To All,
Thankyou for the responses on a thread I thought had been 'closed'.

I was asked what an atheist would see as 'quality' in a discussion about religion. A few example might be....
1. Discussion of the concept of 'creation' and whether it required 'an agent'
2. Discussion of the concept of 'morality' as either an evolutionary asset or a transcendent one.
3. Discussion of the nature of the process we call 'life', and the implications for religion of the developments in biotechnology.

Now it may be that the annals of this forum would yield examples of this type, but it seems to me, not recently. Instead, what I am seeing is 'poor quality' in which assumptions are made that a particular religious argument lays claim to 'the moral high ground'. Christianity seems to be the significant claimant here. (The Catch 22 caracature of the military padre comes to mind here). Nor do I find that the demands for 'logical argument' convincing when the Zeitgeist of the origins of religious thinking fail to be considered in the assertion of religious axioms.(The adage 'life was brutish and short' in past times seems to he ignored in that respect)

NB My mention of contextual factors above, like Zetgeist, implies that I do not concur with inclusion of 'continental,philosophy' in my 'rant'. Indeed, I think, for example, that Derrida's concepts of parergon and aporia can add significant depth to any philosophical,discussion.

Okay, I'm an atheist, but it seems to me that the quality of discussion on these prolific religious threads falls far short of 'philosophical debate' or even 'coherence' for participants . Even the apocryphal question about 'the number of angels who can dance on the point of a needle', would make better reading than what I have read here ! — fresco

If X is a human endeavour, you will often end up with ontologyOf(X), epistemologyOf(X) and moralityOf(X), which are pillars of the philosophyOf(X). It clearly works for X=religion. I wonder, what exactly is the domain D for X? When will such X have a meta-level?

I've found Google Search results for the philosophy of X=fishing and X=hunting ...

Nice hunting ! Try also 'philosophy of neuroscience', which seems to result in attributing the 'hunt' itself to an epiphenomenon of neural functioning !

NB My mention of contextual factors above, like Zetgeist, implies that I do not concur with inclusion of 'continental,philosophy' in my 'rant'. On the contrary, I think Derrida's concepts of parergon and aporia can add significant depth to any philosophical,discussion. — fresco

That's obfuscatory discourse, goddammit! (just trying to merge threads)

1. Discussion of the concept of 'creation' and whether it required 'an agent' — fresco

Oh, but then the determinists always come in and demonstrate that humans can't create either, stuff just happens. That the epiphenomenon has a folk belief in non-existent final causes.

Okay, I'm an atheist, but it seems to me that the quality of discussion on these prolific religious threads falls far short of 'philosophical debate' or even 'coherence' for participants . Even the apocryphal question about 'the number of angels who can dance on the point of a needle', would make better reading than what I have read here ! — fresco

You're right. I'm probably the main suspect in this crime. Poor quality discussions are my speciality.

However, imagine we always demand the best, most well considered and perfect discussions. How would anyone ever learn? A child doesn't immediately start doing calculus or philosophy. S/he needs to be taught and mistakes are an integral part of learning.

If you think of it, mistakes/poor quality discussions, have some pedagogical value. They are the hallmark of the student and whetstones to sharpen the veteran's intellect.

I'm an optimist it seems.

That said I haven't seen any poor quality posts, except maybe mine, on the forum. I sincerely hope that's not because I'm at the lowest rung on the ladder.

I dont think that 'determinists' actually look at 'creation' as 'emergence', or that 'observers' are required to specify what fonstutes as 'an emergent structure'......but I may be wrong.

I don't know how to interpret the citation marks in this post, and really I was mainly playing, but if you start a thread, I'd be happy to join with my more serious game face on. I do think there is an interesting argument against there being any creating going on at all, let alone deity creating.

The issue for me is that for 'philosophy' to have a separate status from 'bar room banter' or 'word salad', it needs to be grounded in consensual semantic fields, usually by appeal 'the literature'. I don't see that happening in many cases.

I agree with your deconstruction of the word 'creation'. The issue for religionists would of course be whether they could 'swim' at all, if we take away that buoyancy aid !

The issue for me is that for 'philosophy' to have a separate status from 'bar room banter' or 'word salad', it needs to be grounded consensual semantic fields, usually by appeal 'the literature'. I don't see that happening in many cases. — fresco

:up:

Hard to disagree with, but then...I will bet that the analytic side of philosophers thinks the continental side is often word salad and on some level the continental folks think the analytics are something the equivalent of bar room banterers, if with really good grammar and skilled but unimportant deduction. And that's amongst the pros. You have a lay forum, online, which immediately is a format that tends towards everyday speech or really it should be some other kind of format and/or with restrictions on membership. You don't come on line to write academic stuff. Of course, that's not what you are asking for, though I would guess that there is less word salad here than in A Thousand Plateaus also. People are shooting stuff off on the sly at work and before getting out of bed for their showers, those that do shower.

