A Quote by John Stuart Mill

It is conceivable that religion may be morally useful without being intellectually sustainable. — © John Stuart Mill
It is conceivable that religion may be morally useful without being intellectually sustainable.
It strikes me as being morally repulsive and intellectually absurd that people die of want in a world of surplus.
Most people live, whether physically, intellectually or morally, in a very restricted circle of their potential being.
The essence of any religion lies solely in the answer to the question: why do I exist, and what is my relationship to the infinite universe that surrounds me? It is impossible for there to be a person with no religion (i.e. without any kind of relationship to the world) as it is for there to be a person without a heart. He may not know that he has a religion, just as a person may not know that he has a heart, but it is no more possible for a person to exist without a religion than without a heart.
A religion without rules or God isn't sustainable.
Process as process is neither morally good nor morally bad. We may judge results but not process. The morally bad agent may perform the deed which is good. The morally good agent may perform the deed which is bad. Maybe a man has to sell his soul to get the power to do good.
We may have an excellent ear for music, without being able to perform in any kind; we may judge well of poetry, without being poets, or possessing the least of a poetic vein; but we can have no tolerable notion of goodness without being tolerably good.
I called Donald Trump a racist. Nobody that makes that charge is being intellectually honest, or else they're being intellectually lazy.
Although religion might be useful in developing a solid moral framework - and enforcing it - we can quite easily develop moral intuitions without relying on religion.
History, we can confidently assert, is useful in the sense that art and music, poetry and flowers, religion and philosophy are useful. Without it - as with these - life would be poorer and meaner; without it we should be denied some of those intellectual and moral experiences which give meaning and richness to life. Surely it is no accident that the study of history has been the solace of many of the noblest minds of every generation.
I am personally not advocating violence. I am simply saying that it is a morally acceptable tactic and it may be useful in the struggle for animal liberation. I don't know.
There's a big difference between being able to explain religion intellectually and transforming that knowledge into spiritual experience.
But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
our republican ideas cannot be consistently carried out while women are excluded from any share in the government. ... Any class of human beings to whom a position of perpetual subordination is assigned, however much they may be petted and flattered, must inevitably be dwarfed, morally and intellectually.
In such a performance you may lay the foundation of national happiness only in religion, not by leaving it doubtful "whether morals can exist without it," but by asserting that without religion morals are the effects of causes as purely physical as pleasant breezes and fruitful seasons.
Religious education is only valuable intellectually, if the child is educated in a religion versus [just] about a religion. I don't believe you can have both.
Morality may exist in an atheist without any religion, and in a theist with a religion quite unspiritual.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!