It seems to me that the various 'religions' are large-scale intellectual constructions by which to justify acceptable behaviour (which behaviour, oddly enough, tends to be remarkably similar everywhere). Unfortunately, these jury-rigged constructions can be used also to justify a great deal of nastiness - which gives rise to discussion (if you are lucky) or the repression of the decent by the theologians. Philosophy, or so I'd gather so far, is a great deal further abstracted from behaviour, but provides an area for the same sort of discussion of 'ideas' - as, indeed, do political discussion sites - so I suppose it is natural that the three should tend to get mixed. I find myself more inclined to approving decent behaviour, but I don't suppose I'd win an argument on those grounds! :)

I think what you are noticing is not the forums tolerance to low quality religious discussion, but rather to low quality discussion in general. The reason, I presume, is to build the forum by providing a platform for people interested in philosophy. You aren’t going to get very far with a heavy handed, elitist sort of attitude. If you want diverse discussion and a wide range of people its obviously not going to pay off to be intolerant of novice philosophers or people inexperienced with the format. (Or even just folks with poor quality thoughts).
People have different levels of quality they can bring, but that quality can never improve if those people are excluded. Anyway, I think that's what you are noticing, as its pretty clear the low quality isnt just restricted to religious topics.

:up: :rofl:

I am neither a follower of any religion nor an atheist. From my experience here and in other places, the parties most responsible for the poor quality of the discussions are the atheists. — T Clark

Even as an atheist, I am surprised that of all the garbage threads that are started here, @fresco chooses to pick on the few religion-themed ones.

But then of course, asking why so many of the threads posted on the forum are garbage is as pointless as asking why the world is such an iniquitous place. There's simply no non-trivial and satisfactory answer to that.

as pointless as asking why the world is such an iniquitous place. There's simply no non-trivial and satisfactory answer to that. — SophistiCat

I blame women. Eve and Pandora in particular. And that is non trivial and highly satisfactory to most men.

I blame women. Eve and Pandora in particular. And that is non trivial and highly satisfactory to most men. — unenlightened

:rofl: Very unenlightened!!! :rofl:

I blame unborn children for burdening us with the anti-natalist guilt trip. In revenge I am going to have more children.

lol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_philosophy

I sometimes wonder if people in other forums--like say antinatalist forums, or particular apologetics forums, don't tell each other to head over here and start threads about their pet topics.

Either that I sometimes I wonder if it's not a one or two housebound, over-the-top OCD folks with numerous accounts here.

:up:

I sometimes wonder if people in other forums--like say antinatalist forums, or particular apologetics forums, don't tell each other to head over here and start threads about their pet topics. — Terrapin Station

That happened for definite at the old forum at least once. I think we banned them for a mix of low quality and being broken records. It was a very silly sect though, to the extent that I cannot even remember what it was they espoused.

Why pick on theological rambling verbiage, when there's so much rambling verbiage in general.

I think religions in general are suceptible to 'idle chatter' because it appears that they ultimately tend to converge on a concept of 'ineffability' to satisfy their claims of 'rationality'. Who knows ? Recognition of the 'chatter' may be a necessary precondition for 'spiritual metamorphosis'.

Hmm...that wasn't expressed very well. I am trying to capture the semantic inevitability of an essential 'tension' between 'chatter' on the one hand, and 'ineffability', on the other.

'tension' between 'chatter' on the one hand, and 'ineffability', — fresco

'Ineffability' is all there is for believers to push forward with, which doesn't really do anything, no matter how much babbling. Some, then, push back, such as against science. They want what they want, and so they repeat their wishes a zillion times in a zillion ways over and over again. That's human nature.

On and on they say of Who paved the way,
Then even tell the nature of such Theity,
And on and on they presume further upon,
In that support group: ‘On and On Anon’.

Ah, a conspiracy theorist, who would have known.:razz: I think different forums attract types. I see that in another forum I'm a part of. It's a quite different phenomenon there. I am not quite sure but I think it has to do with how the patterns are received. It feels right. And of course that's true for others, including posters who are not problematic. There is some quality to the forums where they stick that feels right.

I would also like to add that the concept of troll is generally too limited. It has to be conscious. They have to be intending to trigger people. I think there are people looking for certain reactions and they may not realize it. The Philosophy forum offers a certain kind of long term engagement with anti-natalism, for example. I couldn't put it into words, though perhaps if I read the threads- horrors- a couple of times, I'd get a whiff.

But I suspect what is happening there is appealing. You would think winning/convincing people would be the goal. But I suspect that isn't it and what is happening there is.

Regarding nihilism, in the OT The Book of Ecclesiastes asks a lot of existential questions that can get a little depressing. Part of the NT on the other hand , was 'the answer' to the existential human condition.

But going back to the original question. I realized this when trying to study the various domains of Philosophy and noticed a common theme: Deity reared its head in almost every Philosophy. Each discipline seems as though it has an underlying infinite regressive series of arguments, that ultimately asks about the nature of things. For which there is no substantial 'answer' .

Perhaps one takeaway from Philosophy is knowing the right questions to ask when... . And/or uncover the real reason why humans ask those kinds of Existential questions.

Maybe George Harrison said it best: a lot of things in life can wait but the search for God cannot wait.
Or at least that's what the forum is reflecting...

To me, there's a lot of resonance between 'All is vanity' and the Buddhist teaching of emptiness (sunyata). I interpret them both to mean, those things we are attached to as persons are all ultimately perishable and subject to decay. Nihilism is the feeling that nothing really exists or matters (which amounts to about the same). It's a 'near enemy' to the insight of emptiness.

