God and General Philosophy
We need to get something clear, the question of God and philosophy has nothing to do with Islam or Christianity. The questions raised by these organized religions are questions that are specific to their own fantastic theologies. There are many Christians flocking to this forum trying to sneak in their organized religion through the door of philosophy, but philosophy isn't about the superstitious ideologies of Islam or Christianity, these cults have tried to hi-jack philosophy to propagate their error. Just like I do not like threads on Unicorns or Fairies, so I do not appreciate threads on the cult of Jesus. These are neither intelligent conversations or philosophical conversations. I think the administrators of this forum should create a special category for posts that have to do with organized religion, it should function as a kind of lounge for all those who want to waste their time wandering the labyrinth of theology. And to the moderators I have this to say, if people can come onto this forum and post a bunch religious nonsense without being censored, I don't see why this thread should be censored? I'm speaking common sense. Our species (which includes our philosophers) need to grow up and move beyond this primitive superstition. A Christian who develops cancer doesn't spend his days and nights in prayer, he runs to science in hopes of prolonging his life. This is reality, the other is empty, abstract ideology.
Comments (94)
Over 75% a philosophical domains posit God as a customary or standard axiom or criteria. You know, it's all part of philosophy and philosophical discourse, a human condition thing.
Is this a rant?
Are you trying to say that over 75% of philosophical domains (whatever that means) is wrong? Or it is right. You did not make a point, you just quoted a statistic (which I highly doubt has to do with any counting or measuring of the area of domains of philosophy).
Really? God is 'posited' in ethics, political philosophy, metaphysics, philosophy of religion, epistemology, contemporary philosophy and even logic (ontological and cosmological arguments).
The point is, like it or not, the concept of God has a significant impact on philosophy itself.
In all seriousness, I'm really confused about why an atheist would reside in or feel comfortable in and place like America. Wouldn't they be better served in a country that didn't care about or value the existence of God/Christianity and/or a country that didn't value the concept of God?
I mean I'm trying to understand the significance of the OP. Is it more or less an emotional purging of sorts or a rant, or even a political statement seeking change, you think?
I could stand corrected, but I'm wondering that say, certain communist countries would be more suitable for the Atheist ideology...
You're right about that. I surmise you'd opine, but I don't attribute the following to you, I only want to say that in my opinion you could say this: Atheists are better suited to the comfort of Hellfire, where they can freely mingle with their kindred spirits.
But wait! There is more!
Why did the first Europeans from Christian countries come to America? Would they not be more comfortable in their own countries, instead of trying to make a life in a continent full of heathens, who worshipped idols?
If you can answer that, you can answer why an atheist would come to America.
I think part of it had to do with religious dogma. That's one reason why in political philosophy here in America, we have separation of church and state ideals.
Since we still have in God we Trust on our currency; value Christian philosophy, freedom to express other Religious belief systems, so on and so forth, I would think the atheist should basically, pardon the phrase, feel outnumbered and pack up and get out, and go where there's more of a comfort level.
Christianity is not going to change, here in America, like it or not...
So are blondes, you know.
And blue-eyed people.
And Black people and people who speak little English.
Rich people are waaaaay outnumbered.
Virtuous people are outnumbered.
Baptists are outnumbered.
Ministers, preachers, and bell-ringers, choir leaders, and ladies who prepare coffee in the basement for the congregation to enjoy after service are also each outnumbered.
So if you follow your own reasoning correctly, maybe all these people should go somewhere else, since the criteria to go is getting outnumbered.
This is a statement of belief. Reasonably speaking, neither of us knows whether Christianity is totally here to stay or it will dwindle to count people who are outnumbered by non-Christians. You can't state an empirical opinion as fact.
If your criteria is NOT being outnumbered, but feeling uncomfortable, then, pardon the truth, it is you who should pack up and get out. I feel totally comfortable here, arguing with theists and Christians. You are the one who is uncomfortable with my presence, that's the real reason you want me to leave.
So you stated two reasons why I should leave: I am outnumbered, and I feel uncomfortable.
In fact, you are also outnumbered, and you indeed feel uncomfortable whereas I don't.
So in all rights, if you decide to stop being a hypocrite, you will pack up your things and go.
Oh please don't take it personal. You are certainly more than welcome to argue your Atheism. It's just that here in America it's more of a losing battle for you.
