Should religion enter the philosophical realm?

Boroimhe

As philosophy can deal (though not exclusively) with our beginings, how we should live and how we interact with the universe. Should religion enter the "debate" with thier perspective, how do you think this would affect religion, could it create new religions e.t.c??

Can set religions be debated at a philosophical level (the changes in the catholic religion over years show that they can shift somewhat).

18AD

I think they most certainly can. Philosophy, as a discipline that prizes reason, can be applied to pretty much anything.

You have people in history, like Augustine or Aquinas (I'm quite ignorant of this whole history), who applied philosophy to religion and who subsequently changed huge parts of religious doctrine based on their enquiries.

I have not been in contact with much of this stuff. I think that modern athesim draws a lot from the debate between the two sides, i.e. believers and non-believers.

What precisely were you thinking about? It is a huge field. Any ideas yourself?

Boroimhe

Little things like why does Jesus need to be in place of the sun, why does our "messiah" need to be devine. Could there be some sort of "after life", why do people need to believe in some sort of cosmic justice meter e.t.c

Most of what I understand of religion was not really based on philosophy but rather on down to earth base reasons, for instance slavery is wrong and hence "Jesus" said that we are all spiritual equals. Newly formed Islam was under attack and hence Mohammad said that it was ok by god to defend ones home e.t.c

What really interests me about religions (especially) abrahamic religions is the whole celestial (zodiac) appeal that seems to attract people and hold them tightly for generations, for instance the Egyptian religion (another religion based on the movement of the stars) lasted far longer than any religion I know of but it died off quite easliy (why).

Is it the principles upon which the religion is founded that makes it attractive, a need to fit in or is it (like philosophy) a need to understand our surroundings better (or all of the above maybe)?

philologos

Philosophy is about questioning mankinds relationship to all things. It is about putting everything under scrutiny and assessing it for what it really is. Essentially this is why we have the philosophy of religion so that people can put the claims about God's existence or indeed his non-existence under scrutiny and come to conclusions concerning them and the implications involved in how they think.

The claim that philosophy should somehow ignore the existence of God is really absurd. If you look through philosophy from the beginnings with those people such as Thales, Anixamander, and Anixamenes to the present, you will find that the vast majority of philosophers have believed in a God or gods. That's simply the reality. Whether this was the philosophers God, the God of formal theism, a deism or something else is wholly irrelevant. The question of whether or not there is something beyond ourselves is far too important to ignore.

If philosophy decided not to discuss this then it wouldn't be philosophy anymore IMO.

Boroimhe

The question is more about the religions entering the debate with their point of view and beliefs not philosophy scrutinising them because that will happen regardless of thier inclinations.

Very well put though

Jakkass wrote: »

Philosophy is about questioning mankinds relationship to all things. It is about putting everything under scrutiny and assessing it for what it really is. Essentially this is why we have the philosophy of religion so that people can put the claims about God's existence or indeed his non-existence under scrutiny and come to conclusions concerning them and the implications involved in how they think.

The claim that philosophy should somehow ignore the existence of God is really absurd. If you look through philosophy from the beginnings with those people such as Thales, Anixamander, and Anixamenes to the present, you will find that the vast majority of philosophers have believed in a God or gods. That's simply the reality. Whether this was the philosophers God, the God of formal theism, a deism or something else is wholly irrelevant. The question of whether or not there is something beyond ourselves is far too important to ignore.

If philosophy decided not to discuss this then it wouldn't be philosophy anymore IMO.

philologos

Boroimhe wrote: »

The question is more about the religions entering the debate with their point of view and beliefs not philosophy scrutinising them because that will happen regardless of thier inclinations.

I don't see what is the problem in philosophising according to ones religious beliefs if it is exposed to the scrutiny of others. Philosophy isn't an activity undertaken by a single person but rather it is a collective discussion. I wouldn't dare to suggest that Catholic, Islamic and Jewish philosophy isn't philosophy because it comes from a theistic point of view. Indeed I wouldn't suggest that Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy isn't good philosophy even if I disagree with it.

Philosophy is about exposing yourself to new forms of thought even those you profoundly disagree with. To claim that philosophy from a theistic take, or a take influenced by religion isn't philosophy simply isn't in keeping with the history of philosophy.

Unless we are to take the route of Wittgenstein and say that every metaphysical topic (including religion I guess although it can be argued that theistic claims aren't metaphysics) shouldn't be discussed.

Boroimhe

The problem arises when the believers of the faith don't agree with the religion being scrutinized and as such my question is wether or not the religions themselves could enter an open debate on the matter and how this would affect the basic principles of the religion.

Could there be a Schizm, are the main religions of t0day debatable and so forth. I hear what your saying and absolutely agree with your points that religion SHOULD be a part of philosophy becuase it basically is philosophy and that everything is debatable within philosophy but would the faiths allow such open discussions or condemn them e.t.c

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see what is the problem in philosophising according to ones religious beliefs if it is exposed to the scrutiny of others. Philosophy isn't an activity undertaken by a single person but rather it is a collective discussion. I wouldn't dare to suggest that Catholic, Islamic and Jewish philosophy isn't philosophy because it comes from a theistic point of view. Indeed I wouldn't suggest that Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy isn't good philosophy even if I disagree with it.

