Should Religious Posts be banned from the forum?

Religion falls under the remit of philosophy quite naturally, although efforts at proselytization are not welcome here. Short answer: no.

Reply to Marcus de Brun "Religion", as Uncle Karl said, "is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people".

It is too central to the experience of most of the people (on earth) to be neglected. Most people are born into their religious form, but many navigate their way to it or out of it, and their efforts are worthy of philosophical speculation.

But then, my view of philosophy isn't 'academic'; I prefer a wideness to the definition of philosophy, and "why people behave the way they do" is central to it.

Philosophy of religion is a perfectly respectable subject. Units on it are included in almost every philosophy curriculum. Your ‘dead-end god thing’ is an idiosyncratic expression of your own hang-ups about the topic; Aquinas, who is a major religious philosopher of Western culture, was meticulously rational in his arguments, even whilst acknowledging the indispensable role of revealed truth.

Quoting Marcus de Brun

Is Religion Philosophy?

Philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.

Theology is the study of the nature of God and religious belief.

Philosophy for me is mental discipline for me to question life with.
Religion for me it to blindly believe without proof something that one cannot point to.

I am completely new to this forum; but they intersect in many ways and delving into the nature of either can end up in the other. Theology though on the other hand is a science which presupposes the dogma as a precondition for its field of study (though this could be argued about) and isn't philosophy. It is also a bit vague of a topic as »Religion« is a very complex concept, far from agreed upon as to the extent of its nature. Thus I'd say that as an inquiry religion is very much a question for/of philosophy, and worth thinking about.

Plus, as a subject for modern philosophy, the past 20-25 years has seen an increasing interest in religious texts and figures, not the least in political philosophy.

Quoting Wayfarer

Philosophy of religion is a perfectly respectable subject. Units on it are included in almost every philosophy curriculum

I totally agree. There is a cross over in the same way that Western and Eastern Medicine co-mingle.

Reply to Simon H Welcome to The Philosophy Forum Simon!
It's a pleasure to meet you.

Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff

Religion for me it to blindly believe without proof something that one cannot point to.

I think this idea is something very specific to modernity, mainly because of the emphasis of Luther and Calvin on ‘salvation by faith alone’ which translates into unquestioning acceptance of dogma. But religious philosophy can also be meticulously rationalist, as i mentioned before.

But if you study the subject of religion impartially [and cross-culturally] there are many types of evidence for religious ideas, and a coherent philosophy and worldview that supports them. Consider for example studies like James’ Varieties of Religous Experience, and many anthropological studies of religion.

Besides, we’re living in a ‘post-secular’ culture nowadays. Contrary to the hopes of Enlightenment rationalists, religions haven’t simply shrivelled and died, but are still hugely influential in culture and society. And that’s because they stand for something, they represent realities which can’t be depicted in any other terms.

Quoting Wayfarer

Contrary to the hopes of Enlightenment rationalists, religions haven’t simply shrivelled and died, but are still hugely influential in culture and society. And that’s because they stand for something, they represent realities which can’t be depicted in any other terms.

I agree with the idea that across almost all cultures, there is a "God" to explain the unexplainable. But if we look at "religions" the world over, we likely would have more than 100 different "God's" all of which are "right", to those who believe.

If the relationship exists between a person and their "God", it is the most intimate relationship alive, one that should be respected, even if we do not believe.

Who are we to question?

You don't know and I don't know either. And in that shared unknown, is where you will find some of us that question the existence of "God".

Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff

Thank you very much for the welcome!

To the topic at hand:

Concerning what Wayfarer raises about »post-secular« and the »Enlightenment« it's interesting pondering about Kants position in his Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason where he equates Christianity as the advent where a pure morality is made possible; but only by removing the dogma out of the equation you will find its kernel. Thus he moves Christianity into the heart of Aufklärung. I believe this is one illuming example of the closeness of philosophy and religion. The whole way we stand in a judeo-christian-latinate-greek trajectory.

My Rank Amateur opinion is, how the topic is addressed and argued has more to do with if it is philosophy or not, than the subject.

It depends on what one means by religion. It's certainly true that some religion takes the view, "because God said so," in addressing moral issues. However, this is not universally true, and many religious people are quite philosophical in outlook, and do not simply take a top-down approach to religion, which is almost always the case among new-atheists. This is the position that if one can show a belief in God is unjustified, then all religious beliefs can be tossed aside. Instead, if we take a bottom-up view, we can often see that religious beliefs can often be justified through reason, and often are. For example, in Judaism there is a story about a man pretending to be disabled and defrauding people who gave him money thinking he was disabled. The immediate response among the city was to ban begging. However, this idea was rejected when a rabbi offered the following argument: It was not a disabled person who defrauded you, but a person who is not handicapped. So why should the handicap suffer for his actions?

