My teacher, Charles Hartshorne, dealt with
that question in a rational way that spoke directly to the questions I was asking.
He addresses
this question in a rational way.
Not exact matches
Let me just ask one
question: Can we PLEASE start the debate
in the country about how «God», «Hell», «Heaven», «Satan», «Muhammad», «Jesus», «Angels» «Ghosts» «Demons» and «Spirits of the Dead and or / Nature / Mother Earth» do not exist
in any
rational form as the
way they are presented throughout world history?
If I ask myself whether, on fuller reflection about my reason for feeling this
way, my sense of obligation may cease to attach itself to the nonperformance of the action
in question, I incline strongly to the negative view, and I find it difficult to believe that at this point other
rational beings differ from me.
Whenever I debate a believer,
in a calm
rational debate it usually devolves into the person defending religion getting angry because he or she can not simply answer any
question other than by saying stuff along the lines of, «well our brains are too small to understand» or «god works
in mysterious
ways» or my personal favorite «God will judge you for you unbelieving
ways».
Duvin makes a
rational appeal for a new ethic
in animal sheltering,
questioning conventional wisdom about the kindest
way to relate to homeless animals.
Rather, whether the breaches of duty of the parties played legally significant causal roles
in the outcome was
in each case a
question of fact to be answered by
rational inference drawn
in the usual
way from the evidence.