Not least bcause even any discussion towards an agreement on terms seems impossible, never mind reasonable argument. — tim wood

That is called "Platonic dialectics", where agreement on terms is not forthcoming. it might just be, that this type of philosophy is the heart and soul of the philosophy of religion. It is an acknowledgement of certain circumstances in the real world, where the prospect of working together from agreed upon principles, is not a reality. If you have no inclination to partake in the philosophy of religion, because it appears to you like irrational mumbo jumbo, then simply put your will power to practise and stay out of it.

I think philosophy should bend over backwards to be inclusive rather than exclusive. Poor argument is its own best censor.

I think philosophy should bend over backwards to be inclusive rather than exclusive. Poor argument is its own best censor. — Pantagruel

Yes. :clap:

It sounds as if some of you are attempting to ban "G/god" from this forum. But, once you try this, you will soon find how futile such an attempt can be - it will be equal to nothing less than trying to ban death from life! (Irrespective of your belief / non-belief in such a reality / non-reality.)

Then however the poll goes that’s how it will be. Power to the people! :strong:

You could say the same thing about discussions elsewhere on the forum, with the same justification. — SophistiCat

You do not see a difference in the overall quality of discussions in the different sub-forums?

If I may say, you would be denying Philosophy itself by ignoring the first cause axiom's.

For instance, you would have no criteria to argue the domain's of epistemology, ontology, ethics, metaphysics and so forth. In other words, how/why does one argue the nature of those existing things(?).

Am I missing something? As other's have alluded, are you serious, joking, or trolling?

( Why not take that disdain [and energy] you have against Religion and do a specific thread on it instead?)

That is called "Platonic dialectics", where agreement on terms is not forthcoming. it might just be, that this type of philosophy is the heart and soul of the philosophy of religion. It is an acknowledgement of certain circumstances in the real world, where the prospect of working together from agreed upon principles, is not a reality. — Metaphysician Undercover

In reality, indeed. The question goes to how it is in fact/principle. What is your view? Is there no ground anywhere in philosophy of religion? Or rather is there an attainable ground? - being mindful that the ground disclosed may have quite different contours than the surface.

If it's all what anyone says, whenever they say it and even when they don't, then what basis is there for a philosophy of discussion. On the other hand, if some ground seems worth identifying, then best is discussion towards that goal. Maybe the "towards" is the operant word. It implies a moving forward. That is, in my view, a critical surveying of existing thinking to the end of either re-establishing it anew, or finding something better. Many, many practices and beliefs that were once acceptable are found no longer acceptable; why any different with matters of religion?

If I may say, you would be denying Philosophy itself by ignoring the first cause axiom's. — 3017amen

How so? Or perhaps if made a little clearer, that would suffice as answer.

For instance, you would have no criteria to argue the domain's of epistemology, ontology, ethics, metaphysics and so forth. In other words, how/why does one argue the nature of those existing things(?). — 3017amen

Lots of different ways, some better, some worse.

( Why not take that disdain [and energy] you have against Religion and do a specific thread on it instead?) — 3017amen

I did. A recent thread itself "inspired" by a sequence of threads. The idea was an appeal for an attempt to establish even just by consensus some sort of base ground of understanding upon which reasonable argument could move. Didn't happen. And a disappointment, though in hindsight not a great surprise. So I ask you: when a topic seems both impervious and impenetrable to even basic structuring, does that topic seem to you susceptible to any philosophic approach?

i'm uncertain what "philosophy of religion" is, frankly (nor do I know what "philosophy of law" is, for that matter). While I think debating the existence of God is a waste of time, philosophy of religion may include other things and some of them may even be interesting.

1. How so? If you look at all the philosophical disciplines, God rears its head as part of the analysis. It is used as a typical antithesis or contrasting form of discourse. I didn't put it in there and neither did you; it's what we read in the aforementioned domain's, right?