Reply to Marcus de Brun
Philosophy of religion is philosophy. It touches on metaphysics an epistemology, so certainly it's worth discussing.

Quoting Wayfarer

Besides, we’re living in a ‘post-secular’ culture nowadays. Contrary to the hopes of Enlightenment rationalists, religions haven’t simply shrivelled and died, but are still hugely influential in culture and society. And that’s because they stand for something, they represent realities which can’t be depicted in any other terms.

What realities would that be?

No, religion is not philosophy, although there are some similarities. Religious views expressed as though by an evangelist should most certainly be deleted and persistent offenders banned, as per the guidelines.

If a religious person says that one should not lie under oath, because lies under oath undermine justice in a court of law, a position held by many religious people, as it stems from the Ten Commandments, is that a non-philosophical position? How could that be the case, since it is a position backed up by a reason, and that's what philosophy is about --- coming up with reasons to support one's position. I'm an atheist myself, so would prefer it personally if people could stop being religious, but, in trying to be honest here about religion, much of it is philosophically based.

Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff

Who are we to question?

Fellow human beings who share this world.

Who is above questioning? Religious authorities??? :lol:

Philosophy is God.

Quoting LD Saunders

If a religious person says that one should not lie under oath, because lies under oath undermine justice in a court of law, a position held by many religious people, as it stems from the Ten Commandments, is that a non-philosophical position?

Well, what you've just described is not actually a religious position, despite it being held by many religious people. It's also held by many nonreligious people, though it takes a different form. What would make it characteristically religious would be to take the oath by swearing to God with your hand on the Bible, instead of by making an affirmation under penalty of perjury, which is the nonreligious alternative.

Quoting LD Saunders

How could that be the case, since it is a position backed up by a reason, and that's what philosophy is about --- coming up with reasons to support one's position.

Because two different categories can have things in common, yet remain different categories. Eggs and bacon both typically form part of a traditional full English breakfast, but that doesn't mean that they're the same.

Quoting S

religion is not philosophy,

agree. Religion is religion, and philosophy is philosophy. Philosophy of religion is philosophy - arguments over theism, meaning, basis of morality etc supported by reason, and not by faith are philosophy . Questions of comparative faith based beliefs, or principals and teaching of each are theology - and should be outside the board IMO.

Quoting S

Religious views expressed as though by an evangelist should most certainly be deleted and persistent offenders banned, as per the guidelines.

Can we add equally evangelical views of atheism ?

"All definite knowledge - so I should contend - belongs to science; all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology. But between theology and science there is a No Man's Land, exposed to attack by both sides; this No Man's Land is philosophy."

Bertrand Russell

Quoting Rank Amateur

Can we add equally evangelical views of atheism?

There's no need to. The guidelines on evangelism aren't specific to religion, and I recall that there was at least one member of the old forum who was banned for evangelical atheism, possibly more.

Reply to S perfect

Religions make metaphysical claims and metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, therefore religion is philosophy?

Quoting Janus

Can any specific religious claims be rationally argued for without support from dogmatic premises?

- the most basic of religious claims - that God is. Has been philosophically argued for about 1,000 years.

*

Quoting praxis

Religions make metaphysical claims and metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, therefore religion is philosophy?

People make omelettes and omelettes are made from eggs, therefore people are eggs?

Yes, religion makes metaphysical claims, but that doesn't define it. Surely it has to be more than that to count as a religion?

Reply to Relativist

All religion(s) are united by a belief in immortal deities. Immortal deities are by definition capable of magic.

One can indeed have a 'Philosophy of Magic', this would entail a formal philosophical dialogue or treatise upon the effective means of producing and differentiating good magic and 'bad' magic, the ethics of Magic, when it should be used how it should be used and whom it should be used to entertain etc.

This would be a reasonable account of a 'Philosophy of Magic', and it would necessarily take as its basic premise the notion that the Magic itself is not real magic, (there is no such thing as magic) but is an art or an entertainment. From this real and pragmatic basis there can and does extend a valid 'Philosophy of Magic', much in the same sense that there can and is, a certain formal 'Philosophy of Plumbing', or Farming etc

'Magical Philosophy' (religion) on the other hand is an entirely different affair, although it likes to dress in the attire of Philosophy, it is NOT Philosophy it is a belief system that fundamentally allows for and insists upon the contravention of reason logic and science. It represents the contamination of Philosophy and the subjugation of reason.

