Should religion enter the philosophical realm?

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.