God & Christianity Aren’t Special

Reply to Mikie

And yet, here you go starting another anti-religion discussion.

Reply to Mikie Lots of people have acted on the sentiment you express. They have left. Moved on. Many of the departed are NOT religious--they've become "spiritual". Then there are those who might be "religious" but NOT spiritual. The Church is a useful institution; it's a place to maintain social contacts. A lot of clubs and bowling leagues have gone out of business. The church is still there on the corner. Potluck, anyone?

Is "religion" a waste of time? For some, yes; for others no. Like it or not, many people find it helpful. Whether they are Buddhists, Hindus talking about Vishnu, Moslems yelling Allah Akbar, Baptists ranting about Jesus, or WHATEVER the hell they are, people find religious activities personally useful. That rulers also find religion useful is a much less praiseworthy aspect of belief. That's another possible thread.

I'm no longer a believer and I'm not "spiritual" either--but protestant Christianity is the milieu in which I grew up. As an old adult, I might think I should have been raised in a secular humanist family in Boston or New York City, but I was instead raised in the very conventional rural midwest. There are a lot of things I don't like about the Midwest (or New York City, for that matter) but it is what it is.

In time, more and more people will have grown up in secular, non-religious communities. Maybe someday everyone will be secular. We'll have to come back from the grave to see whether that makes all that much difference.

Reply to T Clark

“And yet” makes no sense.

Also, it’s not anti-religion. But thanks for your always-riveting comments. :yawn:

Quoting BC

The Church is a useful institution; it's a place to maintain social contacts. A lot of clubs and bowling leagues have gone out of business. The church is still there on the corner. Potluck, anyone?

True. I think the social aspect is important. From a philosophical point of view, however, these questions are — in my view — a waste of time. It’s not even philosophy of religion — They should be studying theology.

Quoting BC

Is "religion" a waste of time? For some, yes; for others no.

Sure. I don’t think religion is a waste of time.

Quoting BC

We'll have to come back from the grave to see whether that makes all that much difference.

I plan on living to 120, so maybe I’ll get to see it.

Reply to Mikie
How do you suggest we help those who continue to be manipulated by any pernicious uses of theism?

Tell me more about what I should let go of, and how you know its value so well.

Some say that it was a Christian society that brought about the enlightenment and the birth of science, and the very commitment to truth, and to not wasting time that you seem to espouse yourself. Should we not let go of those very Christian values too?

It sounds like you have an axe to grind, but given that your post contains no arguments and has no relation to philosophy, why post this sort of thing on a philosophy forum? Twitter would seem to be the better option, and 280 characters is more than enough to express such a simple sentiment.

Reply to universeness

For pernicious aspects, I’d try my best to educate them — but like any cult, that’s difficult once it’s been ingrained.

Quoting unenlightened

Tell me more about what I should let go of, and how you know its value so well.

I can make up a god right now. Now let’s endlessly argue about if it exists or not, what impacts it has on morality, etc etc. Odd that Vishnu doesn’t get brought up as much here — I wonder why?

Anyway— I don’t care about whether people are Christian or not; I care about what they do. But in terms of philosophical questioning on a philosophy forum, especially if you’re otherwise secular — yeah, people should move on from that. Either study theology or treat god like any other god. No reason to give “god” special attention just because you happen to be raised in that faith.

Quoting unenlightened

Should we not let go of those very Christian values too?

I didn’t say anything about Christian values.

Quoting Leontiskos

It sounds like you have an axe to grind, but given that your post contains no arguments and has no relation to philosophy, why post this sort of thing on a philosophy forum?

It does have an argument. That you missed it is your business.

The argument is simple: because one happens to be raised in a Christian culture doesn’t afford special attention to one’s “questions” about God. Very easy to see if you replace “God” with “Wodin.”

I figured this post would be interpreted as simplistically as possible, so as to fit it in with arguing “Move on from Christianity.” But look again — that’s not the argument. I’m not against religion.

If one wants to study God, study theology. If one wants to raise philosophical questions about God— ask yourself why you’re so preoccupied with God and not Thor or Shiva. I think that’ll lead you to see that this obsession is a complete waste of time, and that your caring so much is based on a residue of upbringing. Move on from that. It’s not special.

Quoting Mikie

From a psychological, anthropological, and historical point of view, it’s just one more worldview.

Quoting Mikie

No reason to give “god” special attention just because you happen to be raised in that faith.

On the contrary, one cannot understand oneself and one's potential biases without some study of the history of the culture in which one was raised.

Quoting Mikie

I didn’t say anything about Christian values.

Like you, the Christian tradition makes much of the value of not wasting time, but working hard.

Quoting Mikie

It’s a waste of time.

I think it is at least interesting, and perhaps important, to recognise the source of such values.

Quoting unenlightened

On the contrary, one cannot understand oneself and one's potential biases without some study of the history of the culture in which one was raised.

Of course. You’re bound to care more about your own culture. But that’s the point. It’s a bias.

If you really believe your culture is special, exceptional, deserving of privileged treatment, etc — fine, go study it. If this were India, I suppose there would be endless debate about how many arms Shiva has or whatever — yet in terms of philosophy, I’d say the same thing: it’s boring, and the only reason we care in the first place is because we grew up in it.

But it’s really not special from a philosophical or scientific point of view, where the happenstance of one’s upbringing is removed. There’s a kind of ethnocentrism to it all.

I’m assuming, I guess, that most people here approach these issues without being hardcore believers. Perhaps I’m wrong, and they really do believe. In that case, it’s not really philosophy at all, is it?

Quoting Mikie

If you really believe your culture is special, exceptional, deserving of privileged treatment, etc — fine, go study it.

I have done so, and have no such belief because I have also studied something of Indian, Chinese, and African cultures. And I have found much of value in all those stories that you seem to want me to dismiss. So what do you have that is better than stories?

Quoting unenlightened

Some say that it was a Christian society that brought about the enlightenment and the birth of science, and the very commitment to truth

While others say that the church tried to(and is still trying)to limit the knowledge available to the common people and to limit or control the research into certain fields that they consider to be the providence of their god. How many were condemned by the church for trying to explain the truth of the universe.
And as for truth about the churches themselves, I think that we will never know a lot of it unless we can find all of the old books that the leaders of religion stop us from seeing.

Reply to Sir2u Zeus was prone to eating his children too. It's a god thing.

Quoting unenlightened

Zeus was prone to eating his children too. It's a god thing.

From what I remember of reading about the ancient gods, they ate them in more ways than one.

Quoting unenlightened

And I have found much of value in all those stories that you seem to want me to dismiss.

I never once argued that should be dismissed. I’m arguing we shouldn’t raise one particular story for special treatment on the basis of the sheer chance we were raised being told it.

Quoting unenlightened

So what do you have that is better than stories?

Questions. Questions that aren’t limited to one special story.

Reply to Mikie I don't concur. I agree that debates about religion are often irksome but trivialising or dismissing it is not helpful. 'It's just a bunch of old myths, there's nothing in it, forget about it'. To a lot of people it's the most important fact about life. There's an asymettry - you don't see it as anything other than myth, whereas for those who believe it, there is something real - and vastly important - at stake.

One of the best books in the history of ideas that I've read since joining forums was The Theological Origins of Modernity, by M A Gillespie. 'Exposing the religious roots of our ostensibly godless age, Michael Allen Gillespie reveals in this landmark study that modernity is much less secular than conventional wisdom suggests. Taking as his starting point the collapse of the medieval world, Gillespie argues that from the very beginning moderns sought not to eliminate religion but to support a new view of religion and its place in human life.' And that mainly manifests as the religion of technology and science.

Quoting Mikie

The argument is simple: because one happens to be raised in a Christian culture...

That's not an argument, it's a cliché, just like your Santa Klaus cliché and your fairytale cliché. If your intent was to bring an end to boring religious discussions, then you should be informed that bundling together a bunch of anti-religious clichés in an anti-religious OP will certainly have the opposite effect.

Quoting Quixodian

To a lot of people it's the most important fact about life.

To a lot of Hindus it’s an important fact about life. For those who are capable, I think stepping outside one’s upbringing and enculturation and questioning things philosophically is possible. I think that ultimately leads to “Why am I privileging the stories of my youth?”

If talk about the god Xhadima, as an outsider, is kind of absurd, then perhaps that’s worth examining.

This is not a statement about theology— study God or Christianity all you like. When it comes to philosophy, I don’t see it that way anymore. I see it as boring as I see the “philosophical” obsessions about Xhadima. Like, move on already. Your particular childhood stories don’t carry social weight.

Quoting Quixodian

There's an asymettry - you don't see it as anything other than myth, whereas for those who believe it, there is something real - and vastly important - at stake.

I’m assuming people who do philosophy assume it’s myth as well. Nothing wrong with myth and stories — they’re important. But let’s acknowledge our privileging it over many others simply because we were raised in it.

It’s like privileging the NFL. Yes, because I grew up with it I give it more personal importance— but the rest of the world doesn’t care, and to assume they do is utter arrogance. From an anthropological view, it’s one sport of many and, if questioned at all, should be questioned with that in mind.

Quoting Leontiskos

then you should be informed that bundling together a bunch of anti-religious clichés in an anti-religious OP will certainly have the opposite effect.

It’s not anti-religious. I’m speaking to those capable of recognizing their own religion as a product of their upbringing. See the quote below. You’re clearly not one of them, so it really doesn’t apply to you. You should study theology. I see philosophy as different in many ways from that— and, with this being a philosophy forum, I figured I would voice my opinion about it.

Quoting Mikie

You were taught these stories as a child. Anyone who thinks them through, if they’re strong enough, will just let them go as cultural fairytales — on par with Santa Klaus and caring about the National Football League

Again— this doesn’t apply to you. So be happy with what you believe. I’m just not interested in theology. I’m talking about those who wish to engage in philosophical questioning.

Quoting Mikie

It’s not anti-religious. I’m speaking to those capable of recognizing their own religion as a product of their upbringing.

The idea that only a select few are "capable of recognizing their own religion as a product of their upbringing" is anti-religious polemic. This should be obvious.

Quoting Leontiskos

The idea that only a select few are "capable of recognizing their own religion as a product of their upbringing" is anti-religious. This is obvious.

How? It’s either a select few or it’s not. In this forum, I think it’s quite a few people.

Most people don’t really question their beliefs. Of those who do— and there are a sizable number — I think it’s worth giving the advice I did: move on from it. Don’t get stuck with those questions alone, because there’s nothing special about your particular religion.

Quoting Mikie

...because there’s nothing special about your particular religion.

More personal insults, then, just like the OP.

Quoting Leontiskos

More personal insults, then, just like the OP.

Your defensiveness is clouding your reading comprehension:

Quoting Mikie

Of those who do— and there are a sizable number — I think it’s worth giving the advice I did:

It has nothing to do with insults. I realize YOU’RE very clearly insulted. But I’ve now told you repeatedly this advice doesn’t apply to you. So if you choose to feel insulted, that’s your own business.

Quoting Mikie

I’m assuming people who do philosophy assume it’s myth as well. Nothing wrong with myth and stories — they’re important. But let’s acknowledge our privileging it over many others simply because we were raised in it.

You misunderstand the role of myth in culture. There are any number of myths active in cultural narratives. A lot of it is now pop culture rubbish about cartoon heroes, instead of morally edifying narratives. Furthermore the fact that ‘millions of people don’t believe in religion’ is no more an argument against religion, than ‘millions of people do’ is for it. There are substantive philosophical questions entailed by religious belief. Ideas have consequences. The case can be made that Western culture provided fertile grounds for the scientific revolution due to the kind of metaphysics it had (per Stanley Jaki, a polymath Catholic monk.)

Quoting Quixodian

There are substantive philosophical questions entailed by religious belief.

I’m not sure about that. This is where I think the disagreement perhaps stems from. There are important religious questions entailed by religious beliefs. But I wouldn’t call them philosophical. The question “Does Xenoghi allow bad things to happen?” is not really philosophical, although it may very well be important to those who believe in Xenoghi.

Quoting universeness

How do you suggest we help those who continue to be manipulated by any pernicious uses of theism?

Anti-religion and its concerns are as much a distraction from what really matters as religion and its concerns. You don't need to worry about saving anyone.

Quoting Quixodian

There are substantive philosophical questions entailed by religious belief.

People do say that, and yet they never seem to be able to say just what those substantive philosophical questions are. I don't see why religion has anything more to do with philosophy than any other cultural phenomenon.

Quoting Mikie

There are important religious questions entailed by religious beliefs. But I wouldn’t call them philosophical.

But that itself is tendentious. You're asking others to question their beliefs, but taking your own for granted. 'Science' didn't even become separated from 'philosophy' until the 1830's.

Here's a brief analytical statement of what is important about the religious idea. That essentially the human being is not only or simply a physical phenomenon. That the human embodies or is directly related to the governing intelligence of the Cosmos (whether concieved of in personalistic terms as God or as a principle such as Dharma or Tao). Something like this was believed by a great many of the philosophers of the Western canon, and it is of high philosophical significance.

Quoting Mikie

I don’t think religion is a waste of time

Quoting Mikie

It’s a waste of time.

Reply to Quixodian The question of whether there is a "governing intelligence of the Cosmos" is answerable only by faith. There can be no evidence of such a thing, which means that, absent any personal feeling that there is such a thing, there could be no reason to believe it. Personal feelings may satisfy the criterion of evidence for the individual with the feeling but cannot constitute evidence for anyone else.

Quoting Janus

The question of whether there is a "governing intelligence of the Cosmos" is answerable only by faith.

There's an interesting internet anecdote about a well-known atheist philosopher, now deceased, by the name of Antony Flew, who's convictions were changed towards the end of his life by this very observation. There are large numbers of respected scientists who share the conviction. It's not empirically demonstrable, but then, it's not an empirical question (although of course for positivism, if it's not an empirical question, then it's nonsensical.)

