I haven't spoken of essential elements of faith, or advocated for any particular sects, and have rather said that I thought that they all worked. I don't recognize what you suggest. With a proper philosophical dialogue, I could tell you what I think, and you could tell me what you think, rather than the reverse.

What kinds of things would you like to discuss then? Examples?

What do you mean?

I thought you said you like to discuss different perspectives. I was asking for some examples, and an account of how such a discussion might proceed.

Perhaps you could give a demonstration. I still don't understand what you want me to do? Make up someone with different views to mine and then pretend to have a discussing with them? Lol?

Also, why?

I said there was no philosophical point in discussing religious beliefs with those who do not share them. What would be the point of discussing the fine points of, for example, karma with someone who rejects it wholesale. Could it be a fruitful discussion?That was the kind of point I was making and you disagreed with me. You are yet to explain why you would disagree except to say you like to "share different perspectives". What does that mean, and what philosophical interest could doing it have? if you just want to find out what others think, that is doing sociology or anthropology, not philosophy.

I did answer that. You're saying that you should only discuss the finer details of positions and doctrines with people that already agree with you and those doctrines. To always preach to the choir, and I disagree, that isn't what interests me.

Share different perspectives means to talk to people that think different things, because you don't learn anything from just talking to people that think all the same things. Talking about different positions, and perspectives? Discussing different views and ideas about fundamental subjects is what philosophy is about.

Why do you want me to shut up? The reasons you're given are not very good, or cogent.

What I said specifically related to religious dogmas. Sure if you are interested you can investigate other religious dogmas than your own. But there would be no point having a philosophical argument over whether reincarnation or resurrection is true, for example, as such dogmas are taken on faith, and are not supportable by philosophical argument. And there would be no point having a discussion with someone about the fine points of resurrection with someone who believes in reincarnation.

In any case discussions of dogma are theology, not philosophy. So, I still have no idea why you disagreed in the first place. It you can't explain it, then fine, I'm more than happy to drop it.

Why do you want me to shut up? The reasons you're given are not very good, or cogent. — All sight

LOL! I didn't ask you to shut up; you responded to my post, and all I have done is explain my position. You, however, have not explained your disagreement.

With a proper philosophical dialogue, I could tell you what I think, and you could tell me what you think, rather than the reverse. — All sight

What is "a proper philosophical dialogue" according to you, and what is "the reverse"?

I did answer that. You're saying that you should only discuss the finer details of positions and doctrines with people that already agree with you and those doctrines. To always preach to the choir, and I disagree, that isn't what interests me. — All sight

Just to reiterate, I am saying that it would be unfruitful to discuss "fine points of positions and doctrines" with those who reject the premises that underpin those positions and doctrines, because you will end up talking past one another, as we have perhaps been doing. I also said that I think philosophy is not about preaching at all, whether to "the choir" or otherwise.

And I'm still not clear what exactly about other people's doctrines and positions interests you. Is it just the fact that they hold them, or are you keen to challenge your own positions and doctrines? The thing is that I think it is fruitless to challenge one's own doctrines if one has already acknowledged that they are a matter of faith; and not of evidence or plausible argument. Positions that are founded upon evidence or upon plausible argument can, of course, and certainly should, be challenged.

I do agree that comparative religion is an important area of study. Although I'm not sure that it or even metaphysics, if based on religious dogma, really qualifies as philosophy; Collingwood's notion of metaphysics is that it is an historical science; the study of the absolute presuppositions upon which various metaphysical systems have been founded.

It's true that many believers do seem to need to discuss their beliefs with those who disagree with them. To me that seems like a form of insecurity; a need to prove to oneself that one's beliefs are absolutely true for all, and potentially capable of convincing anyone, if only they would allow themselves to understand. It's a complex topic, to be sure.

So, that division by itself shows that there's room to at least show the other that his commitment on such beliefs is extra-rational, contrary to what he believes. — Πετροκότσυφας

That's true and I agree that such discussion could be constructive for one who has not acknowledged that her beliefs are extra-rational.

Thanks for the link; that paper looks interesting, although I am not sure if it is available free? I'm outta time now, anyway, so later....

I said there was no philosophical point in discussing religious beliefs with those who do not share them. — Janus

Do you really believe that? Of course there's a point, as with discussing any other beliefs with those who don't share them. What do you think philosophy forums are for, if not the examination of beliefs, whether your own or someone else's which differ from your own.