It's just that it seems more practical that say in a communist country, where nihilism and those kinds of ideologies are more prevalent, it
would make you feel more comfortable.
It's all good no worries.
2. The philosophy of religion has a long history. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-religion/
Read here if you are interested. They are not hijacking philosophy, and they have their own section on the forum.
3. If you don't like people posting philosophy of religion, then don't partake in them. If they come in your threads which have nothing to do with religion, then feel free to not respond.
Quoting JerseyFlight
No. You are not. You are speaking your anger and frustration that you cannot control what other people think and do. That is not philosophy. That is not common sense. I do not know what happened to you to be so angry and controlling, but you need to learn to deal with that before you try to solve anyone else's problems.
??? Poor Christians?
Quoting Philosophim
The philosophy of religion is a pseudo-category of philosophy.
See Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End, by John Loftus.
Quoting Philosophim
Please keep in mind, I don't have a problem with Spinoza or Jefferson discoursing on a philosophical God. My complaint is specifically about cults, organized religion. I believe these non-philosophical superstitions belong in their own fairy tale volt so they don't keep on cluttering the main forum page.
Quoting Philosophim
This is a poisoning of the well fallacy. Even if my post was based on anger, which it is not, this would not stand as a refutation. Maybe back in the 1800's the premises of religion still had some kind of validity, but now we have Hadron Colliders and Smart Phones, time to start living in reality friend.
My words were not an invitation to discussion. They were a voice from the community that you might want to remember in your behavior going forward. If the mods remove this topic, you will have a reason apart from theirs to mull over.
This is massively authoritarian, and a contradiction of your own program. I can indeed put this in simpler terms. I am against Nazis because they unleashed mass violence and suffering on the earth, I am against organized religion for the exact same reason. That you would even stoop to defend it is a bearing on your own character. Religion is not innocent. Let me repeat that, religion is not innocent, it is a dangerous and proliferating ideology that leads to massive violence and suppression, including the suppression of philosophy. Were Galileo or Nietzsche on this forum they would side with me.
It really isn't. Even in the USA, Christianity is on the decline, having dropped 25% in the last 30 years. And good riddance to it, honestly. Islam... That's the bugger to watch out for.
Nah, it's not going anywhere soon. The good news is that folks are becoming a bit more sophisticated with their views about religious dogma and such. Accordingly, they are finding alternative religion's as a means to the same end. Religion is just man's way of interacting with one Deity. And it's been around forever.
I think the only bugger might be the paradox of nihilism. But it's all good, it's kind of like the unity of opposites principle, you know, like Theism and A-theism. You can't have one without the other. Kind of like volitional existence.
I guess to this some Theists may say that they do not believe in medicine or going to the doctor, but their "cult," the Christian Scientist Church, would heal through prayer.
I also think that Unicorns and Fairies are important nonetheless. You never know if you are in a simulation and in a simulation, anything is possible, even seeing a Unicorn or a Fairy.
“The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, [and] a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame on continuing along that path."
— Philosophim
Fuck you, 3017.
— tim wood
Still? That slogan first started appearing on mammon here in the 1950's, as did the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Somehow, our Great Republic managed to survive without it until then. Perhaps, though, there weren't as many Christians around before the Eisenhower administration as after it.
Given what Jesus is said to have said about money and wealth, one would think the use of the slogan on currency would be more suggestive of a lack of Christians than an abundance of them.
But I tend to agree that Christianity here, where fundamentalism thrives, is a more virulent form of that religion than elsewhere, even in primarily Catholic countries where that older, wiser and perhaps more weary form of it is prevalent; and that its disregard of virtually any appeal to thought will likely insure it lives on for quite some time.
I don't know if the OP is directed at debates regarding God, which I think futile but arguably a part of philosophy. It seems directed at discussion of the doctrines of particular religions. I personally think that philosophy of religion, if it considers the place and meaning of ritual and doctrine in what is called religion, might include consideration of those doctrines--but not of course preaching them.
Christian Existentialist.
Do your homework Timmy!
Yep. There are those who say that religion gives Deity or God a bad name. Likewise, in Christianity, I'm not convinced Jesus mandated religion.
He did seem to 'mandate' love and pacifism though.
There is actual research. From the first citation:
Quoting Pew
You were saying?
He's going to take a shot, here it comes -- it's in the net! Goal for Ciceronianus!