Quoting Janus

There can be no evidence of such a thing

From the theistic perspective, the Universe is the evidence.

Each person walks their own path for their own reasons. Everyone adopts their 'original' worldview/belief system. This is true of each and every language user regardless of familial, cultural, and societal particulars. All belief systems evolve over time and influence. This is also true of everyone.

To tell someone who we barely know, or do not know at all, that their considerations regarding their own worldview are a waste of time is an expression stemming from combined ignorance, unjustified certainty, blatant inconsideration for others(immoral behaviour if there is such a thing),and spiteful arrogance.

Pathetic.

Quoting Quixodian

There's an interesting internet anecdote about a well-known atheist philosopher, now deceased, by the name of Antony Flew, who's convictions were changed towards the end of his life by this very observation. There are large numbers of respected scientists who share the conviction. It's not empirically demonstrable, but then, it's not an empirical question (although of course for positivism, if it's not an empirical question, then it's nonsensical.)

I'm not clear which observation you are referring to.

Personally, I am never impressed by the fact that many intelligent people are devout Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or anything else. I would never try to undermine anyone's personal convictions, but I don't believe anyone's personal convictions that something is the case, metaphysically speaking, can constitute good evidence for it being the case. I also don't believe that many people having a certain personal metaphysical conviction is good evidence for the truth of the conviction. To say it is evidence would be an argument from authority, and we all know such arguments are fallacious.

Quoting Mikie

Anyway— I don’t care about whether people are Christian or not; I care about what they do. [/QUOTE]

Jesus and you agree on the importance of "do".

[quote]"Everyone who hears my words and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.” Matthew 7:26-27

Quoting Mikie

But in terms of philosophical questioning on a philosophy forum, especially if you’re otherwise secular — yeah, people should move on from that. Either study theology or treat god like any other god. No reason to give “god” special attention just because you happen to be raised in that faith.

You are rejecting the specificity of people's experience and their development as persons. You have all sorts of features as a person that are a reflection of how, where, and when you were raised. Perhaps it would be a good idea to lose that fear of spiders you acquired as a child, but there's no reason to lose your language, preferred music, preference in vegetables, and so on. If you were raised in a secular family and have no religious experiences or interests, there's no reason for you to ditch that.

Most style books recommend capitalizing God, thus giving him special attention. If one is talking about various gods, then no special treatment is required. It's a feature of English and its history within Christendom.

Quoting BC

I don’t think religion is a waste of time
— Mikie

It’s a waste of time.
— Mikie

How about some nuance, some context? I think @Mikie means that talk about religion and Gods is a waste of time, not that practicing religion is, for the faithful, a waste of time. No doubt he will correct me if I have misrepresented his view.

Quoting Quixodian

There can be no evidence of such a thing
— Janus

From the theistic perspective, the Universe is the evidence.

The Universe cannot be evidence of anything other than what studying it reveals. Studying it has not revealed that there is a governing intelligence. Lawlike behavior is observed, but we don't know what the explanation for that is, or even if any explanation for it is possible.

Reply to Mikie
The thing is, much of Western philosophy is based on esoteric or religious foundations. Even ancient Greek philosophy, often has esoteric metaphysics at its foundation. Even "revelation". You can say it is part and parcel of the Greek religious ideology. Look at Parmenides. He is one of the great pre-Socratic philosophers, and his philosophy is basically a poetic theological revelation on the idea of oneness. Even his logical proofs are basically religious. Same goes for Pythagoras, Plato himself, Plotinus, not to mention almost all the Medieval scholastics. In fact, it really isn't until Hume, and then again in the late 19th early 20th century that you have a thoroughly non-metaphysical philosophy that just focuses on logic, philosophy of language problems, philosophy of science, and more discrete disciplines meant to accompany science at the exclusion of any speculative thinking.

Here is a great little lecture on the esoteric nature of Parmenides.

Reply to schopenhauer1 Philosophy used to be under the aegis of religion, now it has become secular, which really just amounts to becoming concerned with this world rather than some imagined afterlife or higher realm.

This is in general how modern Western civilization has gone too, and the changes in philosophical approaches reflect that. We cannot project ourselves back into the philosophical shoes of the medievals and the ancients, to attempt that would be anachronistic.

Quoting Janus

Philosophy used to be under the aegis of religion, now it has become secular, which really just amounts to becoming concerned with this world rather than some imagined afterlife. This is in general how modern Western civilization has gone too, and the changes in philosopher approaches reflect that. We cannot project ourselves back into the philosophical shoes of the medieval and the ancients, to attempt that would be anachronistic.

In a history of philosophy way, if we want to be holistic about it, it is important to see how the ideas of a time period shaped the ideas of Western culture up to our very day.

But also, there is a philosophy of religion section in academia, and in this forum. Thus, fair game to discuss, dissect, and analyze. There are ideas that can come out of it that can be worth debating.

Reply to BC

Unlike you to deliberately quote out of context. Kind of disappointing. The context:

Quoting Mikie

To me, all this talk/questioning about God is as silly as watching people in India talking about the specific patterns of Vishnu’s tunic. It’s a waste of time.

This does not mean religion is a waste of time. Giving special attention to the minutia of one myth is a waste of time— assuming you view it as a myth.

Reply to Mikie I agree. I rarely discuss "religions" or "God" or "theology" but instead focus on theism and other such purported 'conceptions of divinity' by investigating the claims which they entail as well as facts of the matter which they presuppose. The philosophical import of each 'conception of the divine' is metaphysical, that is, has implications for 'the concept of nature, or reality', and short of this, I think you're right, Mikie – the topic (re: god religion theology faith etc) is a waste of time. However, many could say the same about philosophy – that discussions about 'existing & being, good & truth, culture & nature' are also wastes of time – not much more than interminable circle-jerks of competing jargons. :smirk:

Quoting schopenhauer1

The thing is, much of Western philosophy is based on esoteric or religious foundations.

More arboreal roots than architectural "foundations" – but yes, for the most part the Pre-Socratics strove to suppliment and/or substitute rational conceptions (Logos) of reality for religious / esoteric verse-fairytales (Mythos)

Reply to creativesoul

What’s pathetic is your understanding.

Quoting creativesoul

that their considerations regarding their own worldview are a waste of time

Complete straw man. Not once did I say that. But keep fabricating all you want if it makes you feel virtuous.

Quoting BC

You are rejecting the specificity of people's experience and their development as persons.

I’m doing the exact opposite of this.

Quoting BC

If you were raised in a secular family and have no religious experiences or interests, there's no reason for you to ditch that.

I’m not advocating anyone ditch their culture or religion.

Quoting Janus

How about some nuance, some context? I think Mikie means that talk about religion and Gods is a waste of time, not that practicing religion is, for the faithful, a waste of time. No doubt he will correct me if I have misrepresented his view.

I appreciate the effort to give a least a small benefit of the doubt.

It’s not a waste of time for believers. That’s theology— which is fine by me. What’s a waste of time is engaging in philosophical questioning and discussion about various aspects of God when you already accept that Christian dogma is one of many and accept the anthropological point of view.

Which is also to acknowledge the culture and beliefs of the rest of the world, and thus that we shouldn’t give Christianity special treatment.

As an example: if one is a creationist, fine. But don’t pretend you’re doing science. If one is a Christian believer, do theology — but don’t pretend to be questioning philosophically. If one isn’t a Christian believer, but was raised in a Christian culture, then don’t waste time by dwelling on and privileging Christian stories simply on account of being raised in it.

That’s my point. I’m not saying religion is a waste of time — one is free to search my history on what I’ve written about religion for evidence.

Quoting schopenhauer1

he thing is, much of Western philosophy is based on esoteric or religious foundations.

That’s an interesting point. The similarities between religion and philosophy is worth discussing. I think we all have a religion, in a sense. But that’s not really what I’m getting at here. I’m making a much more narrow argument about objects of philosophical inquiry, what’s worthwhile and what isn’t.

Quoting 180 Proof

I think you're right, Mikie – the topic (re: god religion theology faith etc) is a waste of time.

I don’t really think that though— I’m saying it’s a waste of time to treat God or Christianity as special (here the thread name), assuming that you approach the matter from a philosophical (or historical or anthropological) point of view. If one doesn’t approach it that way, I have no personal gripe with them — I would only argue that they’re not doing philosophy or anthropology, they’re doing theology.

On a philosophy forum, I take the liberty of assuming most people approach it in the philosophical sense. That is, they’re not devout or literal believers, but were likely raised with it (as I myself was and I imagine many people in the West were too). Of these people, my argument is that to privilege the stories of youth and take seriously those questions — but not, say, the questions of Vishnu — is a waste of time and, in a way, ethnocentric.

Reply to Mikie So you're just objecting to a dogmatic (or proselytizing) mindset?

Quoting Mikie

To me, all this talk/questioning about God is as silly as watching people in India talking about the specific patterns of Vishnu’s tunic. It’s a waste of time.

Quoting Mikie

Christian beliefs, myths and stories are no different from Hindu beliefs or animistic beliefs of tribal people. From a psychological, anthropological, and historical point of view, it’s just one more worldview.

Quoting Mikie

The argument is simple: because one happens to be raised in a Christian culture doesn’t afford special attention to one’s “questions” about God. Very easy to see if you replace “God” with “Wodin.”

I'm currently thinking you present us with two premises: a) Christianity is no less invalid as a factual worldview that all of the many other religious world-views (discredited through the lens of Christianity); Christian votaries, given the truth of this, should either resort to study of (mythical) religious texts or entirely repent of their involvement thereof; b) total repentance of religion entails Christian votaries abandoning the false belief that Christianity is the "last man standing" with credibility within the realm of religious world-views.

Also, regarding the question of your purpose, you're not attacking religion. Instead, you're advising religious votaries with regard to what you understand to be a classification error. Religion requires a different classification than that applied to science and philosophy.

Reply to 180 Proof

I’m objecting to otherwise non-religious people who want it to engage in philosophical inquiry spending inordinate amount of time wallowing in — giving special attention to — mythical stories, just because they were raised with them.

It’d be like discussing the philosophical aspects of Santa Claus when you’ve long recognized him as a myth. Do why the endless theses about him? Santa Claus isn’t anything special.

Quoting Mikie

I’m objecting to otherwise non-religious people who want it to engage in philosophical inquiry spending inordinate amount of time wallowing in — giving special attention to — mythical stories, just because they were raised with them.

Care to post a link to a thread or post as an example to clarify what you mean?

Reply to 180 Proof

No, because the one that catalyzed me to write this is actually someone who I like and who is a good contributor. But there are usually dozens of discussions a month with “God” in the title. I’m all for theology if that’s what people want to discuss.

But in the narrow case I mean, I think it’s treating Christianity as special and is a waste of time.

Reply to Mikie Some explicit demarcation is needed, as a guide to newbies and as a tool for mods.

Quoting Banno

...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.

Quoting Quixodian

But that itself is tendentious. You're asking others to question their beliefs, but taking your own for granted.

I don’t take them for granted. I’m happy to question them. It’s more of a definition, really — I don’t consider creationists to be doing science, while they would disagree. Likewise, I don’t see those explaining the miracles of Jesus to be doing philosophy — that’s more Biblical studies or theology.

If I’m asking anything, I’m asking for less privileging of “God” amongst philosophers simply because they were raised in the Christian faith or in a Christian culture.

Reply to Banno

:up:

The issue I’m raising isn’t really a mod one. I’m not suggesting censoring anyone or deleting anything. I’m merely giving a personal view on a fairly narrow issue.

Reply to MikieBut statements like this

Quoting Mikie

Santa Claus isn’t anything special.

comparing God to Santa Claus only conveys lack of insight as far as I'm concerned. Sure, God may mean nothing to you, but trivialising belief in God doesn't recognise the formative role that Christianity has had in the history of Western culture.

Quoting Banno

using scripture, revelation or other religious authority in an argument

I agree that citing scripture in support of a philosophical argument is generally bad form. But conversely, the tendency to take the whole content of religion in the history of ideas off the table is also a pretty dogmatic attitude, and it's often on display here. There's a kind of implicit or unstated taboo on certain lines of argument based on this prohibition.

Quoting Quixodian

But conversely, the tendency to take the whole content of religion in the history of ideas is also a pretty dogmatic attitude, and it's often on display here.

Hu?

Quoting Quixodian

God may mean nothing to you,

And to the person I’m directing my advice to. It’s not that it means nothing — it has sentimental value perhaps, for example — but there’s no reason to privilege it. It’s simply not special, any more than Santa Claus.

Again, this ASSUMES we’re facing this philosophically, in the same way we’re facing the fossil record scientifically rather than through creationism.

Quoting Mikie

Again, this ASSUMES we’re facing this philosophically, in the same way we’re facing the fossil record scientifically rather than through creationism.

Right. So what I said earlier - a brief analytical statement of what is important about the religious idea. That essentially the human being is not only or simply a physical phenomenon. That the human embodies or is directly related to the governing intelligence of the Cosmos (whether concieved of in personalistic terms as God or as an impersonal principle such as Dharma or Tao).

Would you consider that idea as philosophically significant?

Quoting Quixodian

Would you consider that idea as philosophically significant?

Absolutely.

Reply to Mikie :up:

Quoting Janus

I would never try to undermine anyone's personal convictions, but I don't believe anyone's personal convictions that something is the case, metaphysically speaking, can constitute good evidence for it being the case. I also don't believe that many people having a certain personal metaphysical conviction is good evidence for the truth of the conviction.

How does this not then apply to the metaphysical conviction that anything which some might deem “spiritual” – such as the belief that death to this world does not equate to an absolute cessation of personal being – can only be baloney?

After all: materialism, too, is but only a metaphysical conviction.

