Does Philosophy of Religion get a bad rep?
Hi there!
I'm totally new to this entire forum but have been lurking about for a small while. But in the while that I have been looking around, I have found several clues as to people disliking philosophy of religion.
Referring to the topics within as a waste of time and just bad philosophy. I as a 18 year old feel very attracted to the question of God and feel like I need to settle my mind about it somehow. It all started at the classic christian literalist arguments and ended up being way more open ended.
So my first ever question here is: Are people's dislike of PoR justified? Is there something wrong with the subset of philosophy? If so, why?
Also thank you @relativist for unintentionally leading me here! (Momo from RF forums.)
I'm totally new to this entire forum but have been lurking about for a small while. But in the while that I have been looking around, I have found several clues as to people disliking philosophy of religion.
Referring to the topics within as a waste of time and just bad philosophy. I as a 18 year old feel very attracted to the question of God and feel like I need to settle my mind about it somehow. It all started at the classic christian literalist arguments and ended up being way more open ended.
So my first ever question here is: Are people's dislike of PoR justified? Is there something wrong with the subset of philosophy? If so, why?
Also thank you @relativist for unintentionally leading me here! (Momo from RF forums.)
Comments (224)
Yes in the lustrum that I've been trying to find out about God I noticed that there are different layers of discussion going on. I started out at the common discourse of : You have no shred of evidence for god - You believe your ancestor is a monkey and then gradually found out that there was a philosophical area that deals with the question. To hear then, that this area would also be looked down upon felt disheartening. I have very little experience in philosophy other than reading a WLC book. So I come to places where people have a reasonable idea of the goings on (I assume) and see what they think.
Thanks for your response.
Forgive my ignorance but what are those main unknowns? I've seen people argue that a God explanation is fundamentally different from a mechanistic explanation. For example: People who argue that God must be the ground of being/ first cause don't have a mechanism as to how he (I'm assuming an abrahamic God with the 3 omni features.) made that happen. So they argue that he is the efficient cause and that the means to how he did it could be the material cause. And from that the material cause can still be studied?
I know I am one of the newcomers with a main interest in PoR. But I simply want to learn these things so I hope I don't get brushed away because of that.
You seem like an open-minded and reasonable person to me, so I don’t think you’re in the same category as those tiresome posters. You seem more interested in learning than in telling everyone else why they’re wrong, and that is the thing I think is most tiresome about that other kind of poster.
I hope you have a good time here. If you’re interested, I recently had a thread where I laid out my complete philosophy of religion at someone’s request, which could maybe serve as a starting point for you here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7860/on-the-existence-of-god-by-request/
I'm really glad to hear that. I do my absolute best to remain open minded and to learn. What do you gain by being hard headed in a conversation about God/the divine anyway?
I'm actually reading that post right now!
Noah Harrari who is a naturalist/atheist argues humans were able to dominate this planet using legal fiction and fiction. He says Apes can work in groups of ~150 and he went on to say there are ~155 nations on this earth. Check out his book "Sapiens" or watch some of his youtube videos.
Legal fiction and fiction enable mass coordination.
I shouldn't assume people know what they're talking about,should I? haha. Well, I ordered a book just now called the oxford dictionary of philosophy in the hopes to someday be able to separate the good from the bad.
I know this deviates from my original OP but I personally do take some kind of value from what someone believes. And if that person knows their stuff their beliefs seem good to go off on and base mine own on. That's what i've been doing my entire life. So then may I ask you, What is your view of the theistic 3 omni God? Where does it fall short and why?
Again my sincerest apologies if this is not the way it should be. I'm just ever so curious about what people think.
It's a great sentiment but I'm terrible at not giving damns hehe. But what i'm getting at is that I don't want to slorp up misinformation and then think it's a representation of the actual PoR arguments.
Is there a way to keep up with actual academics?
Be aware of biases though. Plantinga is very much laying out an apologetics, an attempt to philosophically justify religion. You'll also want to temper that with someone philosophically critical of it. Or maybe look into someone like Russell who went back and forth between both sides of the course of his life, criticizing his own earlier arguments in later ones, back and forth.
True, but he is at least better than William Lane Craig.
Why I am not a Christian: https://youtu.be/NdDYvvevLZk
Russel-Copleston debate: https://youtu.be/Kz2GjKPbQds
I also like A.C Grayling a lot.
You guys are helpful. Thank you.
The reason why I asked as well was because the recent post to remove PoR from the forum reminded me of a statement made in a rather old article : https://crucialconsiderations.org/rationality/theism-and-expert-knowledge/
In which the author has remarks about PoR at the end. I'm going to paste a part of it here.
"The findings of this post fit with other findings on reasoning and religion: It has been argued that many philosophers of religion suffer from cognitive biases and group influence, and that the field as a whole is too partisan, too polemical, too narrow in its focus, and too often evaluated using criteria that are theological or religious instead of philosophical. Recent work in cognitive science of religion suggests that analytic thinking is a pathway to atheism (Norenzayan and Gervais 2013), and it has been observed that analytic thinkers show weaker religious belief and tend to lose their religious fervour, even if they were originally raised in a religious environment (Shenhav et al. 2012). Experimental work supports these correlations and provides additional evidence for causal connections between analytic thinking and erosion of religious beliefs (Gervais and Norenzayan 2012)."
And I'm going to be honest here. I have barely a clue what this all means. Perhaps due to the expensive words used and me being a non-native speaker. What is the difference between a theological approach and a philosophical one? (I know this is basic stuff and I'm sorry.)
And quite honestly, How should I view the fact that most of the philosophers are indeed not theists? The theist would tell me that expert opinion matters a bit more and that one shouldn't make arguments ad populum anyhow but..Surely that might say something about the integrity of their arguments?
A quote from the article again: “I would not be the first to say that philosophy of religion, especially “analytic theology”, is simply not philosophy. It’s Christian apologetics, and it often is poorer philosophically because of that. A Christian bias pervades everything, and, once one becomes a non-Christian, the irrational faith-based assumptions and intuitions start to stand out.”
