• Risk
    14
    in talking to an eclectic mix of other people interested in philosophy on the forum, what key ideas have you been exposed to that have completely changed your viewpoint on a belief you previously held?

    I'm very new to the forum, really enjoying reading everyone's viewpoints and wondered what everyone else has taken from it.
  • BC
    13.5k
    Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

    The key idea about which I have changed my mind is the existence of God, and associated religious ideas, such as the divinity of Christ. This occurred over a period of time and was more or less complete by 1990. Since then I have developed a materialist approach to understanding reality (to the extent that I do).

    Another major change was the embrace of gayness, going beyond reluctant self-acceptance. This process was completed in the early 1970s.

    I moved from a fairy conservative view of life to a much more liberal - on to a more radical stance.

    Now that I'm in my 70s, the importance of these changes has receded. I belong to a Lutheran congregation, but this is for purposes of social contact, not faith. I'm the oddly atheist member. I'm still gay, of course, but being gay isn't especially important anymore--being 74 and out of the loop.

    Karl Marx is more important now than in the past, though my commie support group is largely (and literally) dead.

    All this was over by the time I found the first Philosophy Forum (now defunct), so I can't claim that The last or current TPF changed my thinking a great deal. One of the things that bothers me about some posters is that they do not see to grant sufficient importance to the body and to the emotions. Some posters seem a bit like the caricatured huge brain supported by a very diminutive body.

    How about you? What changing thinking have you experienced?
  • Wheatley
    2.3k
    what key ideas have you been exposed to that have completely changed your viewpoint on a belief you previously held?Risk
    Atheism and the scientific skeptical attitude completely eradicated all of my former beliefs about God or the supernatural. I first picked up atheism from YouTube and the popular (at that time) new atheist movement. I later found out that their arguments weren't philosophically sound, but still clung onto atheism (perhaps out of habit).

    (This is all just my personal experience, and it should in no way affect your worldview.)
  • dex
    25
    Personally moved from militant atheism to a technical agnosticism after thinking about simulation theory. It's not impossible that we're our own god one dimension removed, or that it's a sophisticated AI, or something else. Unlikely but not out of the question.
  • Possibility
    2.8k
    in talking to an eclectic mix of other people interested in philosophy on the forum, what key ideas have you been exposed to that have completely changed your viewpoint on a belief you previously held?Risk

    For me, philosophy provided a variety of framework structures with which to rebuild a worldview. Broadening my perspective from a catholic girls school upbringing and postmodern education in the Arts, to embrace nihilism, panpsychism, quantum mechanics and information theory, was going to require a drastic rewrite. Philosophy seemed a good way to throw it all into the mix and start from scratch.
  • Risk
    14
    How about you? What changing thinking have you experienced?Bitter Crank

    Unfortunately since I left university I've been in somewhat of an echo chamber without many others around me interested in philosophy and more specifically, what is the meaning and purpose to life.

    I think the main idea that blew me away, although it ends up consuming itself, is actually structuralism.
    Identifying the potential boundary of limitations and opening up the scope of what could have been missed, was something that blew even Kant's limitations of knowledge out the window for me. Simply because Kant focused on the boundary only in what was impossible to know, whereas structuralism was much more targeted at what we as society "missed". The level of responsibility it implied was something I definitely carried through the most into my life.
  • Frank Apisa
    2.1k
    I moved from Catholicism to agnosticism at a fairly early age...mid to late 20's. That was a major move. Still an Agnostic...and I'm gonna be 84 in a few weeks.