Quoting Mikie

It’s not a waste of time for believers. That’s theology— which is fine by me. What’s a waste of time is engaging in philosophical questioning and discussion about various aspects of God when you already accept that Christian dogma is one of many and accept the anthropological point of view.

One can approach the subject via the view that all the world’s major religions hold some aspect of the perennial philosophy in common – with each such religion applying it differently.

As to the philosophical importance of Christianity, and Santa Claus/Christmas, and the like for those who accept the anthropological point of view: these cultural traditions have vast impacts upon the lives of all westerners – regardless of their/our beliefs – and western culture is as of today the predominant culture worldwide.

As one example, one would be benefited in understanding today’s international politics by gaining greater insight into what some Christians fervently believe to be Christ’s second coming (and some Jews fervently believe to be Christs first coming) upon the fulfillment of X, Y, and Z conditions. But no such benefit can obtain if one disallows philosophical discussions of Christianity, or of religions in general.

As another, our western economies would be relatively devastated in the absence of Christmas and, hence, of the continued mythos of Santa Claus (whose intended deeper truth is basically that good outcomes result from good deeds).

As Stephen Crane put it:

Tradition, thou art for suckling children,
Thou art the enlivening milk for babes;
But no meat for men is in thee.
Then —
But, alas, we all are babes.

Quoting Mikie

If one is a Christian believer, do theology — but don’t pretend to be questioning philosophically.

By and large I think I agree with your sentiment in the thread, but this quote here betrays a misunderstanding on your part, I think. As a former Evangelical Christian, I can tell you that when I used to "do theology" it was the same thing to me as "doing philosophy"; I considered them to be identical. Theology was philosophy was theology. Of course, from an outside perspective we can see the mistake here, but the Christian believer you're theoretically speaking to cannot see the forest for the trees here, so your complaint is simply that to them; an annoying complaint that they probably don't understand and will dismiss. So the thread amounts to another vapid complaint about religion that is based on yet another misunderstanding, as far as I can tell.

Quoting Banno

But conversely, the tendency to take the whole content of religion in the history of ideas is also a pretty dogmatic attitude, and it's often on display here.
— Quixodian
Hu?

I think what he means is that all human endeavor comes to nothing, it helps nothing, and it ultimately means nothing.

Therefore snarl at your neighbor for some whatever nonsense about Jesus and the Devil, or just be in awe at what some primates come up with as the earth turns toward nowhere, for no reason, before the lights go out.

Reply to frank hu?

Reply to Banno
Exactly.

Quoting Mikie

What is a waste of time is engaging in philosophical questioning and discussion about various aspects of God when you already accept that Christian dogma is one of many and accept the anthropological point of view.

Sorry to quote your two "waste of time" statements out of context. But it really isn't clear to me why you hold the view presented in the quoted sentence. It seems like what you are describing here is what people who are interested in "religion as a topic" engage in periodically. People have written books comparing and contrasting Jesus and Buddha, for example. They treat both of them seriously as subject matter rather than as gods. They might well not believe a word of either man, but believing isn't what they are after.

So many aspects of human endeavor amount to colossal wastes of time, effort, and cash. We are not very good at evaluating the actual worth of a lot of what we are busy doing.

Quoting Janus

I would never try to undermine anyone's personal convictions

Why the hell not? What could be more constructive than undermining BAD personal convictions?

Quoting creativesoul

is an expression stemming from combined ignorance, unjustified certainty, blatant inconsideration for others(immoral behaviour if there is such a thing),and spiteful arrogance

Is that attitude best described in 1 word as "gall" or "chutzpah"?

Quoting Mikie

I appreciate the effort to give a least a small benefit of the doubt.

It’s not a waste of time for believers. That’s theology— which is fine by me.

Right, I should have explicitly included that, but I understood that was implicit in what I said, since I think that part of religious practice includes, or at least should include, since we should want to exercise our intelligenece as much as possible in relation to any of our practices, theology.

Quoting javra

How does this not then apply to the metaphysical conviction that anything which some might deem “spiritual” – such as the belief that death to this world does not equate to an absolute cessation of personal being – can only be baloney?

After all: materialism, too, is but only a metaphysical conviction.

That conviction is fine for individuals to hold, but should not affect our political or economic lives, which are rightly only concerned with the life that is evident— this life.

Quoting BC

Why the hell not? What could be more constructive than undermining BAD personal convictions?

If they are socially harmful convictions then, sure. Or if people want to discuss their convictions with others who don't share them, then that's fair game too, because it is then not undermining, but simply presenting alternative perspectives, which is what the person seeking discussion is surely asking for. Beyond those caveats, I don't see anything positive, I only see arrogance, in trying to control what others believe.

Quoting frank

I think what he means is that all human endeavor comes to nothing, it helps nothing, and it ultimately means nothing.

No, that's not what I meant. I meant what I said - there's a taboo on ideas associated with religious philosophy.

Reply to frank Ah.

Quoting Quixodian

No, that's not what I meant. I meant what I said - there's a taboo on ideas associated with religious philosophy.

That's because religious philosophy only has meaning to the religious, it's not so much a taboo as a rejection based on lack of interest on the part of the irreligious. Why should religious people be concerned with trying to convince others of their intersubjectively groundless convictions?

Quoting Janus

That's because religious philosophy only has meaning to the religious

Subjectivism.

Quoting Janus

That's because religious philosophy only has meaning to the religious, it's not so much a taboo as a rejection based on lack of interest on the part of the irreligious.

Countless threads here would suggest otherwise.

Quoting Mikie

I’m not suggesting censoring anyone or deleting anything.

I am.

Reply to Banno

You should be banned.

Reply to Noble Dust I wasn't suggesting that irreligious philosophers are not interested in arguing their viewpoint against religion when they are presented with claims that religious beliefs can be justified by logic; I meant that they have no interest in religion itself.

I personally think that religious discussion should be confined to religion, and as you should know from my posting history I have no argument with people's personal religious beliefs, but when they seek to justify those beliefs in a public forum then they make themselves fair game.

I do think that all the ontological and cosmological arguments for religious beliefs are dismal failures, and I also doubt that anyone is really motivated to religious belief by those kinds of arguments.

The claim that there is a "taboo" against religion is, in my view, a lame apologetic. It is a kind of ad hominem that suggest that people are blinkered by introjected social taboos, and that if only they could get past their blind spots, they would become religious. I think that is not only nonsense but is an insult to the intelligence of those who simply do not have any motivation to religious belief.

People are led to religious belief by personal experiences, which they have every right to consider as evidence for them—but have no justification to consider as evidence for others who do not share their experiences and/ or interpretations of such experiences.

Quoting Noble Dust

You should be banned.

Yep. Not sure why I am still here, in this increasingly superficial chatfest. I guess the mods haven't noticed me.

These last few months the retired engineers have been fucking around with the forum more than the Christians, apart from a sudden rash of god-related nonsense in the last day or so

Reply to Banno

No no, you're completely clueless. Don't worry.

Reply to Janus

You won't be surprised to learn that I agree with you, by and large. I maybe have some small things I would argue, but by and large, I'm of agreement.

Quoting Janus

That conviction is fine for individuals to hold, but should not affect our political or economic lives, which are rightly only concerned with the life that is evident— this life.

First off, I admire and applaud what I see as the general gist of your stance: basically, that of tolerance for what does not harm. But not for what does.

I want to point out that the same should be said for all those who uphold the existential finality of worldly death. Yes, including in respect to those who consider it a kind of mercy, if not virtue, to kill off their entire family before committing suicide (because death is taken to be lack of all suffering). But I’m here primarily thinking of those of the following generations, both already birthed and yet to be birthed: What we do in this life is more than just about this life; its very much also about what follows.

To give better context to this, for one example, one of the pragmatic benefits to belief in reincarnation (its reality or lack of here overlooked) is that one cares about the world one helps to produce today because it will be the world into which one will be birthed into tomorrow. (To not get into possible complexities of belief in incorporeal afterlives.)

In direct contrast to this, if one were to reason with “all I am vanishes with my death”, then there is no valid reason to give a shit about others that will live tomorrow. Gain the biggest piece of the pie for oneself today at expense of all others as best one can and fuck-all tomorrow, kind of thing. Which can be an exceedingly rational perspective in acceptance of the premise that death is final.

This just mentioned non-spiritual perspective too is affecting our daily politics and economy – often with direly harmful consequences. Politically, economically, and ecologically.

Quoting Banno

in this increasingly superficial chatfest.

Why do people always talk like things are getting worse? No they aren't. They're as fucked up as they ever were. Enjoy it!

Quoting javra

I want to point out that the same should be said for all those who uphold the existential finality of worldly death.

Quoting javra

What we do in this life is more than just about this life; its very much also about what follows.

Quoting javra

To give better context to this, for one example, one of the pragmatic benefits to belief in reincarnation (its reality or lack of here overlooked) is that one cares about the world one helps to produce today because it will be the world into which one will be birthed into tomorrow.

Quoting javra

In direct contrast to this, if one were to reason with “all I am vanishes with my death”, then there is no valid reason to give a shit about others that will live tomorrow.

I think there should be motive enough for extending what one cares about beyond the self in the fact that caring only for the self is an attitude based on a self-protective closing off to the rest of life, whereas caring about others and even about all life is based on being relaxed and open to whatever life brings to the self. The first is a shrinking away and the second is an opening up, and I don't think it takes much imagination or intelligence to be able to recognize which is the happier state.

I agree therefore that what one does is about more than just this present life of one's own, it's about what follows in this life for others. So the focus is still on this life, not on an imagined afterlife.

The problem with the idea of rebirth is that concern about one's own state, whether in this life or the next, is an impediment to the kind of openness I'm talking about. And with the Buddhist model, there is even less motivation given that, even if is there is rebirth, we don't remember our past lives, so from the individual egoic perspective there would be no more connection between me in this life and 'me' in the next life than there would be between me in this life and anybody else in the next life. So, in short, I don't see how egoic concerns about one's rebirth could reasonably be any kind of motivation; I think such stories would only work on those who don't think about it much, and I doubt it would lead to any genuine openness anyway.

Quoting Noble Dust

You won't be surprised to learn that I agree with you, by and large. I maybe have some small things I would argue, but by and large, I'm of agreement.

You are right I'm not surprised at all. :smile: :cool:

Quoting Mikie

You were taught these stories as a child. Anyone who thinks them through, if they’re strong enough, will just let them go as cultural fairytales — on par with Santa Klaus and caring about the National Football League. Others don’t — and that’s fine, but that’s religion and theology, not philosophy. Just as creationism is religion, not science.

Any system of beliefs, to the extent that they use reason (logic) or some other epistemological method of justification to support their ideas, is doing philosophy on some level. It overlaps with theology in many instances, but it doesn't have to. It's called philosophy of religion. You may disagree with that philosophy, but it's still philosophy.

Anytime someone gives an argument in support of their beliefs, even if it's in defense of the Earth being flat, their applying reason to defend their belief. The only questions should be, is their argument a good one, or are they doing good philosophy? Hell, many philosophical views are just as bad, and just as dogmatic as many religious beliefs.

Quoting Banno

Yep. Not sure why I am still here, in this increasingly superficial chatfest. I guess the mods haven't noticed me.

Well, I appreciate your responses here. You keep me on my toes and actually know your philosophy. Your statement that 'philosophy is difficult' seems entirely on the money. You've alerted me to Midgley, Austin, Nussbaum, Searle and others and included papers for us to read. I would have thought that is what this site is about. Expressing differences of opinion with other members is surely a reasonable thing on a philosophy site.

Quoting Janus

Anti-religion and its concerns are as much a distraction from what really matters as religion and its concerns. You don't need to worry about saving anyone.

For me, such a viewpoint is naive nonsense. All religion can be used for nefarious purposes and can destroy peoples lives. A family which is ran on religious principles means that anyone breaking the often irrational and ridiculous and contradictory familial 'rules' involved, can be refused further familial support, and be left almost destitute. Do you seriously think people with any sense of justice, need not worry about such a horrific effect of pernicious religion?
There are of course even far worse possible effects of extreme religious faith. Do you think we need not worry about those who are willing to kill others, to keep a theocracy in place. Do you think it's a good idea to not worry about the people in Iran or Afghanistan, forced to live under vile theocracies.
In what way is being anti-religious, when it manifests in the myriad of pernicious ways it always does, a distraction?

Quoting Mikie

Which is also to acknowledge the culture and beliefs of the rest of the world, and thus that we shouldn’t give Christianity special treatment.

I fully agree with your point about not giving any religion 'special treatment.'
If your general advice to theists is, 'its time to get rational and move on,' they I fully agree.
If your more important message is, don't discuss gods and religion on a philosophy forum, then I don't agree.

I know there are many descriptions of philosophy and I have a beginners knowledge at best, of academic philosophy. I would still suggest that discussion of theism/religion in philosophy can be found within:

[b]Philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
SIMILAR: reasoning, thought, wisdom, knowledge
A theory or attitude that acts as a guiding principle for behaviour.
"don't expect anything and you won't be disappointed, that's my philosophy"[/b]

Also, if 'philosophers' did not debate the merits/dangers/social and political effects of theism/religion and its applications within human civilisations, then imo, philosophy as a subject would become less important to improving the human experience, than it is now.

Quoting Mikie

But in the narrow case I mean, I think it’s treating Christianity as special and is a waste of time.

Do you consider folks such as Dan Dennett, Sam Harris et al, deserving of the title 'philosopher?'
How about scientists such as Richard Dawkins, is he also a philosopher?
Why do they spend so much of their time disavowing christianity in particular?

Quoting BC

"chutzpah"?

Wow! is that how you spell that word I heard Judge Judy say a lot when I used to watch her show?
I had always assumed it was something like 'hootspur,' :lol: Sorry @Mikie I didn't mean to make an unrelated point on your very interesting thread. Just a wee throwaway post, please ignore.