What is this christian bias they speak of? Is it the bias towards the Abrahamic God concept? Or is it that the work within the field is too one sided?
I'm sorry for asking so much and veering away from the OP ever so slightly. But it's something I really wish to understand and get my head around. Also, you should probably get used to me saying sorry about a hundred times! :razz:
You're an angel! Honestly this is so helpful.
Could you tell me what the deal with WLC is? I've heard him get a lot of criticism too.
That very fair. And thank you for reminding me that I shouldn't pull conclusions from that!
Were I a mod, God forbid, I would insist on philosophy of religion hereabouts being confined to natural theology - that is, posts that refer to scripture would be removed.
And as a rule of thumb, as soon as someone claims that mathematicians are wrong, they should be banned.
It would just save us all a lot of time.
Took the words out of my gob. It's a natural place to gravitate for newbies, especially newbie atheists who fancy themselves hot shit.
That's actually an ignorant answer Baden. Please then explain why over at least 75% of the philosophical domains invoke God's existence? It's invoked in ethics, epistemology, logic, metaphysics, and contemporary philosophy.
If I'm incorrect I'll stand corrected. If I'm correct, it might support my theory that there are more angry and bitter atheists on this forum than not.
Pfff. What bullshit (using the word in the technical sense).
99% of statistics are made up on the spot.
You must be one of the angry atheists LoL
Provide statistics that prove me wrong. And by the way, I don't recommend hiding behind ad hominem; if you're scared say you're scared.
Yeah, I'm a bit pissed at bad philosophy. Like when someone lays claim to a statistic and when challenged shifts the burden of proof.
I've yet to see you say something worthwhile. Indeed, I'm surprised you are still allowed to write to the forums.
Would you mind expanding on why it's a bad place to stay?
Other than that I'm very thankful for the input.
It's invoked in ethics, epistemology, logic, metaphysics, and contemporary philosophy.
True or false? This is really philosophy 101.
In what way do you mean they invoke God? Surely those fields work on a naturalistic framework as well?
Edit: Offside question: Does being an atheist also mean you're a naturalist?
It's an odd thing for anyone to say. Almost like, "Look, God has a big dick too!" Anyway, this is the type of rubbish you can unfortunately expect in the PoR forums.
The saddest thing, to me, is that I cannot see whether it's bad or good.
It would save me a lot of trouble when I can.
It's sad when someone thinks theism vs atheism is a popularity contest. Worse when their attempt to prove God is the winner backfires by being so exquisitely silly. Anyway, good luck. You seem to have a good attitude, which is admirable. :up:
Well, there is a case in point right in front of us, with the posts here from @3017amen.
Quoting 3017amen
A made-up statistic, chosen for it's appearance. Amen is not concerned with the truth of his statement, only withthe rhetorical effect. That's the technical definition of bullshitQuoting 3017amen
An ad hom.
Quoting 3017amen
Shifting the burden of proof - rather than providing evidence for his claim he demands that we provide evidnece that he is wrong
Quoting 3017amen another ad hom.
Shite like this is rife in Phil of religion threads.
Hey, man, if you're scared, just say so!
As far as interesting discussions of philosophy of religion, as distinct from 'religion is...' statements, have a read of the following:
Secular Philosophy and the Religious Temperament, Thomas Nagel
Metaphysical Mistake, Karen Armstrong
Who or What is God?, John Hick
There are many other sources and books available, but these in particular frame the issue in a way that is relevant to contemporary culture.
The concept of God, right or wrong, is always invoked in the majority of philosophical domain's as the criterion for the existence of things. Philosophy is an intellectual exercise involving many states of human conscious existence.
I'm not saying this because I'm a Christian Existentialist. I'm saying it because it's a no-brainer. As a rudimentary example ( though I studied philosophy in college), pick up any publication called philosophy-made-simple or its equivalent, where the domains of ethics epistemology logic metaphysics and contemporary philosophy are summarized. They all involve God as a discoursive criterion in their respective domains.
Trust me, it's not me projecting the facts. Like it or not, God's invoked. I'm not a preacher or theist so I have no special interest or hidden agenda. Nonetheless, be cautious of either the extremist atheist, or the extremist fundamentalist.
Quoting 3017amen
Again, bullshit.
Now if you like, go to, say, the Stanford Encyclopaedia, choose a few pages at random, and do a search for "god".
Given
Quoting 3017amen
one would expect it to appear on three-quarters of the pages.
Let us know how you get on.
BTW, relative to cognitive science, or perhaps more Freudian than not, most extreme atheists (or extreme fundamentalists) will more often than not default to ad hominem as some sort of defense mechanism. As an unbiased observation, Einstein, who was not even a theist, seemingly recognized the phenomenon:
The fanatical atheists are like .... who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres- Albert Einstein
What do philosophers believe? » Appendix 1: Detailed survey results (Bourget, Chalmers; Springer; Dec 2013)
I suppose, next, 72.8% of academic philosophers are "fanatical atheists", @3017amen. :roll:
Give it up, raving on with mis/disinformation doesn't do anyone any favors.
I ceased replying for a while because my interest in philosophy is distracting me of what I should be doing-- study my physics and chemistry exams!
But I have to ask. What should someone get from these statistics? That theism is a bad/irrational wordview to have?
Interesting you appear to fit the bill of Einstein's fanatical atheism. I didn't say over 75% of philosophers are theists did I?
Actually how about this, I'll challenge any atheist on this site to debate EOG using all domain's of philosophy. Would you like to go toe-to-toe with me?
LOL
Indeed, religion has a habit of giving God a bad name.
It's the religious who do that.
Me, too What is EOG? Do you have a recipe, perhaps?
Philosophy can be a rabbit hole, should prolly' get back to your exam prep. ;)
Quoting DoppyTheElv
The stats aren't all that important. Religious (dis)beliefs or absence thereof is personal, something people have to figure out on their own accord. Anyone is free to believe whatever (just not free to do whatever). Scour the literature, spot the crud. ;) Offhand guess, you'll learn more from physics and chemistry.