What would you like the mods to do? (if that's the direction you're heading)
Can't you just avoid those threads?

I see a bigger problem with pissing contests, which can underlie really quite clever posts.

it seems to me that the quality of discussion on these prolific religious threads falls far short of 'philosophical debate' or even 'coherence' for participants — fresco

Then don't read them? :chin: In fairness, most of the threads you refer to aim at interesting aspects of religion and religious belief. That they often dissolve into less admirable discussions is just a fact of life, and of human nature. But discussion is good, no matter how many times individual discussions fail. If, as an atheist, you find that you are not entertained or educated by these 'debates', the simple answer is to ignore them and carry on living your life, as most true atheists do with God. They are indifferent to the whole discussion, and simply choose not to take part. Isn't that the way to go?

Or do you wish to change this forum, so as not to tolerate these religious discussions? :chin:

I don't 'read'them, since I find them 'unreadable' !
My criticism is about the frequency of these threads relative to other forums. I'm fairly new here and perhaps expected that the forum title implied a certain degree of sophistication. Obviously I was mistaken.

So I was right. :sad: You are here to express your intolerance of discussions that you feel are without merit. What of those who choose to take part in these discussions? Have you come to our forum to prevent us from pursuing our interests here? If you don't like certain discussions, ignore them. We all do it. We only join the discussions we want to. You should do the same, I suggest. :chin:

Well the only rejoinder on 'The Philosophy Forum', I have to that, is that there are 'interests' and then there are 'philosophical interests.':smile:

Point taken about those who put 'continental philosophy' in a 'gibberish box'. I put that down mostly to knee jerk fear of iconoclasm and restricted exposure to the literature.
I do ignore most of the religious threads. Maybe I'm expressing my UK/European attitudes to religious discussion in general as being of no consequence, relative say to its status in the US and elsewhere.

8 outta 40 topics on the front page have anything to do with religion. It's a snapshot, but I think that's pretty reasonable, saying nothing even about the quality of those threads.

I also say this as someone who think theology is something like philosophy's inbred, pervert cousin whom we bring out into the open only with shame.

I repeat:

Have you come to our forum to prevent us from pursuing our interests here? — Pattern-chaser

I'm not all that interested to hear your judgements on this forum, or its members. I inhabit this place because I want to, but I'm not forced to stay, or to take part. The same applies to you. You just seem to be complaining that this forum doesn't operate as it would if you were in control. ... And you do so by insulting the forum and some of its members. Even as an autist, I can guess this could be a poor approach to the issue. 'Poor' as in 'it is unlikely to achieve anything'.

One reason that religion threads are often poor is that they are too often started by folks who find it safer and more comfortable to question other people's ideas than their own. This leads to the construction of many straw men that can be gleefully burned, but which produce more heat than light.

For example, allow me to hold up for ridicule the belief that all belief is foolish. What kind of idiot would believe that? Ha ha, ha ha ha...

I'm not aware of insulting anybody in particular except one religious 'troll' who has found a refuge here after being given short shrift, elsewhere (Oh, and one pompous poster who criticizes authors he has not read) Nor do I expect the nature of discussion to shift much from the level already established. After all, birds of a feather flock together. I merely offer my general 'philosphical thread ' experience, of a dozen or so years (plus live local debate), as a basis for my personal observation. Take it or leave it.

You are correct about the potential parochial and arbitrary nature of 'belief', but It may go deeper than that, since 'religious belief' for some is an aspect of their 'self integrity'.

↪unenlightened You are correct about the potential parochial and arbitrary nature of 'belief'... — fresco

I think you may have missed @unenlightened's point, which was not about belief but the standards of discussion in certain cases. :chin:

Why is so much rambling theological verbiage given space on 'The Philosophy Forum' ? — fresco

You dislike poor arguments ... yet you have no backup for your premise. You haven't defined "rambling theological verbiage" nor given any specific examples that fit your definition.

If you just want to be passive aggressive against religious people, I guess points for A. not addressing religious members with your question (such as, "Religious posters, why do you think x,y,z relevant to discuss") and B. bringing a reddit quality circle jerk to the forum for atheist members to pat themselves on the back, perhaps more. Key word here is being reddit, that's where you want to be with your material.

