Well, factually speaking I don't know if religion is really any good at directing people's behaviors, either.

Also, I'd say there's a difference between a blog of academics -- a social gathering of people in a profession -- and the actual educational process.

Well, factually speaking I don't know if religion is really any good at directing people's behaviors, either. — Moliere

It seems clear that religion at least influences some people's behavior some of the time. But sadly, not always for the better.

Also, I'd say there's a difference between a blog of academics -- a social gathering of people in a profession -- and the actual educational process. — Moliere

I wouldn't call the blog in question a social gathering so much, as there is very little back and forth discussion such as we see here. It's more a case of members sharing their latest article and then vanishing. Anyway, the articles taken as a whole (written by many different PhDs) seem to offer at least some window in to the educational process these folks have been exposed to.

As example, diversity appears to be a very trendy topic in academic philosophy at the moment. Every single article appears to argue for diversity, and I've yet to see one that argues that old white men should continue to dominate philosophy as they have for thousands of years. It doesn't seem to trouble anyone that the group consensus is not being challenged.

I wouldn't call the blog in question a social gathering so much, as there is very little back and forth discussion such as we see here. It's more a case of members sharing their latest article and then vanishing. Anyway, the articles taken as a whole (written by many different PhDs) seem to offer at least some window in to the educational process these folks have been exposed to. — Jake

That's still different, though -- a religious education doesn't make priests, and a philosophical education doesn't make philosophers. There are avenues for those professions which do do that, but the great majority of people who are a part of the educational process are not professionals, but simply are, or were at one point, students.

My apologies, I attempted it. Just that there is an aspect of the human condition they are addressing which requires that one is in some sense already familiar with what is being talked about for it to make any sense at all.

That's still different, though -- a religious education doesn't make priests, and a philosophical education doesn't make philosophers. — Moliere

Hmm... It seems we're talking past each other. Most of the folks I'm referring to have PhDs in philosophy and are working in the profession. Some of them are working on their philosophy degrees with the hope of entering the profession. But anyway, we don't have to beat this to death.

My apologies, I attempted it. Just that there is an aspect of the human condition they are addressing which requires that one is in some sense already familiar with what is being talked about for it to make any sense at all. — All sight

Ok, no problem, and no apology required. I'm just inviting you to continue with the point you were making if you wish, and letting you know I seem to require some amount of translation.

Heh. No worries.

I mean, I know there are groups of PhD's. I'm saying that the set of people who undergo a philosophical education is larger than the set of people who undergo a professional philosophical education. At least as I was meaning the comparison in terms of a religious vs philosophical education -- so there are many people who attend seminary, for instance, but only some of those people are there to actually become a professional theologian of sorts.

So even if the professionals might look a lot like priests, the educational process itself could still have different results from the professional education. It would just be a matter of looking, there's something empirical there that I admit I'd have to look more into -- but we're looking at different sets.

Does that make sense?

I'm saying that the set of people who undergo a philosophical education is larger than the set of people who undergo a professional philosophical education. — Moliere

Ah ok, I now get the distinction you are trying to make. I was lumping everyone with a philosophy PhD in to a single pot. I'm still not sure how a "professional philosophy education" differs from something else, but am interested to learn more as your time permits.

In case it's not already blaringly obvious, I don't have any kind of philosophy education, unless you wish to count my attendance at Netflix University. :smile: Point being, I'm viewing academic philosophy from the outside, and don't claim to have a complete view.

Ah ok, I now get the distinction you are trying to make. I was lumping everyone with a philosophy PhD in to a single pot. I'm still not sure how a "professional philosophy education" differs from something else, but am interested to learn more as your time permits.

In case it's not already blaringly obvious, I don't have any kind of philosophy education, unless you wish to count my attendance at Netflix University. :smile: Point being, I'm viewing academic philosophy from the outside, and don't claim to have a complete view. — Jake

Eh, my formal training is minimal. I'm more on the outside than in. All classes in philosophy I've taken are undergraduate level, which is where I'm forming some of my opinion from, though.