, just pointing out your raving, something ir/religious alike might do.
Strictly speaking no, but there is a strong correlation, as being a naturalist generally means being an atheist (unless you use a strange concept of God).
:up:
Or do you want us to do them for you?
How many philosophers were content with their lives and the world before pursuing the art?
How many athiest-leaning philosophers would unwarrantedly shun or discriminate against theologic-leaning philosophers who are on par with the art itself?
Statistics are useful. They can sometimes however paint an incomplete picture.
If by EOG you mean the existence of god, I am down. I am no certified philosopher, but I'd like to give it a try.
While eager and genuinely encouraging to see. It may not always be so simple. Nor should it be. When there is no room for doubt there is no room for faith. All that remains is fact.
You obey the law because you have to. You praise and worship because you are grateful.
If doing good things automatically rewarded you equally where is the "goodness"? The utility and necessity is there but none of the qualities that make someone a good and kind person.
Sure! I'm a Christian existentialist and I would be approaching this in a few ways.
1. Negative/Apophatic theology.
2. All domains of philosophy can be argued.
Are you a positive atheist? Meaning, is your position something like: "I know God doesn't exist". Or, "I don't believe God exists", et.al. ?
Going on that, when @3017amen realises folk are interested, he'll change the topic, "Swiftly abandoning a lost cause", as Jorndoe opined.
There is is.
Ah, who knows? Might be fun to watch.
@Baden has already offered to set up the mechanics.
While I'm waiting for Daniel to respond, sure I'll banter with you.
Who's "Him"? ( Are you referring to a gender/genderless God?)
Before I can answer your question, I need to know your definition of god.
Sure, the Christian God called Jesus.
That's what I read in the Christian Bible. I mean, that's one interpretation, no?
I agree with this. Philosophy of religion can be really interesting. Theological systems, literary interpretation, archeology, sociology, mythology all come into play if done correctly, but oftentimes the posts are just of posters at a point where they're just trying to make sense of their personal religions and there's not much philosophical about that.
I'll debate you as to whether Yaweh existed as a monotheistic god to the ancient Hebrews prior to Exodus.
Thiat is philosophy of religion in my opinion. Yours begins without even a definition of what you seek to prove or disprove.
I also suspect a debate phrased as you've suggested would meander from the topic of God to the topic of certainty and its distinction from other types of knowledge. Just a hunch.
Am I right when I have the feeling that you guys mean all the bad arguments are the ones trying to make a case for the existence of God or a deity?
If so then, well how does one even know if they think there is such a God or not in reality?
This is now on my booklist! Thank you!
I believe in the God of Creation. Does that answer your concern?
Really? Not sure fairness, has anything to do with it.
We are talking about the existence of something. In this case, in human terms, it would be the human being called Jesus. Using your words, what does knowledge have to do with existence?
Existence as in that its an 3 omni God. Or really whatever deity one argues. As in its an actual entity and not a mental fabrication.
Tim!
As I've said over in the Lounge, existentially, one does not know the true nature of their own existence, and so why should this be any different (?).
Now if you want to speculate metaphysically, you're more than welcome to elucidate there.
If you want high caliber philosophy of religion or theology discussions, start them. Inform mods that you desire it to be kept strictly on topic and flag off topic posts.
If you want the perpetually self derailing standard fare, stand back and watch.
Regardless, I think it's important not to moderate adequate quality religion discussions off site; it's a gateway drug. People who start learning philosophy in their spare time often start with god questions or atheism questions, and those two groups will argue forever.
No. What I meant was explaining your own existence metaphysically. In other words, your conscious existence.
Again, that's a misnomer. God is posited in 75% of philosophical domain's.
How very often I have seen the sentiment you illustrated in your post, Jorn.
"To those who believe in God, no explanation is needed."
Reworded to be more accurate, it becomes a bit more problematic, though.
How's this sound:
TO THOSE WHO BLINDLY GUESS THERE IS A GOD, NO EXPLANATION IS NEEDED.
Has a different ring, right?
You asked me to explain existence, hence yours and my quotes:
Me: We are talking about the existence of something. In this case, in human terms, it would be the human being called Jesus. Using your words, what does knowledge have to do with existence?
You: I asked you what you know, and you have answered with what you believe. That both is and is not an answer. As to knowledge it is nothing, but given the context it also says that you don't know.
Me: As I've said over in the Lounge, existentially, one does not know the true nature of their own existence, and so why should this be any different (?).
Now if you want to speculate metaphysically, you're more than welcome to elucidate there.
Me: What I meant was explaining your own existence metaphysically. In other words, your conscious existence.
Make any sense now...and so, what would be the distinction between the two explanation's of the man called Jesus who had a conscious existence, and your own conscious existence? Or, in the case of the cosmological God, if space and time are a mystery, how should one go about explaining it? Isn't space and time a theory?
So most people here arent theistic or deistic, ... in the sense that they believe there to be a God that thinks etc.
But rather that he is a concept without any influences outside of the brain? Just like an idea of some sort?
Sorry Im having trouble understanding these views because theyre quite alien to me. What do you mean being actual means being limited? What do you understand under actual?
Sorry for my bad writing, typing on mobile while on a bus with friends isnt that handy!
I don't think Im anywhere near equipped to have such discourse yet myself!
Neither am I!
Is this what it takes to get you to wax lyrical?
Surely quietism is appropriate here.
Hiya! Thank you for expanding and explaining!
To my pre kantian mind, I find it hard to see the issue that you see. Isn't the 3 omni God argued to be the maximally great being in existence? When I said actual i meant it in a way of saying..well - that hes actually out there. Does actual mean something more nuanced? But if one succeeds in arguing that God must be the maximally great being..how is he subject to weaker/lesser?
Now that my exams are over I can get to business and read. So Kant is my primary aim right now!
I'm genuinely trying to understand what you mean but having a hard time doing so.
What is so difficult... , I'm not following you there, sorry brother.
I would be interested in a laymans discussion to see where it goes.
