I don't think that's what philosophy is about. You just make it substitute for religion. — GraveItty

For me surely philosophy involves that too and I mentioned it since it's the specific issue of being discussed at this thread.At what degree can be a efficient substitute for religion.

What existential void are you talking about? You think without gods the world is empty and amoral? If so, why you connect moral with God? — GraveItty

For me no. But for many people is. You can easily identify it since the vast majority of people even nowadays are theists . And of course God and religions are mostly connected with morals too.

No without God world isn't empty and amoral but religions are used as the "main excuse" for many people as to follow morals.
The reasons for why this happens have been discussed in other posts here from other members also.

So if you have all the answers you can accuse them of being wrong? — GraveItty

Still no.But especially since science knowledge hasn't reached there yet, God is still an open issue.

Still no.But especially since science knowledge hasn't reached there yet, God is still an open issue. — dimosthenis9

So you think when science has reached there, God is no more an open issue? How can science ever close that issue?

Not sure how could be done. I could only guess by finding the answers for how the whole universe works and its purpose(if there is actually one). Or maybe if science one day makes possible immortality.

Still probably some people would follow any kind of God for other reasons, but atheists then would have more "scientific claims" as to prove them wrong.
And theists would be radically reduced (especially if humanity ever make it to "escape" from death).

Not sure how could be done. I could only guess by finding the answers for how the whole universe works and its purpose(if there is actually one). Or maybe if science one day makes possible immortality. — dimosthenis9

If you know how the universe works, to the fundamental level of spacetime and the truly basic matter fields in it, if a scientists like Dawkins declares that all life merely exists and acts because a proposed longing of selfish genes and memes to be passed through, then still you won't have the answer of why it's all ther. Science will never be able to create immortality. That's just a fairytale.

Still probably some people would follow any kind of God for other reasons, but atheists then would have more "scientific claims" as to prove them wrong.
And theists would be radically reduced (especially if humanity ever make it to "escape" from death). — dimosthenis9

Science simply can't prove God to be non-existent. Theists radically reduced. Are you serious? If so, you sound just like a fundamentalist. So I hope you are not and take yourself too seriously, like fundamentalists do. I hope it's just meant to provoke. You had bad experiences with religion?

Science will never be able to create immortality. That's just a fairytale — GraveItty

How can you be sure about that? At the past years what science achieved sounded like "fairytale" also.

Are you serious? If so, you sound just like a fundamentalist. So I hope you are not and take yourself too seriously, like fundamentalists do. I hope it's just meant to provoke. You had bad experiences with religion? — GraveItty

Not fundamentalist at all. The strange thing is how you ended up to such conclusion.
And no didn't have any bad experience with religion either. In fact though an atheist I have much respect to theists. It's obvious from my previous posts here.

I also had opened a thread some time ago mentioning among others, how theists should be respected and the hard conflicts I had were with atheists. They accused me of being an "undercover theist" pretending the atheist.
That says something I think.

How can you be sure about that? — dimosthenis9

All matter in the universe eventually accelerates away from each other, making the foundation of life impossible. On top of that, life can only develop in a Natural way.

Not fundamentalist at all. The strange thing is how you ended up to such conclusion.
And no didn't have any bad experience with religion either. In fact though an atheist I have much respect to theists. It's obvious from my previous posts here. — dimosthenis9

I ended up to that conclusion because of your language (as I explained implicitely): "atheists will be radically reduced".

I ended up to that conclusion because of your language (as I explained implicitely): "atheists will be radically reduced". — GraveItty

In fact i said "theists would be radically reduced" and it is only my opinion of what would happen if humanity reach to immortality.
Not that I have a passion as to start a "crusade for vanishing theists". I have no problem with theists as long as they are not fanatics. I have a problem though with fanatics atheists also!

In fact i said "theists would be radically reduced" and it is only my opinion of what would happen if humanity reach to immortality.
Not that I have a passion as to start a "crusade for vanishing theists". I have no problem with theists as long as they are not fanatics. I have a problem though with fanatics atheists also! — dimosthenis9

And the religious fanatics says: atheists would be radically reduced.

Like I said, immortality is a fairytale.