It cannot lay a claim upon Philosophy because it forms its ideals upon the notion that the Magic is REAL, that logic, science and deductive reasoning can be dispensed with at the whim of the Magical Philosopher, and sense-data or reality can be explained by his own brand of Magic.

Magical Philosophy may give comfort to the weak minded and those who fear reality, but neither does this grand utility lend it any Philosophical credibility.

Why does the Philosopher still tremble and cower at the empty prognostications of the charlatan?

Philosophy has no need of God, yet God cannot exist without Philosophy. Even the God-thing is the vassal and the subject of its own Philosophy. Let the God-thing kneel and give praise to its Master.
Let Him kneel and kiss the ring of Zod. Should He refuse, then likewise, let Him be dammed to hell, just like all the non-believers and the un-baptised are dammed in accordance with the dictates of the magicians.

https://youtu.be/jUORL-bvwA0

M

Quoting S

People make omelettes and omelettes are made from egg, therefore people are eggs?

Johnny makes omelets and omelet making is a form of cooking, therefore Johnny is a crook.

Quoting Wayfarer

I think the key term is not dogma but revealed truth.

That a scripture or oral teaching is "revealed truth" is obviously a dogma, a matter of faith; something that cannot be philosophically argued for.

Reply to Marcus de Brun other than it is not a matter of fact that "God" is not, nor is it in conflict to reason that "God is" - there is nothing wrong with your post. But since that is not the case - everything you said is based on the proposition that "God is not" that you assume as fact - which it is not.

Quoting Wayfarer

I think the key term is not dogma but revealed truth.

So, they have dogmatic faith in a revealed truth? Or...?

Reply to Janus i think all rational arguments start with the proposition that "God is" and looks for reasoned arguments for. I also think all rational arguments that "God is not" start with that proposition and look for reasoned arguments to support.

Quoting Rank Amateur

other than it is not a matter of fact that "God" is not, nor is it in conflict to reason that "God is" - there is nothing wrong with your post. But since that is not the case - everything you said is based on the proposition that "God is not" that you assume as fact - which it is not.

Not this again. Try explaining it instead of just asserting it.

Reply to Rank Amateur

let me paraphrase your words and ask if you agree?

" other than it is not a matter of fact that "[the Tooth fairy]" is not, nor is it in conflict to reason that "[The Tooth Fairy is]" - there is nothing wrong with your post. But since that is not the case - everything you said is based on the proposition that "The Tooth Fairy is not" that you assume as fact - which it is not."

Now if we are to assume that both God and the Tooth Fairy are equally dependent upon a magic of sorts, why should God have more of a right to Philosophy than the Tooth-Fairy?

M

Quoting Wayfarer

Enlightenment rationalists, religions haven’t simply shrivelled and died, but are still hugely influential in culture and society. And that’s because they stand for something, they represent realities which can’t be depicted in any other terms.
— Wayfarer

What realities would that be?
— praxis

To think of a few examples at random - the sacred feminine/motherhood/Mother Mary/Kwan Yin

The Hero's Journey, the hero with a thousand faces.

Suffering/sacrifice/loss

Redemption/salvation/transcendence.

Most of what you mention isn't even typically construed as religious. I'm not sure why you don't believe these things can't be depicted in other than religious terms.

Quoting Marcus de Brun

Is Religion Philosophy?

Very poor philosophy, yes.

The Powers That Be seem to me too lenient on topics of religion. Far too much rubbish is permitted.

Reply to praxis As I said - firewalled off. You know - 'don't mention the war'.

Anyway, this thread and this one should be merged (and, probably, locked, but I'm not a mod.)

Reply to Marcus de Brun i have absolutely no issue with your atheism, nor anyone else's. I have a standing issue with anyone who believes that my theism is in conflict with truth or reason - which it is not. The basis of your post "God is not" as a matter of fact - is most certainly based on faith and in no way a philosophic argument.

Reply to Rank Amateur

Quoting Rank Amateur

I have a standing issue with anyone who believes that my theism is in conflict with truth or reason

Theism is predicated upon a belief in magic.
Belief in magic is in conflict with reason.

That which is not reasonable cannot hope to be philosophical.

How do you reconcile?