What I said specifically related to religious dogmas. Sure if you are interested you can investigate other religious dogmas than your own. But there would be no point having a philosophical argument over whether reincarnation or resurrection is true, for example, as such dogmas are taken on faith, and are not supportable by philosophical argument. — Janus

Oh. Well, you just said "religious beliefs" in the other quote, not "religious dogmas".

Revelation 1:8

“I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty”

Surely an early example of a metaphysical argument for an timeless god...

It's not that simple, as I tried to explain. — praxis

Why is psychological suffering (ie. a shortage of personal peace leading to a shortage of social peace) a universal human condition in all times and places?

Why have a seemingly endless number of philosophies in every part of the world attempted to solve this problem for thousands of years, but never really succeeded?

The theory I am offering to explain the universal existence of suffering and the universal failure of all philosophies to end that suffering is that the source of suffering is not found at the level of the content of thought, but arises instead from the medium of thought itself, a universal property of the human condition.

I meant to say that I don't think it's natural to fear largeness or otherness, as Jake appeared to claim. If this were true then we'd have a natural fear of looking up at the sky, for example. We don't. Many look up at the sky with a yearning to explore the unknown. — praxis

But, I already said that in my previous post where I pointed out how I don't experience fear, rather I experience curiosity. I just didn't use the word "natural". I think a better word would be, "common". It isn't common to fear largeness or otherness. Some people can have a fear of largeness or otherness, and it would be considered a phobia.

Seems like you have faith in science. — Rank Amateur

"Faith" isn't an accurate term. Faith is for those where reason does not give the desired results. I used reason to come to the conclusion that science can provide the answers that religion hasn't been able to. Religion has had several thousand years to answer these questions and has only come up with inconsistent answers. Science, however, has only been around for a few hundred years and has already improved the lives of everyone, including people that follow different religions.

Faith is for those who have emotional attachments to their beliefs and where reason provides answers that are not consoling. Having faith is not much different from saying that you have a delusion.

Read the links I provided earlier. In the first one, it states:

Many people who have met all their deficiency needs do not self-actualize, instead inventing more deficiency needs for themselves, because to contemplate the meaning of their life and of life in general would lead them to entertain the possibility of their meaninglessness and the prospect of their own death and annihilation.

A person who begins to contemplate his bigger picture may come to fear that life is meaningless and death inevitable, but at the same time cling on to the cherished belief that his life is eternal or important or at least significant. This gives rise to an inner conflict that is sometimes referred to as ‘existential anxiety’ or, more colourfully, ‘the trauma of non-being’.

While fear and anxiety and their pathological forms (such as agoraphobia, panic disorder, or PTSD) are grounded in threats to life, existential anxiety is rooted in the brevity and apparent meaninglessness or absurdity of life. Existential anxiety is so disturbing and unsettling that most people avoid it at all costs, constructing a false reality out of goals, ambitions, habits, customs, values, culture, and religion so as to deceive themselves that their lives are special and meaningful and that death is distant or delusory. — Neel Burton, M.D. psychologytoday.com

This seems to be a monstrous irony coming from you! — Janus

Many of your arguments mine begin with ‘I can’t see why......’

You can't get to karma, reincarnation, resurrection, personal God, and so on, from some spiritual bloody exercise. Or do you disagree? If so, I would love to hear how you can get from, say, the mountain pose, to discovering that reincarnation really happens — S

No you wouldn’t. What you would like, is to argue about it. Your sole interest here is bating theists. What I’m trying to explain, obviously to no avail, is that your whole grasp of the subject is a culturally-conditioned stererotype, but unless you can drag the debate back to your terms then you have no intetrest n it.

This seems to be a monstrous irony coming from you!
— Janus — Wayfarer

I will try to explain something. You and I have met personally, one of the only such actual acquaintances I have made via philosophy forums, and I thought we got along quite well, and I do like you. But I don't discuss philosophy (or my particular version of philosophy) with any of the people I like in the real world, or not much anyway. They have no interest in it and would likely not understand what I'm on about.