It appears the survey only relates to young adults, which kind of makes sense.
If one were to try to make a case for atheism, you would want to look at it in a more comprehensive way, including whether atheism itself is on the rise... . To that end, I don't see that happening.
Like I said, if I were an atheist, it would make sense to move to some third world communist country...
It also appears you only clicked on one of the links.
Quoting The one you missed
Interesting.
1. Why is the percentage drop not commensurate with atheism? In onother words people are not moving toward atheism as an alternative.
2. Why is atheism so low, comparatively?
3. Other Faith's are on the rise it seems... .
Of course I'm not sure whether a battle of the surveys would be convincing either way, you know, kind of like climate change scientists.
And that takes us back to the OP. I'm having fun with the discussion, but his premise seems to be based on either politics or an emotional rant of some sort. In other words, 'I'm a disgruntled Atheist and I want the world to know.' Whaa my puddy hurt's LOL
I'd say man up or get out!
If that is a "waste of time" as you so often say then take @Philosophim his advice and not partake in them. Aside from that the admins have sort of given them a single thread so all of this should be settled.
I don't need the United States to be an atheist nation; I just need Christians not to turn it into a Theocracy.
Here's something I do worry about: because Christian fundamentalism has an anti-intellectual bent, shall we say, it is not known for its institutions of higher learning. Where then to find agreeable candidates for the Supreme Court? So now we have this:
Sotomayor is Catholic and liberal, but there could easily come a day, and that not far off, when a religious minority changes the law of the land for let's face it religious reasons. I think at that point Americans might notice that the religious make-up of the Court is a little odd, and that might spell trouble.
Well, one does what one can.
(In the Biercean terms below) apparently, the very nature of the latter facilitates it being "hijacked" by the likes of the former, so what can be done to stop this that doesn't resort to Jacobinite/Inquistor-like censorship?
[quote=Ambrose Bierce]Religion. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.
(versus)
Philosophy, n. A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing.[/quote]
No doubt (legacy-latent) mythologies and ideologies, as well as theologies, are DANGEROUS NONSENSE obstructing "many roads" of philosophical critique ...
Banno has made the following arguments in this direction:
[i]"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 course, that does not imply that god is the correct answer.
"In summary there are three things that identify a move from a philosophical inquiry 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."[/i]
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8647/demarcating-theology-or-what-not-to-post-to-philosophy-of-religion/p1
I would like expound on this thinking. We must keep in mind that this is a philosophy forum and the Philosophy of Religion as a discipline, according to Graham Oppy, "...doesn't date much earlier than the second world war."
In making this case there is really no need to look much further than John Loftus' excellent book on the topic:
"It should never be considered stupid to tell students the truth. Scientists tell their students the truth. So should philosophers. There is no longer any debate about what the truth is among intellectually honest individuals. Faith-based reasoning is not a virtue. Faith as a method is unreliable. It should never be tolerated as a justification for anything in secular universities. We can no longer take obfuscationist philosophy used in defense of the Christian delusion or any other religion seriously. Atheists who want to deal with obfuscationist philosophy correctly must seek to end its grip over our institutions of higher learning. They must seek to end its influence in our world. It's time to remove faith from philosophy. Gamesmanship will not do. Puzzle-solving will not do. Special pleading will not do. Dealing with questions that are interesting for the sake of an interesting discussion will not do. Atheists who are seeking affirmation from Christian pseudo-intellectuals will no do. A delusion is a delusion is a delusion. Two thousand years of Christianity is enough... It's time to lay it to rest, to put it away from the university and beyond." Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End, John W. Loftus pg.113-114, Pitchstone Publishing 2016
And we might add, two thousand Christian threads is enough. It's time to give the Jesus cult its own subdomain. Perhaps a section titled, "Religious Theology."
@Banno was arguing for the forced move of religious threads to the Philosophy of Religion category. That would -- since you can just exclude that category from your homepage -- serve the purposes of all members except those who happen to be non-religiously into the philosophy of religion. Such forum members would just have to deal.
You're suggesting a new category be created in addition to Philosophy of Religion -- with, I'll note, no hope of keeping them separate. That looks to me like an endorsement of this as a place to post theology. Give it a few years and the place might get renamed The Philosophy & Theology Forum. After a few more, people will be surprised there's a philosophy section tucked in next to the bustling theology discussion forum. Eventually the comparatively low traffic in the original section will lead to long emotional debates about whether to just put it out of its misery, and then one day the coin will drop, and this will be The Theology Forum.
