.

So, for example, suppose that you are exploring different religions and you come across one which as a pragmatist is ideal - it inspires you, it ennobles you, it increases your sensitivities, and it furthers the social projects in which you are interested.

It fits your personality like a glove. But there is no evidence whatsoever that its account of the world is true. In fact, there may be considerable evidence against it.

In such a condition you would have to choose between pragmatism which is satisfied, and realism which is not.

You could have the same conflict working in the opposite direction. You could come across a religion where there is a complete misfit in pragmatic terms: it dashes your hopes, it violates your scruples, it requires a reorganization of your world view, your goals and your focus.

But the evidence seems to indicate that its picture of the world is true. Under those conditions you again have to make a choice between pragmatism and realism, and there the criteria obviously will conflict.

So that when it comes to crucial choices of this kind, all people adopt one or the other of these two attitudes: the pragmatist or the realist.

Acceptance implies only the acknowledgment of its truth, and the obligation to fulfill its requirements as best one can. The world has many people of both types.

The question is, are these two attitudes equally appropriate and equally valid, and people are split in terms of their personalities and preferences?

Or is one of the attitudes more fundamental and more appropriate? It seems to me that the fundamental attitude with which one must begin any investigation is the realist.

As long as there is the possibility of truth in any subject, one has the responsibility to search for the truth.

Only if we can conclude that there is no truth to be had is it justifiable to make our decisions on a pragmatic basis.

I will give you some examples of why this is so. Imagine that you are a teacher and that you have caught one of your students cheating. You call in the parents for a conference, and you tell the parents that their child has a problem: "Your child cheats on exams, copies homework from other children," and so on.

Suppose that the parents say that you are a liar, and that you have a vendetta against their child. Furthermore, they tell you that they have an uncle who is on the school board, and that if you keep persecuting their child, they will have you fired.

Why would we not respect that sort of reaction? Because the child's cheating is a matter of fact.

You presumably have evidence of the cheating. A parent who disregards the evidence and believes what he thinks it is convenient for him to believe, is regarded as irresponsible and irrational for so doing.

Similarly, some people who smoke have said to me that smoking isn't really injurious to your health. All the research is phony, it is paid off by underground left-wing groups who want to discredit the big tobacco companies.

Why don't we credit that type of response? Because the danger to your health is a matter of fact. If there is evidence the least a person must do is survey the evidence.

If he has an objection to it, he should offer it in logical terms, and not just dismiss the research on an unfounded charge of bias or fraud.

We don't credit pragmatic responses when there is evidence available which could lead to the truth. Any investigation must begin with the realist attitude.

If and when the realist attitude comes up empty - if the investigation leads to the conclusion that there is no truth to be had - then of course we fall back on pragmatism.

There is no other alternative. But, the realist approach must be applied at the outset. The considerations so far have been completely general - they apply to any possibility of finding truth.

In the case of religion they apply with special force. Imagine for a moment standing at Sinai and personally hearing from the Creator of the universe: "Do not light fires on Saturdays!

Would it not play a role in your decisions for the weekend? This is an experience which obligates a response. Furthermore, the obligation does not depend upon actually having the experience.

Suppose you knew that others had the experience. You would know that the Creator wants no fires on Saturdays - that alone would create the obligation.

So religious truth is crucial for living rationally and responsibly. From the philosopher's point of view, it is especially unfortunate that the vast majority of pragmatists, vis-a-vis religion, are so by default.

They have never undertaken any serious investigation. They simply assume that there simply is no truth to be had, and therefore fall back on what is useful for their life projects.

What we are going to do is pursue the realist attitude to see how far it can take us. For example, suppose seeking the truth will cost my life!

Also, there is considerable discussion of the foundation of the responsibility to seek the truth. As mentioned in the last [ ], it is a crucially important means to our other goals, and it may itself be a goal.

This is a theoretical matter which does not touch its validity. In the case of religion, since the utility of having the truth is eternal, the responsibility to seek the truth obviously applies.

One cannot be searching for the truth unless one is prepared to reject inadequate ideas as false. In any area where we believe that there is a truth, we recognize that in the collection of contradictory opinions, if they truly are contradictory, no more than one can be true.

We do not accord equal intellectual status to people who don't believe in the reality of the Holocaust. We are not likely to give their views equal intellectual weight because we are dealing with a matter of fact, and the evidence is against them.

And whereas we may not throw them in jail or recommend that they be exiled or censored, we certainly do not accord their opinion equal intellectual status.