My philosophical interest has been researching the idea of enlightenment or 'spiritual illumination' cross-culturally, through reading, discussion, study, and meditation. My view is that 'spiritual illumination' (and I really don't like the term, but the modern lexicon is notably sparse in this regard) was originally foundational to religion, but that it is easily forgotten. Metaphorically, it is as if it like a kind of essence or elixir which is preserved in a vessel; but soon the elixir is forgotten and only the vessel remains. That is an analogy for dogmatic religion.

Besides, one of the main principles of those who went on to form the Christian church out of the ferment of first century spiritual culture, was the necessity of hammering out a doctrine that promised salvation for all. It deliberately rejected most of gnosticism and the very idea that enlightenment depended on any kind of insight or illumination, because it was associated with 'elitism' and clearly incompatible with the universalising outlook of the Church. (This is one of the reasons why mystics were to frequently run afoul of ecclesiastical authority in the centuries to come.)

Actually there's an article in SEP on divine illumination which conveys some insights about this topic, although in my opinion it loses its way. But its connection with Augustine, and thence neo-Platonism, is important. It commences:

Divine illumination is the oldest and most influential alternative to naturalism in the areas of mind and knowledge. The doctrine holds that human beings require a special divine assistance in their ordinary cognitive activities.

But it's predictable that as soon as anything of this kind is posted on a forum, it's like tossing bloodied meat into the Piranha River. 'See! Divine! Superstitious dogma!' Then off swims the horde in search of the next hapless victim. Regardless, I believe that something of this kind is visible in the annals of mysticism from many cultures, and that it signifies an actual faculty or form of insight. But I do get that not many people understand it, or are interested in it, and that besides its proximity to religion is not welcome in a secular age; as the article on Pierre Hadot notes, 'Hadot acknowledges his use of the term “spiritual exercises” may create anxieties, by associating philosophical practices more closely with religious devotion'. And as Nagel notes, our culture is characterised by a deep-seated 'fear of religion'.

So, my general view is that secularism or the scientific worldview as an outlook on life, is rooted in Enlightenment attitudes which in turn were deeply sceptical of the mainstream religions of the day, Catholic and Protestant. This attitude wants to bracket out any 'questions of ultimate meaning and value' and proceed purely on the basis of what can be ascertained by empirical observation and mathematical reasoning. That, overall, is a description of positivism, which is the overwhelming, indeed only possible, orientation in a secular philosophical framework. The kind of 'illumination' which I think was fundamental to Platonism, gnosticism and many other early philosophies has, unfortunately, become caught up in those polemics, kind of like by-catch.

if metaphysics is philosophy and you consider metaphysics to be a theory of absolute presuppositions..., then the content of comparative religion studies is an incredible raw material for such analysis. — Πετροκότσυφας

:up:

as Nagel notes, our culture is characterised by a deep-seated 'fear of religion'. — Wayfarer

Don't you think we should fear it, or at least regard it with a good amount of caution? Religion can be a powerful tool in the hands of a charismatic leader. A tool that can be used for selfish gain rather than the benefit of its adherents. There are countless examples of this. Once you devalue reason and overvalue faith anything is possible. Subscribing to conspiracy theories and 'alternative facts' can become a sign of solidarity, rather than a sign of madness.

”1. First, of course I’ve repeatedly said during this discussion that I don’t usually use the word “God”, other than when replying to someone who has used it, including Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalists like you.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Trivial. Just imagine that when I use the word "God" it's whatever word you use instead

.
…because you don’t know what you mean by it, though you seem to always be talking about the God of the Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalists.
.

, which you have yet to actually state.

.
I’ve stated the purpose of my participation in this thread. It isn’t to provide religious instruction or explanation to you. ….or to propose or advocate a Theism. Neither is it to argue the “issue” of Theism vs Atheism. …about which, at these forums, only aggressive Atheists are making an issue. I have no idea what motivates you to pursue that “issue” of yours.
.
I’ve merely been letting you know that you aren’t being at all clear about what it is that you’re talking about.
.
”2. As I’ve already mentioned at least twice in this thread, I’ve amply discussed my impressions, beliefs and reasons for them, at other threads at this forum website.” — Michael Ossipoff
.

Yes, at other threads. :roll:

.
See above.
.

That is of no help.

.
What help did you want? (rhetorical question)
.

”Feel free to find them and refute them if you want to.
.
”(…if it means anything to speak of refuting an impression).” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Feel free to come round my house, put on a little maid outfit, and do all of my housework.

.
Surely there are other forums where S. could invite people to his house to satisfy his peculiar needs.
.

”If I were to post all of that here, in this thread, it would amount to argument, and, as I’ve said, I don’t do argument or assertion on the Theism vs Atheism topic. Go for it if you want to, but I’d be arguing if I challenged you to—and, as I said, I don’t argue about Theism vs Atheism.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Right, and I don't do housework. But I'm just going to keep on moaning about the dishes, the dirty clothes, the dusty surfaces, and so on. Go for it and do all of my housework if you want to, but, as I said, I don't do housework, I just expect you to put up with my moaning about it, and when you confront me about it and ask why I don't just shut up and get on with it, I'll just revert back to my complaining and denialism.

.
S. seems to want to imply that I’m neglecting an obligation to explain Theism to him, or to argue Theism vs Atheism with him. Above, in this reply, I stated what I’ve meant to say in this thread.
.

”Are you sure that I said that Atheists should invest time and effort into my impressions and beliefs?” — Michael Ossipoff
.

You didn't say anything. You just made vague suggestions which I'm having to tease out of you like blood out of a stone.

.
I said what I meant to. No one asked you to “tease out” anything additional.
.

”Remember that if you refute my Theism, in addition to that of Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalism, then you’ll have refuted not one, but two, Theisms. Hardly more than a beginning, for your task of refuting every Theism.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Ha! That's not my task.

.
Wrong. If you say that all Theism is without evidence, then it’s your “task” to show that.
.

The burden is on the theist.

.
The burden is on whoever is making assertions here about Theism vs Atheism.
.
Here, loud aggressive Atheists are the only ones making an issue about Atheism vs Theism.
.

First, I need to be presented with a version of theism.

.
There are Theists who present their version to you, publicly and door-to-door. You’ve been addressing their version. Your error is to believe and claim that your answer applies to Theism as a whole.
.
No one has any obligation to present anything to you about anything that they aren’t asserting to you.
.

I'm content with having never come across a version of theism, in all of my years, which isn't so problematic that it doesn't warrant acceptance. That is my position.

.
Good. That’s would be much more modest position, if you can limit yourself to it.
.

”Feel free to find it in other threads if you want to “invest time and effort” on it.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Feel free to present it to me if you want me to invest my time and effort on it.

.
You’re too kind. But I didn’t ask you to invest your time and effort in it. First you asked me to present it, and then, after that, I invited you to look it up in posting-records if you want to invest your time and effort in it. In other words, suit yourself.
.
Michael Ossipoff

I just didn't use the word "natural". I think a better word would be, "common". It isn't common to fear largeness or otherness. Some people can have a fear of largeness or otherness, and it would be considered a phobia. — Harry Hindu

I know what you mean. I tend to think of the term as an established structure, whereby if significantly disturbed will throw the surrounding order out of balance. For instance, we have a natural craving for fat and sweetness. This craving is out of balance with the current availability of fat and sugar today, and our health suffers for it. If this continues we would eventually adapt to it, but for now things are out of balance and we might say the current availability of fat and sugar is unnatural.

Actually, it's very difficult to even define what a religion is and there are examples of religions as well as religious members who do not engage in supernatural beliefs of any kind. Defining a religion in such a way that it ignores the actual empirical evidence we have regarding religion, is a foul. Basically, you end up with a false premise, so one's conclusion then cannot be logically supported. Religious people have for thousands of years come up with actual secular arguments justifying their moral rules, or at least attempting to, and have often not resorted to the simplistic notion of "because God said so."

The theory I am offering to explain the universal existence of suffering and the universal failure of all philosophies to end that suffering is that the source of suffering is not found at the level of the content of thought, but arises instead from the medium of thought itself, a universal property of the human condition. — Jake

You appear to be unwilling to clarify what you mean by 'thought'. Most neural activity is subconscious.

Again I'll point out that all mammals use this 'process of conceptual division' but don't suffer the kinds of psychological issues, such as existential anxiety, that we do. How does this fit with your theory??

Moderators &/or administrators:

The reason why I flagged a post by S. on this page was because it's inappropriate for him to share about and solicit for his unusual needs at a philosophy forum.

Feel free to come round my house, put on a little maid outfit, and do all of my housework.