Silly me, presenting facts. What are facts to the faithful?
Wonderful question. Likewise, what are deductions to the meaning of life?
This is a good point. The only benefit of such a category is that it removes these kinds of posts from the general forum threads, just like the lounge. There is value in this. If these Christians are going to be cluttering up this forum to the point were mega-threads have to be constructed... well then, doesn't it just make so much more sense to isolate them in their own subcategory? It is a valid and intelligent way of dealing with the problem. The category doesn't have to be titled "Religious Theology," although that's what the category would actually contain.
Maybe it's a battle for you, that's why you refer to debate as "battle". To me it means searching for the truth, and loving it when I found it. That process has nothing to do with battling, my friend.
You are mistaken again, my friend. I am not arguing atheism. There is no need for that. I don't need to preach "beleive in no god". You believe in whatever you will.
What you mistake me for as arguing atheism, is pointing out the blindingly obvious self-contradictions, discrepancies, and in your case, hypocrisy in religious teachings. I would do that even if I believed in a god, or some gods. Many on this forum who believe in god do the same thing as I do.
You just like to simplify things to your maximum capacity of understanding the complexity of the world. EVERYONE ELSE does that, including myself, so don't take this personally, please.
:clap:
Well how fortunate for us. Meanwhile that last bit should be the least of your concerns. Faux Christians or simply liars attempting to shroud themselves in a moral cloak of righteousness to pursue unknown and possibly opposite and inverse purposes is the real snake in the grass.
"Love the God, love thy neighbor as you love yourself" is essentially the foundation of all modern law and peaceful civilization.
Again, be wary of liars and the corrupted. When discovered, apply diversity as needed.
Every Christian, absolutely every Christian, is decried for being a cheat or an untrue faithful by someone other who also calls himself or herself a Christian.
This is one of the fundamental problems of Christianity. A lack of uniform coherency of faith. A person whom I call as Christian because I am an atheist and he or she calls himself or herself a Christian, may be the AntiChrist in the eye of another who also calls himself or herself a Christian.
This is a bit strange, but hey.
Sorry, I had to correct and improve your quote. You see, there are a number of us who share a globe with you, who don't believe in any gods, but still are peaceful, respect the law, and are morally sound.
I had participated on a forum a long time ago, where this was the case. People could participate in that forum only by special permission, and that forum section was unknown to the general users of the forum. I happened upon it by a glitch of the programming engine, all of a sudden I was in a sea of posts about how god this and how god that. It was quite and experience, I tell you. Yet, despite that forum section devoted to the highly religious, the religious still kept on arguing their world view on the rest of the open forum sections.
New deduction on your Income Tax return? You get some more money back if you successfully discover the meaning of life. (N.B. please look up the meaning of the word "deduction". I believe you wanted to say "deducing".)
Atheistic fanaticism is as extreme as religious fanaticism. It is impressive how both are identical in characteristics.
"God is dead, and we have killed him!"
And everyone understood this statement wrong.
You shouldn't be happy about it, you should be crying...
Your argument here is wrested from context. There are lots of Christians on this site, one meets them everywhere. And this is the point that makes all the difference in the world: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Religion bears the burden of proof, and this means your position is not an equivalency. Anti-religious threads, in the sense you are trying to say they exist, must specifically be related to organized religion to be considered a legitimate antithesis. This forum does not have an overabundance of people posting anti-jesus-cult-threads, what it has is an overabundance of Christian threads pretending to be philosophy threads. Further, philosophy is by its very nature agnostic. I think your attempt at a parrot here is not only indefensible, but in bad taste.
Agree and disagree. Granted in this world something so profoundly not provable should barely be worth mentioning time and time again...
Of course this subject can be deeply emotional. For obvious reasons. Why did this happen, why does this occur, etc. Especially when it comes to loved ones who may have been screwed over or worse by supposed "loving Christians" or worse, at a young age by again supposed Christian (or whatever the persuasion) "holy men".
And some folks- religious or not- just get plain irritated when they're trying to have a logical discussion and someone is like "no because God" .. like that conveys much to a larger and non-esoteric audience. :grin:
No idea what you're saying about my proposal.