    I was a fairly conservative minded individual until about that time also...actually thought Joe McCarthy had the right idea about how to handle things. I've gone full reverse on American conservatism now...I have almost no respect for it at all.
  • tim wood
    9.2k
    God or the supernatural.Wheatley
    Perhaps the next step is to separate these two completely. For the child, God just is the supernatural. For the adult he cannot be. Yet not natural either. In fact he cannot be, in any ordinary sense. The sense that leaves is best explored in Kant's thinking, who finds God in reason.
  • tim wood
    9.2k
    without many others around me interested in philosophy and more specifically, what is the meaning and purpose to life.Risk
    And perhaps this is on the way to learning exactly what those meanings are. If we can hear Paul without the religious substance and overtones, "...put away childish things." He did not say that was easy, nor that ease would be a sign it was done
  • Wheatley
    2.3k
    The sense that leaves is best explored in Kant's thinking, who finds God in reason.tim wood
    And perhaps one day I’ll muster up the courage to read Kant.
  • tim wood
    9.2k
    Like the Roman Centurion, with Kant it's enough to just have faith (in Kant). Very roughly indeed, Kant recognizes - works out - that in terms of God there can be no knowledge (as knowledge). But there's sure as heck the idea of him, and that's enough and more than enough (and it's all there actually is). But work out some of the implications and you begin to see how misguided and misguiding most churches are. At the heart of the thing is the Creed's "We believe...". And exactly and expressly and explicitly not "It's a fact that...". The which is no accident whatsoever.
  • Wheatley
    2.3k
    Like the Roman Centurion, with Kant it's enough to just have faith (in Kant).tim wood
    The skeptical part of my brain says “doubt this”, which is my natural inclination. I’ll ask you if there’s any benefit to suspending doubt?

    Kant recognizes - works out - that in terms of God there can be no knowledge (as knowledge). But there's sure as heck the idea of him, and that's enough and more than enough (and it's all there actually is).tim wood
    I can’t even get to that point unfortunately. If I ask many people what god is, they will never give me a straightforward answer. What does Kant understand about conception of God? That’s something I would really want to know.

    But work out some of the implications and you begin to see how misguided and misguiding most churches are. At the heart of the thing is the Creed's "We believe...". And exactly and expressly and explicitly not "It's a fact that...". The which is no accident whatsoever.tim wood
    If I’m reading this correctly, I’m getting the impression that many churches act as if the existence of God is certain and can be demonstrated. I remember kids telling me that I’m really dumb because I don’t believe there is a God.
  • Mr Bee
    630
    Not really new compared to the other posts, but yeah, ditching religion was the biggest change in my understanding of the world. Back when I first encountered atheism in elementary I tried whatever I could in order to hold on to my pre-existing religious beliefs, playing something of an apologist for a time. Eventually though, I found that the whole idea of the Catholic religion was indefensible, full of holes and contradictions that made it impossible for me to defend to the point where I eventually gave up and became a deist. Though I later switched to atheism, and finally agnosticism, that initial jump came with a liberating feeling that I still remember vividly, of not being weighed down by a set of doctrines that you were simply told to accept which is what began my journey of thinking for myself.
  • tim wood
    9.2k
    I’ll ask you if there’s any benefit to suspending doubt?Wheatley
    Doubt is a tool. As a way of life, the misuse of a tool. But herein a clue. What is immune to doubt? (And just here, it strikes me, a distinction is to be made between destructive doubt, and questioning, which can be constructive and indeed sharpening.)

    And along this way there's a Cartesian branch to be avoided, and a Kantian branch. The Cartesian branch is ultimately apologetics - perhaps necessary for his own survival when he was writing - that surrenders all its gains. The Kantian branch austere, insisting on what can be known, being thereby knowable.

    conception of GodWheatley
    In my opinion you nail it here. God is everywhere claimed "to exist" and at the same time claimed to be unknowable - and unknowable for prosaic reason: to know is to know the limitations of, and God supposedly has none. For Kant it's just the conception of and implicitly the imperative to refine the conception, the imperative coming from - where do you suppose? - combined desire and reason.

    But the conception is the sole creation of man, refined over the whole experience of man (the prehistoric peoples who buried their dead with tool and gifts for the afterlife). As conception unlimited - but manmade.

    that many churches act as if the existence of God is certain and can be demonstrated.Wheatley
    And there's a trick to this. Their demonstrations are for the purpose of making it easier for believers to believe. They don't establish, they facilitate. And it's a great flaw and failure on both sides to mistake this purpose, which most do. Believers imbue the demonstrations with a conclusiveness that they exactly are not conclusive of. And so-called skeptics dismiss them entirely, having failed to understand what they in fact are. Anselm's proof, a poster-child example, is ridiculed as a proof for the existence of God. But it is not that, nor was intended to be. It enables a believer to believe "more better' in that which he already believes - which a reasonably careful reading of the proof makes clear.

