Demarcating theology, or, what not to post to Philosophy of Religion
One aspect of the debate on forum quality that might be addressed is the preponderance of low quality thread of a theological bent.
Here's a few titles, by way of example:
These threads take scripture or revelation as a starting point for discussion; theology, not philosophy.
God is not a suitable tool for philosophical explanation because god is omnipotent and omniscient. Any question is given a sufficient reply by blaming god. Hence, philosophical discussion stops at god. Of corse, that does not imply that god is the correct answer.
Hence a good rule of thumb is that philosophers should were possible avoid using god. And generally speaking this rule is followed; it is not common, for example, to explain the differences between machine poetry and human poetry by using god, or the deity as an excuse for racism; and doing so would almost certainly result in a ban for low post quality.
This is not to rule out the use of philosophical techniques to examine the notion of god. Reason, sense-perception, introspection, other philosophical techniques can be applied to examining the coherence and consistence of the notion of god. Here we can draw a line at the introduction of revelation. So for instance it would be inappropriate, in a discussion of the conflict between divine omnipotence and benevolence, to simply say that since the bible or the Pope or the Bhagavad Gita says god is such-and-such, it must be so.
More common and more aggravating are bad-faith members who enter into conversation on a topic with a pretence of seeking an open discussion, but who are actually quite certain of their opinion and unwilling to even countenance an open discussion. These folk will present an argument and then do whatever is needed to avoid critique. They will ignore replies, or repeat their argument without addressing the critique, or indulge in a range of fallacious ad hoc rhetoric, or just blatantly make stuff up; anything that avoids meeting the criticism head on. @Devans99 was a blatant example; there are plenty of others. Many can be readily spotted by their heart-on-sleeve names.
In summary there are three things that identify a move from a philosophical enquiry to mere theology:
These merit deletion or banning.
Here's a few titles, by way of example:
- Was Judas a hero and most trusted disciple, or a traitor?
- Is Yahweh breaking an objective moral tenet?
- An Argument Against Eternal Damnation
- Was Jesus aware of being Yahweh?
- Does Yahweh/Jesus live by the Golden Rule?
- How much is Christ's life, miracles, and resurrection a fraudulent myth?
These threads take scripture or revelation as a starting point for discussion; theology, not philosophy.
God is not a suitable tool for philosophical explanation because god is omnipotent and omniscient. Any question is given a sufficient reply by blaming god. Hence, philosophical discussion stops at god. Of corse, that does not imply that god is the correct answer.
Hence a good rule of thumb is that philosophers should were possible avoid using god. And generally speaking this rule is followed; it is not common, for example, to explain the differences between machine poetry and human poetry by using god, or the deity as an excuse for racism; and doing so would almost certainly result in a ban for low post quality.
This is not to rule out the use of philosophical techniques to examine the notion of god. Reason, sense-perception, introspection, other philosophical techniques can be applied to examining the coherence and consistence of the notion of god. Here we can draw a line at the introduction of revelation. So for instance it would be inappropriate, in a discussion of the conflict between divine omnipotence and benevolence, to simply say that since the bible or the Pope or the Bhagavad Gita says god is such-and-such, it must be so.
More common and more aggravating are bad-faith members who enter into conversation on a topic with a pretence of seeking an open discussion, but who are actually quite certain of their opinion and unwilling to even countenance an open discussion. These folk will present an argument and then do whatever is needed to avoid critique. They will ignore replies, or repeat their argument without addressing the critique, or indulge in a range of fallacious ad hoc rhetoric, or just blatantly make stuff up; anything that avoids meeting the criticism head on. @Devans99 was a blatant example; there are plenty of others. Many can be readily spotted by their heart-on-sleeve names.
In summary there are three things that identify a move from a philosophical enquiry to mere theology:
- claiming that god is the answer to a philosophical question
- using scripture, revelation or other religious authority in an argument
- entering into a philosophical argument in bad faith.
These merit deletion or banning.
Comments (283)
In any case I don't think there is any bright line dividing theology from philosophy; from the thread titles you gave as examples alone, at issue in each seems less the positing of God as an answer than a question about the nature of God or the divine. I do agree that theological discussion tends to be of a lower quality than other discussion, but this is largely contingent, not of essence. And certainly bad-faith discussion is certainly not limited to religious folks - if only!
So take the topic Was Jesus aware of being Yahweh? This topic is dependent entirely on scripture, and has no philosophical merit.
But yes absolutely there should be a disciplined approach to such topics, in that one (religious or otherwise) should employ critical thinking, rationality and reasoning in their arguments either for or against God. More importantly I think any debate regarding God(s) should begin by establishing a definition of said God. Because it is rather pointless to talk cross-purposes with someone if they both hold completely different notions of what/how a god is.
Theists in essence try to define God. That is all. The byproduct of such an endeavour is all the writings, parables and stories surrounding it. I think rather than using science against religion and using religion against science/empirical data, we would be wiser to integrate both and try and establish commonalities. What did both parties get right? Within a loose metaphorical sense.
"Preaching" - is coming to the forum with an established view and the intent to convert or forcibly change others views without due philosophical process or evaluation. I think if their is a God he/she would be reasonably open minded so we ought to be also
Nor do I see religion as antithetical to science, so much as irrelevant. As it is to ethics.
They’re all from that gnostic proselytiser who ought to have been banned long since IMO.
You think religion is completely irrelevant to ethics? I think the principle tenet of religion (be kind to one another) is fundamental to ethics. That isnt to say that religion isnt full of other contradictions and has been used practically in very immoral ways but they do have ethical principles at their base aside from human error trying to abide by them.
Secondly, by saying religion is irrelevant to science is to say science cannot be employed to understand any of the content of religion - as it is irrelevant - which is to say science cannot tackle creation or the nature of being etc which it very much can and does. So religion and science cannot be irrelevant to one another as they both give explanations for the same phenomena.
Perhaps it is; but it is not so because it is the principle tenet of religion. If religion happens to be ethical, it's not because it is religion. Consider the Euthyphro.
Quoting Benj96
Oh, go ahead. Science might be relevant to religion, but not vice versa.
I think most of what "Gnostic Christian Bishop" dumps on the forum is a pretty clear case of theology*, and he doesn't even make any effort to disguise it as philosophy.
* Attempted theology, which is not like attempted murder, because it's worse, not better than the real thing.
With this comment, you are playing into the hands of people against whom you seem to be arguing.
The notion of whether or not gods exist...IS a worthy consideration of philosophers. But with this statement, you are arguing against one particular notion of a god (God, rather than a god) and suggesting that doing so is unworthy of philosophical consideration.
Frankly, considerations of (the possibility of gods or of no gods) do fall into the realm of philosophical intercourse. Fact is, until relatively recent times, it was the sole focus of philosophers.
Just sayin'.
I didn't say you said that you did. (Mostly I agree with the posts you make, Banno...and I agree with the underscore of this OP.)
My argument goes to the question of particularization...by mentioning "god" (not a god) and ascribing characteristics...omniscience and omnipotence...you seem to be limiting yourself to one particular god.
Gods, on the other hand, MAY be suitable tools for philosophical explanations...whatever you mean by that...IF ANY GODS DO IN FACT EXIST.
If any gods exist...they may be suitable tools for ALL philosophical explanations.
No big deal, we do not know if any gods exist or not...and probably should proceed as though none do for the purposes of establishing our moral and societal codes.
In any case, those threads you mentioned were started by one person...am I correct?
Is it possible you just have a problem with the kinds of threads that person starts?
Go ahead and report it. I give you permission.
Personally, I don’t see the issue with this. Can’t philosophical methods be used in theology? As you note, the starting point is an assumption that many would consider false or unjustified, but can’t philosophy still be used within those parameters? For example, discussing whether or not Calvinism’s view of free will is warranted. This seems similar to political discussions; discussing a particular feature within a particular system (I.e. the concept of property in socialism).
Quoting Banno
I agree, but I don’t think that’s what was going on in the threads you mentioned. We can discuss the merits of Judas without using god as a justification for our view, for example.
Quoting Banno
The other bullets I have no contention with, but this seems relevant in certain contexts. If I want to claim that Jesus promoted homophobia, I would need to provide scripture as evidence/justification of my claim.
Well that would depend on the religion wouldnt it? None of the major religions likely have much in the way of scientific contribution. But religion is not a finite and historic human phenomenon. There will probably be many more religions in the future. They, like science ...evolve and reshape. I for one have spiritual beliefs that dont contradict current scientific discovery but rather facilitate the philosophical and conscious aspect of the phenomena we have defined scientifically.
There are parties which wish things to be conserved as they are and parties which wish to shift the paradigm to a better interpretation in both religion and science. Perhaps a religion that integrates science or at the least aligns itself with such scientific facts as not to be contradicted while still pertaining to an ultimate singular force or God from which things develop may one day exist and maybe even already. Or a unified humanitarian view that encapsulates both religion and science and there interplay in a larger umbrella belief, view, finding or state of knowledge.
I'll try to be clear. Science operates independently of religion, in that science actively seeks to remove the influence of all biases, including religious biases. Science explicitly rejects being based on such things as revelation, mysticism or ecclesiastic authority. So no, one could not, as you suggest, design a scientific religion The best that you might hope for would be a religion that attempted to base itself on science, which to me would seem to be no more than wishful thinking. Science is by its nature in a state of flux, so putting a body of scientific dogma in the place of revelation would inevitably result in schism, as science moves on.