2. A lot of different ways? Sure, but doesn't it all come back to the nature of existence?

3. I missed that thread you're alluding to, please share... .

How so? If you look at all the philosophical disciplines, God rears its head as part of the analysis. It is used as a typical antithesis or contrasting form of discourse. I didn't put it in there and neither did you; it's what we read in the aforementioned domain's, right? — 3017amen

Indeed He does! But in ways that are by no means easily evident, intuitive, obvious, or well understood. And ultimately just these are worth laying out and laying bare for a scrutiny that can lead to a better understanding of the whole subject matter. But is it to be war or discourse? For too many of us, it's war. And that alone, it seems to me, is worth confronting.

3. I missed that thread you're alluding to, please share... . — 3017amen

On beginning a discussion in philosophy of religion.

Tim, I think you might take the rafter out of your own eye before you try to withdraw the straw from your brother's. :joke:

Indeed He does! But in ways that are by no means easily evident, intuitive, obvious, or well understood. And ultimately just these are worth laying out and laying bare for a scrutiny that can lead to a better understanding of the whole subject matter. But is it to be war or discourse? For too many of us, it's war. And that alone, it seems to me, is worth confronting. — tim wood

Well notice I didn't say *ugly* 'head'. It rears its head for a reason.

That reason must convey some sort of 'universal' notion of cause that's associated with existence, right?
Why?

No, it would only require belief in god not gods actual existence. Universally present believers would (and do) have the same effect.

My point/question is not rhetorical. The concept of God/causation is part of philosophical discourse whether we like it or not. Hence my question, why(?)

I feel like I answered. Because people in the discourse believe in god. If they didnt...not so sure it would come up at all. Not like two atheists exploring an issue are going to offer up god as part of their arguments.

If the reason to remove the topic is because not enough people can form a consensus as to what it is, doesn't that same limit restrict the formulation of any plan to ban it?

The whole idea (in the first place) and truly going through with removing the area to not-so-serious stuff (as the lounge indicates) wouldn't be only a crazy thing, but would be an extremely sad event.

And very telling of what is happening to open discussion about Philosophy.

Six replies in a moderator already said "nah" to this idea, and it's a pretty ridiculous notion that such a traditionally major area of philosophy would be eliminated from a general philosophy forum. And I say that as a strong atheist who think that philosophy of religion doesn't deserve to be its own major area of philosophy: all the topics in it are really just ontological/epistemological or ethical topics associated with a certain category of worldview. Which also highlights how eliminating the subforum wouldn't do anything to eliminate the posts that bother people: arguments about whether God exists or faith is warranted would still be fit for the Metaphysics & Epistemology subforum, arguments about whether morality is connected to the commands of a God would still be fit for the Ethics subforums, etc. The same topics would just be scattered elsewhere.

No, it would only require belief in god not gods actual existence. — DingoJones

Bingo! In my reading - so far as it goes - that's exactly how it works. The idea is, in the west at least, the movement was from a Pagan view of nature as imperfect and not allowing of a quantitative science, to a view of nature as created by God and thereby perfect, and thereby a subject for a quantitative science. Nor is the notion of "belief" incidental or accidental. The failure of Pagan science augured the failure of Pagan culture. And the argument proceeds that the first writers and thinkers of the early Christian church understood this in their own way, but very well. And so the creed is not, "There exists..," but instead, "We believe...". Making questions as to the existence of God irrelevant, belief being not a cheap form of affirmation as true, but rather for the efficacy of the idea.

That natural science has done pretty well attests to the power of the idea, even if it's now understood more in the sense of the operation of natural laws,

So according to you, none of what you said just there should be considered philosophy. That should all be moved to the lounge? Its just some superficial drivel not worthy of a real philosopher?
Lol, youre a strange dude. Throwing out some philosophy about a subject in a thread you made about how un-philosophical the subject is.