LOL....as simple as there being something and not nothing :blush:
Just in case you don't find enough PoR here, you may want to check out "Debating Christianity and Religion" here: https://debatingchristianity.com/
Hey Tim, is it safe to assume you haven't spend a good amount of time contemplating metaphysics and existentialism(?).
Quoting 3017amen
Quoting 3017amen
Quoting 3017amen
Quoting 3017amen
Quoting 3017amen
90% ... 75% ... must be a study rounding up the statistics somewhere ... where'd ya' get'em all from, 3017amen?
Some random spot checking on the IEP and SEP sure doesn't come to 3/4 let alone 9/10. (haven't checked answersingenesis.org :wink:) I don't recall having taken a logic course that posit any gods either.
Maybe that word, "God", is just so watered down that it can be made to match anything for the occasion? Or maybe Banno was right?
Either way, let's see the statistics. Proof, please. Set the record straight. (y)
(FYI, here are other numbers, that are substantiated.)
Of course I was right.
None of this is basic.
I should provide some background to my perspective on this: I don't write as a Christian apologist, although I'm certainly sympathetic to Christianity. But my personal quest was always along the lines of the search for enlightenment in a somewhat more Asian sense, having been introduced to those kinds of ideas while young. One of the characteristics of this kind of approach is that it's syncretistic, drawing on aspects and elements of different traditions to try and make sense of the spiritual quest. Had I lived in the first half of the last century (and, who knows?), I probably would have been a Theosophist.
That out of the way, some comments on your bolded passage. One of the dimensions that is noticeably missing in Western ecclesiastical religion is the conception of different types of spiritual orientation or personality types, that is found in (for example) Vedanta, a major philosophical school of Hinduism. Vedanta categorises religious aspirants according to the 'six limbs' of yoga, - raja, jñ?na (wisdom), bhakti (devotion), and karma (work/livelihood) among them. It recognises that different personality types will understand and practice their faith in different ways. Jñ?na is 'discriminative wisdom', taught to those with strong insight and intuitive wisdom - many gurus are Jñ?nis. Bhakti is devotion to the divine - Hare Krishna is an exemplary devotional sect. There are Catholic devotional sects that are very similar. Many of these archetypes are cross-cultural.
But I don't think there's anything like that classificatory scheme in Western ecclesiastical religion - it's all basically predicated on 'right belief' (which incidentally is the meaning of 'orthodoxy'.) It is fundamental to believe the right thing, in the right way - wrong belief was heresy (a word which literally means 'having an opinion') and until quite recently was serious crime. In my view, this is one of the factors that has lead to the interminable conflict in Western religion (have a look at http://veda.wikidot.com/dharma-and-religion). You either believe, or you don't, and everything hinges on that. In my view, this creates something of a false dichotomy, because it forces people into an all-or-nothing choice. It's one of the underlying social causes of atheism, in my view. (The cultural dynamics are vastly different in for example India.)
Because of that emphasis on right belief, there is a strong tendency to fideism (exclusive emphasis on belief) in Christianity, especially modern Protestantism. (That's the thrust of the Karen Armstrong article). And I think that's the basis of the criticism about some philosophers of religion having 'cognitive biases' - behind what they're doing, there's this suspicion that they're really out to convert.
That said, it's also quite possible that some writers and editors will have the exact opposite bias - that any form of religious belief is not objective and therefore 'not scientific'. But this really amounts to attaching religious significance to scientific method, and is also a faith commitment in its own way.
That's why in philosophy of religion you have to have the ability to detach your analysis from what you believe, and try and understand such ideas on their merits. Actually, this is where the discipline of comparative religion is very useful - it teaches you disciplines like 'bracketing' and 'suspension of judgement' to enable you to explore ideas in a more detached manner. (This is where John Hick excelled.)
Now, all that said - and as I declared, none of this is basic! - it is entirely possible to maintain a devotional view of Christianity, and still be scrupulously philosophical. I think one example would be Frederick Copleston, whose multi-volume History of Philosophy text books are very well regarded. It's also possible not to have a faith commitment, but still be open to the role of religion in culture - Jurgen Habermas initiated a dialog with Catholicism on exactly those issues (see this OP.)
To try and sum up - I think some key points are, read a lot, be open to a diversity of perspectives, be aware of your own cognitive biases, some of which are part of the culture you're in, and try and explore ideas on their own merits.
Sure! I know God exists. And you know God doesn't exist. Does that, succinctly, summarize it?
Quoting tim wood
That seems a bit strange. How did you arrive at that conclusion?
Quoting tim wood
What do you mean by favour? Are you referring to the information I shared with Daniel?
Quoting Dharma and Religion - ??? Veda
The Bible, the Quran, and Craig downright denies pluralism, however.
Agree. But then, consider the audience. I don't know if desert tribesmen were really up for philosophical nuance. That's why interpretation is important.
Also, I sometimes wonder if fundamentalism is not a personality type. I mean, Calvin especially seems to me to be naturally drawn towards authoritarian fundamentalism. (Not for nothing he's been dubbed 'the Ayatollah of Geneva'.)
Quoting tim wood
There's one factor that ought to be considered, however - which is that from the non-believer's perspective, there can be no real merit beyond the social, cultural and personal domain. There's nothing at stake beyond that. Whereas from the religious perspective there really is something at stake - something of ultimate importance. So there's an asymmetry there.
Are you sure about that? What's a synthetic a priori proposition ?
quote="jorndoe;428568"]must be a study rounding up the statistics somewhere ... where'd ya' get'em all from, 3017amen[/quote]
I stand corrected , it's more than 75%.
Quoting jorndoe
Indeed. The unfortunate, or fortunate paradox, seems to be that philosophy itself, lives in words.
Yep, no gods in any logic courses that I recall.
Quoting 3017amen
So, still not substantiated.
Quoting Banno
Seems confirmed. Caught in the act. Bullshitting for the occasion or lying. Either way ... well, have a good weekend y'all.
Really? The synthetic a priori is critical in Kant's critique of logic. The classic example: all events must have a cause. Is that statement true or false?