Quoting Janus

I personally think that religious discussion should be confined to religion, and as you should know from my posting history I have no argument with people's personal religious beliefs, but when they seek to justify those beliefs in a public forum then they make themselves fair game.

In your first part I understand you to mean you think religious votaries should be confined to interactions with other religious votaries. I see this as a partial curtailment of free speech. Free speech is tolerated within a specified context (ghetto). A religious votary speaking outside of their designated free speech context (speaking herein, for example) is guilty of violation of the cognitive segregationism you're advocating.

In your second part I understand you to mean religious advocacy within a philosophical context is tolerable if it's agreed by all participants that such advocacy is fair game for rigorous logical examination and possible thoroughgoing refutation.

I think your second part is an apt description of the understanding that's in force herein.

Quoting Janus

The first is a shrinking away and the second is an opening up, and I don't think it takes much imagination or intelligence to be able to recognize which is the happier state.

Most I think would not find the openness of someone who is homeless and starving to be a happier, or else more preferable, state than the closedness of someone who is a multimillionaire.

Quoting Janus

The problem with the idea of rebirth is that concern about one's own state, whether in this life or the next, is an impediment to the kind of openness I'm talking about.

Because such openness can result in the absence of egoic interests? I’ve yet to witness this, even in examples such as that of Mother Teresa or of Gandhi, and find it exceedingly unrealistic.

I disagree with the rest, but don’t want to turn the thread into a discussion on the logic of reincarnation.

Reply to Mikie

God and Christianity [I] aren't [/I] special, I agree, but probably not in the sense you have in mind.

First, I think anyone with an internet connection and enough interest in philosophy to check out this site is probably quite aware that:

1. There are multiple world religions.
2. People often tend to have the faith that they grew up with.

But this is by no means a rule. Millions of people have professed some sort of faith, and then become atheists or agnostics, have been atheists and then converted to a faith, or switched between faiths. It seems a little strange to assume that all people who take a faith seriously grew up within that tradition.

Zen and Chan Buddhism have had wide ranging success in the West. Catholicism didn't get to 1.4 billion members by only appealing to current members, it has adherents from Korea, to Central Africa, to Latin America, to the Middle East (granted it has always been in the Middle East, but the Syriac Rite and Chaldeans joining the Roman Catholics is newer.)

Within the "alt-right," sphere, the resurrection of the works of Rene Guenon and Julius Evola have led to intense interest in Hinduism (and IMO, given the general beliefs of this segment of the web, this has been an overall positive influence, even if it does involve a very weird promotion of the caste system by Westerners, with all the young Western men reading this stuff [I]clearly[/I] recognizing they must belong to the castes of warriors or priests, never the menial laborers lol).

You were taught these stories as a child. Anyone who thinks them through, if they’re strong enough, will just let them go as cultural fairytales — on par with Santa Klaus and caring about the National Football League. Others don’t — and that’s fine, but that’s religion and theology, not philosophy. Just as creationism is religion, not science

This same line of attack is leveled against science, or "scientism. These are also a set of "cultural stories," we grow up with as kids. Indeed, most of us attended public schools where we are drilled on these stories. And, at least in my experience, the narrative I was given isn't even one that is widely embraced by science itself anymore. I came out of my K-12 education, and my undergraduate studies in neuroscience with a view of the world that was most similar to mechanical corpuscularism: i.e., "everything is little balls of stuff that bounce around based on extrinsic laws, and all things can be explained by how the balls bounce around."

This is an ontology that had been essentially debunked for over a century prior to my having absorbed it as dogma. None of the problems with causal closure re: systemic overdetermination, causality as a transitive property, or problems defining supervenience were included in this instruction. Those issues were safely bracket off as "philosophy," (whereas what we learned was "science"), while the problems posed by quantum foundations were bracketed off as "irrelevant to anything above the scale of lone electrons." It seems to me that this view has been considered "good enough," and, since no one dominant metaphysics has come along to replace it, we just run with a cultural narrative that doesn't have good grounding in the empirical sciences anymore.

This is not to say that even bad framings of what science says about the world are equivalent with a religion. The point is merely that we all have ideas about the world that are grounded in cultural experiences we had growing up. If you want to appeal to other types of knowledge as being superior to the revelations of religion then you need an argument for why those types of knowledge are different, not the bald assertion that "anyone who is strong enough," will come to some one view.

A lot of stuff packaged with "science" is not the sort of subject matter we generally think science should concern itself with in the first place. The assertion that the world is essentially valueless and meaningless is a philosophical assertion. Assertions of physicalism are, to date, underdetermined vis-a-vis competing ontologies, and its questionable with ontology itself is the sort of thing science should be concerned with (I would say yes, but this seems to be a minority opinion).

Questions of a creator come up in the sciences all the time. The explosion of interest in multiverse theories are explicitly motivated by the fact that these theories are a way to solve the apparent "fine tuning" of the universe, i.e., what many see to be empirical support for some sort of design or teleology at work in nature. This isn't a problem that only interests the religion, atheists like Thomas Nagel have taken up this issue as well.

Point being, this post seems motivated by a fairly bigoted conception of religion. Not all religion is necessarily at odds with naturalism and science, so the dichotomy set up is a false one. The creator of the Big Bang Theory was a Catholic priest after all. There is a tendency I've noticed to equate all religion with the most outlandish versions of fundamentalism. That or to focus on a lack of nuance or consistency in folk theology, which, aside from seeming mean spirited at times, seems to miss that most folk explanations of science are similarly lacking in consistency, clash with current scientific thinking, etc.

Reply to universeness

It's also pretty much impossible to discuss ancient and medieval philosophy without reference to the religions of the time. And I'd argue it's impossible to understand what these thinkers are saying, and engage seriously with them without taking the religious claims seriously.

At the same time, considerations of things like Heraclitus or the Patristics' conception of Logos, etc. will tend to show that philosophy still contains plenty of this flavor of speculation. I don't think you can have philosophy without it.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

It's also pretty much impossible to discuss ancient and medieval philosophy without reference to the religions of the time

Seems reasonable to me.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

And I'd argue it's impossible to understand what these thinkers are saying, and engage seriously with them without taking the religious claims seriously.

Well, I'm not sure I would use the word 'impossible' but understanding what ancient and medieval philosophers and theists were saying when they were alive is certainly very difficult as they have been dead for so long, so we only have what memorialisations they left behind or what others claim they said.
I don't know quite what you mean by 'taking the religious claims seriously?' Are you including their claims of witnessing supernatural events?

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

At the same time, considerations of things like Heraclitus or the Patristics' conception of Logos, etc. will tend to show that philosophy still contains plenty of this flavor of speculation. I don't think you can have philosophy without it.

My knowledge of the term Logos only goes as far back as what I have read about Plato's use of it.
I personally think the platonic idea of the existence of such as an ideal chair or an ideal philosophy is BS. Do such proposals still hold value in modern philosophy?

Quoting Mikie

if you’re a devout Christian, ignore this thread — it doesn’t apply to you. It will only hurt your feelings. Go elsewhere and be well.

A devout Chistian is not necessatily a fanatic, a zealously religious or someone who cannot think rationally, but instead he (for brevity) believes blindly in his religion and God and reacts badly in the presense of views different than his own, as if his llfe depends on his beliefs.
In fact, I consider this "disclaimer" already quite offensive because it invalidates believers' intelligence.
(To make one thing clear, I'm neither a believer nor am I offended by your "disclaimer".)

And I'm afraid that the fanatic in the present case is yourself. From what I gathered reading your post, is that you are supercritical against not only Christian believers, but also theists, independent of any religion. Your tone is authoritative and you show a good deal of arrogance --a definite "I know better" attitude. I guess you must be a young person. You show revolutionary tendencies and immaturity.

Now, you might call me critical. You would be right. I am. But on a personal basis and for specific and justified reasons, which I have explained.

(I'll add some observations that are peripheral to the opening post, please let me know or remove if it veers too far off topic.)

A kind of mass hysteria:

Benny Hinn - Raw Anointing of the Spirit (1)
[sup]— Apr 8, 2010 · 10m:24s[/sup]
Kenneth Hagin Explosion In The Holy Ghost
[sup]— Jun 20, 2023 · 1m[/sup]
One Of The Most Powerful Move Of God In History - Rodney Howard-Browne & Németh Sándor
[sup]— Jul 19, 2023 · 5m:7s[/sup]

By and large harmless, though I find employing that to indoctrinate children deplorable.

Another kind of mass hysteria (also some history):

Sweden Quran burning: Protesters storm embassy in Baghdad
[sup]— Alys Davies · BBC · Jun 29, 2023[/sup]
Hundreds attempt to storm Baghdad’s Green Zone over Quran burning
[sup]— Al Jazeera · Jul 22, 2023[/sup]

These provocations are insensitive, triggering the sensitive like so is unmannerly rude — and outlawing it has no place in civilized society. Say, if some society has a culture and tradition of biting satire, then it's not up to someone else to impede on that. Likewize for critique of religions.

'Not everything that is legal is ethical': Josep Borrell condemns Quran burning and religious hatred
[sup]— Jorge Liboreiro · Euronews · Jul 26, 2023[/sup]

Hmm Stories that won't go away:

Burning of Qur’an in Stockholm funded by journalist with Kremlin ties
[sup]— Jennifer Rankin · The Guardian · Jan 27, 2023[/sup]
BRIEF: dr·dk reports that a Quran burning inspired Russian intelligence to stage fake protests
[sup]— various · May 7, 2023[/sup]
Sweden says it's target of Russia-backed disinformation over NATO, Koran burnings
[sup]— Simon Johnson, Johan Ahlander, William Maclean · Reuters · Jul 26, 2023[/sup]

Secretly using the sensitive to trigger anger/violence? Nothing new I guess.

Religions have impacts on others and therefore warrant some attention.

@Mikie :lol: Welcome brother! To the group of TPF members, described by another TPF member as fanatic! Are you and I the only two accused of such so far? Probably not!
I might be in front of you as I had more than 1 accuse me so. Yay!

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

this post seems motivated by a fairly bigoted conception of religion. Not all religion is necessarily at odds with naturalism and science, so the dichotomy set up is a false one.

I never set up such a dichotomy. Any bigotry is projection on the readers’ part. I made no claims about the value of religion. In fact I’ve often been a staunch supporter of religions. For evidence, look at anything I’ve written for the last 5 years.

You’re just misreading me. The point should be clear by both the title and what’s written. It’s a narrow one— it does not make sweeping claims about religion.

Quoting Sam26

Anytime someone gives an argument in support of their beliefs, even if it's in defense of the Earth being flat, their applying reason to defend their belief.

Then we define philosophy very differently. Anyone can argue in favor of their beliefs. That doesn’t mean it’s philosophy … or science.

Quoting universeness

Do you consider folks such as Dan Dennett, Sam Harris et al, deserving of the title 'philosopher?'

Not really. If they are it’s for reasons apart from critiques of faith.

Quoting Alkis Piskas

I'm neither a believer nor am I offended by your "disclaimer".

Cool.

Quoting Alkis Piskas

I consider this "disclaimer" already quite offensive

Oh.

Quoting Alkis Piskas

And I'm afraid that the fanatic in the present case is yourself.

Well that doesn’t sound too good for me.

Quoting Alkis Piskas

From what I gathered reading your post, is that you are supercritical against not only Christian believers, but also theists, independent of any religion.

Well then you “gathered” wrong. You’re welcome to review anything I’ve written over the years to see why.

Quoting Alkis Piskas

I guess you must be a young person. You show revolutionary tendencies and immaturity.

:rofl:

Thanks pal.

Quoting universeness

Welcome brother! To the group of TPF members, described by another TPF member as fanatic!

Bound to happen whenever one brings up Christianity — or any belief with strong emotional aspects. You get both the thin-skinned faithful and the non-believers who come to display their sanctimony by rushing to the defense of those being “attacked” (even when no such attack exists).

Too bad so few bother to read (or read carefully). What can you do.

Hypothetical thesis: The God Xhandizi is the one true God. He was revealed by a man in Bora Bora. He is known to have one thousand eyes and fifteen heads. If you don’t believe in him you go to hell.

Questions: does he care about us? What would we do without him, morally speaking? Some say he only has 10 heads— let’s discuss. How does he manifest in the world? Is he only metaphorical? If we don’t believe, should we be worried about the consequences? Is he infinite? Who created him? Is he even a “he”?

—

Why or why not should the above be taken seriously, philosophically speaking? Let’s assume the imagined interlocutor can give loads of reasons and evidence and arguments. Why is this easier to ignore than other (similar) claims? Or is it easier to ignore?

Quoting Mikie

Why is this easier to ignore than other (similar) claims?

For the reasons already presented in this thread. Essential features of your worldview emerged from Christianity, things like the emphasis on ultimate truth, and progress toward a better world. You just can't swing a dead cat in the philosophical realm without smashing into elements of Christianity or its roots.

Quoting Mikie

Why or why not should the above be taken seriously, philosophically speaking? Let’s assume the imagined interlocutor can give loads of reasons and evidence and arguments. Why is this easier to ignore than other (similar) claims? Or is it easier to ignore?

It wouldn’t be easier to ignore, since they can provide reasons, evidence and arguments. The perception (or delusion if you prefer) of having evidence, reasons and arguments is why certain cults/religions are taken more seriously by those who believe in them.
It’s pretty simple, not sure what the merit is in your inquiry.

Quoting frank

For the reasons already presented in this thread. Essential features of your worldview emerged from Christianity, things like the emphasis on ultimate truth, and progress toward a better world. You just can't swing a dead cat in the philosophical realm without smashing into elements of Christianity or its roots.

From history, not Christianity. Religion once dominated man-kinds worldview, so its only natural the further back you go the more religiosity you must account for. Christianity being present in the past doesnt grant merit to Christianity and ideas that took root at a time when Christianity was dominant doesn’t mean Christianity was essential to the idea. If you want to claim it was then you need to provide good reasons why that is the case. Good luck with that.