Michael Ossipoff

Aside from that though, I'm not saying that it should be based on religious dogma. Only in the sense that religious dogma is its subject matter, the raw material which it analyses, not the premises from which its analysis begins. — Πετροκότσυφας

So, you envisage (part at least) of metaphysics as a kind of phenomenology of religion? I would agree with that.

I agree that insecurity is a common reason religious folk engage in debate, but I think it's not the only one. I can't exclude the possibility that some religious folk are honestly intellectually curious. — Πετροκότσυφας

I have no doubt that is true. Maybe my conception of philosophy is too narrow; but I see it as primarily consisting in developing a coherent worldview. And different worldviews are always based on premises; so I just don't see much point arguing over the fundamental premises. Doing this is what leads the to the interminable intractable debates like realism vs antirealism, free will vs determinism, materialism vs idealism, internaiism vs externalism and so on. My approach is: choose your fundamental premises and develop your ideas from there; so fruitful discussion would be with those who share your starting assumptions.

I will try to explain something. You and I have met personally, one of the only such actual acquaintances I have made via philosophy forums, and I thought we got along quite well, and I do like you. But I don't discuss philosophy (or my particular version of philosophy) with any of the people I like in the real world, or not much anyway. They have no interest in it and would likely not understand what I'm on about. — Wayfarer

I thought we got on well too, and I still do. I can engage in heated disagreement with you and still respect you in the morning! :grin:

I think the one area in philosophy where fruitful discussion may be enjoyed with those who have different starting premises is on the subject of the proper ambit of philosophy itself; it's strengths and limitations. I don't mean to be rude in censoring you for holding certain ideas as sacrosanct. I have my own set of sacrosanct beliefs which I never discuss, because i don't believe they are the proper subject of philosophical discussion. My criticism is rather for including such ideas, which are really not up for discussion, in the discussion, not for excluding them.

But it's predictable that as soon as anything of this kind is posted on a forum, it's like tossing bloodied meat into the Piranha River. — Wayfarer

Here's an example: the idea you refer to here (divine illumination) is an article f faith; not something that can fruitfully be discussed in a philosophical context (except perhaps if you were merely discussing the historical development of the idea and its cross-cultural commonalities, or something like that; in other words treating the idea phenomenologically).

I don't think most of what occurs on philosophy forums consists in what I would count as 'doing philosophy'.

For me religious beliefs (the publicly shared ones at least) just are are religious dogmas.

Here's an example: the idea you refer to here (divine illumination) is an article of faith; not something that can fruitfully be discussed in a philosophical context — Janus

I don't agree; there is voluminous evidence for the reality of such states, trans-historically and cross-culturally. It is a major aspect of neo-Platonism which is in turn one of the main sources of Western philosophy. My argument is that this is something important to philosophy which has become forgotten or rejected. What I am arguing is that this is not 'an article of faith' but because the philosophies that incorporated this insight are regarded as 'religious', then it's categorised that way. And that is the exact issue which I'm trying to articulate in this and many other threads. It is categorised as 'faith' because it is not 'data derived from empirical experience, and logical and mathematical treatments of such data'.

as Nagel notes, our culture is characterised by a deep-seated 'fear of religion'.
— Wayfarer

Don't you think we should fear it, or at least regard it with a good amount of caution? — praxis

Of course. But that isn't what Nagel meant. To provide the often-quoted passage in full:

In speaking of the fear of the fear of religion, I don't mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper - namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself. I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that.

My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning, and design as fundamental features of the world. Instead they become epiphenomena, generated incidentally by a process that can be entirely explained by the operation of the non-teleological laws of physics on the material of which we and our environments are all composed.

Thomas Nagel, Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion.

No you wouldn’t. What you would like, is to argue about it. Your sole interest here is bating theists. What I’m trying to explain, obviously to no avail, is that your whole grasp of the subject is a culturally-conditioned stererotype, but unless you can drag the debate back to your terms then you have no intetrest n it. — Wayfarer

Yeah, yeah, I've heard it all before. I asked a simple question. You've made it clear that you'd rather dictate my motives than answer it - a reoccurring problem with you.

And don't pretend that we're so different, you and I. You want to drag the debate in your own direction as much as I do. You hijacked the point that Janus was making to talk about your preference for Buddhism.

I'm just pressing his point, whereas you seem to have seen it as another opportunity for digression, and exploited it.