Like I said, immortality is a fairytale. — GraveItty

It's only your opinion. After thousands of years you can never be sure of what humanity will achieve.

Which actually just shows that there's no objective answer, no logical deductive reasoning for such a subjective issue. — ssu

This is why I wrote "via defeasible reasoning" instead. We're capable of discerning what normative conduct doesn't work because

We're an eusocial species and our functional defects – physical & psychological vulnerabilities which makes us dysfunctional when neglected or exacerbated – are objective facts about us. — 180 Proof

Even though it is a demonstrable objective fact that Earth is round (i.e. an oblate spheroid), it is not universally accepted to be so (e.g. "flat earthers" à la creationists). Same for the sustainability (praxes) of human ecology as the objective basis for ethical naturalism (which includes my '(aretaic) negative utilitarianism', etc). In other words, whatever the objective facts of the matter are (e.g. nature in general, our species defects & eusociality in particular, etc), many of our fellow primates are often ignorant, or in denial, of them or mistaken about them – subjective stances, however, which do not negate objective facts.

Since as for others, philosophy is not enough to fill their existential void and have the need of turning into a God as to find "answers". — dimosthenis9

Well, of course, philosophy's function is certainly not "to fill [the] existential void" (like filling potholes or getting your woo-of-the-gaps fix from some over-prescribed "painkiller"). As I've pointed out already in reply to the OP, philosophical inquiry doesn't seek the (unquestionable) "answers" – dogma – of religious seeking. You're right though, philosophy is not for most people, certainly not for everyone, but also should not be confused with religion as (the) "alternative" to confessional, or spiritual, practice. Seeking (ultimate) "answers"? Religion may be for you, not philosophy. Otherwise, seeking (radical) "questions"? Philosophy is the reflectively rational path (though the destination might be natural science or history, art or teaching, healthcare or soldiering ...)

Christianity is Platonism for the masses. — Freddy Zarathustra

[double post]

In keeping with the times, circa1793, fifteen thousand words to say, the good man already has what religion prescribes, the bad man already rejects what religion prescribes. The text of the essay shows man reasons to religion, not from or because of it, and contains cleverly sufficient platitudes to alleviate the possibility that the church would accuse him of heresy, and the state accuse him of sedition. With bloodbath and demise of the ruling class in the French Revolution still fresh in the continental mind, it’s not healthy to piss off even an enlightened monarch such as Frederick II claimed himself to be, plus having recently established Prussia as a bonafide European power, and, of course, it’s never good to piss off the Pope.

In short, Kant displayed some serious brass balls here.....

“...Hence it is no wonder that the complaint is made publicly, that religion still contributes so little to men’s improvement, and that the inner light of these favored ones does not shine forth outwardly in good works also, yea, preeminently, above other men of native honesty who, in brief, take religion unto themselves not as a substitute for, but as a furtherance of, the virtuous disposition which shows itself through actions, in a good course of life. Yet the Teacher of the Gospel has himself put into our hands these external evidences of outer experience as a touchstone, by telling us that we can know men by their fruits and that every man can know himself. But thus far we do not see that those who, in their own opinion, are extraordinarily favored (the chosen ones) surpass in the very least the naturally honest man...”

.....all the more so because he was as yet no where near as well-known and influential as he was eventually to become.

All that being said, “Religion Within the Limits of Pure Reason” is beyond the scope of Everydayman, as is the majority of Kant’s catalog, who probably wouldn't accept it even if he were capable of understanding it, even while being aimed directly at him.

Even though it is a demonstrable objective fact that Earth is round (i.e. an oblate spheroid), it is not universally accepted to be so (e.g. "flat earthers" à la creationists). Same for the sustainability (praxes) of human ecology as the objective basis for ethical naturalism (which includes my '(aretaic) negative utilitarianism', etc). — 180 Proof

Did I understand you correctly that you argue that the sustainability of human ecology is the objective basis for morals, what is right or wrong?

That seems more like a tautology, which doesn't help much. It isn't simply that some people are ignorant to the facts that we have disagreement just what is good for the "sustainability of human ecology" and what isn't. People who might disagree with you and me on some moral principles aren't simply "flat earthers" who are or want to be ignorant about facts. These things are inherently subjective.