Quoting jorndoe
Let's go through each of the domains one at a time:
1. In Ethics: Christian ethics.
2. In Metaphysics: Descartes metaphysics
3. Epistemology: George Berkeley
4. Contemporary philosophy: Soren Kierkegaard
5. Logic: Kant's synthetic a priori knowledge
6. In the philosophy of Religion: God
7. Political philosophy: separation of church and state/In God we trust.
Let's see have I missed any other domains? Is that more than 75% of the domains of philosophy? LOL
Accountability and judgement. To be worldly. Or, to be spiritual. The soul. Fate itself. Basically. What isn't? To be both or even purely sociological... modern, civilized society and it's continued existence. There's really alot to choose from.
Revelatory knowledge. It occurs in consciousness. LOL
Really? It exists in my consciousness. Are you saying that I don't have a consciousness?
Metaphysical Will.
Quoting tim wood
God is as real as your conscious existence.
Bonus question: The classic example: all events must have a cause. Is that statement true or false?
The religious answer, put in philosophical terms, is realization of an identity that is not subject to death. I take that to be the meaning of what Christianity calls the ‘eternal life’. (For an in-depth discussion see Alan Watts The Supreme Identity.)
Stay tuned, it will only get better. One down, one more to go LOL
Interesting side note: my home town was founded in part by Theosophists, and a bunch of them still live here and lots of things are named after them. I walk daily in Besant Meadow. My junior college was on Leadbeater beach. Krishnamurti taught regularly at the Krotona Foundation overlooking Besant Meadow, whose gardens I used to regularly walk before the COVID-19 lock downs closed them. Etc. (My dad helped lay the mosaic on the "throne" of Beatrice Wood, whose home was on the land of the Besant Hill School, which locals know as "Happy Valley". I got to smash a bunch of her priceless ceramics to make the pieces for the mosaic).
I have a kind of sentimental affection for theosophy although I also know in some ways it was founded by cranks and charlatans (or possibly tricksters). But I still think they played an important cultural role.
I joined the thread because there seemed to be a bunch of atheists bashing a theist. I just thought I would point out that philosophy can't do that, it is toothless in this regard. Theology might be able to help, but that is treated as archaic (vestigial) around here. So what are we left with atheists and theists bashing each other over the head with blow up unicorns and hippopotami.
Part of the problem here I think is that 3017amen is arguing from a position of revelation and other folks are bashing this position because it doesn't seem to be defended, justified, or sustained with rational argument. But to even entertain this requirement debases revelation to some kind of psychological crutch for the weak willed. While from the point of view of the person who has had the revelation, any attempt to fulfil this requirement also debases it and exposes them to criticism of their intellectual interpretation of their revelation. Which is inevitable because such an interpretation is limited and inadequate being a human narrative and subject to human frailty.
So back to the bashing with inflatable weapons.
I would be interested to have a look at existence, in reference to God, though. To see if any agreement can be found.
My starting point would be as I have mentioned;
Am I God?
and
Could I exist without God?
Both reasonable questions when one defines God as the initiator of I (me)
Ironically enough, it's perfectly fine Punshhh, thanks. What angry atheists (and there are definitely some on TPF) don't realize is that their anger only serves to substantiate mine and other's truth.
But this is nothing new under the sun. In studying the human condition, it's to be expected. And in recent history certainly, Einstein suggested it ( specifically the begrudged atheists) , as well as, of course, other historical texts :halo:
There's nothing wrong with spirited debate. But I notice on this site those atheists who are angry will hide behind personal attacks and/or ad hominem. Just an observation.
Sure. Let's explore that.
1. In consciousness what kind of knowledge causes such a judgment about causation? In other words, why/how is synthetic a priori knowledge possible?
I'm not following that. Can you explain a regulative idea within one's consciousness?
Nope, that’s not a familiar name to me.
That's a bit perplexing. Let me see if I understand that. It appears you're looking for some sort of physical or material evidence, yet there are immaterial and metaphysical phenomena associated with your own existence. What's the difference?
In the meantime please share your thoughts on synthetic a priori knowledge. I'll keep reminding you as we go along. I consider this round one of our boxing match.
Quoting tim wood
God means different things to different people, including myself. Right now I'm focusing on the metaphysical aspects relative to consciousness viz Jesus.
So whenever you good time to study the synthetic a priori, please share your thoughts. After that, we'll move on to the other domains of philosophy that I mentioned to jorndoe .
In summary I'm thinking about 8 or 9 rounds of boxing aught to do it lol. How you respond to this first round will be interesting...
Metaphysical will causes you to make the choices, no? Please share your thoughts.
I'm not following that, have you studied the synthetic a priori knowledge?
I'd say that reversing the long-term damage to the planet done by humans, while social in origin, goes beyond "the social, cultural and personal domain", being about not just what is left for us, but after us. And, while a believer may disagree in part due to the quality of their ideas, I think even a fence-sitter would argue that it's of more importance than whether a person wins eternal happiness or has an all-powerful father figure.
What would you call the metaphysical phenomena it causes you to live or die?
Quoting tim wood
On the contrary Jesus was a man.
Quoting tim wood
The nature of your existence.
I'm still waiting for your answers in round one. Surely you're not thinking about throwing in the towel already or are you? We've got lots more ground to cover and many more domains to explore. LOL
Oh and by the way, asking help from your corner will not help you much now! Doesn't seem like you've done the requisite training. Lol
Arent you essentially reinforcing Wayfarers point there? To a believer, you have your priorities out of order in not putting god or the afterlife before worldly concerns.
I see. So is this some sort of metaphysical innate sense of wonderment about causation?
I believe Jesus was recorded in history much like George Washington Albert Einstein et.al.
So far I've landed more punches than you in round one; is that all you got? I'm like Muhammad Ali, I like taunting LOL
Complaining to the referee on process I see lol.
Let me be a little clearer, metaphysical will is that which precludes you from committing suicide. But in this match, it won't preclude you from losing this round.
Does this mean you're throwing in the towel already?
Okay let me try a couple of softer punches. Let's start with the very simple. What causes you to wonder in your consciousness? Do you know?
No, I think even a believer can figure out that their personality fate is not more important than the human species and the Earth beyond it. Whether they do figure it out is a different matter.
Good, we're making progress. Both.
I think I'll rope-a-dope a little bit while you're pondering that important question relative to existence. That way you can think a little more clearly . LOL
Let me repeat it did I knock you senseless already?
Here it is: Are you asking what causes me to wonder, or what causes wonder?
My answer: both.
Rope a dope, rope a dope, LOL
I dont think it is about personal fate, nor about placing it selfishly above the rest of the human race. From the perspective of a believer (not your perspective, as an unbeliever) the long tern effects on the planet, the mortal lives of all humans, or really just any trappings of this life are a minuscule concern next to immortal soul and gods higher purpose.
You may not agree, but its fallacious to use different premises (there is no god or afterlife, all that stuff is bullshit) to justify the rejection of a conclusion based on different premises (there is a god and afterlife). Obviously if you dont believe you arent going to think any if that is more important than mortal concerns (which are the only concerns a non-believer has).
Are you saying that your own existence isn't ponderable or unanswerable?
Surely this couldn't be the case could it? It makes me wonder, no pun intended, if you can't answer basic questions about your own consious existence, in this case your will to live, how could you possibly answer questions or make any statements whatsoever about Jesus' existence?
Jesus, in historical texts who had a conscious,
did exist , didn't he? And you, you have a conscious and exist too, right?
Well if I haven't knocked you senseless yet, it follows that since you can't answer the basic metaphysical questions about your own will/conscious existence, then how you could you possibly answer questions about someone else's existence like Jesus?
So the knockout punch, if you will, appears to be you can't make any statements about God,/Jesus' existence. Using your logic, how is that possible?
Think about that a little bit more before we proceed, since this is critical to Metaphysics, existence, and your sense of Logic.
Please share your thoughts. But right now, I can't escape the conclusion I'm coming to in round one, which is to say that you can't make any declarations about either yourself or God. LOL
Nahhh......you’re doing alright.
I'm saying that even as a 50/50 agnostic, I hope I'd put the future of the planet ahead of my personal fate. The notion that people who are concerned with oppression of others, equality for others, the environment, etc. have lesser concerns than someone whose chief goal, they are repeatedly told, is to look after their post mortem existence makes the fallacy entirely your own. The two are incomparable, but in quite the other direction.
Im not sure that characterisation is accurate or helpful. I get what you are saying, I knew a guy that would go to church on christmas and pray for himself and no one else. Id agree, Very selfish.
Most believers arent like that though, many a christian will genuinely feel its of utmost importance to prioritise everyones soul, and that everyone is better off putting god first.
I'm sure they would, it would be the Christian thing to do. And that will help them on judgement day. Okay, that's a mean joke, I take it back.
I'm sure many Christians also pray for an end to global warming, an end to mass extinction, an end to injustice, etc. These would be obvious things to pray for, and go beyond personal salvation.
Is there anything that you know of that Christians pray for that is more important than their personal salvation and is more important than the biggest problems facing secular society? Maybe defeating Satan? Although Revelations tells us Satan will burn forever in fire and brimstone, so that would be pointless. What things do you pray for that are of more importance than the comparatively petty "social, cultural and personal" considerations I've suggested?
Well, depends on the brand of believer. Some of them have salvation (still not going to concede its all about “personal” salvation) tied very closely with the end of the world or judgement day. Some see those things you mentioned are viewed as gods plan or signs the day of judgement is coming (a good thing, under those views.)
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Most christians think everyones salvation is more important than their own. Secular society concerns are mortal concerns, and are less important to certain believers for the same reasons ive already mentioned.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
I dont pray for anything, im an atheist and an anti-thiest.
So how do you know what most Christians pray for?
I'm not hearing anything that justifies the claim that, even from a believer's point of view, puts believer's concerns somehow ahead of the secular world. Even the salvation of everyone is a secular concern, and I'm confident that secular means will be the means by which it is done, if it is done.
By talking to them, by listening to them, by reading about them and the writing they themselves do, by studying religion in an academic setting and by way of personal experience.
What about you?
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Not sure where we are missing each other here...secular concerns are mortal concerns. Do you understand what I mean by that? Some believers view this world as a pale shadow of what awaits them after they/we leave this world, this world only exists as a stepping stone to whats truly important, being with god forever in paradise.
Last call? Last call before what? Are you an admin. What he said made sense to me.
Same. I'm going to take your claim to authority with a slight pinch of salt if I'm honest.
Quoting DingoJones
Right, so personal concerns then.
For one he is saying that the very nature of feeling or awareness makes it very hard for us to assume that we know everything about feeling or awareness. I would argue feeling and awareness will be the final frontier of Scientific study. This is why consider myself somewhat of a Pan-psychist. There are over 11 forms of pan-psychism.
My assumption is the End of Grade thing is he is saying hes taken the metaphorical end of grade tests for the study of philosophy. Arragance is common on philosophy forums and i can't claim to be excluded from that boat.
Is there anything else you wanted me to reinterpret that he stated?
Im not claiming authority, you asked how I know what they pray for and I told you. I didnt intend to indicate you should concede the point because of my knowledge or anything like that. Indeed, fair play on the grain of salt id be disappointed if you didnt. It should be about the points being made, not someones “authority”.
Then I asked you how you knew what they prayed for, which I thought was fair.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
The part you bolded is meant as something important for everyone, not just themselves. Its a greater good, the greatest good, to many believers.
well since you gave me a compliment, i like you now.
you win. no sarcasm intended.
good point.
Can you say that I am not God?
Because I get the feeling this question might easily be misconstrued by many (here hoping I'm interpreting it properly enough):
A Yogi informs his pupil that his pupil is God. The pupil then sits on a street and attempts to telepathically stop an elephant from further approaching the pupil from afar. The ridden elephant approaches and nearly knocks over the pupil, who quickly runs away at this point - leaving an audience of spectators to laugh at the pupil in an uproar. The pupil informs his Yogi of this, who then laughs at the pupil in turn, saying, “Well, yes, you are God … just as the elephant you tried to stop and all spectators that laughed at you are also God.”