Quoting DingoJones

From history, not Christianity. Religion once dominated man-kinds worldview, so its only natural the further back you go the more religiosity you must account for. Christianity being present in the past doesnt grant merit to Christianity and ideas that took root at a time when Christianity was dominant doesn’t mean Christianity was essential to the idea. If you want to claim it was then you need to provide good reasons why that is the case. Good luck with that.

In a similar spirit to the OP: how do people end up on a philosophy forum without knowing anything about their own ideological heritage?

Quoting Mikie

Then we define philosophy very differently. Anyone can argue in favor of their beliefs. That doesn’t mean it’s philosophy … or science.

Part of what philosophy does is to examine various beliefs and belief systems in relation to reality (physical or metaphysical). Some of the philosophical tools used to examine these beliefs are logic (correct reasoning), epistemology, and linguistic analysis. To the extent that people use these three tools they are doing philosophy. They may not be trained in the use of these tools, but they're using these tools nonetheless. I think it's a mistake to think that the only people who can do philosophy are those trained in philosophy. If anyone has beliefs about ethics, metaphysics, religious arguments, political beliefs, even beliefs about certain games, they are doing philosophy. If you make an argument about your beliefs in defense of why you believe something is morally wrong, then you are doing moral philosophy, even if you haven't studied moral philosophy. In fact, if you're a thinking person then you do philosophy on some level.

Quoting frank

In a similar spirit to the OP: how do people end up on a philosophy forum without knowing anything about their own ideological heritage?

Im not sure what your point is. I suppose people could end up on a philosophy forum without knowing much at all.

Quoting DingoJones

It wouldn’t be easier to ignore, since they can provide reasons, evidence and arguments.

But remember: everyone thinks they have good reasons, evidence, and sound arguments. True, I didn’t specify that this person believes this “delusionally,” as you said — but given that it’s obviously made up, isn’t that assumed?

To claim this isn’t easier to ignore is just crazy to me. If this isn’t easy to ignore, then nothing is easy to ignore. Maybe that’s your position, I don’t know. But it strikes me as bizarre.

Quoting Sam26

Part of what philosophy does is to examine various beliefs and belief systems in relation to reality (physical or metaphysical). Some of the philosophical tools used to examine these beliefs are logic (correct reasoning), epistemology, and linguistic analysis. To the extent that people use these three tools they are doing philosophy.

That’s all very nice. It’s not philosophy in the sense I mean. I don’t agree with your particular characterization. So my former point stands.

Quoting Sam26

I think it's a mistake to think that the only people who can do philosophy are those trained in philosophy.

I never said that though.

Quoting universeness

All religion can be used for nefarious purposes and can destroy peoples lives.

In that case, don't take a simplistic view, but instead a nuanced one, and condemn the nefarious purposes and not religion as a whole. It's pretty obvious that most things in human life have both positive and negative aspects.

Quoting ucarr

In your first part I understand you to mean you think religious votaries should be confined to interactions with other religious votaries. I see this as a partial curtailment of free speech.

It may not have been clear, but I wasn't advocating judicial curtailments of discussion; I was merely saying that in my opinion theology is not a part of general philosophy; they are separate disciplines for good reason.

Quoting javra

Most I think would not find the openness of someone who is homeless and starving to be a happier, or else more preferable, state than the closedness of someone who is a multimillionaire.

Do you think that what "most" think is important? That aside, I haven't said anything about different economic conditions as related to happiness, but now that you've brought it up, I doubt there is a clear correlation between economic prosperity and happiness. I'm sure there have been studies conducted that you could consult if you are interested.

Quoting javra

Because such openness can result in the absence of egoic interests? I’ve yet to witness this, even in examples such as that of Mother Teresa or of Gandhi, and find it exceedingly unrealistic.

The openness I'm speaking about is the absence of egoic interests. If you haven't encountered that in people, all I can suggest is that you get out more. Did you perchance know Mother Theresa and Gandhi personally?

Quoting javra

I disagree with the rest, but don’t want to turn the thread into a discussion on the logic of reincarnation.

I don't see why not since this thread has hardly been a paragon of staying on topic, and I wouldn't see such a discussion as being off-topic anyway. @Mikie was not just addressing God and Christianity, which should be clear if you read the OP. If you want to argue for reincarnation, then you must think it is special, so have at it...or not...but if not, then be honest and say you don't want to instead of hiding behind the excuse that it would be off-topic.

Reply to Mikie Don't hate me, but I'm not sure I fully get your position. I read the words and understand the sentences and I also understand that you are not hating on religion per say, but you seem to me making a fairly simple point. Are you saying that if you inherit religious beliefs from your culture and upbringing, you are not entitled to treat these as if they are philosophy arrived at through careful reflection, nor a set of beliefs and values which others should also take seriously?

Quoting Mikie

Why or why not should the above be taken seriously, philosophically speaking?

I think it indicates incomprehension of the formative role of Christian philosophy in Western culture.

[quote=Jacket copy, Tom Holland: Dominion - the Making of the Western Mind] Christianity is the most enduring and influential legacy of the ancient world, and its emergence the single most transformative development in Western history. Even the increasing number in the West today who have abandoned the faith of their forebears, and dismiss all religion as pointless superstition, remain recognisably its heirs. Seen close-up, the division between a sceptic and a believer may seem unbridgeable. Widen the focus, though, and Christianity's enduring impact upon the West can be seen in the emergence of much that has traditionally been cast as its nemesis: in science, in secularism, and even in atheism.

... Ranging in time from the Persian invasion of Greece in 480 BC to the on-going migration crisis in Europe today, and from Nebuchadnezzar to the Beatles, it will explore just what it was that made Christianity so revolutionary and disruptive; how completely it came to saturate the mind-set of Latin Christendom; and why, in a West that has become increasingly doubtful of religion's claims, so many of its instincts remain irredeemably Christian. The aim is twofold: to make the reader appreciate just how novel and uncanny were Christian teachings when they first appeared in the world; and to make ourselves, and all that we take for granted, appear similarly strange in consequence. We stand at the end-point of an extraordinary transformation in the understanding of what it is to be human: one that can only be fully appreciated by tracing the arc of its parabola over millennia.[/quote]

Quoting Janus

Mikie was not just addressing God and Christianity, which should be clear if you read the OP.

Yes — if this were India I’d be saying the same things about Brahman and Hinduism.

Thanks for reading the OP and not simply reacting to what you think the OP is saying. Appreciated.

Quoting Tom Storm

Don't hate me, but I'm not sure I fully get your position.

:lol: No hatred buddy.

Quoting Tom Storm

I read the words and understand the sentences and I also understand that you are not hating on religion per say, but you seem to me making a fairly simple point.

Guilty as charged. Apparently TOO simple.

Quoting Tom Storm

Are you saying that if you inherit religious beliefs from your culture and upbringing, you are not entitled to treat these as if they are philosophy arrived at through careful reflection, a set of beliefs and values which others should also take seriously?

Just that they shouldn’t be treated as special — IF, and this is very important and maybe I wasn’t clear about, you assume Christianity is indeed one religion among others.

That includes those who argue against the existence of God! I think this is being overlooked. They too are treating Christianity as special.

Quoting creativesoul

To tell someone who we barely know, or do not know at all, that their considerations regarding their own worldview are a waste of time

Quoting Mikie

Complete straw man. Not once did I say that.

You did not say it. True. It's exactly what you did though.

All sorts of people pose your target questions for very different reasons that you think or may be aware of. You do not know all the reasons that others pose such questions. You must know at least that much in order to know that it is a waste of time. You do not know whether or not posing such questions, or entertaining such considerations are a waste of time.

You can't know that, yet you speak with such certainty, and have been zealously defending the claims(akin to Christian apologetics) despite the fact that many here have given you plenty enough to realize that some people may not be wasting their time.

Quoting creativesoul

You do not know whether or not posing such questions, or entertaining such considerations are a waste of time.

I know it for myself. I think I’ve been clear that this is my opinion— and only applicable to a narrow case, which you’d know if you deigned to read the OP.

Reply to Mikie

So, let me get this straight...

You're saying that such questions are a waste of time for you... and only you? That it's not a waste of time for anyone else?

Really now.

Sigh.

Quoting Mikie

Yes — if this were India I’d be saying the same things about Brahman and Hinduism.

Thanks for reading the OP and not simply reacting to what you think the OP is saying. Appreciated.

Cheers, I appreciate the appreciation.

My work here is done...

Quoting Mikie

Just that they shouldn’t be treated as special — IF, and this is very important and maybe I wasn’t clear about, you assume Christianity is indeed one religion among others.

That includes those who argue against the existence of God! I think this is being overlooked. They too are treating Christianity as special.

Cool. I agree. Thanks for indulging me.

Quoting creativesoul

You're saying that such questions are a waste of time for you... and only you?

Nope. I feel they’re a waste of time for others too. As I think was clear.

Quoting creativesoul

What a load of bullshit!

Bye.

Quoting Tom Storm

Cool. I agree. Thanks for indulging me.

Any time.

Reply to Janus

:up:

Quoting Mikie

All sorts of people pose your target questions for very different reasons that you think or may be aware of. You do not know all the reasons that others pose such questions. You must know at least that much in order to know that it is a waste of time. You do not know whether or not posing such questions, or entertaining such considerations are a waste of time.

You can't know that, yet you speak with such certainty, and have been zealously defending the claims(akin to Christian apologetics) despite the fact that many here have given you plenty enough to realize that some people may not be wasting their time.
— creativesoul

I know it for myself. I think I’ve been clear that this is my opinion— and only applicable to a narrow case, which you’d know if you deigned to read the OP.

Quoting Mikie

You're saying that such questions are a waste of time for you... and only you?
— creativesoul

Nope. I feel they’re a waste of time for others too. As I think was clear.

What's clear is that you neglected to address the argument that shows the problem in your own worldview.

Quoting Mikie

But remember: everyone thinks they have good reasons, evidence, and sound arguments. True, I didn’t specify that this person believes this “delusionally,” as you said — but given that it’s obviously made up, isn’t that assumed?

I didnt say “think they have good reasons, evidence and sound arguments”. I said “since they can provide reasons, evidence and arguments.” and I said that because YOU said “Let’s assume the imagined interlocutor can give loads of reasons and evidence and arguments.”. You didnt say “think they have good evidence” or any such caveat. Your question was sloppily phrased.
I try not to make assumptions about what other people mean.

Quoting Mikie

To claim this isn’t easier to ignore is just crazy to me. If this isn’t easy to ignore, then nothing is easy to ignore. Maybe that’s your position, I don’t know. But it strikes me as bizarre.

I didnt make that claim, as explained above this is your misunderstanding of my response to the question YOU framed.
So your question is, including the delusional caveat, is something like this:
“Why or why not should the above be taken seriously, philosophically speaking? Let’s assume the imagined interlocutor can give loads of delusional reasons and evidence and arguments.“
Is that right? You want to know if all delusional belief should be considered delusional? Who could this request for a distinction possibly be directed at? Not theists, the delusional themselves but surely not atheists because by definition they hold all religions/gods to be in the same category of delusion.
Bizarre indeed.

Reply to creativesoul

No he’s not, that better describes you. Fuck off.

Reply to DingoJones I may be wrong but presumably @Mikie would apply this principle to atheists too for the same reasons.

Reply to DingoJones

:kiss: As you wish...

p1. In order to know that doing X is a waste of time for others, one must know each and every reason that others had, have, or will have for doing X as well as each and every causal affect/effect that doing X had, has, or will have on others.

p2. It's impossible to know each and every reason that others had, have, or will have for doing X as well as each and every causal affect/effect that doing X had, has, or will have on others.

C. It's impossible to know that doing X is a waste of time for others.


Let X be talking about God.

There's a dying man, who talks of God. The discussions help mend long held grudges and unsettled feelings. The man dies with a peace and contentment that came as a result of the God talk.

Waste of time?

These scenarios are endless. No one knows exactly why people talk about such things. No one knows the causal affects/effects of all such practices.

The OP mistakenly presupposes that there has never been a goal reached by virtue of God talk.

The only way all questions of God and all God talk could be a waste of time is if there were never a goal reached by virtue of God talk.

There have been goals reached by virtue of God talk.

Therefore, not all God talk is a waste of time.

If any instance of God talk resulted in doing good, and all God talk is a waste of time, then God talk that resulted in doing good is a waste of time.

Quoting Mikie

That’s all very nice. It’s not philosophy in the sense I mean. I don’t agree with your particular characterization. So my former point stands.

What kind of argument is that? You're basically saying, "I don't agree with you so I'm right and you're wrong. That's not an argument, and it's not doing philosophy.

Quoting DingoJones

Your question was sloppily phrased.
I try not to make assumptions about what other people mean.

Yep— I should have specified. I was in part building off of an earlier response that didn’t involve you, so you had no way of knowing.

Quoting DingoJones

“Why or why not should the above be taken seriously, philosophically speaking? Let’s assume the imagined interlocutor can give loads of delusional reasons and evidence and arguments.“

Well, kind of. My point is that everyone has arguments and reasons, and I added that because in another discussion it didn’t seem obvious. No one will come right out and say they have no reasons, nor will they say they’re delusional. It’s up to us to figure that out.

With that being said, the question stands— is this easier to ignore than other claims? I say it is for a simple enough reason: it’s completely made up by me. I think you must agree with this somehow. You wouldn’t really waste time on any of my questions, because it’s just fabricated nonsense. Right?

Reply to Tom Storm

Yes indeed!

Quoting Sam26

What kind of argument is that? You're basically saying, "I don't agree with you so I'm right and you're wrong. That's not an argument, and it's not doing philosophy.

No, I’m not saying I’m right. I’m saying I have a different definition of philosophy. I said that before, too. Yours is fine— but that’s not what I’m meaning when I use the term.

