But what does God say and how do we know what God says and how are we to interpret it and what do we do to fill in the gaps on what things he hasn’t said anything about yet?

(Just playing Devil’s... er, God’s Advocate?)

The dichotomy isn't as true as the OP is making it out to be, much as his claims are mistaken for a myriad of reasons.

For example, the "problem of evil" is both a problem within "religions" as well as philosophy.

The "because God say" is a strawman, or that arguments for God "saying" so developed in a 'vaccum' completely abstracted from whatever various circumstances proceeded or played a role in said arguments to begin with. Such as in Socrates' Euthyphore delimma.

(Another example would be the philosophy of the Common Law, as per Holmes and others; modern law and legal system having evolved or developed out of older systems of law and justice, including "religious" ones).

Likewise, nontheistic religious such as Taoism, some types of Buddism, or other nontheistic religions do not invoke a "God" necessarily.

Today, philosophy of religion is one of the most vibrant areas of philosophy. Articles in philosophy of religion appear in virtually all the main philosophical journals, while some journals (such as the International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Religious Studies, Sophia, Faith and Philosophy, and others) are dedicated especially to philosophy of religion.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-religion/

...because if there is an all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful being, then the answer to every philosophical question becomes "Because God Say". — Banno

lol.

...because if there is an all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful being, then the answer to every philosophical question becomes "Because God Say". — Banno

Philosophy topics don't belong in a philosophy forum because every philosophical questions becomes "Because Neeeeeeeeeech and Beetles says"

the answer to every philosophical question becomes "Because God Say". — Banno

I guess I quite enjoy theological discussion because "Because God Say" acts as kind of creative-constraint. Theology is useful as a thought-exercise: if one accepts 'Because God Say', then what follows? Alot of interesting stuff. It's less a solution than a problem itself to be addressed. All bullshit of course, but it's bullshit that can teach us alot, when done well. Not that it's always or even often done well here, but still, it's not going anywhere.

because if there is an all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful being, then the answer to every philosophical question becomes "Because God Says". — Banno

I count myself as one of the religious, but I agree with you. It's a matter of recognizing what domain you're in. If you're thinking discursively and inferentially, then you have to play by discursive and inferential rules. That's not an artificial limitation - if your relation to god is a relation to an intellectual stopgap for thorny intellectual thickets, you're probably mixing up faith with something else.

Discussing the affects/effects of religious discussion does.

:wink:

I've read the introduction a million times, but haven't read the rest. Ricoeur wrote a book called Time and Narrative that begins with an analysis of Augustine's reflections on time. What Ricoeur says in the introduction is that by following Augustine's subtle lines of thought, and by seeing precisely where he brings in God as a way of settling things, we can proceed by subtracting 'god" and seeing the paradoxes his thought leads us to. And start from there. It's a nice way of looking at things. I think of it like this : Augustine had some probing thoughts about time, and his faith that an answer would eventually be provided allowed him to row a little farther out from shore than most. It's true that his trinitarian ways of resolving these questions shut down the radicality of his questions, but they still allowed him to press on to a further point than most before him

(In terms of my own ideas on faith and philosophy, I think it best to relate to God (or whatever) as radically other and alllow that to hold open a space that you can follow. (I think this is actually what Laruelle is essentially on about, but I'm nowhere near qualified to really touch on that)

Out of my element here but as far as I know not all religions (e.g. Buddhism, Taoism) posit an all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful being. In fact I'm not even certain this applies to all those working within the Judeo-Christian tradition, with process theologians and various mystics being possible counter-examples.

I know it's not relevant to the topic at hand but I like to think that if there is a God (in the traditional "omni" sense), and "He" gave us the ability to think and reason, then "He" would appreciate our using these faculties even if they ultimately lead to more questions than answers; to an honest skepticism or even atheism rather than a dogmatic theism; to a sense of wonder at the existence of this world over its dismissal in favor of future one.

Articles in philosophy of religion appear in virtually all the main philosophical journals

Perhaps this applies to the Anglo-Saxon world. I have checked the indexes of a dozen philosophical magazines in my country and found only one article related to religion: about Santayana's agnosticism.