Or else, the result of putting science in the place of revelation would be humanism.
Result.
Your damnation thread is at best borderline. The notion of damnation derives from religious revelation, so there's that. If your point is that eternal damnation is incompatible with both a loving god and most brands of ethics, then it is trite.
Yes, i was thinking of omnipotent deities when I wrote the OP. But I don't see how Thor or The God Of Small Things would be useful as the answer to a philosophical conundrum.
Edit: actually, the God of Small Things might be an exception...
I'm sorry. :roll:
It's not like you post the most interesting threads either.
And yet you reply in my threads, not I in yours.
You don't like my threads. Tell me why I should care?
So @Wheatley's damnation thread might be accepted if the discussion was about the inherent logical inconsistency of the associated concepts, but not if it were about listing the sins that are suitable for damnation. As it stands, it wavers betwixt the two.
Otherwise, I think we are in broad agreement.
What's next? You don't like my country?
It's just that I don't see you post here are contributions to the topic. I'm giving you enough rope. Do with it as you will.
I already know that.
Bye.
Quoting Wikipedia on Raëlism
Quoting Wikipedia on Scientology
Okay, we may be at an impasse, Banno.
Perhaps it is that I do not accurately understand what you were trying to convey with the expression, “God is not a suitable tool for philosophical explanation because god is omnipotent and omniscient. Any question is given a sufficient reply by blaming god. Hence, philosophical discussion stops at god. Of corse, that does not imply that god is the correct answer.”
My position, which is that of an agnostic, is that a GOD or gods may exist. If so, that GOD or those gods may, indeed, impact on anything or everything.
Your position, it seemed to me, tended to eliminate the prospect of any gods (merely to eliminate them from consideration of "philosophical" considerations…which I considered an appropriate position to dispute.
Either I was wrong in how I was taking your remarks…or in some other way misunderstanding what you are suggesting with that thesis.
I’ll just follow along for a bit to see where this goes…and if my initial assumptions prove to be wrong, I’ll leave things be.
The best theistic reply is perhaps the Thomist position. But most of the Christians hereabouts appear to be Protestant.
They are back.
Yeah, what we have going on here is noble posturing to free speech, which is already regulated in many cases through the lounge. It's beyond backward, none of the administrators or moderators of this forum are Christians, would they allow Nazis to post on here if they made abstract arguments? Because this can be done in the form of Carl Schmitt. What about abstract threads on Unicorns of Fairies? Because this can be done with Plantinga's arguments (he said Zeus was an acceptable deity for his position). I feel I have taken quite a bit of opposition for merely stating the obvious, and my position is not extreme. I don't have a problem with philosophical theology, let's discuss Whitehead or Spinoza, I'm talking about organized religion, specifically the cult of Jesus. This presumption of unconditional respect for religious error is unfounded.
They are back - again.
One of the annoying features of god-talk is defining god (particularly the Abrahamic God) at the start, then getting tangled up in the barbed wire resulting from the definition, like "can an all-powerful god create a weight too heavy for him to lift?" Or "Is a god who [creates] [allows] evil to exist evil?"
Or, "Can an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omni-et cetera god do or not do such and such?" Hmmmm, one wants to ask, "How do you know that a god or God is any of those things, and how would we very finite creatures even think about being present in all times and in all places, knowing everything that there is to know, and being unlimited in any way?"
People make things up. That's fine as long as we remember the difference between what we made up and what actually exists without our help. Unfortunately, we tend to believe our own bullshit.
The list in the OP would today read:
Again, these threads should be removed if they
Quoting Banno
Theology is an area that can, but does not always, assume the existence of a deity or some overarching dimension to reality. This, for those who don’t believe, can be approached by understanding the premise is not something you hold but your comrade in discussion/debate does BUT this premise in and of itself is not under scrutiny (yet your partner in discussion may be willing to go off topic).
If your interest lies in Philosophy of Religion then you must interact with theological believers.
Like everywhere in life not everyone is worth talking to, but it is worth giving everyone a chance to express their thoughts and perhaps find something to build on immediately or in future discussions.
Quoting Banno
Why? Is this a divine revelation you have had, an arbitrary definition you have adopted or what? There are threads on current affairs, on environmental issues, on the latest space telescope, etc, which have good claim not to be philosophy by most definitions.
I would suggest that the scope of philosophy is something to be explored, not laid down by fiat. People come with the questions that concern them, and philosophers should be able to help them clarify the issues and consider the implications. The stories we tell about our origins and nature that have found their way into religious texts are not thereby rendered off limits to philosophy, but are the foundations of society that are there to be explored and questioned. The thought police must operate here, but not in this arbitrary manner.
I disagree. That is insufficient. There remains a need to keep the identity of this site as a philosophy forum, not a place for religious blather.
I think it should be taken as a case by case issue not an outright ban.
People do actually change, and some people are quite capable of discussing in what you frame as a theological sense and what you frame as a philosophy of religion sense too. The main issue is others judging them and not letting go of the fact that someone believes something and making that the whole reason to attack/besmirch them.
Exposure to different views/ideas is a tricky and messy business, but overall the benefits for some are worth the annoyance others feel imo.
You could just notify a mod if you have a concern. You post this in order to be a pompous ass. What's worse is you're crap at philosophy as well.
It's an open forum, contributors can choose not to respond to topics they feel are out of scope. I rarely respond to any overtly theological OPs.
It's an open forum, contributors can choose not to respond to topics they feel are out of scope. I rarely respond to any overtly theological OPs.
Of course. I post on religious topics myself. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the demarcation, and to offer a reminder to the mods.
There's an issue of balance, and I am aware that I am not alone in thinking that the balance is off at present. Others have raised the issue, and the topics I listed above do show an uncomfortable bias.
I noted that pointed to the factual error in the OP of that thread and didn't comment.
Quoting I like sushi
What did we do wrong? :gasp:
Sometimes I do comment on specifically theological OPs that this is a philosophy forum not a theology forum. But I don't know if a lot more should be done about them. 'The dogs bark, the caravan moves on'.
Banno utters nonsense again! Philosophy will take any commonly held belief as a starting point for discussion or inquiry. That's very evident in Plato's dialogues, and Plato is arguably the definitive philosopher. The subjects mentioned here involve deep philosophical questions. Banno seems to want to limit "philosophy" to "what interests Banno", and that's a very selfish attitude, especially since Banno's interests are very shallow.
:up:
This is a really good point. There's a lot of science and pseudo-science on here, but you don't see much about cracking down on scientific posts that are clearly not philosophy of science. I'm happy to see those threads here, as well as the ones you mention and the ones about religion. Bad quality bothers me a lot more than whether or not something fits the forum mold exactly.
Good post. Well thought out and argued.
I don't think you can have a full discussion of metaphysics without including religion.
I'm a bit confused about the reference to me in this. I do agree with @Wayfarer that the vitalism thread was a worthwhile one.
As I've noted here before, atheism and religion are the only topics where bigotry is encouraged on the forum.
Although there is a lot of crap here on the forum, including a lot of religion crap, I have been impressed with the quality of some of the religion-related threads recently.
If philosophy is the love of wisdom then it is necessary to address claims of wisdom. Theological beliefs and claims are part of our intellectual and spiritual history. They are not simply relics of the past, they inform our understanding of ourselves and the world.
To address them is not to accept them. As philosophers have always known, if for no other reason, we must understand them in order to combat them.
Cause that way there will be more room for all old Banno's threads to be revived.
So hopefully a Holly Day will come, where TPF's first page will be full of Banno's old threads resurrections and new ones also.
Only those will be permitted. The only really worthy ones! The time will COME, and all of you unfaithful bastards you will then post in.. TBF
There is a BIG difference between antitheist and atheist. Maybe you read atheist by mistake :)
"Bigotry" by or against?
Banno doesn't seem to be getting much encouragement in this topic today, assuming he's a suspect.
You should be banned for using i.e. and () too many fucking times. Kidding.
I admit that I was fixated on the dental condition of a donkey, but others gave a more serious reply.
I have five posts on this page. They were all civil and substantive. Many of the others also were.
That the sudden influx of "hell" threads has been tidied up should be duly noted. Thank you, mods. Perhaps the balance can be restored.
Edit: On inspection it seems there has been a general clean-up, . Thank you to the moderators for intervening.
Congratulations on your success in promoting bigotry here on the forum.
I doubt that this thread had much to do with the recent edits, perhaps apart from drawing some attention. It's an eternal issue.
That wasn't the point you were making. What you ask for is much broader. It bothers me that the moderators, who have such knee-jerk reactions to any hint of prejudice for any other vulnerable or protected group, don't provide that same consideration for religious beliefs.
Many of the posts in this thread show your argument for the hollow shell it is. It has nothing to do with philosophy. It's all about your personal antipathy to religion.
I'm using this thread to get my opinion across to them and others, just as you did. This whole thread was set up as a polemic to influence the moderators. I'm just using it to provide a counterbalancing opinion. Others on the thread have done the same. You set this up. We're just playing along.
You consider religious folk vulnerable and in need of protection?
Here on the forum certainly. In the world at large.... sometimes.
Protection from atheists or other “believers”? The latter is most typical, I think.
Incidentally, I flagged a post for the first time today. A blatantly racist post and my flagging had no effect, so apparently the mods are supportive of bigotry pluralism.
Here on the forum, atheists. I haven't seen any sectarian prejudice here. My posts have been about posters here on the forum.
In the world, sectarian conflicts. What difference does it make? The principles are protection of religious freedom, freedom of association, freedom of speech, anti-discrimination, equal application of the rules, fairness.
I didn’t read any of the titles that Banno listed earlier and now they appear to be ghosted so I can’t make any judgment about fairness. Generally, it seems to me that “believers” have ample opportunity to express their “beliefs” on this forum. I know from personal experience that that is not the case in religious forums, which are far far less tolerant of other views, if they have any tolerance at all. So the difference is that religion seems to require intolerance and philosophy seems to require openness to various views, though all views will be looked at critically.
It does, not that you mention it. I wouldn’t have pegged you for a Treky or sci-fi fan.
Sci-fi, yes. Trek, a bit, but Babylon 5 and The Expanse are more my cup of tea. I like a decently long arc, something Trek never got right; and those ridiculous time travel episodes, including the most recent Picard series, are insulting.
Again, the list was intended as a reference for topical discussion. It is not a hit list. I've contributed to some of the threads listed. But it is easier to reply to a complex thread if you start by misrepresenting the OP.
And again, it is doubtful that this thread has much to do with the clean-up. The mods generally do a fair job, but occasionally they seem overwhelmed.
Double their pay, I say.
If you openly admit you are hostile to a whole group of people merely because they are theists I think you have issues.
I agree! However, speaking for myself, I am not "hostile to a whole group of people merely because they are theists". My mother, for instance, is a theist and I'm not "hostile" to her. That goes for my brother, all but one of his children, the rest of my extended family and most of my oldest friends. I am, however, "hostile" to individuals when they are vapid or disingenuous or pompous assholes whether or not they are theists. Most atheists just ignore, even humor, theists without any (unprovoked) "hostility"; they simply take theists to task for the dubious claims which they often make in the name of their god/s, especially on a site like TPF that's dedicated to reasonable discussion and argument.
I guess there is a middle ground though. Maybe I jumped the gun. Staunch anti-theists are probably more what bother me and it is those who are bigoted.
Being an atheist and and partly anti-theistic is not the same as being a bigot. My mistake. In terms of education I am very much opposed to religious teaching in schools that undermine and contradict science; within reason. Example like the age of the Earth and such.
A reasonable discussion can be had within the context of religious texts. I see no real problem in debating such and think it is probably one of the best ways to open more severe religious types to a new set of tools with which to question and explore their beliefs.
Preachers here will be banned I expect as well as those unwilling/unable to know who and how to respond enter discourse with. If two people are having a good discussion about the morality of certain religious texts based on the premise that god is all knowing and right, then it is pretty obnoxious if someone else jumps in to throw insults and sully the discussion being had.
I have had discussions about definitions of god in the hundreds, online and off, because it is a personal interest of mine. The majority of religious folk I have engaged with are more than reasonable. There are some that simply don’t know how to listen though.
On this forum a think a cool off period would be better than an outright permanent ban (in most cases). That is for owner of the forum to decide though. I have only ever seen a handful of long term posters deserving of a permanent ban. Others just need a breather for a couple of weeks.
I think this is unavoidable since its an intrinsic feature of all intellectual attempts founded on assumed supernatural artifacts.
A bigger and far more important issue is our inability to demarcate Philosophy from theology and supernatural ideologies in general.Quoting Banno
-"Quoting Banno
Correct, Philosophy needs to use established epistemology as a starting point not faith based assumptions.
Quoting Banno
All philosophical explanations should stop before entering any supernatural assumption.Quoting Banno
I agree.
This is clearly a biased statement.. Whenever evidence and logic indicate the reality of that which is beyond the natural, then the appropriate conclusion is the supernatural. To deny the reality of what the evidence and logic lead you toward, because it's contrary to what you already believe, is simple prejudice.
-"This is clearly a biased statement"
-the problem is with the nature of philosophy not with my statement describing the incompatible nature of supernatural assumptions.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
- That is more of an argument from ignorance fallacy.
We don't have evidence indicating that something lies beyond the natural or point to causal role in the world.
We either have evidence for a natural mechanism or have zero evidence for a natural mechanism. This is the true dichotomy.
your conclusion is based on a false dichotomy. In order for the supernatural to be part the discussion, you will first need to demonstrating the existence of the supernatural.
Supernatural appears to be of a label that we stick on things we ignore.
Logic can not accept explanations that are based on unsound arguments. Any premise need to be verified and no premise for the supernatural has this luxury.
Logic dictates that you need to have evidence for your claim( the supernatural). The lack of evidence for an other claim doesn't automatically render yours the answer.
Again Philosophy, in order to be successful and true to its goal (produce wise claims) it needs to be founded on knowledge. The supernatural has zero objective demonstrations so by definition it can not be addressed by Philosophy.
No that does not follow. :roll:
Remember, people are often blind to their own bigotry, clothed in self righteousness as they are.
I'm not saying you're a bigot, but I know what Tclark was talking about. The psyche gravitates toward the acceptable vent for hatred and frustration and disappointment. It takes what it can get.
And the OP stinks of it. It's disgusting.
Upon further consideration I clearly stated that not all people calling themselves ‘anti-theistic’ are necessarily against theists (in every aspect). There is certainly a fine line between claiming you are against someone’s beliefs and claiming you are against someone.
As I said before, in terms of education, I am ‘anti-theist’ I suppose. That is a very specific area though and one which prompted a whole movement in the US under the guise of ‘atheism’.
I am against religious ideals imposing on my, and other people’s, choices. Other than that people can do as they please and believe what they want.
If you replace the above with Nazis and Nazism, you might see what I meant more clearly? It would be silly to state that I am against Nazism but not Nazis. The difference (I admit again) is that ‘theist’ is much more broader than ‘nazi’ (which is more or less like a particular set of ideas/beliefs), and although more dubious political movements/ideologies have a lot in common with religious traditions they are not the same animal.
Yeah I’m a huge nerd too.
Would you care to elaborate on this, Dr. Freud?
Here's a link to the list:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/680631
On in particular got my hackles up - "The eternal soul (Vitalism): was Darwin wrong?" It is not primarily a religious thread and I found it really useful.
Quoting praxis
I think this is true and I'd like to see it stay that way. My primary complaint is about this thread. There are other members who express even stronger feelings about religious posts than Banno does, but the moderators have been reasonably open.
No the problem is with the opinion expressed by your statement. Clearly when the assumption of the supernatural is necessitated by a combination of the evidence, the definition of "natural", and logic, then philosophers ought to assume the supernatural. Your opinion is that philosophy should stop short of assuming the supernatural, even if the supernatural is necessitated by the logic. That's why your opinion is faulty.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
You left out evidence for something which has no natural mechanism. Take free will for example. We have evidence of free will, and there is no natural mechanism to explain it.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
This is not true. All that is required is evidence of something which is not natural. This effectively demonstrates the necessity for the supernatural to be part of the discussion.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
As I said, evidence that there is something which is not natural, is evidence of the supernatural.
Love your objection to the claim of Darwin’s alleged thrill-seeking nature, noting how the frivolous swashbuckler spent forty years studying worms in his backyard. :lol:
-Logic can never necessitate an ill defined unfalsifiable assumption about a realm.
This is really simple. The supernatural is an argument from ignorance fallacy. Just because we are unable to identify the cause of a phenomenon , we rush to make up an explanation with magical properties that defy natural roles. That is intellectual lazyness and has been proven a the main reason of delaying our epistemic advances. Every time we managed to solve a mystery we never verified anything supernatural.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
-No when lacking evidence for a natural mechanism, means that we ....lack evidence for a natural mechanism. It doesn't mean that we have evidence for the supernatural!
-"Take free will for example. We have evidence of free will, and there is no natural mechanism to explain it."
-Whatlol? You are pulling my leg right? We don't have free will. We are bind by our biology and peer pressure and environmental influences etc. We have will that ins't free. We only have some really brief bursts of freedom mainly for superficial choices.
This is a theological not a philosophical concept.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Declaring something you made up or don't understand non natural is not a good way to prove the supernatural.
Sorry its special pleading to change the standards of logic just because you dig magic.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Sorry but we have no evidence of anything not natural. We have natural processes that we understand and natural processes that we don't understand.
You are making a fallacious argument from ignorance...and in the case of free will its a fallacy from Personal incredulity.
That thread wasn't moved. you said Quoting T Clark
which as I mentioned before is spot on.
It seems you really do not understand the nature of logic.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
You are not reading what I said. I said when we are able to determine, that it is impossible that the phenomenon could have had a "natural" cause, according to how we define "natural", then we can conclude "supernatural". I am not talking about being unable to identify a cause, I am talking about identifying a cause as supernatural.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Look Nickolasgaspar, no evidence of a natural mechanism for a particular thing, is evidence of no natural mechanism for that thing, no matter how you spin it. Now, when the evidence becomes such that it is impossible that there is a natural mechanism, according to accepted definition of "natural", then you can keep searching for that non-existent natural mechanism forever, which you will not find because there is no evidence of it, or you can turn around to face reality, and make an attempt to understand the supernatural.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
I see it's pointless to discuss philosophy with you.
Thanks for the clarification.
You can not promote an argument from ignorance fallacy and accuse me for not understanding the nature of logic. Do you see the irony in that statement?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
-Really , you can demonstrate impossibility and distinquish it from personal incredulity? How would you do that???? Do you know everything there is to know about natural causes? Really?
How can you verify a supernatural cause when you don't have a way to observe it or describe it? How can you be sure that the cause of phenomenon is not just a natural mechanism that you just happen to ignore?
After all our long history of epistemology has proven that every time we rushed to declare something supernatural, when we finally managed to explain it...the explanation was never a supernatural one!
These are not serious arguments sir!!!!
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
-Yes I understand that this is what you believe The question is why would you ever hold such an irrational belief!
No evidence means.... no evidence, it doen't mean positive evidence or even indications for a magical realm.
Any claim SHOULD stand on its own merits or else you just end up with an argument from ignorance fallacy. Again you don't have a way to exclude our inability to observe or puzzle together facts that can provide evidence for a mechanism.
And again, we have been doing that for ages...positing supernatural stories to explain things.
Mysteries do not qualify as answers for other mysteries, plus every single time we solved a mystery, the solution turned out to be natural.....we have never verified a supernatural cause.
We can not justify the supernatural as an explanatory tool in our metaphysics. Its intellectual dishonesty and laziness.
Don't you care avoiding fallacies in your arguments?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
-You DON'T KNOW that. Impossibility needs to be demonstrated not assumed.
You are confusing the term "there is no evidence" with " our current facts are not enough to provide evidence". You are poisoning the well with your assumptions(one more fallacy).
You don't know if we have all the facts and if advances in our technology will allow new observations to produce additional facts that could support our evidence for a mechanisms. (the history of science...)
There isn't anything to understand about the supernatural because it's a made up bin where magical thinkers through everything we currently don't understand in there. The supernatural is ill defined so it has no explanatory power. We don't observe or verify supernatural causation and we shouldn't use it on things we currently do not understand.
Imagine if we stopped searching for the cause of diseases because our superstitious ancestors came up with supernatural explanations like gods and theodicy,evils spirits , evil eye, cursing etc.
Again your arguments are superstitious and outdated.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Superstitious beliefs in the supernatural is NOT philosophy.
Philosophy should produce wise claims to assit our understanding of the world....not to point to mystery worlds we have to way to testing them...lol
The supernatural is Pseudo Philosophy.
We use logic to demonstrate impossibility.Quoting Nickolasgaspar
No evidence of X, means no evidence of X, but no evidence of X might still be evidence of Y. No evidence of X does not mean no evidence absolutely as you imply here. You seem to be ignoring what I've reiterated numerous times, that "natural" requires a definition.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Are you suggesting that we change the definition of "natural" in the future, to allow for what would now be necessarily supernatural.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
I propose we define "natural" in the common way, as "not artificial". Do you agree that artificial things must be supernatural?
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
A discussion of free will is philosophy. And any hypocrite who denies oneself free will is incapable of understanding reality. So until you change your attitude, it's pointless to discuss philosophy with you.
No no no no...no no no.
When we deal with vague existential claims that we have zero data to contract logical evaluations, the only way is by an objective methodology that is capable to verify any thing that exists.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
-No.since we have never demonstrated Y to be possible so we can not just assume it and pretend we solved the problem.
No evidence of an x mechanism means that we don't know if we have all the facts to arrive to a reasonable conclusion.
-" You seem to be ignoring what I've reiterated numerous times, that "natural" requires a definition."
- So you really don't know the definition of natural, but you insist in declaring phenomena that you don't understand "supernatural".
In Science Natural is every process or phenomenon that manifest in reality through verified building blocks of the physical would and or their advanced properties.
When a claim states that a specific phenomenon/process is non contingent to those elements and their properties, that is a supernatural claims.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No, since, we as human produce artificial things, but they are not supernatura because in order for them to exist a long line of natural processes must take place first. (i.e. QM, emergence of atoms, emergence of molecules, emergence of chemical properties, emergence of biological properties and structures, emergence of mental properties, emergence of skills through training....thus production of a artificial things (i.e. jewellery).
In order for an artifact to be supernatural that would demand the existence of mind properties non contingent to the causal line described above somehow interacting in matter and producing the artifact.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Sure it is, and by the time we introduce our scientific knowledge we realize that we are not really free to make free choices.
Our biology, our peers, our given needs and circumstances limit our free will in really mundane choices.
I will suggest to you to educate yourself on Human behavior. Try the Robert Sapolsky's book "Behave" or his lectures and talks on Human behavior.
The next time you mesh up your diet or you do something that you now found it stupid ....start questioning your misconceptions.
If free will was a real thing.....marketing would NOT work.
Take care mate. I hope my definitions help your steer yourself away from magical answers like the supernatural.
btw our efforts to free our will from all this power noise produced by biological drives,environmental influences, peer pressure, cultural indoctrination and prototypes, pleasure traps of cost effective andy and fast rewards etc etc) is not a supernatural phenomenon...its just cognitive deliberation. Its a well understood phenomenon and it assist many our our cognitive abilities that allow us to reflect on scenarios.
Sure, the "Natural" is everything which manifests "through verified building blocks", but we still need to account for the existence of these so called "building blocks". That's what we deal with in metaphysics. If "Natural" is whatever is constructed with the building blocks, then whatever constructs the building blocks must be supernatural. Do you agree?
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
That natural things are necessary for the effect A, does not exclude the possibility that supernatural things are also required for the A effect.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Yes, remember I mentioned "free will". And the hypocrite that you are, chose to reject the reality of free will.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
That the extent to the freedom of the will is limited, does not necessitate the conclusion that it is not real. Look at the above, natural causes are required for the occurrence of A , and also supernatural causes are required for A. If it is a fact that the natural effectively restricts the supernatural, this does not necessitate the conclusion that the supernatural has been excluded.
-"the "Natural" is everything which manifests "through verified building blocks",
-yes
-"but we still need to account for the existence of these so called "building blocks".
-yes
-" That's what we deal with in metaphysics."
-yes
-"If "Natural" is whatever is constructed with the building blocks, then whatever constructs the building blocks must be supernatural.Do you agree?"
-No, how do you prove that?
-"That natural things are necessary for the effect A, does not exclude the possibility that supernatural things are also required for the A effect."
-What natural things are necessary of is irrelevant to how we establish and verify possibilities.The possibility of the supernatural must be demonstrated, not assumed.
How can you do that? Easy, by just pointing to a single example where the supernatural has being demonstrated to be true, beyond reasonable doubt and by the use of objective evidence accessible to everyone and without of the need of an auxiliary assumptions or a fallacious argument from ignorance.
Do you have such a case?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Again declaring a natural phenomenon of cognitive deliberation "supernatural" is not evidence for the supernatural.
You can NOT POINT TO AN ABSTRACT CONCEPT THAT DESCRIBES THE INABILITY OF HUMANS TO MAKE CHOICES FREE FROM OTHER INFLUENCES AND CLAIM TO BE SUPERNATURAL!!!!!!!
I'am not an hypocrite, you are scientific illiterate and irrational and that makes everyone who corrects you appear to your eyes as a hypocrite!
-"That the extent to the freedom of the will is limited, does not necessitate the conclusion that it is not real."
-Sure, our will is a real phenomenon......declaring it "fee" is scientifically ignorant because none of our choices are really free from the system we are in.
-"and also supernatural causes are required for A. "
-Stop this sophistry. You need to demonstrate that supernatural causality is real and that it is required for A. You don't get to assume it you need to demonstrate ti. You don't even define what supernatural causality would mean for A. What we should expect if it was natural and what if it was supernatural causality???
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
-You just don't get it. You keep promoting the same Argument from Ignorance fallacy. Don't you value valid arguments at all?
The natural tells us nothing about the supernatural. A natural explanations renders a mechanism Necessary and Sufficient...that's all!!!!
Whether a supernatural explanation is relevant,that is on you do demonstrate sufficiency and necessity through objective positive evidence in favor of the supernatural...not by making arguments through the use of gaps in our epistemology.
Again you need to define and demonstrate that the supernatural exists, is possible and it can interact with natural systems by a specific mechanisms. Can you do that by providing objective evidence.
PLS DON'T make the same fallacious claims on us not being able to prove the supernatural impossible.....or that "free" will is evidence for the supernatural...
Look, I stated I was hasty so saying such does nothing. ‘Anti’ is not the same as ‘critical of’ AND I clearly stated that I am ‘anti-theistic’ in SOME areas yet don’t see my singular view on how education works as bigoted.
Maybe it is possible to get you to admit that someone can be bigoted towards theists. If you can then it is just a question of where the lone is drawn.
I certainly do not regard ‘criticism’ as ‘opposed’/‘against’ anything. Criticism is just criticism, and it can be both positive and negative - hopefully both! That is usually how I spot bigotry. If someone cannot offer a positive and negative aspect then they may well be bigoted.
We're not having a philosophical discussion. :roll:
If you are anti-nazism you are utterly opposed to a nazi, right? Surely that follows?
Whilst if you are anti-racism you are not necessarily opposed to ‘racists’ only those that ‘act out’ (so to speak). Generally if someone is opposed to racism they are opposed to racists, right? Of course, the devil is in the detail of what constitutes a ‘racist act’ that impairs the rights of other fellow humans.
Then splice in anti-theism and theist. ALSO note that I admitted that these are not the same thing, but it is certainly the case that anti-theism can - but does not always - mean opposed to theists.
What EXACTLY is not philosophical here? I thought I was exploring the distinctions between where bigotry begins and ends whilst you just seem, being honest, a bit petulant because I originally implied that being ‘anti-theism’ meant such was ‘bigotry’. I have REPEATEDLY, and almost immediately, altered that initial, and blithe, comment.
Just to be clear, ‘bigotry’ is open prejudice (unreasonable opposition) against persons/peoples attached to or part of certain groups.
Of course you can argue that opposition to ‘religious beliefs’ (theistic in particular) is a reasonable argument. My argument against this would be in the intricacies of what constitutes ‘theist’ (meaning what is meant by ‘god’/‘deity’). As an idea of some overarching, conscious supernatural beardy guy/gal … I’m opposed to that too. I think it is a stretch to state that that is what all theists mean when they say ‘god’/‘deity’ - judged on the hundreds I’ve personally spoken to.
Ok, rather than call what is outside of natural "supernatural", would you prefer "non-natural"? I don't really care about the terminology. If you dislike the term "supernatural" let's just call it "non-natural".
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
When it is demonstrated that there is something other than the natural, then we must call it something. You defined "natural" as what manifests through verified building blocks, so the manifestation of the building blocks themselves must be something other than natural. Can we call this the "non-natural"?
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
A "system" is a human construct. This statement makes no sense.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
It's already been demonstrated. According to your definition of "natural", nature builds things from building blocks. But obviously the building blocks are necessary for whatever nature builds. And whatever produces the building blocks is outside of nature, not natural, according to your definition. Yet it is definitely a requirement for whatever nature builds, because nature requires the building blocks to build stuff. If you do not like the term "supernatural" we'll just call it "non-natural". I'm not partial to "supernatural" myself.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
I've demonstrated the necessity to assume a cause which is not natural, by your definition of "natural". If you do not want to call it "supernatural", because "supernatural" means something else to you, I really don't care, we can just call it something else. How does "divine" sound to you? That's got a much better ring than "supernatural".
Why are you acting like I have not made that clear as day you stubborn fool.
Quoting 180 Proof
You did not originally state ‘I am critical of and reject theism’ you merely outlined you were anti-theist.
Again though, my interest here is in how we take the term ‘anti-‘ in different contexts. We would call someone who is ‘anti-women’s rights’ something more or less like a bigot, yet when it comes to ‘anti-nazism’ we would not call them bigots because we perceive their stance and highly irrational and actively damaging.
The question is then where anti-theism can fall? I can see that some would look superficially at religious beliefs as ‘childish’ and therefore deem their stance to be opposing, as I put it, ‘irrational and actively damaging’. That is a reasonable argument in some cases, but it would partially involve actively opposing anyone who participates in and encourages such ‘irrational and actively damaging’ traditions, right?
I am certainly not stating there is a clear answer to this. I am just trying to look for a way around the clear statement that hostility towards nazis is not considered bigotry. I think my issue here is in dealing with the idea as if separate from the individual. If a human lives by certain ideals we find abhorrent then we find them abhorrent because they hold such ideals, rather than saying they are not abhorrent they just hold to certain ideals I find abhorrent.
It is precisely in this confusion that a great deal of needless hostility and patronising tones come to the fore when religious beliefs are being discussed.
A quick grab from wiki is enough to show the diversity of the term:
- “Antitheism has been adopted as a label by those who regard theism as dangerous, destructive, or encouraging of harmful behavior. C. Hitchens (2001) writes
"I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful."”
I would say that Hitchen’s is kind of bigoted here. He is clearly stating active opposition and hostility to religions. The details of how far he takes this are something else. As for someone like Dawkins, he is happy for people to believe whatever they wish as long as it doesn’t adversely effect others.
Then there is the bottomless argument of anyone who exists necessarily having a negative effect on someone else somewhere some how. The ‘intent’ alone seems unimportant if pure ignorance causes untold harm and damage to many people.
My view in regards to bigotry is that if someone cannot find a single positive reason for an argument they are veering into bigotry or already bigoted. The manner in which Hitchens conveys his view suggests that his judgement is made on the net effect (“- positively harmful.”).
If you don’t care about this fair enough. NP
It is something that I find intriguing and problematic.
If you want to show religious bigotry just show how someone is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, that is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards theists or religious folk.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/680796
and have discussed where I agree with your non-philosophical point and how a philosophical approach to antitheism / atheism is not "bigotry".
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/680943
Sushi, you're shadowboxing with a strawman which you've lit on fire. If you refuse to accept My Stated Position (I don't see what Hitchens' polemical usage of "antitheist" has to do with my philosophical usage – don't understand the difference, do you?), then maybe you are "the bigot" (or idiot) here. :shade:
Quoting 180 Proof
So you think there must be a set of conditions that are necessary and sufficient to set out the meaning of "religion", but that these conditions are difficult to determine?
As opposed to there not being such a set of necessary and sufficient conditions because we find meaning by looking to the way the word is used, which is subject to change?
As I pointed out, most religious threads seem to be on inconsistencies or plot holes and that's philosophy in my book: a quest for coherence in belief systems which religions are.
SO suppose we do this, developing a set of Criteria. Suppose that some break-off group of Fundamentalist Christians set up a new organisation that meets almost, but not quite, all of the criteria to count as a religion.
Will you say that they are not a religion, or will you say that your criteria need adjusting?
If you say that they are not a religion, then your criteria are stipulated, not grounded on observation.
If you say that they are a religion, then your criteria were incomplete or inaccurate - they were wrong.
Further, this process can be repeated for any given criteria.
What follows?
Once this is under our belts, we adhere to it sensu stricto and all will be well.
Most of the time we're careless in the way we use words - we've [s]broken[/s] bent the rules of word application (I recall you mentioned how we replace conjunction with disjunction in re definitions) and hence the predicament we find ourselves in.
If it were upto me, I'd not compromise with my definition, which as I said is based on observed shared features, for to do so would wreak havoc in philosophy. In my view, misuse of words isn't as much an indication of wooly thinking (a bug) as it is of pattern recognition (a feature) albeit flawed.
In which case you are simply stipulating a definition, never to be countered.
that's fine, so long as you do not adopt the false notion that you have found out something fundamental; about religion, rather than just decided to use the word in only one particular way.
I must stress on the fact that we don't, as you seem to believe, stipulate definitions. We examine certain objects (physical/mental) and look for similarities that when found become the foundation of definitions. There's a rationale to definitions i.e. they're not someone's whim and fancy.
After we have a definition, we have to follow the rules, strictly, and clarity is assured.
But that is exactly what you are doing; you are saying "Religion is A, B, C, and anything that is not A,B, C is not a religion".
Sure, you look around first, then you stipulate based on what you know and thereafter reject anyting that does not suit your definition.
Quoting Agent Smith
So you are making a decision at some point not to further modify your definition; that is, to stipulate the definition.
As far as I can tell, this:
When we closely examine certain things, similarities and differences will be noticed. We can use the former to construct groups/categories. This isn't what I would call a personal decision - it's based on facts (shared objective features unify things under one class).
Once we've got a bead on a specific class, we can immediately infer what belongs or doesn't belong to that class. The only way we could goof up is if we don't apply the criteria for that class in the way it should be, sensu stricto. Demanding precision and accuracy vis-à-vis criteria isn't an act of stipulation.
What you are doing is what is described in the history section of article in SEP. You are adopting the position attributed to Edward Herbert, then Edward Burnett Tylor, then William James. Each is eventually found wanting; But you would perhaps have us stay with Herbert, restricting the term to "idealized Protestant monotheism".
Sure, it's not a personal decision. It is still a stipulation. Sure it's based on the facts, but the facts are subject to change without prior notice. Insisting that everything that meets your criteria, and nothing that doesn't, is religion, is stipulation.
Ok, let's agree that the definition of the word "religion" is stipulative, but that's not anything to worry about is it? As long as you agree that words aren't defined in a whimsical, anything-goes, fashion, I don't see a problem. To drive home the point, suppose I pick up on a motif that unifies beliefs A, B, C (say that's x). I'm justified then to "stipulate", assuming this is what's going (I have my doubts), that A, B, C is to be given a category of its own with x as the membership-determining property. Let's call this category C. As is clear to you, the decision to create the category C is well-grounded (there's a shared feature viz. x). In other words a definition being stipulative isn't something we should get our knickers in a twist for.
Who do you propose could set the boundaries to religion? Such boundaries could only be set by God, or the gods, because only these divinities might have access to that knowledge. If human beings tried to set such boundaries the human beings would be claiming to know what could only be known by God, and that would necessarily be mistaken. Reminds me of "The Euthyphro". An adventure which is a mistake from the outset.
To my mind, like other speculative topics, both theology and philosophy of religion are always at risk of degenerating into pseudophilosophies (for instance, when the focus is "on god/s" instead of "on what is said, or believed, about god/s").
Philosophy isn't science. As something pseudo- to exist there must be something" Sure" to exist also as to make the comparison possible. And I don't think in philosophy there are many sure things . You could name almost all philosophies pseudophilosophies then.
And why the philosophy about God is bad or pseudo and that of "what is said about God" the "right" one? What is the criteria?
Non sequitur. I didn't claim or imply "philosophy is science". Address what I've actually written and I'll get back to you.
Didn't say you did. My words.So what pseudo in philosophy means? And what is pseudo in philosophy of God compared to the other?
Quoting 180 Proof
What anyone finds fallacious especially in God and religion issues is absolutely subjective.
So here's the earliest definition for you:
Quoting 1. A History of the Concept
Your argument concludes that you are content with that - and will defend it against attempts to change it.
This is not something you would reconsider? If not, then it seems to me you have simply removed yourself from the conversation by act of fiat.
Suit yourself. I had at times thought you had more nous.
With enough nous you can hang yourself.
Dinosaur bones are only subjectivity real?
Can't see the connection you want to imply.
What I was objecting was about distinguishing one philosophy of God or religion as "right" and the other as wrong and by which criteria one is called pseudo.
You apparently took it to the next level, considering all philosophies of God and religions as pseudo philosophies and useless.
No, I only attempted to point out that religious folk make claims that are objectively falsifiable. Does God exist? I don’t know. Did God make the world in seven days? Doesn’t look like it, unless he intentionally made it look like it took a bit longer for some reason. He does work in mysterious ways, so they say.
:up: Good, even if somewhat idiosyncratic, definitions.
Well, it's definitely much better to maintain a flexible attitude when it comes to definitions; a word's meaning must keep up with the times (re panta rhei) - new ideas, novel discoveries, etc. should be taken into account. However, not at the expense of a loss in clarity. It's a tightrope walk: On one side the straitjacket of rigid, lifeless definitions and on the other side chaos/confusion; we can afford neither.
:lol: Yup, à la Socrates although his death was by hemlock. What's a hangman's rope anyway, a plant product after all. :chin: Plants...they have a way of doing things.
Well philosophy of God as to exist presupposes God's existence. Starting from that base, it is a subjective matter afterwards what anyone could consider as fallacious or falsifiable. Some will say "God's creation of the world in 7 days", others that "it can't be just one God", or that "God must be some kind of energy and not an entity" etc etc.
For me, despite being atheist, philosophies of God and religions have their significance. Mostly when examining them through the transcedental human need and how they attempt to cover-describe it throughout history. Plus the moral base that humans try to establish via each religion.
I can’t make heads or tails of this.
Not surprising for you.
Because I only know English?
No. In general.
Which overlooks the overt actuality that God is not a concept. Religion might be, but G(g)od(s) is/are not.
Was this pun intentional? Brilliant!
This leads me to the consideration that just like in New-Age soothsaying and personality slating, the therapist/chart reader must be painfully aware that he or she is a despicable charlatan, so in old time religions there always must have been at least one person who knew that the whole supernatural superstructure over the domain of mankind was mere fantasy.
I would bet more than one.
Well if he acknowledges his religion as mere phantasy then I can't find the reason for him keep believing in it.
But someone might keep following its traditional behavior patterns just because that was what he was "taught" and the only patterns where he feels comfortable in. Or maybe they seem also reasonable to him but for other reasons.
If we involve social reasons then could be more possible that someone to keep following these patterns as to "fit in". Feeling safety doing what other social members do.
You are not alone.
Since it's been a good couple of years since you asked the question, I'll revisit it.
As to your examples, I don't agree they're all purely theological. Whether the creator of morality is bound by morality is a philosophical question for example.
If we take faith and reason to be stark distinctions in a Kierkeegardian way, I think you're faced with any attempt to understand the sacred in a logical way as being philosophical and not theological. That is, if we challenge the teachings of Jerusalem with the reasoning of Athens we're beyond the purely theological.
It is a question that philosophical analysis shows to be ill conceived and question begging.
Generically I see it as a logical puzzle where an entity is defined as having an essential element that cannot ever vary and the paradoxical conclusions that arise from it. It need not be argued as a theological construct.
For example, what happens when Pinocchio says "my nose is now growing"?
What is the essential element of your creation that cannot ever vary that leads to paradoxical conclusions?
No logical puzzle arises from positing an entity to exempts itself from the rules it creates for others. The assumption seems to be that moral rules must apply without exception. The further assumption is that the creator of moral rules is like us in so far as it is free to obey or disobey the rules. But if what is essential about this entity is that its actions must be invariant then it makes no sense to ask whether it is bound by the moral rules it created.
Well, that's a possibility that I can't rule out. However, it seems the two of us are converging on the same spot. Words and the things they refer to are entirely different things. I would like to introduce the Kantian notions of phenomenon (words) and noumenon (referents) as they seem apposite. That phenomena/words fall short of accurately describing/pinpointing noumena/referents doesn't say anything about the nature of noumena/referents. To illustrate, yep, the word "religion" is no good for philosophizing but that, in no way, means there's no such thing as an essence to religion.
Phenomena are not words, nor noumenon referents; so I've no way to make sense of this.
It's an analogy, that's all.
The bottom line is this:
1. Philosophical definition (used by philosophers and other thinkers who mind their ps and qs)
2. Non-philosophical definition (used by ordinary folks)
The two don't match; hence the confusion which Wittgenstein attempted to dispel/remove/address.
You just don't want. It was a clear metaphor obviously and well said one. He just tells you that words can never fully uncover the "nature" of entire concepts like "religion" or "God", and what these concepts also represent for humans. Just like Kant's phenomenon can't uncover the nature of objects. And both are true.
I want to consider of you clever and sneaky enough as to pretend that you didn't understand.If indeed you were unable to make sense of this, well that's not very flattering for you then.
Right, the moon is not the pointing fingers (religions). It is not religion and doesn’t need religion to be seen.
A similar Buddhist saying is something like, “don’t eat the menu.” This wouldn’t be a saying if it weren’t commonplace for folks to eat menus rather than the food it advertises, metaphorically speaking. This is because actual ‘food’ is not essential in religion. Only the menu’s and pointing fingers are essential because that is what binds people together.
He knows words are not all names. But here he treats them as such. Perhaps he had forgotten.
If you can get your hands on it, have a read of J.L. Austin's The Meaning of a Word. You can find it is his Philosophical Papers.
You got it the wrong way round. The Moon is religion, science is the pointing finger. Science describes, analyzes, observes, models, hypothesizes, theorizes, etc. Religion give the reasons. The essence of the Moon.
Can you rephrase this in a way that doesn’t force me to ask a series of questions in an attempt to discover what you’re talking about?
I'll try. Forget about the Moon. Science describes the material of the universe. It's nature, causal relations, etc. But it gives no reason for the universe and all life in it to exist. There are attempts made, like in the evolution story ((Dawkins with his selfish genes and memes, claiming the reason we live is to pass on genes or memes), or fundamental laws of physics, claimed to be causes of origin, but in the end these are just descriptions of existence, giving no true reason for the universe and life in it.
And religions give reasons for the universe and life in it? If that what you’re saying, it’s just another way of saying that we make our own reasons for the universe and life in it. Honestly, I think the reasons that religions offer are rather childish, and worse than childish, they are largely meaningless.
-both describe the same concept.
Again the problem is How do you prove that!!!!!?
When it is demonstrated that there is something other than the natural, then we must call it something. You defined "natural" as what manifests through verified building blocks, so the manifestation of the building blocks themselves must be something other than natural. Can we call this the "non-natural"?[/quote]
-lol......no those building blocks "obey" all the laws of nature. There is nothing non natural about them!
Don't use that term as a bin to throw in anything you don't understand. That is a fallacy.(Argument from ignorance).
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
-Dude...your language mode is a mesh. This "system" includes facts of REALITY. (our biological urges, environmental stimuli, peer pressure, cultural pressure, superstition, habits....etc etc.
Come on...lets no tap dance around concepts.
-"It's already been demonstrated. According to your definition of "natural", nature builds things from building blocks"
-lol no it isn't......arbitrary labels do not make parts of nature supernatural....lol
You need to demonstrate that building blocks in nature NEED a supernatural agent to exist before assuming their supernatural origins.
-"I've demonstrated the necessity to assume a cause which is not natural,"
-lol no you haven't. Demonstration requires objective evidence....you are just pointing to something you don't understand and declare it supernatural. That is pseudo philosophy.
How can we make our own reasons for life and the universe? We didn't let them come to be. We might describe it, say by a cosmological model or evolution, but these are no reasons. Of course the meaning of it all isn't necessarily dependent on the reason it's all there. You can find a meaningful existence in a lot of things. But knowing the universe and life in it, were made by gods gives it somewhat extra and not retractable or reducable to science For example, you can't say life is there because it was directed by selfish genes or memes.
Look, lets say there is a bunch of building blocks, and what these building blocks do is obey the laws of nature, so that whatever they produce is said to be natural. Now, lets move along and consider how the building blocks came into existence. Clearly, the activity which caused the existence of the blocks is not an activity of the blocks themselves, because it is an activity which is prior to the existence of the blocks, causing the existence of the blocks. And only the activity of the blocks is defined as "natural". So whatever activity it was, which caused the existence of the blocks, this must be other than natural. Agree?
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
If we're not going to "dance around concepts", then what is the point of this discussion?
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
No, you defined "nature" that way, as what manifests from fundamental building blocks. It was your definition. All I need to do is show that there is necessarily something outside of what is "natural", by your definition, and this is, by valid logic, non-natural. That I've done.
:chin: :chin: :chin:
[hide]Religion[/hide]
How did you do that?
Of course. I have good reasons to life. Life itself is the reason. But to life it, knowing we're made by some magical eternal gods, all of life in heavenly image, give it an extra meaning. And, maaaaybe, a guidance towards our position vis a vis nature.
-"Now, lets move along and consider how the building blocks came into existence. "
-You don't know how they came in to existence. Maybe they existed all along...and this is most probably the case since none existence is not a state being on its own.
-"Clearly, the activity which caused the existence of the blocks is not an activity of the blocks themselves, because it is an activity which is prior to the existence of the blocks, causing the existence of the blocks."
- Well we need to be more precise. We have a cosmic quantum field where we can observe quantum fluctuations affecting the fundamental particles of our universe. We understand that there is a sub-level underlying the building blocks of our universe and they are totally natural in their behavior (A Nobel Prize was awarded for the modeling of those fluctuations).
-"And only the activity of the blocks is defined as "natural". So whatever activity it was, which caused the existence of the blocks, this must be other than natural. Agree?"
-How on earth can you conclude to that claim? We don't know if Quantum fluctuations came in to existence or they were always there. We don't know if there was a cause or that cause can NOT be natural.
The burden is on you who makes a claim for something that can't be demonstrated to be possible. At least we know that Natural Causation exists!
-"If we're not going to "dance around concepts", then what is the point of this discussion?"
-An honest....we don't know answer? An honest acknowledgement that we have verified natural causation and he have never verified supernatural causation to be possible????
-"No, you defined "nature" that way, as what manifests from fundamental building blocks. It was your definition. All I need to do is show that there is necessarily something outside of what is "natural", by your definition, and this is, by valid logic, non-natural. That I've done. "
-How can you ever demonstrate that??? How can you show that there is something necessary "outside nature" and how can you say that "necessary thing" has properties that aren't natural????? Valid logic will not make the trick. You will need Soundness...not validity. Logic is acceptable to the GIGO effect. You will need to feed demonstrated premises.
"Not even Wrong" arguments are not useful or philosophical.
The main problem with your claim is that you are unable to define the non natural, So you will always end up with an argument from ignorance fallacy...no matter how sound your reasoning appears to be.
In short, we have no data to feed in our metaphysics. You can't do Philosophy Without foundational data. You assume way to many things that you know nothing about.
We don't know if this cosmic fluctuation field is eternal or not, we don't know if the emergence of processes like our Universe is a one time or constantly occurring phenomenon...we know nothing.
So assuming the ontology of the cause for a phenomenon that possibly never happened (nature came in to being) is an irrational intellectual practice.
Most importantly even if there was a cause responsible of what we identify as Nature, that wouldn't quality as "non natural"...because "Nature" is a limited label we put on what we currently know about the cosmos.
You produced the definition. Let me remind you:
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
So, since "natural" is the things built with the building blocks, then this kind of thing which "existed all along" the building blocks themselves, are non-natural.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Now you have gone outside the the constraints of your definition of "natural". You'll have to produce a new definition for me. We'll start all over with a new definition, and then I'll see if there are things outside your definition which are necessarily non-natural.
You now say that there is a "cosmic quantum field" whose activities to create the building blocks, are natural activities. What about that field itself, it must have been created by some other activity which is non-natural. Or maybe it "existed all along"? Then, as above, that kind of thing would be unnatural as well. Maybe you want to try for a better definition of "natural", one which might include every possible thing? Do you think a "possible thing" is something natural?
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
It was your definition of "natural", manifestations of the activities of the fundamental building blocks.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
I made that demonstration. I proceeded from your definition of "natural", to demonstrate that there is necessarily something non-natural. Can you produce a better definition of "natural", one which would make any such demonstration impossible?
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
If you don't even know what "natural" means, why are you so vehemently opposed to "supernatural". I don't understand this. Do you give "supernatural" a meaning which is not based in the root "natural"?
Again...why is this so difficult for you? Science offers descriptive definitions.
We will need to investigate the mechanism that produced those building blocks and then decide, based on their properties whether they are natural or non natural.
Again you view the Natural as a Realm when it has to do with the properties displayed by the process.
Keep in mind that I clearly pointed to what renders a process natural.
And of course non natural can mean anything. I.e. Quantum fluctuations do not have a documented causal mechanism. Particles pop in and out of existence but their "qualities" point to a natural process. This discovery was awarded with a Nobel Prize...but no one promoted the non natural quality of this phenomenon.
You will need to define the qualities of the non natural. IF not you are trapped in an argument from ignorance fallacy. We need to know what qualities to look for in order to be sure that its not a natural process that differs from what we currently have been observing.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
-No I haven't. I described you what known Natural Processes are...read my definition once more.
Just because there is a process with different characteristic but with the same natural properties that doesn't make it "non natural" . Again you need to define "non natural" or you end up with an Argument from ignorance fallacy.
-" You'll have to produce a new definition for me."
-I could produce a definition for the non natural...that would be the most sensible thing to do.
Natural Processes, as I told you are caused by fundamental building blocks of the Cosmos, which give rise to the building blocks of our Universe (sub particles with their quantum behavior, molecules, chemistry, biology etc). Their unguided interactions and really simple properties (kinetic, charge etc) define the produced results, structures, laws etc.
A non natural process would be: cosmic building blocks being externally guided in interactions with intention, purpose, plan and goal, producing results that aren't regular(unpredictable) or contingent to their properties or their displayed properties claimed to be far more advanced (kinetic, energetic charges etc) than those observed and verified in these cosmic scales.
Are you satisfied with my definition on the "non natural" concept?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
-The problem is not with what Natural means. The Natural is defined by our current Scientific Paradigm where , as I already explain, processes enable the emergence of advanced properties withing complex structures and functions. We don't observe advanced properties displayed by the building blogs of matter.i.e. we need to observe structures of molecules to find advanced properties like chemical, biological ,mental etc.
What we verify is just Kinetic properties and charges by particles in a fundamental scale. Those are necessary and sufficient(maybe counterintuitive) to explain the emergence of the Physical world.
Any claim that introduces advanced properties (mind properties, agents, chemical, biological etc)in really small fundamental scales is immediately classified as a supernatural claim.
I hope these definitions will help this discussion go further from arbitrarily declaring things we don't know "non natural".
As I said, the meaning of "non-natural" is derived from the definition of the root, "natural". Whatever demonstrates to us, that it cannot be classified as "natural", must be classed as non-natural. That's why we cannot proceed without a working definition of "natural". You provided a definition, and I demonstrated the logical necessity of concluding that there is also non-natural things.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
If "natural" is defined as the process which produces things from the building blocks, then the process which produces the building blocks is necessarily non-natural. "Different characteristics" means a different process. And to say "different characteristics but with the same ... properties" is basic contradiction.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Again, there is clear contradiction here. You are talking about processes "caused by fundamental building blocks", then you say that these processes "give rise to the building blocks". The first is necessarily posterior to the existence of the building blocks, and therefore cannot be the cause of the blocks, as the second "give rise to..." implies.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
No, you use far too many contradictions. One contradiction is too many, you have at least double that amount.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
It's not arbitrary, it's a conclusion of logical necessity. If we define a specific class of processes as "natural", then all the processes which we know must exist through the application of logic, yet which cannot be placed in that category of "natural", must by logical necessity, be classed as non-natural. It's not a case of not knowing whether the processes are natural or not, its a case of having a defined category of "natural", and knowing that these processes cannot qualify for that category.
Well if you understand logic you would understand WHY we don't use "negations" to define things (especially those we ignore).
You are using are ignorance as an excuse to assume an "exotic" ontology.
Supposed the limited capabilities as an observer do not allow you to classify something.
Suppose we we found out a new natural mechanism and we need to adjust the definition to include it.
So its not wise or philosophical way to argue for other levels of reality..
-" You provided a definition, and I demonstrated the logical necessity of concluding that there is also non-natural things."
-You keep repeating this factually wrong statement when I constantly point that the fallacious nature of your "logical necessity". first of all you don't understand the meaning of the word "demonstration".
You don't demonstrate because you can not provide objective evidence for the premises of your arguments. You just claim and your claim are fallacious (argument from ignorance).
Why do we have keep repeating the same things again and again????
Why is this so difficult for you???
You can not claim that there are non natural things necessary to explain our universe, while you are unable to define and show which "exotic" properties those things have that make them necessary.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
-lol.....i.e. a previously exited electron returning to its initial state produces a fundamental element of our world (photon). There is nothing supernatural about that process.
Sorry sir but you are way to ignorant on epistemology or philosophy to have a conversation with.
I understand that you are attached to your supernatural beliefs and I will allow you to keep it, but I can not waste arguing against kindergarten pseudo arguments.
Take care and find a suitable new age forum for your ideas. Philosophical forums are not suitable places to expand the theory of your beliefs.
You don't seem to understand that when the term being defined is the negation of another, i.e. "non...", then we refer to the other to derive our definition of the negation. For example, to define "non-drinker", we refer to what "drinker" means. To define "non-contagious", we refer to what "contagious" means, to define what "non-partisan" means we refer to what "partisan" means, and to define what 'non-natural" means we would refer to what "natural" means.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
I explained that this is not the case in this instance. We know, through logic that the processes must exist. We also know from the definition of "natural" that these processes cannot ever be placed in the category of "natural" without changing that definition.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
This is contradiction. If the new mechanism is excluded from the existing definition of "natural", it cannot be called a "natural" mechanism. So finding a process which cannot be classed as "natural" by the definition, does not justify changing the definition just because you want to call it a "natural process".
Why don't you just define "natural" right now, to say that every actual thing, and every possible thing, or process is natural? I've given you that option. But I am doubtful as to how accurate it is to call a possible thing "natural".
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
I don't see how "exotic" has anything to do with this. If it is true that there are things in the universe, processes or whatever, which cannot be called "natural" then we can call then "non-natural". Whether or not they are "exotic" or whatever, is irrelevant.