Quoting JerseyFlight
So what? As long as they're talking philosophy I don't care. 7 out of 10 Americans self-identify as Christian. Some of them just might come here to talk philosophy. Some of them might not ever mention their religion.
Agreed.
None of this has anything to do with philosophy. Reddit and Twitter are right next-door.
I have moved this thread to Feedback, as that is what it is.
In most cases, atheists who seek to create "theses" or "arguments" against theism in this forum are new converts who, with the fanaticism of any new convert, try to express this to everyone. And they still try to denigrate the image that religion - here not focusing on any specific one - had and still has in humanity. Christian philosophy, Islamic philosophy, Jewish philosophy, it doesn't matter, as long as doubts and/or arguments in favor are true and well formulated. What I am seeing is a tantrum of "intellectuals" who just because they do not believe in God - or Gods - think that everyone who believes must be inferior. Ridiculous.
They scream with all the fervor that only a fanatic can achieve that they are atheists. They are proud to cause their own decay ...
Perhaps not, but emotions and the thoughts, perspectives, and mental avenues they create are.
Just as you'd perhaps become upset at a philosophy that seems to not only have little use but stifle the art altogether (solipsism?), someone may become agitated and give someone a bit of an earful in the attempts to encourage them to think for themselves and use logic (which contrary to the beliefs of many is not only allowed but encouraged in most faiths). Sure, being "hellbent" on an endless, anti-religious tirade devoid of any sort of deeper philosophy is not a quality post but, hey, emotion. It is how it is, eh? :grin:
I don't know how much more clearly you could make my case for me.
Take for example Dfpolis, he recently posted a thread titled, Fallible Foundationalism. In this thread he tries to talk about the limits of knowledge, but this is not just an innocent thread, and I called him out on it. This is a thread that is bent in the direction of his theism, he's trying to weave the argument in the direction of belief in God. Here's a quote that proves his theism:
"I think it is absolutely certain that there is an uncaused cause which has all the philosophical attributes of God. So, I don't think you have reviewed the case for theism adequately." https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/452328
And in another place:
"Let’s start by clearing up some confusion. (1) While some people may think of God as an old man in the sky, that is not the notion of God in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, nor that addressed by Aristotle or the Buddhist Logicians." https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6187/a-proof-for-the-existence-of-god
This guys a straight-up Christian trying to use the medium of Reformed Epistemology to smuggle in his premise of Jesus, pretending that his real concern is philosophy. Yes, I have a problem with this. Aside from the fact that it's pure sophistry, it's also dishonest.
What is one suppose to do when they repeatedly encounter this kind of thing? You say ignore it? It's a bait and switch tactic. These people are the ones who are bringing God into the equation.
We agree on a problem, not a solution.
Like when a poster who has posted here recently was critical of Christians, I understood where he was coming from. Quite well. However, in my arguments with him I asserted "challenging what is not proven as a simple, relative unknown versus an absolute falsehood" as opposed to "my God this, my God that".
Perhaps that's what some mean to do as well. A simple reminder that this is a philosophy forum above all, and logic, reasoning, and what is provable and debatable must always take precedence.
You can be critical of schools of thought and certain thought processes without being explicitly anti-religious. From a non-theological standpoint it helps people. Nothing wrong with that. Of course, anything can be abused but that's a separate discussion. I agree that a religious person who is not capable of explicit logical, rational discussion is probably best suited for another forum. But never to say that the two (faith and logic) are mutually exclusive.
I know what @Dfpolis is. I don't care. So long as he's talking philosophy, we're good. Maybe he does have some nefarious scheme. I don't care. I'm a grown-up.
You are in a better position to know how things are going overall than I am, no question.
I still firmly believe it should be in the guidelines. If you believe atheism is already covered by "ideology", then nothing is changed by specifying it.
I want both sides gone. I do not want this to be one of the best places on the internet to talk about whether you personally believe in God or not and what that's like for you and what you think other folks should believe.
Atheism is not an ideology.
Then you would agree the word "atheism" should be added to the guidelines, right next to religion.
Are both sides not living testaments (relics if you prefer) to the human story and how philosophy evolved and got to where it is now in the first place?
Religion- The adamant, dogmatic belief of something .. anything! Perhaps "proven" in one's own mind by a simple, flawed observation. And atheism- the skeptical, challenging belief of "hey, perhaps you're wrong and there's more to be discovered". An eternal and timeless yin and yang of the human psyche. It's quite beautiful if you ask me. And without? Well, I doubt we'd be doing much more than hunting wild beasts and retiring to a nice cave afterward.