Philosophy is about exposing yourself to new forms of thought even those you profoundly disagree with. To claim that philosophy from a theistic take, or a take influenced by religion isn't philosophy simply isn't in keeping with the history of philosophy.

Unless we are to take the route of Wittgenstein and say that every metaphysical topic (including religion I guess although it can be argued that theistic claims aren't metaphysics) shouldn't be discussed.

18AD

Boroimhe wrote: »

The problem arises when the believers of the faith don't agree with the religion being scrutinized and as such my question is wether or not the religions themselves could enter an open debate on the matter and how this would affect the basic principles of the religion.

There is a distinction between a religion and the individuals who defend or promote that religion. Often people will have religious beliefs because they identify with them through tradition, they may feel that it makes them who they are, and that without it they would be missing something.
Yet others will promote on the basis of some agenda and others believe because of some subconscious need to make sense of things.
Some people just don't want to debate at all.

These people aside, I think there are many people willing to engage in debates relating to religion.

Topics relating to faith here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/faith/

I don't think we have reached a point yet where philosophical debate on a certain topic has been condemned. The debate may not hold much sway in the public at large, but that is a seperate issue.

Boroimhe

Thank you for the link some interesting stuff on the face of it (I'll have a closer look after I reply)

You asked me earlier if I have any ideas myself and I was thinking about it, the main thing I would like to understand is why the movement of the stars? I understand the common sense reasons like light and dark e.t.c.

But why is that particular attribute so important, why do we spiritualize the universe around us and how does it make some people feel content or fulfilled?

18AD wrote: »

There is a distinction between a religion and the individuals who defend or promote that religion. Often people will have religious beliefs because they identify with them through tradition, they may feel that it makes them who they are, and that without it they would be missing something.
Yet others will promote on the basis of some agenda and others believe because of some subconscious need to make sense of things.
Some people just don't want to debate at all.

These people aside, I think there are many people willing to engage in debates relating to religion.

Topics relating to faith here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/faith/

I don't think we have reached a point yet where philosophical debate on a certain topic has been condemned. The debate may not hold much sway in the public at large, but that is a seperate issue.

philologos

Boroimhe wrote: »

The problem arises when the believers of the faith don't agree with the religion being scrutinized and as such my question is wether or not the religions themselves could enter an open debate on the matter and how this would affect the basic principles of the religion.

If people who believe in a religion have issue with how others are scrutinising their faith, what is the way to handle this philosophically? Isn't it to present a counter-argument.

Just because someone presents a criticism doesn't mean that their opinion cannot also be legitimately criticised in response.

Boroimhe wrote: »

Could there be a Schizm, are the main religions of t0day debatable and so forth. I hear what your saying and absolutely agree with your points that religion SHOULD be a part of philosophy becuase it basically is philosophy and that everything is debatable within philosophy but would the faiths allow such open discussions or condemn them e.t.c

This point is surely dated within philosophical discourse. People can't avoid debate any more in 21st century society. Just before the Renaissance in the universities and schools of philosophy there was a clear restriction in what could be discussed and indeed what could be used of the Aristotelian corpus in the fear that it would disagree with the Christian faith. This is what led to Renaissance humanists many of whom were Christians (humanist in the modern sense is a strawman of what Renaissance humanism was - scholars like Jacob Burckhardt assumed that the humanists were arguing for secularisation, but in reality they were simply arguing against the former scholastic philosophy sometimes with Christian motives for doing so) to challenge the scholastic order of philosophy.

This debate has happened in the Renaissance and in Modern Philosophy. The philosophical grounds are open. You take your place, expect criticism and indeed to defend your arguments on philosophical grounds. As I have said already, the vast majority of philosophy has been written by believers in some form of God.

Boroimhe

Point very well taken, thank you.

Jakkass wrote: »

If people who believe in a religion have issue with how others are scrutinising their faith, what is the way to handle this philosophically? Isn't it to present a counter-argument.

Just because someone presents a criticism doesn't mean that their opinion cannot also be legitimately criticised in response.



This point is surely dated within philosophical discourse. People can't avoid debate any more in 21st century society. Just before the Renaissance in the universities and schools of philosophy there was a clear restriction in what could be discussed and indeed what could be used of the Aristotelian corpus in the fear that it would disagree with the Christian faith. This is what led to Renaissance humanists many of whom were Christians (humanist in the modern sense is a strawman of what Renaissance humanism was - scholars like Jacob Burckhardt assumed that the humanists were arguing for secularisation, but in reality they were simply arguing against the former scholastic philosophy sometimes with Christian motives for doing so) to challenge the scholastic order of philosophy.

This debate has happened in the Renaissance and in Modern Philosophy. The philosophical grounds are open. You take your place, expect criticism and indeed to defend your arguments on philosophical grounds. As I have said already, the vast majority of philosophy has been written by believers in some form of God.

18AD

Boroimhe wrote: »

Thank you for the link some interesting stuff on the face of it (I'll have a closer look after I reply)

You asked me earlier if I have any ideas myself and I was thinking about it, the main thing I would like to understand is why the movement of the stars? I understand the common sense reasons like light and dark e.t.c.

But why is that particular attribute so important, why do we spiritualize the universe around us and how does it make some people feel content or fulfilled?

It's funny though that even today, in science, we are fascinated by the stars. It is also a strong component of science to harbour an almost "spiritual" awe at the complexities of the universe. It is as if they are allowing for the religious feelings yet denying any metaphysical claims that one may make in relation to those feelings.