We are not likely to offer them equal time to teach their opinions in the schools, or to write their alternative textbooks, because what they believe is nonsense.

To be searching for the truth means to be prepared to reject falsehood. Now, when it comes to religions, and I am talking now about the major world religions, they contradict each other on some crucial aspect of belief.

That is to say, if you take any two of the major world religions, there is some proposition about which they disagree. And that being the case, no more than one can be wholly true.

For, if religion A wholly true then, each of the others is wrong at least on the proposition in which it disagrees with religion A.

For example, according to Catholicism, a certain man was G-d. According to Islam, no man ever was G-d and no man ever could be G-d.

Islam believes that Mohammed was a true prophet while Catholicism denies this. They cannot both be right.

At least one of them has to be wrong. Hinduism, in the mainstream of Hindu thought, believes that the world is infinitely old, that there was not a creation at a finite time in the past.

Buddhism goes further and denies the existence of a creator altogether. Hinduism would allow a creator who has always been creating the universe from infinity.

Then, no more than one of the four can be wholly true. Since Judaism believes in creation of finite age, that no man was G-d and that Mohammed was not a prophet, Judaism is opposed to all four.

That means that no more than one of these five can be wholly true. And so it goes. Take any major world religion and it will contradict the others on some fundamental aspect of belief.

Therefore no more than one can be wholly true. Of course, as I'm sure you have picked up, it is possible for none of them to be wholly true.

So if we are looking for the truth, we cannot give equal weight to all religions unless we find that they are all false.

If one is wholly true then the others are not. Now, a common response to this observation is to say that maybe we could look at religions in terms of what they share.

Perhaps there is a certain common core to all religions, a general sense that there is a superior power, and an appreciation of the spiritual and the moral aspects of life, a sense that our material world is not self contained and that it really is the surface of something that is much deeper.

Perhaps we could take this common core which all religions share, approach it realistically, see it as the truth, and then with regard to the other matters in which the religions differ, look at them as matters of style.

Matters of ethnicity, which really are not crucial, do not have to be regarded as true and could be selected on the basis of pragmatism. We could have a split methodology - realists for the core and pragmatists for the trappings.

Does it really matter whether you eat meat on Fridays, smoke cigarettes on Saturdays, or have one month a year in which you fast all day long?

Those are surely not matters of truth, only of style. This suggestion is attractive until you start to pin it down in detail. What exactly should go into the core the core being beliefs shared by all religions?

Can any of the accounts of our origins go into this core? Obviously not, since, as we just pointed out, different religions have radically different views about the origins of the universe: created by a personal being a finite number of years ago, or going through infinite cycles, or existing independently without the guidance of a personal being, and so on.

There will be no scriptures that can go into the core because no scriptures are agreed upon by all religions. There will be no prophets in the core because no prophets are recognized by all religions.

An account of the soul? Sometimes religions share a word without sharing a concept because it is difficult to translate from one language to another.

It may be said that all religions recognize the "soul," but when you see what they think the soul is, you get so radically different a picture, that there is no common concept underlying the variety.

Is the soul a personal spirit whose personhood, whose uniqueness is essential and infinite - eternal - and never to be destroyed as you have, for example, in Judaism?

Or, is personhood an illusion, something which must be stripped away so that one achieves a consciousness that does not distinguish one significantly from a rock, a praying mantis, or a sea gull as you have in some Eastern religions?

Is the ultimate relationship with G-d like a drop of water falling into an ocean, which many religions have as their metaphor for mystical union with G-d, where the individuality of the drop is lost entirely?

Or is it the Jewish conception - the attachment of one thing to another, like gluing a pebble onto a wall, where the pebble becomes part of the wall, while at the same time its unique contours are preserved?

The mere fact that religions may share a word called "soul" doesn't mean that they share an underlying concept.

To what can one look forward in the future? Will this physical world continue to exist forever as some have it, or will it be radically transformed and exist in another form as Judaism has it?

Or, will it be totally obliterated as some forms of Christianity have it? Since religions differ on this matter, nothing about it can go into the core.

As soon as you pin down religious ideas in detail, you find that the differences are radical, and that nothing can be claimed to be shared by all religions.

Even the suggestion that perhaps religions share a commitment to morality turns out to be superficial in this way. All religions might agree that it is wrong to steal.

But when you ask for the concept behind the rule, why one shouldn't steal, you get radically different views. For example, mainstream Hinduism sees stealing as an action which reinforces the ego.