In times before our own, the forces we could not understand or explain where attributed to the gods ie. "were divine". Lightning. Wind. Water. Fire. Earthquakes. Etc. Perhaps, the paranormal is simply the next chapter of this epic human story we can all proudly call ourselves a part of.
Talking about it, fine. Living it out in front of me, no thanks. There's a whole big internet out there.
Absolutely not. These are not equivalent, what makes you think they are? Further, and this is way more important, a quick dose of reality, are you claiming that there is a problem with Atheists coming on this forum trying to introduce the topic of religion in a polemical way? Because it seems to me that what's really going on, is that there's a bunch of Christians on here who are trying to sneak God into the picture, and they get refuted by Atheists. Religious delusion is not a virtue, it's dangerous. At what point did we forget this? I can't even think of anything that has had a more disastrous, suppressive effective on our species. An advanced species wouldn't even be having this conversation.
One group is trying to assert the validity of faith as a method for obtaining knowledge, the other group is proceeding according to philosophical tools, evidence and reason, and you're trying to claim there's an equivalency here?
The polemic strikes back. He can't get enough of this bullshit...
Overcome your resentment for theism Flight; be better than a simple ideological doctrinaire.
Precisely because it's a difference that won't really be all that much of a difference I'm rather, well, indifferent to the idea. Like, it strikes me as nominal is all. Still, I'll dangle it in the mod thread and see if anyone else bites.
Appreciate it.
You are giving privileged status to delusion by validating false premises that characterize these positions as equivalent. Those who refute religious error are not harming the species, it is those who are bent on prolonging it through an unwarranted and romantic respect, who do harm to the species. There is more to the analysis here than just the assertion of a false equivalence. It's exceedingly strange that the refutation of error should be considered as some kind of malignant or hostile action, when it is actually the thing that contains the highest level of value. This is allowing the sophists to dictate the narrative. It is a way to poison the well against a strong polemic that one cannot refute. Others should speak out on this as well, something is very wrong here. Those who refute the ideology of God should not be considered the enemies of thought or man. Would Nietzsche then be banned from this philosophy forum? Come now, something is wrong here.
To quote Christopher Hitchens:
“One must have the nerve to assert that, while people are entitled to their
illusions, they are not entitled to a limitless enjoyment of them and they are
not entitled to impose them on others. Allow a friend to believe in a bogus
prospectus or a false promise and you cease, after a short while, to be a friend
at all. How dare you intervene? As well ask, How dare you not? Are you so
sure you know better? Ask yourself this question a thousand times, but if you
are sure, have the confidence and dignity to say so. Remember that saying
nothing is also a decision, and that the relativists and nonjudgmental have
made up their minds just as much, if not as firmly.”
Letters to a Young Contrarian, pg.82-83, MJF Books 2001
Doesn't matter if it's Christians (again, there's many religions out there... they just seem to be your favorite for some reason) and God with Atheists or meta-physicists with the supernatural and by-the-book scientists or even multiverse theorists and other universes with other by-the-book scientists. It's the same thing. What is not proven, yet could be, and the philosophical ramifications and results said idea could bring. Very philosophical. Again, I'll agree- the stereotypical idea of an old fashioned "thumper" devoid of any and all logic is not suited for this forum. But. Come now. Philosophy is about new ideas and the effects they can have on society. Why preclude something of such historical and social magnitude?
No it's not. It's not about making stuff up, it's about the power of negation. I have already made myself clear in this thread, I am not against philosophical theology, I am against cults, organized religion, as every sane, responsible human being should be. The reason why Christianity is emphasized is because that's what we deal with here in America and that's what there has been an influx of on this forum. Contrary to the status quo here, religion is not just some innocent belief system, it's a dangerous ideology that propagates delusion in the world at the expense of reality. No serious philosopher can remain neutral to this.
Too, the historical marriage between religion and philosophy is an inequality - religion seems almost desperate to earn philosophical favor while philosophy has been steadily undermining religion.
If the religious are inclined to be philosophical, it's a sign that they, whoever they are, finally see the light, so to speak. Their attempts to philosophize religion is to be taken as an homage to philosophy, its rightful claim as one of the best available routes to the truth whatever that may be.