Here is a caller of an Atheist show making the same ridiculous use of the term "supernatural".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MpQNtbfLyU
Maybe hearing the problem of your reasoning from an other mouth might help you get unstuck from the trap you are in.
I asked you way back, weeks ago, if you minded me using "non-natural" instead of "supernatural". And you never objected to that.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Now you've just confirmed what I thought at the outset, and what I stated way back 17 days ago, when I first engaged you. You very clearly have a preconceived notion of "supernatural", and a bias and prejudice towards this notion. This prejudice disables your capacity to approach the subject logically, with an open mind.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
-" You very clearly have a preconceived notion of "supernatural", and a bias and prejudice towards this notion. This prejudice disables your capacity to approach the subject logically, with an open mind."
-Dude I gave you a definition on what supernatural means. You tap danced and didn't really answer. You insisted in reusing your from ignorance fallacy.
How can you distinguish a truly non natural phenomenon from a phenomenon you don't fully understand???????
This is why I hold your feet in the fire to provide me the basic characteristics I should look for a non natural phenomenon and you insist in recycling your argument from ignorance fallacy.
This is dishonest sophistry mate...sorry.
How are you sure you know all about the natural processes? Classic argument from ignorance fallacy.
I already did that.
You think you do (due to a fallacy) but you haven't.
You just ignore the ontology of a phenomenon (either from Personal Incredulity fallacy or a general lack of knowledge) and you just declare it non natural. That is intellectual dishonesty.
You will need to define what qualifies as non natural, define the properties that render a phenomenon non natural and demonstrate them to exist in that specific phenomenon.
Not knowing the ontology of phenomenon makes it unknown ...not supernatural or non natural.
This is basic logic 101
Indeed! Why not just acknowledging that the supernatural is just as valid as the natural? :up:
We, or me at least, have solved the mystery of the universe and life in it they created.
You say that you have a solution about the mystery of the universe and life. How can you demonstrate its indeed a solution(not just a claim) and how can you verify the supernatural nature of it.
How can you prove to us that all 4.300 conflicting religions and 160+ spiritual worldviews don't have the "right" solution but only yours is the right one.
I guess that claim that's able to provide objective evidence will be the correct one.
If my model offers an observable and adequate prediction the model is justified. The model can't go deeper than the only thing to conclude is that divine powers have transformed the model in a real tangible universe, like the magician pulls the rabid rabbit out of his hat, but without the magician's trickery.
-"Quoting Hillary
-That would be great but not always. i.e. Ptolemaic epicycles did provide "adequate" predictions for that period. But I will agree with you Description, Prediction and Application should be fruits of all models.
-"The model can't go deeper than the only thing to conclude is that divine powers have transformed the model in a real tangible universe"
-Ok that statement doesn't point how the model of a "divine power" can produce adequate predictions, but it does point to an argument from ignorance fallacy (because our model can't go deeper...thus magic).
And here is the second problem with models of" magic". Magic can "explain" anything since there are no limits in what magic can do. A bigger problem with magical explanation sis that they can not really make meaningful testable, accurate predictions.
You can say "everything is compatible with my model" and you would be right, because your model was designed to be compatible with anything. This is where Demarcation and the risk of the limits of an explanation has comes in and provides value in a model.
This can never be said for divine explanations.
What else than gods can be concluded after the gaps are closed (if you wanna use God as a god of the gaps, which isn't necessarily the case)?
Quoting Hillary
-After the gaps are closed? I don't get your question. If you close the gaps with a demonstrable answer then by definition we all have to conclude to that answer? Did I misread your question?
I like sushi!
What else can we conclude? If I know the fundamental workings of the universe, how can you explain then where the fundamental came from, or why?
First of all we need to ask ourselves. "Do we really know the fundamental workings of the universe".
The answer should sound like...."it appears so". At least the working we have recognize appear to play a Necessary and Sufficient role in our explanations of how the Universe get to be the way it is.
IS it enough to know the workings of our universe? No because the underlying cosmic field we detect (Quantum Fluctuations) show us that the story doesn't end with the understanding of our universe alone.
Now by trying to produce observations on a cosmic level, like we did with the Nobel Awarded observations of the Cosmic Quantum Fluctuations) we can produce models that could explain better the nature of the fundamental workings of our universe.
That said our current answer should be "we don't know"..and we don't know if we ever will.
I should point out that asking "Why" questions about the workings of Nature is a useless and fallacious endeavor. "Why" (assuming intention purpose and planning) is a "good" way to pollute the question you are asking (poisoning the well fallacy). Teleology needs to be demonstrated not assumed.
So I will keep your "How" question and linked it to my answer "we don't know" plus I will need to know which aspect of this "fundamentality" you are referring to?
-Well its a teleological fallacy to assume "reasons" in Natural Processes.
Teleology needs to be verified not assumed.
i.e. We can establish the teleology of a brand new car in our society, but can you assume that the teleology of any car that gets old and breaks down is to end up as a giant "flower pot" outside a Mall?
You need to understand that somethings just "ARE" there in nature and as pattern seeking agents we project our meaning and priorities on them...either we deal with old cars, universes, biological processes.
Sure religions do pretend to know the reasons behind our existence and goals...but again that is a subjective take not an intrinsic feature of natural processes.
Check this discussion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCwjSuQjMjg
Maybe you will see the gaps in your reasoning because he reproduces the same fallacious arguments on the question of the origins of life.
The people who participate in those threads are interested in them to whatever degree they make efforts to present their point of view. Are you asking for those people to go away?
That would remove what you find objectionable.
No. I'm asking for an ongoing conversation about what is proper to the forum.
The Real Meaning of the Gospel is pretty terrible,
Jesus Christ: A Lunatic, Liar, or Lord? The Logic of Lewis's Trilemma has pretensions to philosophical content, but like Jesus as a great moral teacher? fails to deliver.
I'd delete these or move to the lounge.
The others are a bit better.
The failure of this thread lies in the fact that all that can be said has already been said in the short Wiki article, particularly in the criticisms section.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma#:~:text=Lewis's%20trilemma%20is%20an%20apologetic,talk%20and%20in%20his%20writings.
The thread breaches
Quoting Banno
as Quoting Relativist
And as I mentioned anyone with a pinch of critical capacity would recognise the rhetorical wedge.
In some sense science is religion (Is god a mathematician?)
It's not a testable hypothesis, so explain what you mean.
I wouldn't say the God hypothesis is untestable. An intelligent being would, since intelligence & order are correlated, ensure that their creation (the cosmos) is ordered rather than chaotic. I had a muslim acquaintance who attempted to convince me of Allah's existence in this way.
From a philosophical perspective theological concerns are not theological endorsements. It is not simply an ontological matter of whether there are gods and how such claims are to that is to be understood, but epistemological - what can we or do we know about such things, and practical - how theological matters ought to influence our lives, as individuals and as peoples.
That sounds more like post hoc rationalization than hypothesis testing.
Ad hoc modding of a hypothesis, adjustments, in order to compensate for counterevidence.
So a thread on hairdressing would be fine for you? - what can we or do we know about such things, and practical - how hairdressing ought to influence our lives, as individuals and as peoples?
If hairdressing were as central to human life as theology has been and continues to be, then a thread on hairdressing would not only be fine with me, it would be something I think should not be ignored.
Perhaps the only reason they are not here is that we do not have a section on "philosophy of hairdressing" that looks like an invitation.
An evaluation of opinions includes the question of which opinions are worthy of our consideration. What is central to the life of hairdressers is not what is central:
Quoting Fooloso4
But if a group of hairdressers showed up, it would be interesting to hear what argument they would make to support the claim that what they say about hairdressing is worthy of our attention.
With the return of Joe Mello the scales are closer to tipping in your favor.
Who, now? Not my area of expertise. I just use clippers over my face and head every six weeks.
Is the capacity to engage in banal chat an issues of professional pride for a coiffeur, do you suppose? Would engaging in a deep conversation dishonour their profession?
We could ask them if it's like being Sisyphus: all that effort to cut it, only to have it grow right back.
It is better that you don't know. Let's just say that if you were looking for an example of someone who contributes to the
Quoting Banno
he would be near to top of the list. He came here, stirred things up for a while by letting us know that we knew nothing about Christianity and that he knows all there is to know, left, and came back yesterday.
Someone else @ThinkOfOne is now clawing his way to the top. Same tactics.
1. Metaphysics: Ontology of deities; (moral) Causation (jahanam/jannat, karma); necessity/possibility (of deities; primum movens); identity/change (anicca); spacetime (timelessness, omnipresence).
2. Epistemology: Revelation (lumen fidei)
3. Ethics: The meat & potatoes of religion (God as a policeman, judge, executioner)
4. Logic: Lumen fidei & lumen gratiae as opposed to lumen naturalis rationis.
5. Aesthetics: I have yet to see a painting of an ugly god although Hephaestus (the divine blacksmith) was lame.
:smile:
-"Philosophical topics in theology:"
-I find that to be an oxymoron. Theology isn't based on verified knowledge claims so any conclusions can never be wise thus part of a philosophical discussion.
Theology can only be part of Social Sciences discussions analyzing the impact of those ideas on population and their institutions.
Neither is verificationism.
There I think you're mistaken, but to be fair to you theology can be quite antiphilosophical.
Theology is not based on Credible Epistemology and it can not deliver wise claims about our world or expand our understanding of it..so by definition it can not be Philosophy. Can you see the problem their. Its in direct conflict with the Definition of the term "Philosophy" and its goals.
No, good job!