Quoting Mikie

With that being said, the question stands— is this easier to ignore than other claims? I say it is for a simple enough reason: it’s completely made up by me. I think you must agree with this somehow. You wouldn’t really waste time on any of my questions, because it’s just fabricated nonsense. Right?

Correct, if all someone has is a story then their idea shouldnt be treated any differently than any other story. Also, we should treat those criminals over there like criminals, and those yonder cows? Lets mix it up and treat them like cows.
Im not seeing the philosophy here.
You say you want theists to lay down their delusional beliefs but theists do not consider them delusional so again, who is it that you are directing this at? Not theists obviously, surely not atheists either since they would be compelled by their atheist position to include all the religion/god myths the same.
So what’s your point? All you have done is petition believers to lay down delusions they do not believe they possess. (I of course concede you made an argument, you just might as well have made it to a rock) You don’t seem to have any takers and I’m finding it hard to believe you are surprised to be honest.

Reply to universeness

I don't know quite what you mean by 'taking the religious claims seriously?' Are you including their claims of witnessing supernatural events?

No, I just mean accepting some points for the sake of argument. We do the same things in proofs by double negation; assume x and see where that leads us. Taking a claim seriously just means not putting it on par with Santa Klaus and sports.

I personally think the platonic idea of the existence of such as an ideal chair or an ideal philosophy is BS. Do such proposals still hold value in modern philosophy?

I initially felt the same way. I still don't like abstract objects, but I can see why they are so popular now.

Things like Plato's forms, now called universals, are part of a larger class of entities in modern philosophy called "abstract objects." These include propositions (descriptions of the world with a true/false value), numbers and other mathematical objects, and some other types. They are still very popular.

They're even popular among physicists. Penrose has a quote to the effect of "the Platonic realm of numbers seems more real...," and you have theories like the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis, which posits that the universe is a mathematical object, or "It From Bit," that the universe is composed of information, which are quite popular.

Plenty of people have wanted to do away with universals but it isn't easy. Partly, this has to do with set theory and using properties to decide who goes in which set. But there is plenty of opposition to them too.

Reply to Mikie

Any bigotry is projection on the readers’ part.

You were taught these stories as a child. [B]Anyone who thinks them through, if they’re strong enough, will just let them go as cultural fairytales [/b]— on par with Santa Klaus and caring about the National Football League.

IDK, this seems to imply that the religious are simply weak minded simpletons, unable to let go of past conditioning. And in any event, it seems like a very narrow diagnosis seeing as how there are many people who grow up in adamantly atheist households who become religious in adulthood, or even middle age (and the reverse happens plenty enough too).

Plus, the comparison fails because Tom Brady IS a Greek God. Or at least a son on Zeus. Babe Ruth? Another obvious demigod, look at his slugging average.

Reply to Mikie

Historical context matters in philosophy, particularly in the Continental tradition. I wouldn't want to paint Continental philosophy in too broad a brush, but one popular idea in the tradition is that history matters. History shapes how we do philosophy and the philosopher is a historical actor. Your initial post seems based on this first part; we are products of our culture, what comes before.

History and philosophy reveal man to be finite. There is no absolute standpoint from which to view truth, reality, etc. The Analytic "view from nowhere," is rejected. If such a view exists, we cannot have access to it. Thus, finite man must always be viewed contextually. We cannot look at "just the arguments," we have to look at the context.

So, on this view, someone asking about some made up God simply lacks the context that asking about Christ would have.

Why Christianity and not Hinduism? You're on an English language site, and Christianity is by far and away the most popular religion in the Anglophone world and it is the most relevant religion for Western philosophy. If you were on a Hindi site, you would see more references to Hindu Gods. No one is going to be particularly interested in a made up God who is only a stand in for some point about pluralism. This goes to the point made above re: context.

Just that they shouldn’t be treated as special — IF, and this is very important and maybe I wasn’t clear about, you assume Christianity is indeed one religion among others.

But if you are an adherent of a religion then you do think that your religion is special. This is just begging the question. I don't expect an idealist to treat idealism the same as any other ontology and I don't expect a Muslim to treat Islam like any other religion.

Quoting DingoJones

So what’s your point? All you have done is petition believers to lay down delusions they do not believe they possess.

As the disclaimer notes, I’m not aiming this at believers. I’m aiming this at those who are interested in questioning; in philosophy. That can be anyone— Christian or non-Christian, Hindu or non-Hindu. Those who recognize whatever religion they happen to be brought up in as one of many stories.

Given this situation, I would argue it’s just as much a waste of time to give special attention to Shiva (because one happened to be raised in India) or God (because one happened to be raised in the West) as it is to Xhandizi. It’s all perhaps interesting in an anthropological sense— but we needn’t give it extra weight or seriousness based on cultural familiarity. I see it done often — especially by atheists, in fact. So my advice is based on personal feeling, of course — but I think it’s potentially useful. Just let it go. I speak from experience in fact.

As for those who really do believe, and don’t view Christianity (or pick a religion) as just one of others, but assign it extra importance because it’s their faith— well, let them be happy with that. It’s not my business to tell people what to believe or to upbraid them for not being secular enough or whatever. Especially if they’re kind and moral people, of which I know many. My advice doesn’t even apply to them.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

You were taught these stories as a child. Anyone who thinks them through, if they’re strong enough, will just let them go as cultural fairytales — on par with Santa Klaus and caring about the National Football League.

IDK, this seems to imply that the religious are simply weak minded simpletons, unable to let go of past conditioning.

I see that now. I didn’t mean that exactly— by “strong enough” I’m referring to how difficult it is to make that transition. It’s extremely hard. But I’m aiming this at those who already have done so, or at least are close to doing so. I’ve met people who describe themselves as Christian who even agree with Nietzsche’s characterization!

But no, to be clear: I don’t consider Christian people — or Muslim people, or Hindu people, or followers of Shinto, etc —to be simpleminded or weak minded on account that they don’t share my view of their religions as cultural phenomena (on par with languages or music) and not deserving of any special attention. To them I assume it’s very special indeed.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't expect an idealist to treat idealism the same as any other ontology and I don't expect a Muslim to treat Islam like any other religion.

Well I consider this a kind of dogmatism, and especially so if it’s simply due to the happenstance of upbringing.

Why shouldn’t we treat idealism as any other ontology? At some point we should, no? Maybe we’re convinced by it and grant it special importance, but that’s further down the road — and definitively not simply because it was the ideology of our family.

By my conception of philosophy, we should be free to question everything. If we aren’t willing to, that’s fine— but then whatever else this activity may be, it isn’t philosophy.

For many, abstract thinking is toil; for me, on good days, it is feast and frenzy. Abstract thinking a feast? The highest form of human existence? … The feast implies: pride, exuberance, frivolity; mockery of all earnestness and respectability; a divine affirmation of oneself, out of animal plenitude and perfection—all obviously states to which the Christian may not honestly say Yes. The feast is paganism par excellence. For that reason, we might add that thinking never takes place in Christianity. That is to say, there is no Christian philosophy. There is no true philosophy that could be determined anywhere else than from within itself.

Quoting Janus

Do you think that what "most" think is important?

When it comes to politics and economy, very much so.

Quoting Janus

The openness I'm speaking about is the absence of egoic interests. If you haven't encountered that in people, all I can suggest is that you get out more. Did you perchance know Mother Theresa and Gandhi personally?

You're addressing poetic truths. I'm addressing the technicality of reality. No person is devoid of ego, of I-ness - unless they happen to be comatose. Besides, I haven't commented on what you should do with your life. Please don't comment on what I should do with mine.

Quoting Janus

I don't see why not since this thread has hardly been a paragon of staying on topic, and I wouldn't see such a discussion as being off-topic anyway. Mikie was not just addressing God and Christianity, which should be clear if you read the OP. If you want to argue for reincarnation, then you must think it is special, so have at it...or not...but if not, then be honest and say you don't want to instead of hiding behind the excuse that it would be off-topic.

I stated that I disagree with your views on reincarnation. It directly addresses identity of being. You rely on a theory of identity based on memory: In short, you uphold that what you cannot remember as yourself is not yourself. I find this faulty in numerous ways. The ontology/metaphysics of personal identity is, however, an expansive and cumbersome topic, one that I have no interest in currently engaging in, and one that has nothing to do with the "special-ness" or lack of religious beliefs. That ought to clarify that.

Quoting Mikie

As the disclaimer notes, I’m not aiming this at believers. I’m aiming this at those who are interested in questioning; in philosophy. That can be anyone— Christian or non-Christian, Hindu or non-Hindu. Those who recognize whatever religion they happen to be brought up in as one of many stories.

Yes, my point being that that criteria doesnt apply to anyone. If a believer thought their religion was just a bunch of stories they wouldnt be a believer. You are petitioning the wind sir.

Quoting DingoJones

If a believer thought their religion was just a bunch of stories they wouldnt be a believer.

It’s rare perhaps, but not as rare as you’d think. Tradition and identity go a long way. What’s so great about belief?

Anyway— I’m surprised you didn’t ask whether it’s impossible to be a believer and do philosophy; i.e., whether a Christian philosophy is possible. I’d have answered in the negative.

Quoting Mikie

It’s rare perhaps, but not as rare as you’d think. Tradition and identity go a long way. What’s so great about belief?

Asking the wrong guy, I have no idea.

Quoting Mikie

Anyway— I’m surprised you didn’t ask whether it’s impossible to be a believer and do philosophy; i.e., whether a Christian philosophy is possible. I’d have answered in the negative.

Why would that surprise you? It would depend on how strictly one defines philosophy, I dont buy into a strict definition of philosophy. Save that for strict academic settings. To do philosophy is simple, wonder about something and maybe mention it to some others and see if they have anything to say about it. Philosophy. So yes, a theist reflecting on god and the possibilities of the concept is philosophy. Call it bad philosophy if you like but it’s still an attempt at knowledge and answering difficult questions. That’s philosophy in my books.

:kiss: Quoting javra

When it comes to politics and economy, very much so.

Do you mean important for determining what will come about in politics and economy, or determining the truth or determining whether there is a truth?

In any case the issue was whether or not material prosperity is necessary for happiness or will necessarily make those who have it happier than those who don't. In that connection the issue of what actually will happen politically and economically seems irrelevant.

Quoting javra

You're addressing poetic truths. I'm addressing the technicality of reality. No person is devoid of ego, of I-ness - unless they happen to be comatose. Besides, I haven't commented on what you should do with your life. Please don't comment on what I should do with mine.

I'm not addressing poetic truths but the question of whether an attitude of openness is more likely to lead to happiness than an attitude of closedness. Also I don't agree that no person is devoid of ego; I think it is possible, and some of the reports of people like Ramana Maharshi reinforce that opinion. I don't claim to know for sure that it is possible, but then in order to know it is impossible I would have to know everyone on the planet, which is itself impossible.

I have encountered people with varying degrees of ego-focus, some intensely egotistical and others seemingly with little (I won't say no) ego, and that was why I suggested getting out more. I think it is most likely a spectrum, from extreme egotism to none.

Quoting javra

It directly addresses identity of being. You rely on a theory of identity based on memory:

That's because I understand identity as being an idea; I don't think anyone actually is an identity; I think that is an illusion based on the fact of difference, which makes people identifiable. Identifiability is as far as identity goes in my view. Anyway, it doesn't bother me if you don't want to discuss it further.

@Mikie I think some softer liberal wishy-washy Christians would agree with you. They think all the God stuff is true, but recognise that the imagery and vocabulary they approach the matter with are culturally relative.

Quoting Mikie

As the disclaimer notes, I’m not aiming this at believers. I’m aiming this at those who are interested in questioning; in philosophy. That can be anyone— Christian or non-Christian, Hindu or non-Hindu. Those who recognize whatever religion they happen to be brought up in as one of many stories.

Given this situation, I would argue it’s just as much a waste of time to give special attention to Shiva (because one happened to be raised in India) or God (because one happened to be raised in the West) as it is to Xhandizi. It’s all perhaps interesting in an anthropological sense— but we needn’t give it extra weight or seriousness based on cultural familiarity. I see it done often — especially by atheists, in fact. So my advice is based on personal feeling, of course — but I think it’s potentially useful. Just let it go. I speak from experience in fact.

Have you realised yet that this thread is a waste of time? I sometimes refer to Aesop's fables. They are morally instructive, even for people who do not believe in talking foxes. I refer to stories I am familiar with and that are widely understood. I will continue to do so, and also to bible stories because they permeate the culture and still shape our thinking whether we are aware of it or not. I prefer to be aware of it. It is convenient and communicative to speak of the Good Samaritan as the epitome of kindness to strangers, and I would rather leave the site than be silent about the wisdom and beauty of such tales. And I think there is a deal of support here for my views. Likewise, the Book of Job is wonderful philosophical approach to the problem of evil, and particularly 'natural evil'.

Your advice is bad advice, to deprive oneself of much wisdom from the past because of some fantastic elements and the limitations of factual knowledge of the time. It is Philistinism, and antihistorical. Furthermore it functions to give those stories more potency in the mind that rejects them - your own mind. Your advice is irrational — stories are not harmful, but illuminating.

Quoting Janus

In that case, don't take a simplistic view, but instead a nuanced one, and condemn the nefarious purposes and not religion as a whole. It's pretty obvious that most things in human life have both positive and negative aspects.

Perhaps its your assessment/interpretation of my postings that cause you to judge my viewpoints as simplistic. That's not my problem, it's more your inability to interpret my postings in the same way I do.
I fully accept that this is a very common circumstance, that we have no choice but to each endure in our own way.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

No, I just mean accepting some points for the sake of argument. We do the same things in proofs by double negation; assume x and see where that leads us. Taking a claim seriously just means not putting it on par with Santa Klaus and sports.