What maybe more problematic for you - given the views expressed in the OP which likely is just a passing thought - is not the philsophical believer but the believing philosopher. The philosophical believer may eventually join your ranks but the religious philsopher is the one thinning your crowd, if you're an atheist philosopher. The religious philosopher might be onto something and you'll never know if you decide not to engage them and the catch is one place you might meet religious philosophers is a forum like this.
Great. I can speak in front of you. Living out the way I choose to live my life within the confines of the law, not so much. Well thankfully we have the law. You follow it, you don't mind me, it won't mind you.
The much more pressing question would be, do you believe the contributions of religion ie. "someone living out a religious life" are valid? That includes everything that is as it is as a result. You would seem to suggest it is not. Is this correct?
One can have recourse to religious texts without claiming infallibility or divine inspiration for their authors, just as one can have recourse to Aesop's fables without believing in the Boy who cried 'wolf'. or the talking fox that claimed the grapes were sour.
Most of the Western philosophical tradition is so culturally enmeshed with Christianity and other religious traditions, that a rigorous policy of excluding God apologists would lead to the banishment of Descartes, Spinoza, Aristotle, Plato, and almost everyone in between. And may Shango's thunderbolt strike me if I lie.
There's the contradiction. You cannot approach philosophy with theological biases. If the point of philosophy to a theist is to prove that God exists, is good, is all powerful, and is responsible for everything we are, it is not philosophy at all.
That doesn't forbid philosophical discussion of whether God exists, what he might be like, the ethics of Jesus, etc. As you say, we can philosophise about anything.
Thank you! Oddly enough, deduction and mathematical truth's are basically one in the same. And so I wonder how tax laws, deductive reasoning mathematical truths and other forms of analytic's speak to meaning of life questions?
After all atheism is based on theism and logico deductive reasoning.
The one that leapt to mind for me was Kant!
I already banned Kant for trolling on the old site.
I always suspected that was your doing.
?
Quoting TheMadFool
?
Quoting TheMadFool
?
Quoting TheMadFool
?
Quoting TheMadFool
A problem, philosophical theology?
Quoting TheMadFool
Thinning my crowd?
Quoting TheMadFool
This is far too general to be of any value, most especially when it comes to religion.
Indeed, a theist who turns to philosophy with the sole aim of justifying his/her beliefs is guilty of rationalization but this doesn't devalue philosophy as such. In fact, it's like your rival learning and using your very own fighting techniques against you? What greater compliment than this for philosophy?
A philosopher who finds truth in religion is what you should keep an eye on. The believer who uses philosophy to further a religious agenda is not as problematic.
Quoting JerseyFlight
I feel religion is a truly complex set of beliefs - rich in meaning embodied in rituals, tradition, narratives, symbolism, practices, myth, and emotions, to name a few - and being so is a veritable gold mine of sundry topics for philosophers to sink their teeth into. Not that this hasn't been done already but the effort, and I can only guess, is piecemeal, fragmentary. If one puts these scattered pieces together, a picture of religion may emerge that reveals a harmony and coherence hitherto unseen. In short, your dim view of religion is probably symptomatic of not being privy to such knowledge as I have alluded to above.
Well then, who cares what philosophy has to say about it. A conceptual toy box that strikes your fancy. I'm not sure one can refute a hedonist.
In my humble opinion, philosophy, being, above all, an approach to issues, a method of discovering truths, refined over many generations of practitioners, is universal in scope. One could say philosophy is to know how to read a map, religion is just one map among countless others that can be read.
There is no responsibility or demarcation in philosophy? From what then does it distinguish itself? I have long understood philosophy to be criticism.
:100:
Too pollyannaish, Fool. Philosophy problematizes how rationally or not 'maps are read, made or revised'; religion is just one irrational, or fantasy, map among countless others.
:up:
I don't know about you but I'm particularly fascinated by so-called saints, how each is a patron saint of a particular virtue or divine attribute- things like forgiveness, love, women, doctors, cobblers, fishermen, immigrants, and the list goes on and on - and their lives are, in some cases, living examples of these virtues/divine attributes.
Further, religious rituals are full of meaning - words uttered in prayer, the incense, the rosary, etc. all have a history that stretches centuries back in time.
Then there's the symbolism - I can't get enough of that.
:up: :ok: