Intuitiv3infid3l wrote:Relative pleasure is immoral. If you believe in relative pleasure, then it would be illogical to want a law that outlaws murder.

Wooden shoe wrote:I am taking a chance that this has been said before, but here goes.

Having read Dr Dawkins "The selfish gene" it has become clear that the only purpose of life is to perpetuate the species, and human life is no exception. So this then is also the reason we as individuals exist.
So almost all we do is trying to maximize the ability for the successful results of our offspring to continue this process.
Much of this is done by our subconscious, just as in the animal world.
When I think about it, I find that everything we do is centered around this basic drive.

Stanley Huang wrote:Maybe there is a Western thinker who may say: "Knowledge springs from rational thinking, while religion is just purely faith."

Well, I disagree with such a comment.

And maybe there are some Western students who may believe or at least feel likely that knowledge is rational while religion is purely faith, or even, religion is not considered as knowledge at all.

And I have a feeling that some of the people in this philosophy forum may have this kind of thinking.

I have a feeling that some people in this forum treat religion and philosophy as enemy or enemies or something.

But how are they so sure that they are right?

I mean they sound as if science and religion are purely enemies, and they feel science is for smart people while religion is for stupid or backward people.

I know that Bertrand Russell might have this kind of thinking, but maybe later on in his life, he became less critical of religion or at least, he was unsure about it.

But the belief that science is rational while religion is purely backward faith is to me, a pretty funny idea.

And many people who have this idea believe that logical thinking can answer all problems.

But the problem is that we scientists are still unsure about the answers to many questions, and if so, it may be a mistake to feel that knowledge is rational science while religion is backward faith.

I think Hawking may be a person who does not believe in God, and he even said that science is progressive while philosophy is backward.

I feel it is a shallow idea, and I feel science is philosophy and philosophy is religion.

Hawking is never the best scientist in history anyway, to me, Albert Einstein was a better scientist than Hawking, and Einstein never laughed at religion as backward.

Anyway, no one can change the people who believe that knowledge is rational science while religion is blind faith and philosophy is backward compared to science.

This kind of thinking is to me, pretty shallow and not deep.

I believe science is religion and I believe religion is philosophy.

Yes, I still believe that Zen is best philosophy and I still love physics.

But regarding to many questions such as: "Why are we here? What do we live for? Is there a purpose?"

I do not know the answers to these questions.

Why are we here?

Don't know.

And I have a feeling that logical thinking is limited.