I think an important factor is the feeling of connection to the world. We feel disconnected from it as our bodies are detached. We feel ourselves to be seperate as can be exemplified by the solipsism and philsophy of Descartes or the 'brain in the vat' style thinking.

I think that it is likely that many of peoples psychological needs were much the same as they are in people today, the only difference now is that our situation has changed, through scientific advancement among other things.

Or you could go with Freud's interpretation that the feeling of connection is actually a repressed trauma of the feeling of wanting to be protected by a parent. So we think there is a connecting spirit throughout all of matter, the traditional 'one with everything' kinda thing.
See: Civilization and its Discontents by Freud.

Another idea is that from very early on the goal has always been one of trying to control the forces outside ourself. To understand the universe is to be able to protect oneself from it. If you can predict the future, through astrology, or apease the universal spirit, through sacrifice, it would give you a better chance of survival. This is a strand that has persisted up to the modern age, although it has changed form dramatically.
See: The Dialectic of Enlightenment by Adorno & Horkheimer.

Boroimhe

18AD wrote: »

It's funny though that even today, in science, we are fascinated by the stars. It is also a strong component of science to harbour an almost "spiritual" awe at the complexities of the universe. It is as if they are allowing for the religious feelings yet denying any metaphysical claims that one may make in relation to those feelings.

I've often gotten that opinion when watching some documentaries or reading some books, though I guess one can't help but have a sense of awe when considering the universe let alone contemplating it

18AD wrote: »

I think an important factor is the feeling of connection to the world. We feel disconnected from it as our bodies are detached. We feel ourselves to be seperate as can be exemplified by the solipsism and philsophy of Descartes or the 'brain in the vat' style thinking.

Thats one of the theories I was going with, the whole one-ness concept, the lack of unity with all things makes us look up and create an explanation which says we are all one and from the same place

18AD wrote: »

I think that it is likely that many of peoples psychological needs were much the same as they are in people today, the only difference now is that our situation has changed, through scientific advancement among other things.

Here is the part that confuses me with past stories and so on, the ancient Sumerians (forgive me if my spelling is incorrect there) understood astronomy, they knew what the planets were and where they were placed throughout the solar system and yet they too created a story (though they chose aliens). Why if they understood did they feel the need to create a story? (don't mean to insult any ancient astronaut theorists in the audience, its an interesting concept)

18AD

Boroimhe wrote: »

Here is the part that confuses me with past stories and so on, the ancient Sumerians (forgive me if my spelling is incorrect there) understood astronomy, they knew what the planets were and where they were placed throughout the solar system and yet they too created a story (though they chose aliens). Why if they understood did they feel the need to create a story? (don't mean to insult any ancient astronaut theorists in the audience, its an interesting concept)

We too have our stories of bing-bangs and things like that. The only difference is that our "story" is backed up by some amounts of evidence. The human need to have a story is satisfied no matter what the specifics of the story are. Unless you're a sceptic with these things.

You can make an interesting inversion here with stories and the more modern scientific theories. The thing about stories is that they express human values and ideas. There is something alive about a story that is totally lost in the scientific explanation of the universe. Art is something that is truer for us and in us. To this end you can say that the real source of truth, for us, is in stories rather than in objective descriptions of the universe.

You can say that science has discovered objective truths about the universe, but without people what use is truth? Is truth something that we want to know about regardless of our own existence? Even though our own existence is what drives us towards truth in the first place?

I think Nietzsche, among others held that Art was superior to truth.

The thing is then, that back then the lines between the two were blurred. The same way that astronomy and astrology or alchemy and chemistry were part of the same field of enquiry.


This is more a wild flight of imagination, with a vague basis in various philosophies.

meryem

Boroimhe wrote: »

As philosophy can deal (though not exclusively) with our beginings, how we should live and how we interact with the universe. Should religion enter the "debate" with thier perspective, how do you think this would affect religion, could it create new religions e.t.c??

Can set religions be debated at a philosophical level (the changes in the catholic religion over years show that they can shift somewhat).

In my views religions are based on philosophical principles things like that but most of cannot be understood by philosophers for they don't believe in it at all. Since it is very much based upon true principles of how a ideal social life should be like it tend to mend or change according to social climates and conditions to suit the well being of society for which it is made for in the first place.

Boroimhe wrote: »

What really interests me about religions (especially) abrahamic religions is the whole celestial (zodiac) appeal that seems to attract people and hold them tightly for generations, for instance the Egyptian religion (another religion based on the movement of the stars) lasted far longer than any religion I know of but it died off quite easliy (why).

Is it the principles upon which the religion is founded that makes it attractive, a need to fit in or is it (like philosophy) a need to understand our surroundings better (or all of the above maybe)?

To me it looks the principles upon which a religion is founded makes it attractive(look from the eyes of new joiners to it) and the mix of need to get our surroundings better for it leaves more light on certain things when we start following a set of principles that are enshrined in a religion.

philologos

meryem wrote: »

In my views religions are based on philosophical principles things like that but most of cannot be understood by philosophers for they don't believe in it at all.

Most notable philosophers have believed in some form of God.

Black Swan

philologos wrote: »

Most notable philosophers have believed in some form of God.

Most? According to whom?

Further, why make this simple, and almost all-inclusive statement? Why is this important to our discussion of the philosophy of religion?