But the NT teaching is to 'seek out your treasure where moths and rusts do not corrupt'.

Where might that be? And where in modern philosophy is it addressed?

I'd need to study philosophy for at least 40 years before the term "continental philosophy" would start to gain any meaning. — god must be atheist

Only if you were a moron. It doesn't take that long to assimilate the central ideas of any philosopher if you care to make the effort.

Emerson was a deist and only entertained the idea of the "small g".

Which continental philosophers do you count as being mere "wafflers", and have you actually read, and made any serious attempt to understand, them?

Emerson was a deist and only entertained the idea of the "small g". — Janus

i'm well aware of Emerson, I did thesis work on him and the transcendentalists. He saw through organised religion but he wasn't anti-religion; he was really a type of neoplatonist mystic.

have you actually read, and made any serious attempt to understand, them? — Janus

He probably has in mind the Sokal scandal or something similar. And a lot of continental academic philosophy is indubitably waffle.

No-one's immune from bias, it seems. — Pattern-chaser

I think it is unseemly to justify one's own biases by noting that everyone has them. It is not so much that science should be used for every investigation and inquiry, as that the scientific attitude which consists in attempting to find counter-evidence that refutes one's own theories should be used as an antidote to bias confirmation.

On the other hand simple religious faith does not require either justification or refutation, which means that discussion of your faith really has no place on a philosophy forum, unless you are plagued by doubt and really want to question it. The problem is then that the militant atheist vultures who see your plight will descend and attempt to feast on the corpse of your faith to sustain their own confirmation biases.

The main point I want to make is that if someone wants to justify their faith to others on a public philosophy forum they leave themselves open to critique. I have seen this with some people here, and the frustrating thing is when they make pronouncements that invite critique and then fail to respond in good faith when their reasoning is questioned.

they make pronouncements that invite critique and then fail to respond in good faith when their reasoning is questioned. — Janus

Zen student: 'There's something you can learn, some vital insight, that you can only arrive at by disciplined za-zen practice'.

Friend: 'Yeah? What's that?'

Zen student:

i'm well aware of Emerson, I did thesis work on him and the transcendentalists. He saw through organised religion but he wasn't anti-religion; he was really a type of neoplatonist mystic. — Wayfarer

I agree, but the point I was making is that Emerson would have had no truck with some of the kind of fundamentalist superstitious beliefs to be found in organized religion. Although it is questionable as to whether his was a consistent philosophy:

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.”

Such a disposition hardly seem to be something worthy of aspiration, although Nietzsches admired him. Although if all he meant is that one should be ever ready to change one's mind it would be inn accordance with the scientific spirit and understanding of the provisional nature of knowledge, but I doubt that was his intended meaning.

He probably has in mind the Sokal scandal or something similar. And a lot of continental academic philosophy is indubitably waffle. — Wayfarer

Perhaps he did have Sokal in mind. Some of continental philosophy may undoubtedly considered to be waffle, as may some of any school of philosophy, although opinions seem to be very diverse as to just which works count as such. Which continental philosophical works do you consider to be "indubitably waffle"?

I have never had any argument against the idea that some kinds of experiences may only be achieved by certain kinds of disciplines. That is what I refer to as the "knowing with" of praxis, and it applies to all kinds of activities.

When it comes to professions of "knowing that" however, then justification in the form of inter-subjectively corroborable evidence and reasoning amenable to rational critique is required lest the claims be empty.

justification in the form of inter-subjectively corroborable evidence and reasoning amenable to rational critique is required lest the claims be empty. — Janus

Sure, and I really do try to do that here, but it's tricky, and easily misunderstood. And also there is an element that is definitely out-of-scope for modern analytical empirical philosophy. And culturally, what lexicon do we have for even discussing that? As soon as it 'sounds religious' then it pushes all kinds of buttons.

Which continental philosophical works do you consider to be "indubitably waffle"? — Janus

When I was at Sydney (late 70's early 80's) the full-on desconstructionist po-mo movement hadn't become totally entrenched yet.) But that's the kind of thing (see e.g. http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/)

You see, it has to matter to you. That is something I've picked up about Heidegger - that your concern has to be caring about or properly intending. I've discovered that Heidegger was quite influential in a lot of mid-century theological philosophy. Haven't made much headway with Heidegger, but I certainly feel some resonance with his project.

And culturally, what lexicon do we have for even discussing that? — Wayfarer

I don't know, I think if there is no "lexicon" to discuss something then it is simply not a good subject for philosophical discussion.

You see, it has to matter to you. That is something I've picked up about Heidegger - that your concern has to be caring about or properly intending. — Wayfarer

I agree with this. But surely if people are drawn to discuss some topic then it must matter to them somehow? Unless what matters is not so much the topic, but for them to either confirm their biases or to win the argument come what may, in which case I would not think they would be participating in fruitful discussion.

Which continental philosophers do you count as being mere "wafflers", and have you actually read, and made any serious attempt to understand, them? — Janus

I'd count Hegel and Heidegger certainly, even Kant, to a degree. Yes, I've read some of their writing (mostly secondary analysis, though). Have I made any 'serious' attempts to understand them? I doubt it, as 'serious attempts' is generally a euphemism for "if you don't agree with me yet, go back and try harder".

So, you have to agree with philosophers to make it worthwhile reading them?