This is paraphrased from a parable told by someone whom I can’t currently recall. Still … it’s a mystic’s take on the existence of God.
Right. So it's not just the personal concerns of the person in question but those of others. Like people who oppose injustice, oppression, etc. But not like people whose concerns are beyond people. This is still not sounding like more important concerns. Like most problems with religion, it attempts to make a virtue of anthropocentrism. The best of the human race has rather moved beyond that, and without the carrot of eternity with the big man, or the stick of eternity in the other place. Even if God himself has concerns that are purely anthropocentric, they still appear, at best, the equal of secularist concerns.
Or, as Woody Allen put it better, "I wouldn't call God evil exactly. The worst you could say is he's an underachiever."
Irony being that so much thinking is driven by what is not religious. I'm studying a few topics from late antiquity and medieval philosophy, and there is a lot of common ground between philosophical and theological ideas - as there must be, because one easily shades into the other. They have, at the least, a common boundary.
Obviously I agree those secular things are more important but thats becuase neither of us are believers. To a believer they are much, much less important.
So to me you are still being fallacious, using different premises to reach a different conclusion and acting as though there is something wrong with the believers conclusion because it doesnt follow from your premiss. Of course it doesnt, you’ve replaced their non-secular premises with your secular one. Can you answer that criticism specifically? (A request, not meant as snark or a leading question)
I won’t belabour the point, as I said Im not a fan of religion so its not like I have a dog in the fight per say.
Can you say that I am not this thing that I know, or have witnessed (through revelation), but for the life of me can't explain, but I know it and it is with me always.
This would not be a requirement. I might have a spark of the spirit of God in me, which is God just like a drop of water is the same as the ocean it came from. Or to put it another way, I don't have to be able to create a world at will to be God. I might be unaware that I am God and unable to use my powers. Or I might be God in a way in which I bare witness, but don't act, for example.
But this confines the God in me to human discourse. The God in me might be life itself and the act of creation is the progression of life. But this might be totally unknown to humanity in the domain of intellectual knowledge, although it could well be known in some other unarticulated living way.
This is probably at the root of the difference between us. I have pursued an interest in other ways of knowing things about nature. Precisely because I had come up against the limitations of human reason and the scope and results of the human intellect in addressing the issue (this is not to diminish the discoveries of science). Regarding intelligibility there have been aural and linguistic traditions developed specifically to render religious experiences intelligible. Such traditions are concerned with conveying understanding of such experience and accepting the reality of it into the self. This does not include rational analysis of what is being conveyed. Or the requirement for the intellect to know the experience through the power of the intellect to rationally understand what is to be conveyed.
I'm not sure of what you are saying here, but it sounds reasonable to me.
I disagree, I think rather you have not yet shown that the content of this concern of ultimate importance is actually any higher than secular concerns. That is the claim I am disputing. There's verbal innuendo toward something beyond secular scope, but it has no actual content under inspection. So someone wishes good things to happen to them and other people they wish good things to happen to. Well, you know what? Who doesn't?
I think most people can distinguish this, from the actual philosophy of religion, which is a perfectly respectable discipline and much of the time is every bit as rigorous as any other in philosophy (and so it comes down to ones personal interests). And of course most of the "Great Philosophers" dabbled in philosophy of religion to varying extents (Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Russell, etc). As always, its not philosophy itself that is the problem, just bad, sloppy, uninformed and ill-considered philosophy.
Alright, I guess we are talking about different things.
Is that any different than any other topic? Lots of people always have the “dogma” of their particular side they put out and it ruins it for the minority who are actually interested In real discussion?
Topic dependent I suppose. Someone attached to a topic emotionally generally holds discussion back rather than helping it along. Passion is the enemy of reason.
Good point. There is probably a few specific areas where what I said applies and a bunch where it doesnt. The ones where it applies are the areas accessible to the uneducated, religion, politics etc, the ones where everyone has an opinion even if its uninformed. Thats probably why they tend to be such toxic/poor discussion topics, they are diluted by the standard idiocy of mankind.
Well, yes, because it's much closer to philosophy than some other subject.
That's why there is a constant stream of newcomers trying to articulate some idea that sounds religious or philosophical, bubbling up from their unconscious.
The other point is, to state the obvious, there is a 'culture war' around religion, or rather, religion is one of the main drivers of the culture wars. At issue are radically divergent visions of what human life means. The militant atheism of e.g. Dawkins/Dennett sees humans in terms of being gene-carriers or 'moist robots' or even in Stephen Hawking's memorable phrase 'chemical scum'. There are many ideological and commercial interests that seek to exploit human nature for various (often nefarious) ends.
The religious side of the culture war wants to see human nature as being something other than simply a species or an organism or in mechanist or materialist terms. But as noted up-thread, it's not even possible to really explain what religious belief entails, to many it's simply unintelligible or nonsensical.
This forum generally has a natural presumption in favour of secular philosophy because of its cultural context. And I do respect that (when in Rome...) but as one of the resident idealists, I frequently rub up against that and have been involved in many pretty intense debates over the ten years since I started posting on forums.
Quoting Enai De A Lukal
:angry: I do. But I've learned to hold my fire most of the time, I have a lot more study to do.
And religion is a proxy for politics...
:up:
Richard Weaver, Ideas have Consequences
Helena Blavatsky was the driving force behind the creation of Theosophy.
Such philosophical arguments don't address the issue, they are nothing more than atheist apologetics and any serious philosophical enquiry into EOG must firstly conclude that humanity and therefore human philosophical knowledge is not equipped to answer the question. We are hopelessly ignorant of our origins, the origin of the world we find ourselves in (science has only managed to describe some things about what we are equipped to detect), any purposes, or meaning in regard of our origin, or our presence in such a world. We have no idea whether we are here due to a happenstance burp in the cosmic soup, as a kindergarten for baby Gods, or a kind of livestock being fattened up for slaughter.