Now it may be that the annals of this forum would yield examples of this type, but it seems to me, not recently. — fresco

Since you're clearly new here and haven't seen the annals pass by first hand. A little history lesson.

It takes a long time to build a forum. This is actually the fallout of the previous forum (just "philosophyforum") that fell apart when it was sold for scrap. It had taken a really long time for the previous forum to get to high quality discussion, which depends on a threshold of high quality posters.

When the previous forum stopped working, some members took the initiative to make this one, but in many ways it was starting from zero.

For years I'd check in here, but quality was so low it wasn't worth my time to engage,and I didn't have time (like Baden had time) to battle against the torrent of Libertarians and Randian Objectivists who thought squatting a backwater philosophy forum lent credibility to their arguments.

What's my point?

If you want higher quality discussion on a topic, you need to do the painstaking work of demonstrating the low quality stuff that's being tossed around is irrelevant next to the "important questions" and meticulously placing your lowly novice opponents in their non-credible place again and again. This will attract your equal in the force to rise against you: when the ground is cleared and the air is still and the aesthetic is right for a true fight between masters. It is the way of things, one must always easily dispatch with a dozen or so novices before squaring off against the boss.

If you don't want to do that work, well don't complain. I signedup to the new forum after the moderators and credible members who founded the present quality discussion did the work: I didn't drop into complain "Why is space made for the libertarian and Randian rambling verbiage?" because the answer is obvious "go ahead, teach them that lesson then".

Second point, don't be passive aggressive, it's unbecoming of a aspiring philosopher, just be plain ol aggressive to the limits allowed if something irks you, it's more honest, and I think you'll find honesty is appreciated here.

Send not to ask at whom the unenlightened laugh, They laugh at us.

Should I mention that knowledge is widely considered to be a species of belief?

I can imagine that being a factor. That would mean in part that it's the topic that is part of what bothers you and not just the quality of the discourse. I've noticed, over the years, a growing 'philosophy should stay away from anything scientific' (render unto science that which is science's...) and 'metaphysics is all a waste of time and it is all religious woo woo' - when those on that team often don't seem to know much about the philosophy of science, the history of science, what metaphysics at least can include and how science even includes its own metaphysics - and 'all that religious stuff and anything supernatural has been proven, yes, proven, to not exist'. And this is in a situation where people haven't really investigated the ways they themselves actually came to their beliefs and what is going on in their own minds when they think. So, there is a dismissive rage gauntlet one must run through if anything doesn't seem to match common sense. I use that last term quite intentionally, for all the irony around it. I get it. Christianity - which is usually the default religion in both sides minds, despite their being all sorts of theisms - has been part of all sorts of horrors. But this has led to a situation where anything that seems to challenge physicalism, monism, empiricism over rationalism, winds up being sneered at and treated with rancor. Then people line up on their teams, tend not to call out their own team for its mistakes and overreaching, and focus on attack, rarely conceding anything, and always on the look for the good dig. It would be nice if things could breathe and be explored, even if some participants, or even most, think that the issue in question has all been resolved. I don't think most ideas should very rapidly encounter rage, unless the posts themselves contain rage. It's as if it would be civilization's fall if we just explored something. Slippery slope and soon we'll be wearing hair shirts and being placed in stocks for adultery if that post isn't smacked right off.

Too many comments to handle individually at this time..

1. I'm not going to define 'rambling', but if pushed I could give a few recent examples.
2. I will accept the attribute of passive-aggressive in that I consider it to refer to what my experience has been of 'philosophy' prior to observing aspects of this forum, and this thread as an expression of my subsequent disappointment.
3. Religion per se is not my target, although its subject matter hardly lends itself to scrutiny by dissenters. It is what I see as 'the talking past each other' taking place on religious threads. Nowhere do Wittgenstein's remarks about 'language on holiday' seem more appropriate.

Should I mention that knowledge is widely considered to be a species of belief? — unenlightened

Best not, eh? :wink: :rofl:

I've noticed, over the years, a growing 'philosophy should stay away from anything scientific' — Coben

Yes I have noticed that: sciencists want everyone to use science exclusively for any and every example of considered investigation or thought...

Then people line up on their teams, tend not to call out their own team for its mistakes and overreaching — Coben

...so it just goes to show that we notice what we want/expect to notice, just as our senses show us what we expect to see, not (necessarily) what's there. :smile: :yikes: No-one's immune from bias, it seems. :chin: :rofl:

I am. I am sad you didn't notice.