M

Quoting Rank Amateur

?Janus
i think all rational arguments start with the proposition that "God is" and looks for reasoned arguments for. I also think all rational arguments that "God is not" start with that proposition and look for reasoned arguments to support.

Neither arguments for nor arguments against the existence of a God of religion have any place in philosophy. Its too nebulous. What God?

The "God of the philosophers" may be thought to be a different matter, but again what exactly is that?

Reply to Wayfarer

I’m not following. You mention things (“realities”) that you claim can’t be depicted in non-religious terms. Indeed you mentioned the unconscious yourself. That’s not a domain restricted to religious belief.

Reply to Janus I agree that in a fully developed argument one would need to define "God". Here and in other places it is convenient shorthand for a supernatural being.

For clarity - In most arguments bases on reason - I would define "God" as a necessary being -

A necessary being is a self-aware thing that must necessarily exist for all other things to exist because that necessary being is the author of the universe and the initial cause of all things material.

The God of the Bible, or the Torah, or the Koran - and most of those attributes is a matter of faith

A philosophical discussion of transubstantiation or of the Trinity should be placed in amongst discussion of other logical paradoxes and contradictions. A Philosophical discussion of free will, salvation or of obedience should properly be in the Ethics section. And if they can't hold their own there, then they should not be on the forum. Same goes for the existence of god arguments, the constant atheist vs theist debates, and so on.

Mind you, there is an argument for hiving these off into their own section so that the rubbish does not pollute the more worthy philosophical discussions. But that would imply that the Mods were willing to have a section for sub-standard discussions.

Quoting Banno

Far too much rubbish is permitted.

As the purveyor of a vast quantity of rubbish, you're foolish to call for such restrictions. You might as well request yourself to be banned.

And whether we have a section for religious philosophy does not depend on whether god exists. That section of this thread is bunk.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover Pots and kettles.

Quoting Janus

Since all arguments are based on natural reasoning and evidence there can never be any rational or empirical demonstration of the existence of supernatural being. It is the archetypal object of faith.

all arguments are not.

Reply to Rank Amateur

Why not? Example?

Quoting S

Ah, so you confuse fact and justification. Thanks for making that clear. There's a fact of the matter, even in the absence of justification for or against.

I have no idea at all what that was suppose to mean. You asked for an argument - I gave you one. I think you are just getting semantic - but I am not sure. Are we in disagreement with what a fact is ?

Reply to Janus I find the cosmological argument reasonable, more so since the current conventional scientific consensus is there was a beginning.

Definition
Religion = Magic

Magic is not reasonable
All philosophy has a reasonable basis

Religion is not Philosophical.

M

Quoting Janus

If we are to have a comprehensive, unified vision of what the prime mover could be, it must encompass and integrate science

that is nothing more than faith in science - no philosophic/rational difference between that and my answer that it is a "necessary being"

Reply to Janus you are just elevating science to a religion -

Reply to Rank Amateur

And you are elevating stupidity to a philosophy... :rofl:

It can't be said too often on philosophy forums that religion is not exclusively a matter of belief.

Reply to Marcus de Brun "All religion(s) are united by a belief in immortal deities. Immortal deities are by definition capable of magic."
I agree, but philosophy of religion is not a religion. One can learn some things by considering the various arguments for "God's" existence. Do brute facts exist? Is there a first cause? Is there such thing as "knowldege"? Is there something special (teleologically) about sentient life, or is it just an unintended consequence of nature? Do objective moral values exist? I come down on the atheist, or agnostic, side of these - but consideration of these questions does get you thinking.

Quoting Banno

The Powers That Be seem to me too lenient on topics of religion. Far too much rubbish is permitted.

I'll go glass half full and consider that a welcome antidote to the oft levelled charge that We Powers That Be are predominantly militant atheist lefties. Having said that, feel free to report as that's probably the best way to get a result on low quality posts. We're not everywhere all the time, especially if we can help it.

Reply to Marcus de Brun

Religion is a part of life and is as worthy of philosophical thought as anything else. Religious dogmatism is anti-philosophical though, I agree. Again, please report.

Quoting Wayfarer

The problem here is that science is bound to a worldview in which the universe is essentially meaningless. So meaning itself can only ever be personal or social - it can't have any referent beyond either the individual or the collective.

How do you objectively separate the meaningful from the unmeaningful? Meaning is tied to vastly more than an individual or collective.

The OP's question has been answered, and there's an active thread about religion in the forum already, so this thread will be closed. I'll move some of the discussion here into that thread.