If it is important, why not discuss why, citing philosophers that have suggested this, along with the implications of such a claim? Furthermore, to promote a balanced philosophical discussion of this claim, should "notable philosophers" that do not believe "in some form of God" also be included, comparing and contrasting their philosophical positions?

philologos

It's rather simple. List all the major philosophers from Thales to the present day. How many of them believed in some form of God and how many didn't.

It's important to the discussion because some people have attempted to argue that religion can't enter philosophical discourse. People are quite capable of philosophising with belief or no-belief. Sometimes their beliefs can have a huge impact in forming what conclusions they come to.

Peoples religious beliefs have at times been key in forming a philosophy. Indeed, some peoples atheistic ideas have been a formation of their philosophy (Nietzsche and Heidegger for example).

18AD

Even if there are conclusions based on religious belief these beliefs are not justifications in themselves. These ideas are converted into philosophical or secular language (depending on purpose) so that they may be put under the scrutiny of reason.

Nietzsche had very good reasons not to believe on God. His atheism was the result of his philosophy not the other way around. Although this conclusion did then shape his thought.

philologos

18AD wrote: »

Even if there are conclusions based on religious belief these beliefs are not justifications in themselves. These ideas are converted into philosophical or secular language (depending on purpose) so that they may be put under the scrutiny of reason.

They aren't reasons in and of themselves, but they are not always secularised. One need only look to Medieval and some Renaissance philosophy to suggest that this is the case. Indeed, much Enlightenment philosophy (Descartes & George Berkeley, later Immanuel Kant) still include the concept of God. One can still express a rational argument without throwing the idea of God out of the window.

18AD wrote: »

Nietzsche had very good reasons not to believe on God. His atheism was the result of his philosophy not the other way around. Although this conclusion did then shape his thought.

I don't know entirely if that is true. He has some good philosophy, but I don't think they are very good reasons to disregard God's existence. I'm clearly biased though.

Your post seems to focus exclusively on the 19th-20th century period in philosophy rather than what comes before then in the majority of philosophy. Indeed, even post-20th century there is still a lot of philosophy from a theistic perspective.

18AD

Of course there is lots of philosophy based around this topic, I am not denying that. And there is lots of philosophy that appears to have extreme biases based on these beliefs.

I am just saying that themethod of philosophy is to give reasons and justifications for certain things. If you cannot present a good enough reason to believe in God then your position will be deemed either outside of the realm of philosophy or completely irrational.

I am not even condemning people for having beliefs if they are not based on good reasons, I am just saying that this type of approach is not what philosophy is about.

I was reading Habermas recently. He has had various views on this, so I'll stick to this one.
It is that religious beliefs and talk of religious things is outside the scope of modern secular politics. It is up to the religious person to put into secular terms what they are trying to get across in order to be able to engage in political discourse. This is due to the highly specific language used in religious discusion, in that it privileges people within that specific belief system.

philologos

18AD wrote: »

I am just saying that themethod of philosophy is to give reasons and justifications for certain things. If you cannot present a good enough reason to believe in God then your position will be deemed either outside of the realm of philosophy or completely irrational.

Philosophers present reasons why they use God in their philosophy. Indeed that was pretty much central in Medieval philosophy and what is dealt with in the philosophy of religion as a strand of philosophy.

I believe in God precisely because I believe there is good enough reason to. I would personally consider I believe in God to be synonymous with I believe that there is good enough reason to believe in God.

All one needs to do to get a feel for the arguments made in the philosophy of religion is to pick up a good enough primer such as Brian Davies' Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, or Philosophy of Religion: A Guide and Anthology both from Oxford University Press I believe.

I would even say that many Ancient Greek philosophers present valid arguments in respect to the concept of God.

18AD wrote: »

I was reading Habermas recently. He has had various views on this, so I'll stick to this one.
It is that religious beliefs and talk of religious things is outside the scope of modern secular politics. It is up to the religious person to put into secular terms what they are trying to get across in order to be able to engage in political discourse. This is due to the highly specific language used in religious discusion, in that it privileges people within that specific belief system.

Habermas is interesting. His idea of discourse ethics to somehow establish a universal morality seems flawed to me though.

18AD

philologos wrote: »

I believe in God precisely because I believe there is good enough reason to. I would personally consider I believe in God to be synonymous with I believe that there is good enough reason to believe in God.

That's fine. I'm just weary of belief being used as a justification for certain arguements or where faith is used, in its sense of not being something open to rational scrutiny.

I got the impression with many of the Medievals that their philosophy was a desperate attempt to save the concept of God. The reasoning itself is biased before it even begins. They started with a conclusion and worked towards it. Which amounts to saying, "How do I prove I'm right?"

That's fine too. It's just something that didn't appeal to me very much

Black Swan

philologos wrote: »

It's rather simple. List all the major philosophers from Thales to the present day. How many of them believed in some form of God and how many didn't.

"It's [NOT] rather simple." Such a "simple" listing is problematic, in that their philosophical orientations are not "simple," but tending to be complex.

Further, many philosophers change or refine their positions over time. For example, students of Max Weber note the "early Weber" in his Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, and the "later Weber" in his Economy and Society. As pertains to religion, the early Weber saw religion as the driving force behind capitalism, whereas in later Weber the influence of religion greatly declined and was of small import, sometimes insignificant to Weber's "iron cage," "shell of bondage," and march of rationalisation. Some contend that the early Weber was a theist, while the later Weber was either agnostic or atheist. Weber was not "rather simple."