I broadly agree. I am willing to travel down a path such as 'ok, lets assume Jesus was a real boy, then.....' etc. But it becomes rather ridiculous when we take a path such as, ok, lets assume Jesus did come alive again after being dead for three days...... Well ........ I might even take that path, if the argument was that Jesus was secretly injected with borg nanoprobes, from one of the drones (who was also using a Klingon cloaking device) from a time travelling borg cube, and that's why he became alive again.
Now there's a fun episode of Star Trek the evanhellicals would probably enjoy ....... or would they?

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

Things like Plato's forms, now called universals, are part of a larger class of entities in modern philosophy called "abstract objects." These include propositions (descriptions of the world with a true/false value), numbers and other mathematical objects, and some other types. They are still very popular.

Thanks for that info, Any info that adds to my knowledge of modern philosophy is welcome.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

They're even popular among physicists. Penrose has a quote to the effect of "the Platonic realm of numbers seems more real...," and you have theories like the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis, which posits that the universe is a mathematical object, or "It From Bit," that the universe is composed of information, which are quite popular.

Well, there are typings such as:
Does Penrose Go Beyond Mathematics?
Roger Penrose has been very open-minded about (as it were) Platonic seeing when it comes to such things as “beauty” and “goodness”. Despite that, he’s never done any detailed work on any of these strictly philosophical issues. Much of what Penrose has said has been the result of interviewers pressing him on subjects which aren’t his speciality . (In most cases these have been attempts — by such interviewers — to get Penrose to backup their own prior views — see here for a perfect example of this.)
From: https://www.cantorsparadise.com/platonist-roger-penrose-sees-mathematical-truths-61a45840fe00

So I am not so sure about Roger's true position on Platonism.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

Plenty of people have wanted to do away with universals but it isn't easy. Partly, this has to do with set theory and using properties to decide who goes in which set. But there is plenty of opposition to them too.

But universals are metaphysics not physics, yes? I find it easy to dismiss the suggestion that 'greenness' or 'chairness' or 'darkness' etc are 'universals' but from the standpoint of physics and not metaphysics perhaps something like 'motion' is a real universal property, rather than a metaphysical one. Is anything in the universe absolutely still, in all reference frames?

Reply to unenlightened

Your entire post is a strawman. But you’re free to feel persecuted if you wish.

Quoting Mikie

Your entire post is a strawman. But you’re free to feel persecuted if you wish.

I don't think so. I think you really are missing the point of unenlightened's post. Questions about divinity and Christianity aren't as simple as you're making them out to be. I would encourage you to delve into them and find out.

Quoting DingoJones

. I suppose people could end up on a philosophy forum without knowing much at all.

Probably, but they wouldn't stay long if they didn't want to change that.

Quoting Mikie

But you’re free to feel persecuted if you wish.

Of course, how could you stop me from feeling persecuted if I felt persecuted. I don't feel persecuted at all, as it happens, at least, not by you. But perhaps your imputation of my feeling persecuted implies that I should feel persecuted?

But aside from that, if my post is a straw man, then I must have misunderstood you. But if you are not addressing believers, and you are not addressing non-believers like myself who have an interest in religions and use religious terms and stories, then who are you addressing, and what are you saying for them not to do?

Quoting unenlightened

I don't feel persecuted at all, as it happens, at least, not by you.

Glad to hear it.

Quoting unenlightened

then who are you addressing, and what are you saying for them not to do?

Not to treat it as special or requiring special attention, philosophically. I think we do that subconsciously — I’ve been guilty of it too. It’s why I invoked ethnocentrism, which I think is a related phenomena.

I’m not saying don’t read the Bible, or deprive yourself of the wisdom of Christianity, etc.

Quoting Mikie

I think we do that subconsciously — I’ve been guilty of it too. It’s why I invoked ethnocentrism, which I think is a related phenomena.

I see. Well perhaps we have a substantive disagreement after all. If one invokes Christian imagery, one is laying oneself open to the accusation of ethnocentrism, certainly; but avoiding the mention does nothing to avoid subconscious ethnocentrism, it merely prevents the challenge that might make one become conscious of it.

Reply to Mikie

Why shouldn’t we treat idealism as any other ontology? At some point we should, no? Maybe we’re convinced by it and grant it special importance, but that’s further down the road — and definitively not simply because it was the ideology of our family.

Sure. We absolutely should be prepared to treat our beliefs to the same rigorous analysis we subject other's beliefs too.

My point is simply that your point generalizes beyond religion. Believing something just because you have passively absorbed it as part of the culture you grew up in is:

A. Inevitable to some degree. (E.g., I didn't grow up in Chicago so I don't call pouring sauce and cheese into a bread bowl "pizza.") - a joke, I like a good deep dish lol.

B. Not a good justification for any belief, religious or otherwise.

But you seem to be commiting the "fallacy of equal knowledge," i.e., "if everyone had the relevant information they would agree." This isn't true for religion though. People don't necessarily only belong to a religion because they grew up in it, nor do many (most I think) go through their entire lives without seriously questioning their beliefs to some degree. E.g. I know someone who spent their early to late 20s thinking Christianity was just a myth they had learned as a child, and spent some of that time as a practicing Buddhist, who later returned to Christianity, albeit in a different sect.

Of course, some people do never question the beliefs they were brought up with. But this applies to areas outside religion as well, e.g. jingoistic nationalists who never consider if their country might be on the wrong side of some issues.

The fallacy as I see it is twofold. First, to assume that those who are religious haven't engaged in any sort of rigorous analysis of those beliefs or serious praxis, i.e., practical engagement with that tradition outside of cultural ritual. Second, to assume that someone must be a "believer," to find value in examining religion.

To the second point, consider just how much of philosophy and general work in the humanities is simply engaging the process of grappling with the culture one grew up in, trying to determine why it has the traits it does, what its essence is. People who aren't Christians still have plenty of reasons to be interested in church history and theology, just as Christian theologians have gained much from dialogues with Muslims and Jews. There has been a ton of work on this front.

The opening view also seems to discount perennialism, the idea that all religious traditions get at some set of essential truths, out the gate.

Finally, I'd just point out Saint Augustine's "believe so that you might understand." We can be skeptical of anything. How do we know who our parents are? Only by the authority of others? How do parents know that their children are their children, that they weren't switched at birth? Generally, this is often something we have to take on authority. One can't learn a subject if one doesn't take it seriously and take some things on authority. You can't learn physics if you think it is nonsense and question everything from the begining. Likewise, I don't think you can truly understand a faith, a philosophical camp, a literary tradition, etc. without some level of "believing to understand," even if it isn't an absolute belief, but more a suspension of disbelief.

Surface level just leads to a caricature and of course that caricature looks like it will shake apart with any level of rigour.

BTW, this topic has made me think, "what do people consider overtly [i]Christian[/I]? "

I have had two different arguments over whether or not the musical adaptation of Les Miserables is a Christian play/film. With an evangelical and an atheist, both of whom didn't think it was a Christian work for largely the same reasons:

-it was done by Hollywood as a major theatrical release
-it has dick jokes and a sex joke involving Santa Claus
-it has a socialist revolution it casts in a largely positive light
-it doesn't beat you over the head with its message to the degree that it becomes hackneyed (e.g. the film "God's not dead.")
-a protagonist is driven into prostitution
-it has a largely unhappy ending, with most of the characters dying while not achieving what they wanted to
-the most ostentatiously devote person commits suicide

To my mind, I don't see how any of these preclude a work being Christian. And in any event, the whole play is the story of a man who has his life turned around by the kind actions of a priest and who lives a life focused on redemption.

And this is finale, how it ends:

On this page
I write my last confession
Read it well
When I, at last, am sleeping
It's the story
Of one who turned from hating
The man who only learned to love
When you were in his keeping


Come with me
Where chains will never bind you
All your grief
At last, at last behind you
Lord in Heaven
Look down on him in mercy

Forgive me all my trespasses
And take me to your glory

Take my hand
I'll lead you to salvation
Take my love
For love is everlasting
And remember
The truth that once was spoken
To love another person
Is to see the face of God...

Do you hear the people sing
Lost in the valley of the night?
It is the music of a people
Who are climbing to the light
For the wretched of the earth
There is a flame that never dies
Even the darkest night will end
And the sun will rise

They will live again in freedom
In the garden of the Lord
We will walk behind the ploughshare
We will put away the sword
The chain will be broken
And all men will have their reward

Will you join in our crusade?
Who will be strong and stand with me?
Somewhere beyond the barricade
Is there a world you long to see?

Do you hear the people sing?
Say, do you hear the distant drums?
It is the future that they bring
When tomorrow comes!

I mean, case closed, right? But the question is, why is there a tendency to see Christian art only as that which is highly sanitized?

IMO, it comes from a trend in American Evangelical Protestantism that is extremely unreflective and sees itself as the one true expression of Christianity while also being unaware of its minority status or modern nature (modern fundementalism is highly unlike the early church, which was full of allegorical, non-literalist readings of the Bible). This trend has remained at the cultural forefront even as Roman Catholicism has become by far and away the largest denomination and the share of Orthodox and Coptics living in the US also swells.

I can't quite put my finger on what the phenomena is, but it is a tendency to represent the faith in a highly stylized, highly sanitized, kitsch, hyper real fashion. Hence, I've also had the same debate over whether or not Bob Marley is Christian praise music.

Is Christian music only for bands that only make Christian music? What about Let It Be, the Virgin Mary coming in times of trouble seems overtly Christian, right? Bob Marley seems less equivocal:

Jamming:
Now we're jammin' in the name of the Lord.

Holy Mount Zion
Holy Mount Zion
Jah seated in Mount Zion
And rules all creation ya...

Three Little Birds:
...saying praise and thanks to the Lord and it will be all right.

So Much Things to Say:
Well, INI no come to fight flesh and blood
But spiritual wickedness in high and low places
So while they fight you down
Stand firm and give Jah thanks and praises
'Cause I and I no expect to be justified
By the laws of men, by the laws of men
Whole jury found me guilty
But prove, truth shall prove my innocency

There are other examples. Bob Dylan's "Every Gain of Sand," Foster the People's "I Would Do Anything For You," get played at nightclubs and sounds like a love song, which it is, just towards God, Johnny Cash's"When the Man Comes Around," is mostly cribbed from Revelations, Collective Soul's grunge classic Shine, even Queen's less ambiguous "Jesus." I don't even think an X religion song needs to come from a member of that religion, it just needs to seriously express its message in a serious way. That's sort of an example of "understanding the cultural/emotional/spiritual context without having to buy into all doctrines."

Reply to Count Timothy von Icarus
I think it was John Fowles who said Great Expectations sums up the main points of Christianity. I agree.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

BTW, this topic has made me think, "what do people consider overtly Christian? "

Great question. Given the immense variations and range of Christian traditions, I imagine you could argue almost anything in this space. There are Christian fascists, Christian socialists, Christian literalists, Christian radicals... What do they have in common? Not much of substance I would have thought. Can we really say that the message/teaching of Jesus in the various scriptures (assuming this can be clearly articulated) is shared by all or most traditions? And if you break down the tradition to some essential principles, does this reduce the Christian teaching to bland pap a.k.a. motherhood statements?

Quoting universeness

Perhaps its your assessment/interpretation of my postings that cause you to judge my viewpoints as simplistic. That's not my problem, it's more your inability to interpret my postings in the same way I do.
I fully accept that this is a very common circumstance, that we have no choice but to each endure in our own way.

If I misunderstood you, and you are not condemning religion holus bolus, then perhaps we have no argument after all.

Quoting universeness

That's not my problem

If you do not communicate successfully, that IS your problem. Granted: there are people who manage to misunderstand a simple phrase like "Good morning". But quite often when posters are misunderstood, it is the poster's fault, and the problems are typical of writers in general. That's why publishers and newspapers employ editors.

Moderator Mikie's thread on religion has been troubled by unclear communication which I think is his problem. I don't quite know why he's not stating his case more clearly. Perhaps a vague concept at the beginning--God & Christianity Aren’t Special--has hobbled his thinking,

Quoting frank

I don't think so. I think you really are missing the point of unenlightened's post. Questions about divinity and Christianity aren't as simple as you're making them out to be. I would encourage you to delve into them and find out.

Treating religious stories as literature, which may convey wisdom, as any good literature may, is not the same as arguing pointlessly over the existence of God or gods or the reality of ideas like karma or rebirth.

Those ideas may have their place in theology or discussion within the context of shared faith, but not in philosophy, whereas the practical human wisdom (phronesis) which may be exemplified in literature, including religious scriptures, does have a place in philosophy.

That's my take, anyway, which makes the criticism @unenlightened levelled against @MIkie seem inapt to me.

Reply to unenlightened

Sure, but I’m not really advocating avoidance.

Here’s the problem with OP, I think: I’m making a lot of assumptions which are not explained and using a lot of words that I haven’t defined (e.g., philosophy, religion). (Also, that the title is too provocative, potentially evoking an adversarial response on the part of the reader.)

I agree we all have perspectives, beliefs, and stories. In one sense, I see them all as part of a bigger whole and respect them as important, and in another sense I discriminate some as sillier than others, and so deserving of less attention — like my made up god tries to show.

That’s a personal judgment. For example, I think the story of the Big Bang is deserving of more time than creation stories— even though it is a kind of creation story itself. I do think there’s something to naturalism, in other words, that is indeed unique and special.

So this can be seen as my religion, when put like that. But then again, I also believe in something “bigger” than nature. I prefer terms like “such-ness” over God or Brahman, but it’s still something not within the purview of science (which I see as the philosophy of nature; assuming naturalism by default).

Anyway— I see the problem now, and it’s that I’m presupposing that there is no such thing as Christian philosophy, and I assume most others here agree with that. Turns out that’s not the case. So my advice is bound to fall flat, except for a few outliers.