But just take a look at this article. I'd include people with a bachelor's degree in philosophy in the set I'm talking about in addition to the doctoral degrees. Whereas, in the case of a professional philosophical education, I'd count just those with a PhD (though not all of those actually go on to be professional philosophers, it should be noted too -- so the culture of academia could also differ from those who just get the education).

But note how there is a much greater number of Bachelor degrees awarded to the number of doctoral degrees. So there are more people with a philosophical education than there are people with a professional philosophical education.

The same would hold for a religious education. Most of the people who undergo some kind of religious education are not there to become priests (or their equivalent). So we'd have to actually look at the set of people who underwent said education to make a comparison.

So, ethics are applied, in religion, through commands, etc? Versus philosophy in which no definite ethical command is necessarily made? I.E. the perpetual discussion of any possible ethical imperative, etc? — Noble Dust

Yes, I think so.

Good job as Devil's Advocate. BTW, the Devil's Advocate is a real role in sainthood proceedings in the Catholic Church.

First, Christianity is not exclusively about ideology — Jake

I didn't say that Christianity was about ideology. Some people think it is, though. My "operating system" is Christian theology, basically, even though I disavow belief in the Creed. I might wish that I had grown up among liberal Manhattan atheists, but that just wasn't the case.

All that glitters is not gold. If religion is superior to philosophy, then it is so in much the same way that, say, Donald Trump is superior to Bernie Sanders. Sure, on the face of it, there are winners and losers, but if your prize is a shit sandwich, then that's not exactly something to be shouting from the rooftops.

This is uncalled-for! It isn't the fault of the Catholic church, or any church, or gym teachers, choir masters or sports coaches - and so on, and on... - that their professions give access to children. — Pattern-chaser

Um, with respect, you appear not to be following the Catholic rape scandal too closely. The investigations very clearly reveal that it was precisely the fault of Catholic Church officials that the child rapists retained their access to children. The Pennsylvania investigation showed that there was a longstanding systematic effort by the Church to coverup these crimes and protect the rapists, and it's all documented in detail in carefully hidden Church documents which have now been revealed.

Apologies, but the child rape scandal is very much the fault of the Catholic Church, including the laity who have contented themselves with sanctimonious hand wringing, and have yet to overthrow the clerical class.

There is a solution which could preserve the Catholic faith while solving these problems in a convincing manner. The priests and nuns should switch places. The nuns should be put in charge of everything, and the priests should work in support roles.

But this will never happen, because anybody capable of such decisive thinking probably left the Church long ago, just as I did.

The Pennsylvania investigation showed that there was a longstanding systematic effort by the Church to coverup these crimes and protect the rapists — Jake

Yes, now that you have been clear about your accusations. The church is not responsible for paedophiles. They are responsible for covering up instead of prevention. :rage: :fear:

The church is not responsible for paedophiles. They are responsible for covering up instead of prevention. — Pattern-chaser

Once the bishops knew that a priest was a child rapist, and did not immediately report that priest to the police, those bishops became party to the crime.

It's reasonable to accuse "The Church" of being party to these crimes, because we are not talking about this or that bishop, but rather an organized global conspiracy that went on for decades in many different jurisdictions.

The laity became party to the crime once they learned of the coverup, and kept donating funds to the Church and lending it their moral support and credibility by attending mass etc.

Please note a couple of things if you would please:

1) I'm not attacking Catholicism, but the corrupt clergy. They are not the same thing.

2) A comprehensive sweeping convincing solution which would restore the credibility of the Church is available, put the nuns in charge of everything. The nuns are every bit as Catholic as the male clergy. The failure to take such a decisive step shows YET AGAIN that the male clergy are more interested in themselves than they are in what's good for the Church.

3) I have endless generations of Catholic DNA up my family tree, and was born and raised Catholic, baptized and confirmed etc. I don't hate Catholics or Catholicism. I hate the out of control incompetence and unspeakable corruption which puts this ancient religion in danger of collapsing in our lifetimes.

You asked us to "direct your ire at those who deserve it." And that's exactly what I'm doing.