    Most of this is about Christianity. But the folks who created Christianity - mostly the Patristic fathers -

    "Patristics or patrology is the study of the early Christian writers who are designated Church Fathers. The names derive from the combined forms of Latin pater and Greek patḗr (father). The period is generally considered to run from the end of New Testament times or end of the Apostolic Age (c.  AD 100) to either AD 451 (the date of the Council of Chalcedon)[1] or to the Second Council of Nicaea in 787." Wiki.

    were a smart bunch. And just as right-wingers in the US misuse, misconstrue, subvert, abuse, and fail to understand or grasp the Constitution of the US. So for almost 2,000 years similarly ignorant people have attempted their own take on religion and faith, in the US mainly the Christian version. Oh dear, I'm ranting! But you get the drift, yes?

    Edit: add: which is also why so-called atheism, uncritically embraced, is an error.
  • Wheatley
    2.3k
    Doubt is a tool. As a way of life, the misuse of a tool. But herein a clue. What is immune to doubt? (And just here, it strikes me, a distinction is to be made between destructive doubt, and questioning, which can be constructive and indeed sharpening.)tim wood
    I am not sure if I am misusing doubt, and therein lies a deep problem for me. I use doubt to defend my doubting. If someone tells me that my doubting hurts me and is unhelpful, there's always the option to doubt even that. How does one get out of such a hole? I guess you can say, "you're playing a silly game. Snap out of it!"

    And along this way there's a Cartesian branch to be avoided, and a Kantian branch. The Cartesian branch is ultimately apologetics - perhaps necessary for his own survival when he was writing - that surrenders all its gains. The Kantian branch austere, insisting on what can be known, being thereby knowable.tim wood
    I tend to avoid all philosophical systems, anyhow. You might say it's a bad habit of mine.

    For Kant it's just the conception of and implicitly the imperative to refine the conception, the imperative coming from - where do you suppose? - combined desire and reason.tim wood
    Not sure what to make of this. I'm sure Kant was considered a genius at the time, and it's imperative (pun intended), to take him quite seriously.

    But the conception is the sole creation of man, refined over the whole experience of man (the prehistoric peoples who buried their dead with tool and gifts for the afterlife). As conception unlimited - but manmade.tim wood
    Based on what you just said I think 'Diety' is an appropriate term for 'god'.

    And there's a trick to this. Their demonstrations are for the purpose of making it easier for believers to believe. They don't establish, they facilitate. And it's a great flaw and failure on both sides to mistake this purpose, which most do. Believers imbue the demonstrations with a conclusiveness that they exactly are not conclusive of. And so-called skeptics dismiss them entirely, having failed to understand what they in fact are. Anselm's proof, a poster-child example, is ridiculed as a proof for the existence of God. But it is not that, nor was intended to be. It enables a believer to believe "more better' in that which he already believes - which a reasonably careful reading of the proof makes clear.tim wood
    Now I understand! I guess there is one less ignorant person on the planet now.

    Patristics or patrology is the study of the early Christian writers who are designated Church Fathers. The names derive from the combined forms of Latin pater and Greek patḗr (father). The period is generally considered to run from the end of New Testament times or end of the Apostolic Age (c.  AD 100) to either AD 451 (the date of the Council of Chalcedon)[1] or to the Second Council of Nicaea in 787." Wiki.