The ego is the great enemy of achieving nirvana. Every person's goal in this world is to achieve nirvana which is some sort of experiential state for himself, some sort of bliss.

Therefore, stealing for a Hindu ultimately is pragmatically ruled out. It is bad for you. You are depriving yourself of achieving the greatest happiness, the greatest bliss, the greatest tranquillity of which you are capable.

The ultimate justification for not stealing is pragmatic. Now, when you take that same rule in Jewish terms, you get an entirely different underlying conception.

In Jewish terms, stealing is wrong because morality is paramount. Morality is not justified because it contributes to happiness.

A pragmatic reason not to steal isn't moral at all. A person who never steals because he believes that there are policemen watching him all the time, and he believes that if he steals he is going to be put in jail, hasn't begun to become moral.

Any kind of self-serving justification from a Jewish point of view is to misunderstand the fundamental concept of morality altogether.

A mere behavioral rule does not give the core any religious content. So the idea that religions have a common core which could be declared true and that the rest is just trappings is a mi stake.

The hearts of religions, their most fundamental beliefs contradict one another. Therefore we are thrown back on the radical position that if we are looking for truth, we must be ready to declare falsehood when we discover it.

And, if we are looking for the truth and we are to be objective and open-minded, shouldn't we give equal time to all of the candidates?

Shouldn't we take time to familiarize ourselves with not only Judaism, but also Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Confucianism, and Shintoism just to mention the major world religions?

But, to become thoroughly familiar with the inner workings of a religion, as I am sure you know, is not a trivial matter.

Even with six months for each religion, which is probably too short, you are talking about a four year investigation. Most people just don't have the time.

Well, I hope to show you on general grounds that we can be objective and open-minded and yet drastically reduce the scope of the investigation.

The method of searching for truth, in my view, is the scientific method. It is the only method which we have. With all its limitations and all of its weaknesses, it is the only neutral method we have in searching for the truth.

The trouble is, the scientific method is very poorly understood. That includes scientists.

The Religion of Absolute Pragmatism: Josiah Royce and Community's Loyalty. The article examines Josiah Royce's contribution to the debate on a modern. Peirce, James, and a Pragmatic Philosophy of Religion von John W. Woell (ISBN ) bestellen. Schnelle Lieferung, auch auf Rechnung. Peirce, James, and a Pragmatic Philosophy of Religion von Woell John W. Woell (ISBN ) online kaufen | Sofort-Download - , 4, |a SCIENCE |x WITTGENSTEIN |x FINE |x DEWEY |x METAPHYSICS |x NATURALISM |x THEISM |x PRAGMATISM |x EMERGENCE |x RELIGION. Many translated example sentences containing "pragmatic handling" – German-​English picture of relatively pragmatic handling of religion in everyday [ ].

Pragmatic Religion - References

Middlesex, England: Penguin Books. Eine solche Definition reichte ihm aber nicht aus. Transactions of the Charles Sanders Peirce Society , 1 , —

Pragmatic Religion Video

Communication - A Pragmatic Approach Essays zur zeitgenössischen Religionsphilosophie. Bitte geben Sie Daten Black Jack Info Name oder Pseudonym. Der Endzweck der Schöpfung. Issue Date : January Woell Autor. Der Pragmatismus entstand in Nordamerika gegen Ende des Wittgenstein and William James. Adorno, Th. Beeinflusst von Max Scheler kritisierte auch Max Horkheimer die Reduktion allen Wissens auf zweckrationales Handeln, Options Mastercard seine eigene Zielsetzung nicht Book Okf Ra hinterfragt. Oehler Ed. Dabei identifiziert er den Pragmatismus mit dem Positivismus. Pragmatic Religion Pragmatic Religion Acceptance, Smiley Zunge Zeigen should remember, unlike believing, is an action that is under Mainboard 4 Ram Slots direct control. Every person's goal in this world is to achieve nirvana which is some sort of experiential state for himself, some sort of bliss. Stuhr Willard van Orman Quine — pragmatist philosopher, concerned with languagelogicand philosophy of mathematics. Religion and Politics. Disbelieving seems to require deliberative cognitive ability.

3 thoughts on “Pragmatic Religion

  1. Ich denke, dass Sie sich irren. Geben Sie wir werden besprechen. Schreiben Sie mir in PM, wir werden reden.

Hinterlasse eine Antwort

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind markiert *