Some priests raped a LOT of children. They need to go, to jail, or to the gallows, I'm not fussy.

The rest of the male clergy raped the Church, either by helping the rapists, or by looking the other way. They need to go too. Let them clean bedpans for a few centuries as the nuns have been doing since the beginning. This exercise in humility will be good for their souls.

And it would restore the credibility of the Church.

If the Catholic community is not capable of clear minded decisive action on this scale, it would be better if the whole thing melted away to be replaced by other Christian denominations.

You asked us to "direct your ire at those who deserve it." And that's exactly what I'm doing. — Jake

Fair enough. :up: I am only concerned that blame is assigned where it is due.

Some priests raped a LOT of children. — Jake

Some PAEDOPHILES raped a lot of children. Quite a few people knew it was going on, and turned a blind eye. Blame where it's due. And an appropriate response too. Blame alone is pointless. :up:

We are in agreement. :up:

Some PAEDOPHILES raped a lot of children. — Pattern-chaser

Some paedophile priests raped a lot of children.

The word "priests" should be included to make clear that this is happening in the Catholic Church to a degree that it's not happening in say, the Teamster's Union, schools, the NFL, any other Christian denomination etc.

The word "priests" is important because it focuses on the betrayal of trust which is the heart of the injury. You know, these aren't random weirdo guys in raincoats who attracted kids to their car with the promise of candy. The rapists in this case are those whom the kids should have been able to trust above all others. Now these kids probably don't trust anybody, and that's a big deal, a special kind of injury.

We are in agreement. — Pattern-chaser

I'm not sure that's even allowed on philosophy forums, so you're probably in violation of some rule. :smile: Just kidding...

Are we in agreement? Should the nuns take over the management of the Catholic Church?

St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Maimonides, Ibn Arabi, Je Tsongkhapa, Nagarjuna, Laozi and several hundred other notable religious thinkers from many religious traditions all over the world would like to have a word with you :) — gurugeorge

:up: Yes Yes

What about if I say that religious study of philosophy is tainted with belief in a God but philosophical study of religion is, then, more objective?

Mainly, I was interested in calling out this discrepancy between philosophizing and the practice of religion? — Posty McPostface

If as Kierkegaard said, "Faith is holding onto uncertainties with passionate conviction," then how is philosophy distinct? Is it not that the faithful simply refuse to admit the uncertainties are uncertain, yet, as the quote suggests, the faithful must recognize at some level their faith is of an uncertainty.

If as Kierkegaard said, "Faith is holding onto uncertainties with passionate conviction," then how is philosophy distinct? — Hanover

I don't have an answer to that one. Sounds about right to me, but, the quietism in me tells me that is wrong to some degree. We go along changing our convictions in life, hopefully, to some degree, so taking that quote on a hard reading would be too short-sighted. I don't think you can argue with that.

Is it not that the faithful simply refuse to admit the uncertainties are uncertain, yet, as the quote suggests, the faithful must recognize at some level their faith is of an uncertainty. — Hanover

You edited your post so, I'll readdress the edited part.

What about the fact that philosophy gave birth to all the humanistic fields that have attained, through the scientific method, certainties and even truths. Yes, we can bash psychology and religion for being far out there; but, philosophy does begin in wonder, and the (un)-wondrous mind would be of little use to any field of study.

I don't understand why belief in God has to be a "taint" on philosophical study. Belief in a world of matter is just as much a bedrock assumption for many rationalists and humanists, is that a "taint?" Idealists might think so! :)

It's all good so long as people are prepared to examine their bedrock assumptions - even if they come out at the end of the process still holding to them, the journey is instructive for them, and for their audience.

:up: :smile:

In many ways, religion is everything philosophy could hope to be. — Posty McPostface

I think there is an important misunderstanding going on here. Religion is a kind of philosophy (a religious world view), any kind of world view, be it religion or otherwise, has at it's core a kind of philosophical thinking. There are many things wrong with this kind of religious world view, just as there are many things wrong with many non-religious world views. There are philosophical world views that put forth the contention that and truth is a matter of subjective beliefs. I find this just as appalling.