The prevailing philosophical period may influence how a philosophy and its philosopher are viewed. Where would you place David Hume on your "rather simple" list? The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy suggests in the article "Hume on Religion" that Hume's contemporaries would place him clearly on the atheist list, whereas today's philosophers and scholarly reviewers may see such a "simple" listing as a subject of much debate, with some listing him as agnostic.

Black Swan wrote: »

According to whom?

Is it safe to assume that theists, agnostics, and atheists (between and within their groups) may generate different "rather simple" listings that may be statistically different at the p<.05 level? Now, what if we add their philosophical period preference (classical, modern, postmodern, etc.) into the test of significant differences? How about other variables that may affect this listing of philosophers (e.g., Western, Middle Eastern, etc., philosophies)?

"It's [NOT] rather simple."

Source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-religion/#10

philologos

I never said that no philosopher was. I have no doubt that both Weber and Hume were atheists. They are just in a minority. For every atheist philosopher there is there are dozens of theistic philosophers.

Thales, Anixamander, Anixemenes, Democritus, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Dun Scotus, Pseudo-Dionysius, Moses Maimonides, Al Ghazali, Ibn Rushd (Averroes), Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Nicholas of Cusa, Descartes, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Immanuel Kant, George Berkeley, Friedrich Schleiermacher, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Alastair McIntyre, Alvin Platinga, James Sadowsky, William Lane Craig as a small selection. There are dozens more that I have left out due to my pesky memory. Most Renaissance philosophers were Christians. I'd take a stab at saying that even the vast majority of Enlightenment philosophers believed in God. The vast majority of Ancient Greek philosophers believed in God, and I'd say that if there is not a majority of theistic philosophers in the current age it is probably about half.

Actually even if I look to critics such as Voltaire or Spinoza, even they believed in a deistic God even if not the formal God of Christianity.

Joe1919

I think there was always a huge amount of people who disbelieved in and mocked the gods. Cicero to some extent accuses the Epicureans of this.
And if we look at the medieval and renaissance period, Petrarch has this to say about the medieval followers of the pagan philosopher Aristotle, (whom he claims are in the majority) whose works had lead many followers to deny the creation of the world by God and the immortality of the soul, two very important Christian doctrines.

'And if they didn't fear human rather than divine punishment,
they would not hesitate to attack not only the structure of the
world set forth in Plato's Timaeus, but the book of Genesis written
by Moses, the Catholic faith, and all the sacred and saving
teaching of Christ that flows with the honey of celestial dew. But
when there is no threat of punishment, and there are no witnesses,
they attack the truth and piety, and in their private dens they secretly
mock Christ. They worship Aristotle, whom they don't understand;
and they accuse me for not bending my knee before him,
ascribing to ignorance what stems from my faith.
While fearing to blame faith itself, they persecute those who
pursue the faith, calling them dull and ignorant...........'

http://books.google.ie/books?id=jdqAkSHpz4wC&pg=PA151&dq=petrarca+ignorance+dens&hl=en&ei=--rUTZ_dE8yIhQepjqXiCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

There were philosophers such as Pomponazzi who were outwardly Christian but later '"free thinkers" regarded Pomponazzi as one of their own, portraying him as an atheist'
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pomponazzi/#Immortality

It seems to me then, that if you look at the historical context of the medieval period and at the fact that one could be burned for heresy and also at the 1277 condemnations etc.. which limited what philosophers could say, there was quite a lot of scepticism about the major claims of Christian doctrine and if we can believe Petrarch, even mockery of Christianity and the belief that those who believed in Christianity were 'dull and ignorant'.

philologos

Petrarcha wasn't an atheist. He was a Renaissance humanist criticising the use of Aristotle in Scholastic philosophy and the restrictions placed on it by the theology faculties at the universities. He actually argued that Plato was more in keeping with Christianity and as a result should be used rather than Aristotle.

18AD

Is this biography not, strictly speaking, frowned upon in philosophy? Of course peoples beliefs will influence their philosophy, but so does everything else in one's life. To begin to probe these things isn't pertinent to philosophy at all. Unless we are addressing that as a philsophical issue. Even arguments for or against God are to be viewed as distinct from whether a person believes or not. Theoretically (or maybe even in practice) an atheist could come up with a great argument for God.

What is the relevance of the majority/minority distinction? Except to show that a lot of philosophers have been influenced by their belief.

philologos

18AD wrote: »

Is this biography not, strictly speaking, frowned upon in philosophy?

Not from what I can tell. I'm currently studying Friedrich Schleiermacher's Hermeneutical philosophy, and he would say that understanding a philosophers life and context is a key instrument in understanding what they write, along with the grammatical / linguistic structures of course. Knowing stuff about what each person held to and what each person's background was is key in understanding their philosophy.

Of course much analytic philosophy would look down on this approach and say that all philosophy should be merely compared without bringing such factors in. I would probably be much more systematic in terms of philosophy. I believe context is really important.

18AD

That's not to say that understanding their life leads to strengthening their philosophy however.

philologos

18AD wrote: »

That's not to say that understanding their life leads to strengthening their philosophy however.

Nobody has said this or has implied this. I think atheistic philosophy is ultimately weaker personally, but I can still appreciate a lot of it to a degree.