Too much Anglocentrism, then.

It's true that his trinitarian ways of resolving these questions shut down the radicality of his questions, but they still allowed him to press on to a further point than most before him — csalisbury

Yeah, this seems exactly right to me. I mean, to believe in God, and to make it philosophically consistent, requires some pretty crazy leaps of imagination. I don't mean this pejoratively at all. The God-constraint (in addition to - if I'm prejudicial here - the standard 'reality-constraint' that everyone else has to deal with) means you really have to push pretty hard to set things in order.

Deleuze and Guattari have this line in What Is Philosophy? where they speak about how religion always 'secretes' an atheism, and muse over the likeliness that religious concepts only attain philosophical standing when they become atheist in some way: "We have seen this in Pascal or Kierkegaard: perhaps belief becomes a genuine concept only when it is made into belief in this world and is connected rather than being projected. Perhaps Christianity does not produce concepts except through its atheism, through the atheism that it, more than any other religion, secretes. ... There is always an atheism to be extracted from a religion."

It's something that's always rang true to me, and in some ways I think, for instance, the Scholastic period of philosophy is for me almost paradigmatic of how interesting and amazing philosophy can be. A snippet from one of Agamben's books, on the resurrection of bodies in paradise:

"The body, as we have seen, is resurrected as a whole, with all the organs it possessed during its earthly existence. Therefore, the blessed will forever have, according to their sex, either a virile member or a vagina and, in both cases, a stomach and intestines. But what for, if, as seems obvious, they will need neither to reproduce nor to eat? Certainly blood will circulate in their arteries and veins, but is it possible that hair will still grow on their heads and faces or that their fingernails will grow, as well, pointlessly and irritatingly? In confronting these delicate questions, theologians come up against a decisive aporia, one that seems to exceed the limits of their conceptual strategy but that also constitutes the locus in which we can think of a different possible use for the body.

...It is with regard to two principal functions of vegetative life - sexual reproduction and nutrition - that the problem of the physiology of the glorious body reaches its critical threshold. If the organs that execute these functions - testicles, penis, vagina, womb, stomach, intestines - will necessarily be present in the resurrection, then what function are they supposed to have? ... It is impossible, though, that the corresponding organs are completely useless and superfluous, since in the state of perfect nature nothing exists in vain. It is here that the question of the body's other use finds its first, stammering formulation.

Aquinas's strategy is clear: to separate organs from their specific physiological functions. The purpose of each organ, like that of any instrument, is its operation; but this does not mean that if the operation fails, then the instrument becomes useless. The organ or instrument that has separated from its operation and remains, so to speak, in a state of suspension, acquires, precisely for this reason, an ostensive function; it exhibits the virtue corresponding to the suspended operation. Just as in advertisements or pornography, where the simulacra of merchandise or bodies exalt their appeal precisely to the extent that they cannot be used, but only exhibited, so in the resurrection the idle sexual organs will display the potentiality, or the virtue, of procreation. The glorious body is an ostensive body whose functions are not executed but rather displayed." — Agamben, Nudities

I love this stuff.

Ricoeur was supposed to be a Christian philosopher who separated his philosophy from his religious beliefs. I started reading his book on finitude. After advancing among increasingly suspicious allegations of the superiority of the Gospel message over any other of a mythical order, I ended up finding that I as not able to understand this superiority because I have no faith.

In Spain we say that for that journey we did not need those saddlebags.

NOTE: this is not the only thing I have read by Ricoeur, but it always gives off the same whiff of sacristy.

I love this stuff. — StreetlightX

Sure. As an anthropological subject or sample of horrors religion is interesting. For something else I don't know what its use is.

Then you haven't engaged with it enough!

Religious discussion is misplaced on a philosophy forum...

because if there is an all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful being, then the answer to every philosophical question becomes "Because God Banno Says". — Banno

...because if there is an all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful being, then the answer to every philosophical question becomes "Because God Says". — Banno

If x and y are sets, then there exists a set which contains x and y as elements. — Example of a widely-accepted unjustified and unjustifiable statement

Why? Possibly, because God says ... who knows? Other justifications are not readily available for this otherwise widely-accepted speculative claim.

