Re: Religion and common sense
Lets discuss first statemeent which I made.
Common sense is not so common.
Here, the first part ‘common sense’ is proven something good and special when other part is said "is not so common’. Here the second word ‘common’ denotes something a group of people perceive collectively as usual, norm or a matter of fact.
Now when I said later not really correct. Meaning religion cannot be considered based entirely on senses of people/human being.
Senses of human beings are based on limited abilities. Most of these senses are based on physical phenomenon except the ability of mind and logic.
Hence, what I am saying is that religious guidelines should not be judged on common sense at all. Some dogmas may make sense to people some may not. This does not mean religion is wrong or at fault if not understood by people.
Third point I made was common sense is variable too. I had not read this defniton before but might add here that your reference itself says and proves my point that common sense is variable.
"Common sense, based on a strict construction of the term, consists of what people **
Which people? How many people?**
in common would agree on : that which they “sense”
**“they sense”. Right? so what if senses of groups of people differ?
Will that not make the ‘common sense’ of one group differ from other? **
as their common natural understanding. **
Define natural understanding here. For some nautral understanding makes them walk nude on a beach …for others covering body with clothes and being modest is natural understanding. ** "
Hence this ‘definition’ can be argued.
Nicely and simply said the obvious.