Understanding the life of philosophers -> better understanding of what those philosophers wrote in that life.

18AD

philologos wrote: »

I think atheistic philosophy is ultimately weaker personally, but I can still appreciate a lot of it to a degree.

Why?

Black Swan

philologos wrote: »

I have no doubt that both Weber and Hume were atheists.

These simple assignments are debated by many today. (I refer back to the "Hume on Religion" link to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy in an earlier post)

philologos wrote: »

For every atheist philosopher there is there are dozens of theistic philosophers.

The utility of a simple nominal either/or listing is problematic. Jacques Derrida noted in Points how such dichotomies contribute little to understanding, and often result in distortions that are greatly misleading.

philologos

I'm far from an expert on Derrida or a fan of post-modernism as a philosophical approach but could you be more specific as to where in his work he notes this? I might follow it up when I get some time.

It seems pretty evident to me based on the philosophy expressed by the vast majority of philosophers that there seems to have been more believers in some God than atheists. It seems a verifiable enough claim to me. Of course there are some who never mention it and in those cases you can't assume.

philologos

18AD wrote: »

I was reading Habermas recently. He has had various views on this, so I'll stick to this one.
It is that religious beliefs and talk of religious things is outside the scope of modern secular politics. It is up to the religious person to put into secular terms what they are trying to get across in order to be able to engage in political discourse. This is due to the highly specific language used in religious discusion, in that it privileges people within that specific belief system.

I should be reading some more into Habermas over the weekend.

18AD wrote: »

Why?

I feel that it makes little sense to suggest that this universe could have created itself. Causation from an external power makes more sense than causation from a finite substance.

I also feel that moral relativism is an inadequate explanation of ethical behaviour - if you wrong me, the reason why I will tell you that you are wrong is because I believe that there is an objective standard between you and I by which I can tell you that you are objectively wrong rather than subjectively wrong. If you were merely subjectively wrong how could I expect you to understand.

I find that much atheistic and existential (not always the same thing) philosophy to be in a sense giving up. We can't find this, so oh well lets not try. Including those skeptics of metaphysics. If you can't substantiate what is metaphysical you should do no metaphysics. However, the prime reason that metaphysics exists according to Aristotle is to find the underlying ultimate cause for all things in order to better understand what purpose individual objects serve within the universe. Metaphysics arises out of the rational desire to know the true nature of things rather than just knowing how they appear. There mightn't be any metaphysical entities, but it is worth exploring in order to find out logically if they do.

I believe there is good reason to believe that there could be more than mere material entities. In fact all it need take is a mere doubting of sense perception in the case of George Berkeley or Descartes.

I find atheistic philosophy is giving up in the vast majority of cases, or rejecting things without even first examining the idea. At least most theistic philosophers have tried to build a framework into which all other things make rational sense even if people find it shamelessly inadequate.

18AD

I think you are equating metaphysics with theism mistakenly.

To find a true essence of things is not a theistic claim.
The prime mover does not entail a theistic claim.
An objective ethics does not entail a theistic claim.

It works the other way too.
Theism does not entail objective morality etc...

Likewise Atheism does not entail subjectivism etc...

Religion(atheism/theism) is neither necessary nor sufficient grounds for the arguments you presented.

philologos

18AD wrote: »

I think you are equating metaphysics with theism mistakenly.

To find a true essence of things is not a theistic claim.
The prime mover does not entail a theistic claim.
An objective ethics does not entail a theistic claim.

Theism as an inquiry is one of the means of attempting to find the true essence of things.

18AD wrote: »

It works the other way too.
Theism does not entail objective morality etc...

Theism of necessity is based on a God (or if you don't believe in God a concept of god) who is the objective standard of morality that they attempt to live by. If we reject the possibility of an objective standard (God or a concept of god) we will ultimately fail in trying to construct a universal morality.

18AD wrote: »

Likewise Atheism does not entail subjectivism etc...

Of course it does. In the absence of an ultimate authority how can one ensure an objective standard of behaviour? Other people (can't they be wrong?), yourself (how is that objective?), Majorities (doesn't that lead to minorities being discriminated against in societies?).

18AD wrote: »

Religion(atheism/theism) is neither necessary nor sufficient grounds for the arguments you presented.

The existence of God is key in establishing objective morality without it there is no other way to establish it (I'd point you to C.S Lewis' argument in Mere Christianity), and it is the only good explanation for the existence of reality we can provide without giving up which is what many existentialist and atheistic philosophies do.

18AD

philologos wrote: »

Theism as an inquiry is one of the means of attempting to find the true essence of things.

That does not mean atheism is not allowed to find true essences.

Theism of necessity is based on a God (or if you don't believe in God a concept of god) who is the objective standard of morality that they attempt to live by. If we reject the possibility of an objective standard (God or a concept of god) we will ultimately fail in trying to construct a universal morality.

Theism doesn't still necessarily entail that there is free will. One could be a determinist and still be a theist.

Of course it does. In the absence of an ultimate authority how can one ensure an objective standard of behaviour? Other people (can't they be wrong?), yourself (how is that objective?), Majorities (doesn't that lead to minorities being discriminated against in societies?).

As I said, being an atheist does not entail you being a moral subjectivist. Take Habermas for example.