The point is that one can find philosophical confusion no matter where you look. The biggest problem is in epistemology. Religion and many other world views are confused about what it means to have knowledge, i.e., how is truth acquired and defended. Most of the arguments are about how we justify our beliefs. Many Christians believe that the Bible is their primary source of truth when it comes to spiritual matters, and again, this is partly an epistemological problem. This problem spans every world view, so it's not limited to religious belief.

Finally, religion for the most part, is an example of a philosophy that's poorly done.

Finally, religion for the most part, is an example of a philosophy that's poorly done. — Sam26

I'm not religious myself, but just for the exercise I'll argue the other side of the coin.

The bottom line point of philosophy would seem to be to serve human beings. Most of the humans who have lived over the last 5,000 years or so have concluded that philosophy in the form of religion serves their needs better than philosophy minus the religion.

Your point may stand, it may be true that religion is philosophy poorly done. But that doesn't automatically equal philosophy minus religion being superior to philosophy in the form of religion. I'm assuming that was your point, but I may be assuming too much, clarify as needed.

If the standard we are measuring against are the formal rules of philosophy, you have a point. If the standard we are measuring against is serving the needs of human beings, you may not have a point.

To continue....

There are philosophical world views that put forth the contention that and truth is a matter of subjective beliefs. I find this just as appalling. — Sam26

It's appalling if one first assumes that what human beings want and need is the objective truth. I would agree the objective truth is necessary in meeting the needs of the body, as would most religious people.

Meeting the needs of the mind is a different matter. Fantasy is a pervasive part of the human experience, a phenomena which reaches far beyond the boundaries of religion.

Why is a religion so good at commanding people to behave a certain way... — Posty McPostface

Because many, if not most, hold that there is some absolute, higher power that has made the rules.

Why is a religion so good at commanding people to behave a certain way — Posty McPostface

Religions may or may not have authority and power. If they have authority, it is because the authority is recognized by the people, then commands are effective; people will not only obey, they will affirm the rightness of their obedience.

If the religion lacks authority, but has power, people can be compelled to obey, whether they affirm the rightness of their obedience or not.

Sometimes religions have both authority and power, sometimes one and not the other, and sometimes neither. Where religions have neither authority and power, the religions is likely to be increasingly irrelevant and on the way to extinction (unless the religion can resurrect its authority).

The same situation applies to secular institutions too. Donald Trump has real power--no doubt about it. Presidents have power. Among many Americans Trump has both authority and power, and among others he has only power and no authority whatsoever. I grant Trump no authority, but I recognize he has power -- which is why I find him upsetting. If he was merely the village idiot, he wouldn't be a problem. Instead he is a village idiot with a shady past and nuclear weapons at his disposal. That's quite unsettling.

In many communities, the police have both authority (the people grant them the rightness to command them) and they also have power. Where there are communities who do not grant the police authority, police have to depend on the exercise of power -- usually brute force. If they have neither authority nor power (such as UN Peace Keeper forces), they are pretty much useless.

Why is a religion so good at commanding people to behave a certain way — Posty McPostface

The answer is obvious. Religion operates on the basis of authority; philosophy, reason.

That is why people find religion noxious. It is the poster-child of illegitimate authority.

Philosophy as a discipline in the West originated from sophistry, both literally/historically and spiritually – the point of it is to foster endless argument over verbal fallacies (this is what the Socratic method, as practiced in the Platonic dialogues, amounts to). Of course, philosophers themselves, who are inside the circle, don't see their discipline in this way – they think that they are thinking deeply about big questions. But, this is the mythology of their origin, same as religious people who think that Moses wrote the Penteteuch. They have an etiological and justificatory view of what philosophy is, which, like all founding myths, isn't true.

Religious belief is generally similarly deluded about its origins and function, but its function is not to sustain verbal quibbles, and so it tends to have more substance. Your religious beliefs, to some extent, matter – your philosophical ones don't, outside of an academy.