Quoting Janus

Those ideas may have their place in theology or discussion within the context of shared faith, but not in philosophy, whereas the practical human wisdom (phronesis) which may be exemplified in literature, including religious scriptures, does have a place in philosophy.

:up:

You put it much more succinctly than I did.

Quoting BC

Moderator Mikie's thread on religion has been troubled by unclear communication which I think is his problem.

You’re right. See my response to unenligtened, above. I try to go over the reasons for why it’s unclear and thus misunderstood.

Unless that is unclear as well— in which case I may have to accept the fact that maybe I suck at writing and should hang myself. :lol:

Reply to Mikie The thread has generated some rich discussions. I love that we can put things out here and be open to revising our thinking and, where necessary, tweak, or change our views. This is what philosophy is about.

Quoting Mikie

You put it much more succinctly than I did.

:cool:

Quoting Tom Storm

The thread has generated some rich discussions. I love that we can put things out here and be open to revising our thinking and, where necessary, tweak, or change our views. This is what philosophy is about.

:100:

Quoting Janus

Treating religious stories as literature, which may convey wisdom, as any good literature may, is not the same as arguing pointlessly over the existence of God or gods or the reality of ideas like karma or rebirth.

Scholastic philosophers taught the skill of argumentation by having students create proofs of God on their own, and their arguments would be critiqued. For a newbie, it's very fertile ground. It's like a philosophy gymnasium.

Quoting frank

Scholastic philosophers taught the skill of argumentation by having students create proofs of God on their own, and their arguments would be critiqued. For a newbie, it's very fertile ground. It's like a philosophy gymnasium.

Sure, but that is "a shared context of faith": scholastic philosophers presupposed the validity of orthodox theology.

For example, Anselm's 'ontological argument' presupposes faith, and in its presentation of it he makes that explicit.

Quoting Janus

Sure, but that is "a shared context of faith": scholastic philosophers presupposed the validity of orthodox theology.

Aristotle made proofs of God as well. What's your expert opinion on that?

Quoting frank

Aristotle made proofs of God as well. What's your expert opinion on that?

I don't have an "expert opinion" since I am not a scholar of Ancient Greek philosophy, but the argument from first causes, for example, presupposes the ancient Greek understanding of causation. Also, unless I am mistaken, Aristotle did not argue for a personal creator God, but for a "Prime Mover" or demiurge.

Quoting Janus

I don't have an "expert opinion" since I am not a scholar of Ancient Greek philosophy, but the argument from first causes, for example, presupposes the ancient's understanding of causation. Also, unless I am mistaken, Aristotle did not argue for God, but for a "Prime Mover" or demiurge.

He had multiple proofs of God. Aquinas' proofs are modeled on them. The Christian founders approved of the use of ancient Greek philosophers in Christian thinking. What's your expert opinion on that?

Quoting Sam26

...think it's a mistake to think that the only people who can do philosophy are those trained in philosophy.

Sure. But generally, those with no training do not do it well.

Philosophy is not done well by dabblers. You have spent years studying and writing about Wittgenstein, and it shows in the quality of your threads, yet you have spent time answering objections from folk with no more than a superficial appreciation of what are broad, complex and difficult topics.

I'll also disagree with the view that philosophy consists in presenting arguments for what you believe. Any sophist can do that. To move from sophistry to philosophy, one must then expose one's arguments to critique. As with unexamined lives, so with unexamined arguments.

Philosophy isn't just making shite up; it's also tearing it back down.

The fora are occasionally blighted with mostly Christian, but occasionally Islamic, Buddhist or Hindi folk who present their religious panacea. There are also many of what I have come to think of as "retired engineers" who operate in a similar vein. The worst show themselves quickly and the mods, to their great credit, remove them.

But despite these efforts, there is a persistent background of idolatry, and so Reply to Mikie's point is valid, and indeed can be generalised beyond Mere Christianity.

Quoting frank

He had multiple proofs of God. Aquinas' proofs are modeled on them. The Christian founders approved of the use of ancient Greek philosophers in Christian thinking. What's your expert opinion on that?

I already told I don't have expert opinions. I know Aristotle had multiple proofs of a first cause, a "designer", I just don't remember what they all were, and I can't be bothered looking them up. How about you present them and then we can discuss. I don't believe they were arguments for God as conceived by the Christian founders, but I am aware that they were adapted by the latter to support their Christian theology.

Anyway, I'm not seeing the relevance to this thread. I understand philosophy to be about questioning all and any presuppositions, apart from the most basic general ones which make it possible at all, so perhaps in the time of the Greeks, there were those kinds of basic presuppositions for them, which are no longer part of our contemporary set, and if so, that would amount to a "shared context of faith". Our overarching contemporary shared context of faith is not in question, it cannot be, because it is necessary for any discussion at all to proceed.

Reply to Tom Storm Thank you for your kindness.

Far and away the best posts hereabouts come from @Ciceronianus, @Tobias and @unenlightened.

Quoting Janus

How about you present them and then we can discuss them. I don't believe they were arguments for God as conceived by the Christian founders, but I am aware that they were adapted to support their Christian theology.

You have it backward, Janus. Christianity as we know it was adapted to Neoplatonism, the dominant philosophical view of the time, not the other way around. God, as the Christian founders conceived it, is Neoplatonic. Augustine actually read Aristotle. Ancient Greek philosophy is in the underpinnings of Christianity. See how interesting the topic is?

Quoting frank

See how interesting the topic is?

It may be interesting in the context of the history of ideas. I know Christianity absorbed and repurposed some Neoplatonic ideas, but there is no personal God in Neoplatonism, so the central plank is derived from elsewhere.

Quoting Janus

It may be interesting in the context of the history of ideas. I know Christianity absorbed and repurposed some Neoplatonic ideas, but there is no personal God in Neoplatonism, so the central plank is derived from elsewhere.

I've lost track of your point.

Reply to frank That's alright, I never understood the point of your responses from the start of the present conversation.

Quoting Janus

That's alright, I never understood the point of your responses from the start of the present conversation.

Inscrutability of reference probably.

Reply to frank Perhaps so...

Reply to universeness

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that Plato's type of Platonism is still alive and well in modern philosophy and physics, rather, more reified versions exist. E.g. quarks and leptons are the fundemental forms and everything else emerges from this austere ontology. Most of the popular Platonist-like conceptions of physics center around things being fundementally mathematical. E.g., of quarks Wilzek says "the it is the bit," as they only exist as spaceless mathematical entities.

Penrose is probably not the best example of this; I thought of him because he actually uses the words "realm of Platonic forms," in one quote. Tegmark's form of ontic structural realism is the most obviously Platonist I can think of. Pancomputationalism isn't necessarily Platonist, but it definitely can be as well.

The variety of people who hold on to universals is actually quite surprising. Russell is in there too. IMO, the more interesting question is what defines an object? Is an object just the sum of all the universals (or tropes) it instantiates? I.e., an object just a bundle of traits? Or do the traits need to attach to some sort of bare substratum, a pure haeccity?

Bare substratum sounds ridiculous, but if you ditch it then it becomes hard to justify why two identical red balls aren't the same ball, or why a things identity doesn't change when it moves. This sort of puzzle always interested me.

Quoting Janus

Treating religious stories as literature, which may convey wisdom, as any good literature may, is not the same as arguing pointlessly over the existence of God or gods or the reality of ideas like karma or rebirth.

I agree about that. But again, who involves themselves in such arguments except committed believers and equally committed disbelievers? As if religion were nothing but an alternative physics.

Do we argue that Plato's cave does not exist, and therefore it is a waste of time talking about it? No one does that. I have a thread of my own about all that

But i would also like to point out that the idea that time can be, and ought not to be, wasted in pointless activity is very much a Protestant Christian attitude derived usually from the parable of the talents. It would make little sense in any African or Indian tradition for example. All things must pass, but nothing is wasted.

Quoting Janus

If I misunderstood you, and you are not condemning religion holus bolus, then perhaps we have no argument after all.

I don't like to quote a well abused line by almost all UK politicians but, 'Let me be crystal clear on this.'

I do think that the human race would benefit greatly if all theism and theosophism was abandoned, as the BS I think it is. But, religious belief can absolutely help some individuals in their personal lives, when they are facing trauma. It can also compel some people to be more altruistic towards other people. I have theist friends and neighbours who I would place in that category.
I don't debate the topic with such individuals in quite the same way as I do with strangers here on TPF.

In the final analysis however, I do agree with the Carl Sagan quotes of:
[b]"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe."
“Better the hard truth, I say, than the comforting fantasy.”[/b]

Based on the opinions you express on many topics in your posts. We probably do have more common ground than ground we contest. I actually find myself arguing more with atheists, than I do with theists because being an atheist does not prevent you from being a racist or misogynist or xenophobic nationalist or capitalist or tory etc, etc.

Quoting BC

If you do not communicate successfully, that IS your problem. Granted: there are people who manage to misunderstand a simple phrase like "Good morning". But quite often when posters are misunderstood, it is the poster's fault, and the problems are typical of writers in general. That's why publishers and newspapers employ editors.

I think that all you do with statements like this is offer succour to sophists.
As you confirm yourself, interlocuters are not always honest in anyway shape or form.
It is NOT my problem, if a third party thinks I have failed at explaining my position to an interlocuter.
I have experienced many occasions as a teacher, when some in the class understand the lesson and others don't, either because they have chosen not to, or they genuinely have tried but just don't get it.
I will make concentrated/focused effort to engage those students who don't get what I am saying, on a one to one basis during class time, or offer them more help during a lunchtime or such (this is offered via the PM system on TPF imo).
But those who have chosen not to understand because it does not suit their own agenda, will continue to claim they don't understand your position, regardless of how clearly you try to describe it.
It is rarely as open and shut as some claim. As a third party, you might well claim that I don't 'communicate successfully,' but other 'third parties' might think I do.

Quoting BC

Moderator Mikie's thread on religion has been troubled by unclear communication which I think is his problem. I don't quite know why he's not stating his case more clearly. Perhaps a vague concept at the beginning--God & Christianity Aren’t Special--has hobbled his thinking.

The fact you refer to him as 'Moderator Mikie,' is (in the context you use it,) a cheap shot and a rather pathetic one on your part.
As an interested participant in @Mikie thread, I think I have understood his main points, after a little clarification.
1. All religions should be assigned the same priority, when it comes to its inclusion in debate. Christianity should not be prioritised in the way it is, in western theological debate.
2. Christians themselves should not be given any priority platform, just because their religion has had the biggest impact in the country they are living in/speaking in.
3. By using the term 'let it go' in bold. I think Mikie was suggesting to Christians in the West in particular that they should stop trying to occupy this 'priority platform' they want to have in the west and atheists would be wise, if they refused to help them maintain such a platform as Mikie thinks they are doing at the moment.

If I am wrong here then I am sure @Mikie will type so, PDQ.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

This sort of puzzle always interested me.

I love sentences like this. As long as folks like yourself, feel this way about scientific questions then my hopes that our species is worth its survival costs, is reinforced.
I would be depressed if you had typed something more like, 'God knows all the answers to that which puzzles human, so I choose to 'keep the faith' and choose to stop calculating.'
I am glad and grateful to famous theists such as Georges Lemaître, who chose to keep calculating, despite his theism.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

E.g. quarks and leptons are the fundemental forms and everything else emerges from this austere ontology.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

Platonist-like conceptions of physics center around things being fundementally mathematical. E.g., of quarks Wilzek says "the it is the bit," as they only exist as spaceless mathematical entities.

So, what do you think of evidence such as from The Nobel Prize in Physics 1990:
The discovery was made when protons and neutrons were illuminated with beams from a giant “electron microscope” – a two-mile-long accelerator at SLAC in California, USA. The inner structure was interpreted to mean that quarks form the fundamental building blocks of protons and neutrons.

and from LHCb discovers three new exotic particles
The international LHCb collaboration at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has observed three never-before-seen particles: a new kind of “pentaquark” and the first-ever pair of “tetraquarks”, which includes a new type of tetraquark. The findings, presented today at a CERN seminar, add three new exotic members to the growing list of new hadrons found at the LHC. They will help physicists better understand how quarks bind together into these composite particles.


I include this, not as proof that quarks exist (although I think the dominant view in physics, is that they do) but just as an attempt to assign more significance to such objects as quarks, than 'as they only exist as spaceless mathematical entities.' What for you, does 'spaceless' mean, in the context of the 'Wilzek' quote you used. I assume you mean Frank Wilczeck, 2004 nobel prize winner currently at MIT.
I don't mean I had prior knowledge of him, I just got that info by typing your 'Wilzek' into google.

Reply to Banno

That's nice of you. I like yours, also.

Quoting unenlightened

I agree about that. But again, who involves themselves in such arguments except committed believers and equally committed disbelievers? As if religion were nothing but an alternative physics.

I think this is right. It's probably mostly committed believers and disbelievers who do argue for their preferred metaphysical standpoints, probably because they think that their standpoint is the "right" one to move humanity forward, or maybe just because the possibility they argue against scares, disgusts or horrifies them.

Quoting unenlightened

But i would also like to point out that the idea that time can be, and ought not to be, wasted in pointless activity is very much a Protestant Christian attitude derived usually from the parable of the talents. It would make little sense in any African or Indian tradition for example. All things must pass, but nothing is wasted.

That's a fair point: the protestant work ethic,,,we must have productivity,,,

"All things must pass, but nothing is wasted": reminds me of Shpongle's album 'Nothing Lasts,,,But Nothing Is Lost'

Quoting universeness

I do think that the human race would benefit greatly if all theism and theosophism was abandoned, as the BS I think it is.

We are not going to agree about this, but that's OK.

Reply to Janus
:up:

Quoting Banno

what I have come to think of as "retired engineers"

Stop, stop. You're making me blush.

Thanks Banno, that is really nice to read :) and like Ciceronianus, I will mention that I also really appreciate yours.

I have been gone a bit these days, a lot of work...