The existence of God is key in establishing objective morality without it there is no other way to establish it (I'd point you to C.S Lewis' argument in Mere Christianity), and it is the only good explanation for the existence of reality we can provide without giving up which is what many existentialist and atheistic philosophies do.

These are two separate issues that are not dependent on each other.

First, there might be other ways to establish objective morality. Biology, Discourse, Psychology etc...
Second, there are other ways (attempts) at explaining the existence of reality. You admit yourself that even the theistic way is dubious on account of its 'inadequacy'. Is that not the very reason why it is given up, because there is something missing from that account? That is not to say that it is wrong, but that it is not, in itself, the whole picture?

philologos

18AD wrote: »

That does not mean atheism is not allowed to find true essences.

Nobody says that atheism isn't allowed to try to find true essences. It just refuses to even try in the vast majority of cases.

18AD wrote: »

Theism doesn't still necessarily entail that there is free will. One could be a determinist and still be a theist.

This seems a separate argument. You're right, but I don't see how much sense it would make. We would have to completely reconstruct the legal system if that were true.

18AD wrote: »

As I said, being an atheist does not entail you being a moral subjectivist. Take Habermas for example.

Habermas seems to encourage a pseudo-universal system of morality where people who happen to reach his criteria thrash out the ideas for society. It's an interesting approach, but it doesn't lead to a universally binding system of morality. It is still relative to the people who are involved in the discussion, and it is still relative to the time they happen to live in, and it is fraught to majoritarianism. Aren't things right simply because they are right? Aren't things wrong simply because they are wrong?

18AD wrote: »

These are two separate issues that are not dependent on each other.

Moral action tends to correlate with what is good in reality. Unless one is cutting off the objective. I'd really advise you to read his book though.

18AD wrote: »

First, there might be other ways to establish objective morality. Biology, Discourse, Psychology etc...

Biology - tells us how things operate in nature.
Psychology - tells us how the mind operates.
Discourse - involves us talking, but there is no guarantee that what we produce is actually right.

18AD wrote: »

Second, there are other ways (attempts) at explaining the existence of reality. You admit yourself that even the theistic way is dubious on account of its 'inadequacy'. Is that not the very reason why it is given up, because there is something missing from that account? That is not to say that it is wrong, but that it is not, in itself, the whole picture?

The theistic way is looking at things in their most universal form as far as I would see it. It is a different question to ask why are we here, rather than what we are made up of, or how do we biologically function? I'm quite happy to suggest that biology is the best descriptor of how we biologically function in so far as it is a closer analysis into God's creation.

I don't believe theistic views are "inadequate" because they don't do biology in the same way I don't believe biology is "inadequate" because it doesn't tell me anything about God. They both go hand in hand as far as I would see it. One makes little sense without the other in the grand scheme of things.

It's simple as far as I see it. Rational people come up with the conclusion that makes most logical sense. To me it simply doesn't make logical sense that we came out of absolutely nothing. The Judeo-Christian view which would suggest that we were created, we had a tangible cause, that this existence wasn't a cosmic accident, that God is involved with this universe and cared for us but we threw it all away by rejecting Him, to be redeemed by Him is simply put logical. It makes sense of why we are here, it makes sense of what is our purpose, it makes sense of why humanity is often so messed up in its aims, it makes sense of ethical action. It makes sense of a lot of things that atheism doesn't make sense of. Not only this, but there are good philosophical, historical, textual, and archaeological reasons to believe and trust in the Biblical text.

On the other hand, atheism throws in the towel as far as I see it. I might be wrong, but until someone presents a solid case as to how I am wrong this seems the most reasonable approach. I became a Christian about 4 years ago when I decided to look into this rather than throwing in the towel, I investigated it quite thoroughly and found it surprising at how accurate it was in many ways to reality.

philologos

Just to clarify - there is much merit in Habermas' thought, there is just some assumptions I don't agree with. Overall discourse is of course a good means to solve political problems and I wouldn't deny that.

18AD

philologos wrote: »

I'd really advise you to read his book though.

This is the second mention of this book to me in two days. You have piqued my interest.

Biology - tells us how things operate in nature.
Psychology - tells us how the mind operates.
Discourse - involves us talking, but there is no guarantee that what we produce is actually right.

Recent developments in biology have actually looked for biological roots of morailty.
Psychology can also attempt to look for the "psychic" basis for morality.

The theistic way is looking at things in their most universal form as far as I would see it. It is a different question to ask why are we here, rather than what we are made up of, or how do we biologically function? I'm quite happy to suggest that biology is the best descriptor of how we biologically function in so far as it is a closer analysis into God's creation.

Metaphysics is not necessarily theistic. Is theism, on the other hand, necessarily metaphysical? I ask, simply because I don't know.

I agree with much of what you have said here. I just think that your previous statement about religious philosophy being better than atheistic philosophy is not a clear cut distinction, in that both of them have not got clearly definable resultant philsophies. The distinction seems quite arbitrary if this is how we are judging the difference between the two. If it's the motivation behind them, I think the distinction equally falls short. I think you are giving privilege to a very specific type of theistic philosophy as the most rational. And that's fine. But if you go with it you end up saying that theistic philosophy is good regardless of what it's conclusions are and vica versa with atheistic. Edit: And is that not what makes a philosophy better than an other, the philosophy?