(You can try to justify but your justification will almost surely be rejected.)

because if there is an all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful being, then the answer to every philosophical question becomes "Because God Says". — Banno

Theologies worth discussing are logical within their self-contained systems and involve some degree of rigor in deciphering their texts. It's very similar to secular philosophy, especially where the object is in understanding the views of a particular philosopher. I find it particularity similar to the way you philosophize within your Wittgensteinian cult.

The philosophy of any topic can have its head in the clouds, so long as its feet are on the ground. Philosophy of religion manages that. Mere religion does not. Nor is it supposed to. Religion and philosophy of are two different things.The problem lies with those who don't know that, and (thereby) don't know what they're talking about.

Then you haven't engaged with it enough! — StreetlightX

I am curious.

Religious discussion is misplaced on a philosophy forum... — Banno

C'mon!

Discussing whether pistachios taste better than pecans is appropriate in a philosophy forum.

Surely discussing religions is.

This is all just a distraction from the important work of figuring out whether chairs really exist.

Clearly, God said "discuss me" sometime or other. Why else would we do so, unceasingly and with so little to show for it, if not under compulsion? Thus is God's existence established. The Argument from Prolixity.

..because if there is an all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful being, then the answer to every philosophical question becomes "Because God Says". — Banno

Is it an answer to every question because God says so, or is God says so an answer to every question because of God's nature? If the first, then logic is divine fiat, if the second, then God is logic.

If God is logic, then checkmate, atheist.

whether chairs really exist. — Pfhorrest

It depends on whether God said, "Let there be chairs", or God said, "Let there be particles arranged chair-wise".

Or alternatively, the chair-forms emanated from the ground of being, and the particles partake in the divine form.

How about a simple rule: anyone using the term "god" or anything like, has to make clear what he means by the word, in the sense of a good definition. My guess is that would take the oxygen out of the room.

That's correct, God did it!

Ok, my work is done here; next question.

(Sorry Banno, you asked a simple question, you got a simple answer. I think it's called the law of attraction. LOL)

Seriously, I think you should ask a more intriguing question, like, if God is all knowing, what does the [his] eternity of time mean(?).

.because if there is an all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful being, then the answer to every philosophical question becomes "Because God Says". — Banno

I dont think so, because even if god DID do everything and that the answer to philosophical questions like what is moral or immoral is according to what god says it is, we would still need to determine what that is using the tools we have. Since nobody has a direct line to god, we have to use the tools we do have. Philosophy is one of those tools.
You could make the same objection to a world without god, swapping god for the laws of physics for example.
Scientific discussion is misplaced in philosophy because if the universe follows the laws of physics then the answer to all philosophical questions becomes “because science says so”.
Could do the same thing with clearly philosophical categories, like ethics. Without getting into the weeds of where ethics actually come from: Ethical discussion is misplaced in philosophy because if X is the full description of ethics then the answer to all philosophical questions “X did it”.
In any of those examples, its still worth philosophical discussion because knowing the source of all things (or ethical things, or scientific things) only answers the question of source. There are so many answers and questions on the way to an ultimate source that having a clear answer of that source (“god did it”) alone wouldnt give us much of a framework at all, none Id say.
So I disagree.

Religion tends to be more interesting than philosophy, because it's less afraid of substantive claims (as opposed to 'conceptually necessary' ones that venture little) & it's more deeply tied to mankind's cultural origins and deepest fears / desires / etc. It's also generally a culturally more well-developed realm of human thought / action. Philosophy has some advantages, but if anything mixing the two debases religion, not vice-versa.

...because if there is an all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful being, then the answer to every philosophical question becomes "Because God Says". — Banno

If science is true, the same argument can be made.

Moreover, you cannot discount the power of religion in human affairs. Wars have been fought, empires toppled in the name of religion. Religion deserves a place in philosophy for that reason.