    were a smart bunch. And just as right-wingers in the US misuse, misconstrue, subvert, abuse, and fail to understand or grasp the Constitution of the US. So for almost 2,000 years similarly ignorant people have attempted their own take on religion and faith, in the US mainly the Christian version. Oh dear, I'm ranting! But you get the drift, yes?
    tim wood
    And thats one of the problems I have with some religions. How do Christian's (just using them as an example) deal with those who do not act according to the ways of Christianity, yet call themselves Christians? (I am thinking of the Westboro Babtist Church). Who is to take responsibility for their detestable actions?
  • Kmaca
    24
    [reply= excellent question! Mines a weird one but Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor. I took a rebellious, punk approach to everything as a kid but his Sources of the Self made me appreciate things that I previously disliked (Christianity, theology) as being the philosophical and historical sources of the stuff that I valued like individuality and autonomy. I’m still an agnostic but it made me see the value of things that I didn’t and still don’t necessarily accept. Just for clarification: I believe individuality and autonomy can develop out of any tradition or culture but in the case of the West it has a strong background in Aquinas and others. Taylor showed me how to value a tradition which is something that really resonates in my everyday life, without being a conservative.
  • tim wood
    9.2k
    Who is to take responsibility for their detestable actions?Wheatley
    And in a free country! No small question at all. And history shows us hamstrung against those without those - or any - scruples.

    Hmm. Runs deep. There's proactive justice and reactive justice. I think I'm scared most of the proactive. The murderer's entitlement to one murder is at the same time, seemingly, a guarantee to me of my own security from false imprisonment or worse.
  • Wheatley
    2.3k
    There's proactive justice and reactive justice.tim wood
    I was thinking more along the lines with restricting the ability of those who wish to call themselves 'baptist', or better yet, 'Christian'. Of course anyone can call themselves anything, but it is up to the religion on who they accept.
  • Frank Apisa
    2.1k
    If I’m reading this correctly, I’m getting the impression that many churches act as if the existence of God is certain and can be demonstrated. I remember kids telling me that I’m really dumb because I don’t believe there is a God.Wheatley

    Do you have a "belief" on the issue, Wheatley?

    Do you "believe" there is no God...or no gods?
  • Wheatley
    2.3k
    Do you "believe" there is no God...or no gods?Frank Apisa
    No such things as deities.
  • Frank Apisa
    2.1k
    Wheatley
    1.1k
    Do you "believe" there is no God...or no gods?
    — Frank Apisa
    No such things as deities.
    Wheatley

    Are you saying you KNOW there are no such things as deities...or are you saying you "believe" there are no such things as deities?
  • tim wood
    9.2k
    Don't confuse belief with facts. They both have their respective value and significance. No doubt, for example, you believe your mother loved you.
  • Frank Apisa
    2.1k
    Wheatley
    1.1k
    ↪Frank Apisa I know.
    Wheatley

    You KNOW there are no deities?

    C'mon. This is a philosophy forum.
  • Frank Apisa
    2.1k
    tim wood
    4.6k
    ↪Frank Apisa Don't confuse belief with facts. They both have their respective value and significance. No doubt, for example, you believe your mother loved you.
    tim wood

    I am not confusing them, Tim. I am asking Wheatley about the difference.

    What do you think of his response that he KNOWS there are no deities?
  • Wheatley
    2.3k
    You KNOW there are no deities?Frank Apisa

    Prove that I don’t know.
  • Wheatley
    2.3k
    I am not confusing them, Tim. I am asking Wheatley about the difference.

    What do you think of his response that he KNOWS there are no deities?
    Frank Apisa

    Don’t get Wood involved, I’m only trying something out.
  • Frank Apisa
    2.1k
    Wheatley
    1.1k
    You KNOW there are no deities?
    — Frank Apisa

    Prove that I don’t know.
    Wheatley


    I have not said you do not know. You have said that you do.

    Prove that you do.
  • Wheatley
    2.3k
    I have not said you do not know. You have said that you do.

    Prove that you do.
    Frank Apisa
    There’s no obligation to prove anything.
  • Frank Apisa
    2.1k
    Wheatley
    1.1k
    I am not confusing them, Tim. I am asking Wheatley about the difference.

    What do you think of his response that he KNOWS there are no deities?
    — Frank Apisa

    Don’t get Wood involved, I’m only trying something out.
    Wheatley

    YOU do not get to tell me what I should or should not do in my responses, Wheatley.

    Try out whatever you want.
  • Frank Apisa
    2.1k
    Wheatley
    1.1k
    I have not said you do not know. You have said that you do.

    Prove that you do.
    — Frank Apisa
    There’s no obligation to prove anything.
    Wheatley

    You made an assertion in a philosophical forum thread. YOU do have an obligation to prove it.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.