Black Swan

philologos wrote: »

The Judeo-Christian view which would suggest that we were created, we had a tangible cause, that this existence wasn't a cosmic accident, that God is involved with this universe and cared for us but we threw it all away by rejecting Him, to be redeemed by Him is simply put logical. It makes sense of why we are here, it makes sense of what is our purpose, it makes sense of why humanity is often so messed up in its aims, it makes sense of ethical action. It makes sense of a lot of things that atheism doesn't make sense of. Not only this, but there are good philosophical, historical, textual, and archaeological reasons to believe and trust in the Biblical text...

I became a Christian about 4 years ago when I decided to look into this rather than throwing in the towel, I investigated it quite thoroughly and found it surprising at how accurate it was in many ways to reality.

MOD NOTICE:
Now moved to a forum more appropriate for the discussion of Christianity vs. Atheism, which had been discussed in many of the posts on this thread.

Dades

philologos wrote: »

The Judeo-Christian view which would suggest that we were created, we had a tangible cause, that this existence wasn't a cosmic accident, that God is involved with this universe and cared for us but we threw it all away by rejecting Him, to be redeemed by Him is simply put logical.

As a child, when we hear thunder and are told the gods are upstairs moving around the furniture - this makes logical sense to us - but that doesn't do justice to reality.

It's not about finding a satisfying answer to fit a gap - it's about reality and the reality is we as humans are still within the speculative stage of our evolution. We just don't have all the answers.

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

Just to clarify - there is much merit in Habermas' thought, there is just some assumptions I don't agree with. Overall discourse is of course a good means to solve political problems and I wouldn't deny that.

In light of the mutual influences religion and philosophy have on each other and religions effect on you're world-view. I'm curious as to where you stand on the conciousness argument? I'm curious are you a dualist or a physicalist?

goose2005

But religions claim, on the one hand, to be philosophically sound, but on the other hand, claim to depend on historical accounts (Gospel/Tenakh/Sira etc.). The Spinoza-esque arguments for a creating entity are entirely separate from conventional religious idead of resurrections and revelations.

philologos

goose2005 wrote: »

But religions claim, on the one hand, to be philosophically sound, but on the other hand, claim to depend on historical accounts (Gospel/Tenakh/Sira etc.). The Spinoza-esque arguments for a creating entity are entirely separate from conventional religious idead of resurrections and revelations.

Agreed, but many philosophers do defend the explicit theisms also.

Zombrex

Boroimhe wrote: »

Can set religions be debated at a philosophical level (the changes in the catholic religion over years show that they can shift somewhat).

Certainly. At a philosophical level they are all made up nonsense.

Wait, actually at any level they are made up nonsense

CerebralCortex

For anyone interested in what the current philosophical consensus is see here.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

I feel that it makes little sense to suggest that this universe could have created itself. Causation from an external power makes more sense than causation from a finite substance.

You appreciate I hope that very little in the last 100 years in physics has made little sense. It seems more implausible that the answer to how the universe came into being will be something neat that we can easily understand given that quantum physics is something that is almost impossible to understand.

philologos wrote: »

I also feel that moral relativism is an inadequate explanation of ethical behaviour - if you wrong me, the reason why I will tell you that you are wrong is because I believe that there is an objective standard between you and I by which I can tell you that you are objectively wrong rather than subjectively wrong. If you were merely subjectively wrong how could I expect you to understand.

How many times have you told someone some moral notion to have them turn around and say they don't agree or don't understand?

You may desire that everyone think the same as you, and there are evolutionary reasons why you would, but the reality is that people don't. We share certain ethical notions while at the same time often having great differences.

Most successful ethical systems are those based on agreement between people. You think killing someone is wrong, I think killing someone is wrong, lets live in the same society where killing people is wrong. If someone disagrees lets put them in prison.

Appeals to authority, while comforting mentally, have never been particularly successful in convincing others to act in a certain way.

philologos wrote: »

Metaphysics arises out of the rational desire to know the true nature of things rather than just knowing how they appear. There mightn't be any metaphysical entities, but it is worth exploring in order to find out logically if they do.

Atheists have not abandoned meta-physics, they have simply used meta-physics to logically conclude that you can't know the things you claim to know.

philologos wrote: »

I believe there is good reason to believe that there could be more than mere material entities. In fact all it need take is a mere doubting of sense perception in the case of George Berkeley or Descartes.

Case in point. Believing that it is possible that there is more than the material entities is not the same as making claims about the existence of such things.

That is where super-naturalists fall down. Not in supposing that they might exist, but trying to put forward arguments that they do. This is where the metaphysics you claim atheists have abandoned comes in. Rejecting this conclusion because it is not satisfactory is not particularly rational. It could be argued that theists/supernaturalists have rejected metaphysics because the modern answers are not what they want them to be.

philologos wrote: »

I find atheistic philosophy is giving up in the vast majority of cases, or rejecting things without even first examining the idea.

Look around you. All we do is examine the ideas.

But one must be prepared to take things to their conclusion. This is why I keep asking theists what do they think the purpose/neccessity of science is?

In my experience theists stop when metaphysical conclusions risk the beliefs they cherish. The then project walls of uncertainty saying that we cannot conclude these beliefs are wrong or unknownable, thus protecting themselves from having to abandon these beliefs.

Again it is not atheists who have rejected metaphysics. Atheists have taken metaphysics and reached the only conclusion available if you go the full way, that theists cannot know what they claim to know, cannot support what they claim to believe.