So according to you, none of what you said just there should be considered philosophy. That should all be moved to the lounge? Its just some superficial drivel not worthy of a real philosopher?
Lol, youre a strange dude. Throwing out some philosophy about a subject in a thread you made about how un-philosophical the subject is. — DingoJones

You have persisted in misreading me. I by no means am opposed to philosophy of religion. I define that as organized thinking about religious thinking, and at almost any time in world history a critically important activity, in the breach of which people have suffered long and hard, and still do. But what I've found in our sub-forum, over a long time, is that the discussions never arise to that level. Occasionally some individual posts do, and there's a fair chance most of us can name the two or three people who write those posts. It's the peculiar regularity of the failure of the content on the whole to arise to the lofty manifesto of the heading that led me to make the OP here.

I didn't realise that everything outside of religion couldn't possibly be dogmatic in any way!

Religion is fine in my opinion. Dogmatism and intolerance are much bigger problems in the world and they are pervasavive whether secular or non-secular ideology is being dogmatically followed despite contradictory arguments and facts in the pragmatic sense of true facts.

For example; all faiths have internal critics of the current status quo of religion. All faiths have cultural and geological influences which also diversify. To say that all versions of Islam or Christianity etc is just ignorance unless it comes with a good argument for condeming all religion. If the argument is "only religious people have the potential to do great harm" then The argument is just plain wrong. I'm agnostic in the purest sense of the word so I highly encourage you to research religions more thoroughly and look for Pros and Cons. Pros and Cons lists are essential to true and honest philosophical inquiry!

Whether its the content or the posters or the topics is irrelevant, its just youre opinion. Thats not a good reason for doing what you suggest.
So now what your advocating is just allowing some people to discuss religion, those that you approve of? Lol
Maybe Im not being very charitable in how im reading you here, Ill give that some thought, but I dont think you understand the implications of what you are saying with the words you are using. You used the word “abolish” and took issue when I used the same word. Thats important, its the kind if thing you are doing consistently. It comes across as a bit dishonest.

No ones claiming ONLY religious people have potential for great harm. Complete strawman, or tilting at windmills.
To your overall point, good men do good and evil men do evil but to get a good man to do evil it takes religion. Dogmatism and intolerance exist outside religion but only religion makes a virtue of them.

but to get a good man to do evil it takes religion. — DingoJones

Me tilting at windmills? Says the person who seems to be attacking every imaginary being called a god right now..

Can you really not think of any examples where this isn't true? Seems like a completely ridiculous claim. Also, my first statement was clearly sarcasm and I never suggested anyone was claiming that. However the argumemt "its all religions fault" is just projection, accurate projection yes because a lot of religious practition is dogmatic. But If you take an outside perspective through alien anthropologist thought experiments, if humanity looks at all its behaviour as if it were a unified religion, all human behaviour could be perceived as dogmatic in some way depending in the human practicing the behaviour.

Many animals do horrible things to each other. All without a god telling them to do it as far as we can know. Acknowledging the animal within us all is the first step in the path to taming it. That's all I've got to say about that.

Maybe I'm missing your point. My point is that it's written into text books on Philosophy. It's intrinsic to the domain as it were.

Maybe my question should be posed to academia... .

Do you see my concern? In other words couldn't one make a case for God / causation being intrinsic to the so-called Human thought process? Otherwise, philosophy text's would exclude it and replace it with something else(?).

And so if that is part of your argument (I'm trying to understand your argument/concern) what - axiom or otherwise-should we replace it with?

Hmmm, well I said religion, not god. So no tilting at windmills for me sir.
Also, i was referencing you saying “only religious people have the potential to do great harm”, not your opening sentence. I should have been more specific, sorry. (Although my point about windmills still stands, you even go on to do the exact same thing again...”its all religions fault”. No ones saying that so who are you arguing with?)
I do agree that dogmatism is a human thing, and I agree that acknowledging our primitive past is the first step in taming it.
Thats all you have to say...ok.

I dont know how else to put it other than what ive already said, sorry.