We are uniquely blind not only to these truths, but in the modern world to our very blindness. We are the blind denying our lack of sight, insisting that our minds eye sees what we are. Philosophy ought to lay this bare, that what we know about existence, about the existence of God amounts to a hill of beans.
Some people who reach this kind of conclusion, then turn to other means of determining the answers to this issue and throughout the ages have reported on and written down what they have discovered. This is what has become known as the perennial wisdom.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy
Now as I pointed out before philosophers can poke holes in it with their logic and rhetoric, but philosophy is toothless in this regard and we're back to hitting each other over the head with inflatable hippopotami and unicorns.
Yeah, I looked her up when you asked, but nothing around here is named after her so I hadn’t heard of her before.
They are not privy to the information required, or means to get it through rational thought, so as to be in a position to answer the questions of our origins. This would presumably be established through a serious philosophical enquiry. Is there a philosophical enquiry which has reached a different conclusion? I would be interested to know
I am not saying that philosophy is not equipped with the intellect (not able to) to comprehend answers of our origins, but rather they do not have the necessary information. This is because the evidence of (the required information pertaining to) our origins is not available to us*.
As I have just pointed out, I am not saying we cannot think it, but rather, that we are in the position of being in ignorance. Someone might discover some secret to our origins enabling them to determine our origins. But while we remain in ignorance we cannot think the thoughts that such a person would employ.
I am not speculating, I am merely acknowledging our ignorance.
I have not provided a story, I have referred to revelation and that revelation provides an alternative means to acquire knowledge. Personally I don't attach a narrative, or story to it.
I don't profess to know the answer to the EOG, it is largely irrelevant to me. I am commenting on statements affirming an answer to the question and that rational thought can't answer it. I do accept though that it may be possible to answer it through personal revelation and that those who claim to have done this are not to be dismissed as weak willed, or to have fallen into a psychological trap of thinking a concept of a God somehow justifies a belief in that God, or conviction in its existence.
Quite, religious doctrine and revelation have often been bent to the purposes of manipulative people and groups. Religion has a lot to answer for.
I qualified that statement limiting it to the attempts by some to label believers as mistaken, weak willed (requiring a religious crutch), or subject to a psychological trait, or conditioning of believing a set of concepts as proving something to be true in the external world.
This is apologetics in the sense that it seeks to dismiss religious experience, or revelation as a figment of the mind and invalid. If that is what someone is doing, I would label it atheist apologetics.
I prefer to limit belief to the tangible things in my everyday life.
I am rigorous in my reasoning. Are you able to provide knowledge of our origins?
I think you misunderstand me.
* I do not want to diminish the achievements and discoveries of science, I am claiming that such discoveries have not provided any evidence, or information as to our origins and may never do.
Hey Tim!
I hope you had a good weekend. Now back to the boxing match:.
Mmmmm, sounds like to me that you are throwing in the towel. You are on a philosophy site, and you are claiming that there is no God. Metaphysics, synthetic a priori knowledge, the nature of existence, metaphysical consciousness/the sense of wonderment/the Will, those are the many conceptual tools we are using for round one in the match. And in our match, I can't tell you how to train, which routine is best for you, which strategy to use, the best gloves to wear, how many sit-ups to do, ad nauseum.
So once again, using ad hominin to hide behind your lack of training only substantiates my arguments to you.
Oh well, maybe try to train harder next time :chin: .
Unless I hear some skillful attack, it's two atheist's down in round one (you and jorndoe) LOL
Hiding behind ad hominem only serves to substantiate my point to you, which is, you don't even understand the nature of your own existence, so how can you make any logical distinctions between whether something exists or not(?).
Put a quarter in and try again! LOL
PoR is not a bad subset of philosophy to me, but I think I can explain why it's (at least one of) the part with the most quarrel.
1. Any philosophical thinker thinks about Region at some point and has a satisfying answer for his/herself, it's not like Hegel or Heidegger, etc, which are read and understood and discussed by a part of thinkers, and the most of the readers would not claim that they totally understand it.
2. Thinkers on Heger or Heidegger, etc, share a lot of common sense, and based on that they might agree or disagree with each other. While the thinkers on Religion are sorted into clearly 3 classes: theist, atheist, agnostic, and all disagree with each other. They do share the same world, but their ways to read the world are very different, and, as far as I observe, most people do not want to understand others' perspectives. It's certainly very hard and empirically most people don't or do with little effort.
3. Other subsets of philosophy are external knowledge that might not really affect your daily behavior, while religion is the most fundamental part of your worldview. People really defend their own fundamental beliefs.
Rather than assuming God's existence and arguing from there I think it is better to argue from existence and arrive at an argument for God's existence as being the most persuasive explanation of reality.
I think it is a question of approaching things with an open mind and, for me, realizing that God is the most coherent explanation for the world. I would not assume God exists and start arguing from there. I argue about the world I see and experience and then come to the conclusion that the existence of God is the best explanation.
Lot of people kinda feel it is threat to religious freedom, and mainly is against scientific "empirical" evidence. Some christian private universities still study the field tho. And the field is seen "dangerous", and mainly sciences try not to ask the question "weather if God exist, or not".
But for theologians it might be very interesting, because "you can not do good theology without knowing the philosophy", and we got many brilliant minds in field of philosophy of religion, mainly Thomas Aquinas, but his 5 ways (proofs of god), are taken nowadays as some kind of jokes that u tell people in bar when u are getting drunk. But also William Lane Craig, and Alvin Plantinga, have done some serious work on field of philosophy of religion.
In everyday life, people dont need to prove their faith to believe into something, like Alvin Plantinga's conception of "warranted christian belief" what means that you do not need to give any rational explanations for your belief to be true, and claims that all religious beliefs are true, just because of private individual emotional/experience. So it seems, like there is nothing to argue.
It is dangerous topic, like genetics, and human experiments. What can cause lots of untentional harm to believers, and in many countries is even against the law to give arguments against religious beliefs, and existence of God, gods, or in general transcendental beings.