I think the key term is not dogma but revealed truth. — Wayfarer

So, they have dogmatic faith in a revealed truth? Or...?

i think all rational arguments start with the proposition that "God is" and looks for reasoned arguments for. I also think all rational arguments that "God is not" start with that proposition and look for reasoned arguments to support.

other than it is not a matter of fact that "God" is not, nor is it in conflict to reason that "God is" - there is nothing wrong with your post. But since that is not the case - everything you said is based on the proposition that "God is not" that you assume as fact - which it is not. — Rank Amateur

Not this again. Try explaining it instead of just asserting it.

let me paraphrase your words and ask if you agree?

" other than it is not a matter of fact that "[the Tooth fairy]" is not, nor is it in conflict to reason that "[The Tooth Fairy is]" - there is nothing wrong with your post. But since that is not the case - everything you said is based on the proposition that "The Tooth Fairy is not" that you assume as fact - which it is not."

Now if we are to assume that both God and the Tooth Fairy are equally dependent upon a magic of sorts, why should God have more of a right to Philosophy than the Tooth-Fairy?

M

Enlightenment rationalists, religions haven’t simply shrivelled and died, but are still hugely influential in culture and society. And that’s because they stand for something, they represent realities which can’t be depicted in any other terms.
— Wayfarer

What realities would that be?
— praxis

To think of a few examples at random - the sacred feminine/motherhood/Mother Mary/Kwan Yin

The Hero's Journey, the hero with a thousand faces.

Suffering/sacrifice/loss

Redemption/salvation/transcendence. — Wayfarer

Most of what you mention isn't even typically construed as religious. I'm not sure why you don't believe these things can't be depicted in other than religious terms.

Is Religion Philosophy? — Marcus de Brun

Very poor philosophy, yes.

The Powers That Be seem to me too lenient on topics of religion. Far too much rubbish is permitted.

As I said - firewalled off. You know - 'don't mention the war'.

Anyway, this thread and this one should be merged (and, probably, locked, but I'm not a mod.)

i have absolutely no issue with your atheism, nor anyone else's. I have a standing issue with anyone who believes that my theism is in conflict with truth or reason - which it is not. The basis of your post "God is not" as a matter of fact - is most certainly based on faith and in no way a philosophic argument.

I have a standing issue with anyone who believes that my theism is in conflict with truth or reason — Rank Amateur

Theism is predicated upon a belief in magic.
Belief in magic is in conflict with reason.

That which is not reasonable cannot hope to be philosophical.

How do you reconcile?

M

↪Janus
i think all rational arguments start with the proposition that "God is" and looks for reasoned arguments for. I also think all rational arguments that "God is not" start with that proposition and look for reasoned arguments to support. — Rank Amateur

Neither arguments for nor arguments against the existence of a God of religion have any place in philosophy. Its too nebulous. What God?

The "God of the philosophers" may be thought to be a different matter, but again what exactly is that?

I’m not following. You mention things (“realities”) that you claim can’t be depicted in non-religious terms. Indeed you mentioned the unconscious yourself. That’s not a domain restricted to religious belief.

I agree that in a fully developed argument one would need to define "God". Here and in other places it is convenient shorthand for a supernatural being.

For clarity - In most arguments bases on reason - I would define "God" as a necessary being -

A necessary being is a self-aware thing that must necessarily exist for all other things to exist because that necessary being is the author of the universe and the initial cause of all things material.

The God of the Bible, or the Torah, or the Koran - and most of those attributes is a matter of faith

A philosophical discussion of transubstantiation or of the Trinity should be placed in amongst discussion of other logical paradoxes and contradictions. A Philosophical discussion of free will, salvation or of obedience should properly be in the Ethics section. And if they can't hold their own there, then they should not be on the forum. Same goes for the existence of god arguments, the constant atheist vs theist debates, and so on.

Mind you, there is an argument for hiving these off into their own section so that the rubbish does not pollute the more worthy philosophical discussions. But that would imply that the Mods were willing to have a section for sub-standard discussions.

Far too much rubbish is permitted. — Banno

As the purveyor of a vast quantity of rubbish, you're foolish to call for such restrictions. You might as well request yourself to be banned.

And whether we have a section for religious philosophy does not depend on whether god exists. That section of this thread is bunk.

Pots and kettles.

Since all arguments are based on natural reasoning and evidence there can never be any rational or empirical demonstration of the existence of supernatural being. It is the archetypal object of faith. — Janus

all arguments are not.

Why not? Example?

Ah, so you confuse fact and justification. Thanks for making that clear. There's a fact of the matter, even in the absence of justification for or against. — S

I have no idea at all what that was suppose to mean. You asked for an argument - I gave you one. I think you are just getting semantic - but I am not sure. Are we in disagreement with what a fact is ?

I find the cosmological argument reasonable, more so since the current conventional scientific consensus is there was a beginning.

Definition
Religion = Magic

Magic is not reasonable
All philosophy has a reasonable basis

Religion is not Philosophical.

M

If we are to have a comprehensive, unified vision of what the prime mover could be, it must encompass and integrate science — Janus

that is nothing more than faith in science - no philosophic/rational difference between that and my answer that it is a "necessary being"

you are just elevating science to a religion -

And you are elevating stupidity to a philosophy... :rofl:

It can't be said too often on philosophy forums that religion is not exclusively a matter of belief.

"All religion(s) are united by a belief in immortal deities. Immortal deities are by definition capable of magic."
I agree, but philosophy of religion is not a religion. One can learn some things by considering the various arguments for "God's" existence. Do brute facts exist? Is there a first cause? Is there such thing as "knowldege"? Is there something special (teleologically) about sentient life, or is it just an unintended consequence of nature? Do objective moral values exist? I come down on the atheist, or agnostic, side of these - but consideration of these questions does get you thinking.

The Powers That Be seem to me too lenient on topics of religion. Far too much rubbish is permitted. — Banno

I'll go glass half full and consider that a welcome antidote to the oft levelled charge that We Powers That Be are predominantly militant atheist lefties. Having said that, feel free to report as that's probably the best way to get a result on low quality posts. We're not everywhere all the time, especially if we can help it.



Religion is a part of life and is as worthy of philosophical thought as anything else. Religious dogmatism is anti-philosophical though, I agree. Again, please report.

The problem here is that science is bound to a worldview in which the universe is essentially meaningless. So meaning itself can only ever be personal or social - it can't have any referent beyond either the individual or the collective. — Wayfarer

How do you objectively separate the meaningful from the unmeaningful? Meaning is tied to vastly more than an individual or collective.

The OP's question has been answered, and there's an active thread about religion in the forum already, so this thread will be closed. I'll move some of the discussion here into that thread.