Moral philosophy, just as aesthetics (or would it be axiology in general) simply are in a different than logic, cosmology, etc.

These things are inherently subjective. — ssu

Explain this, tell me why. Harm, suffering, misery – reducing or inflicting them – are "inherently subjective"? I can't make sense of what you mean.

Why, you think moral questions are easy and self-evident? Or that what you or I think are obviously the correct answers? Or just you?

Ok.

So an easy universal issue is that killing other people is wrong. Huge agreement with that, when we say it like that. But how about self-defense? When is it morally right to use lethal force for self defense?
Is it right or wrong to kill other animals? Is it harmful that human society has advance from the hunter gatherers to what we are today? A lot of species have died and there's global warming, yet for "human ecology" our way to mold this planet to serve us has been a great success story. Or how about issues with sex? Or substance use? Abortion?

All those issues that we now see as 'political' and where we see 'cultural divides' emerging on how people answer them.

The only objective view is the one that sees everything we do as natural. The subjective view sees what we do as better or worse, or capable of being better or worse. Objectivity is not relative. Subjectivity is.

The subjective will use the objective as an excuse, switching back and forth as it sees fit.

So an easy universal issue is that killing other people is wrong. Huge agreement with that, when we say it like that. — ssu

If you have to "say it like that" for it to appear as an objective truth, then you simply highlight it's inherent subjectivity, do you not?

But how about self-defense? When is it morally right to use lethal force for self defense? — ssu

Not even that. If a situation could be described within which the killing of human beings would be even infinitesimally less "wrong" an act, then the possibility exists of a situation in which it is a "right" act. With that in mind, I will now assume the role of "devil's advocate", and illustrate with an example. If this planet were to become so grossly overpopulated with our species that ecological, biomic collapse ensued, and the only way to prevent utter collapse were to "cull" the human population, would the killing/murder of a human being be slightly less "wrong" an act?

We tend to treat mores as absolutes, when in fact they seem not to be.

The only objective view is the one that sees everything we do as natural. — James Riley

Unfortunately the thing is that we have to face and answer questions on how things ought to be (as many times not deciding is one fateful decision). That's normative, not objective.

If you have to "say it like that" for it to appear as an objective truth, then you simply highlight it's inherent subjectivity, do you not? — Michael Zwingli

Yes. As I've said earlier, moral philosophy is for a reason a different branch of philosophy than let's say logic.

That's normative, not objective. — ssu

Being normative is natural.

Yes. As I've said earlier, moral philosophy is for a reason a different branch of philosophy than let's say logic. — ssu

Another example, perhaps less emotionally charged: often, a given species will overpopulate within an environmental preserve, and authorities are then forced to cull the population in order to preserve the biological stability of the particular environment in question. These animals are killed for absolutely no other reason than that, meaning than for the success of the species within that environment. Normally, the purposeless killing of an animal is considered a moral "wrong", but under such particular circumstances it is considered a morally "right" act. In other words, the "mores" in question are not absolute. I would argue that if any moral norm can be shown to be relative within a given hypothetical situation, then all mores must be viewed as relative and non-absolute. Any consideration within moral philosophy that moral norms are absolute is, I suspect, either due to the influence of the affective mind, or an artefact of superstition. Did F. Nietzsche not already deal with these types of questions rather definitively? I will admit to never having spent a great deal of time studying ethics or moral philosophy. Perhaps I am thinking too logically for this topic...the misapplication of such thinking has demonstrated the ability to yield truly horrendous results.

How do philosophers in discussing moral questions reconcile hypotheticals with the realities of our subjective world?

:up:

:ok:

Being normative is natural. — James Riley

Exactly, and far more useful for us than only being objective.

Another example, perhaps less emotionally charged: often, a given species will overpopulate within an environmental preserve, and authorities are forced to cull the population in order to preserve the biological stability of the particular environment in question. These animals are killed for absolutely no other reason than that, meaning than for the success of the species within that environment. Normally, the purposeless killing of an animal is considered a moral "wrong", but under such particular circumstances it is considered a morally "right" act. In other words, the "mores" in question are not absolute. — Michael Zwingli

Add to this that things are very complex in reality. You can have good intentions while the outcome can be harmful.

Here's something I found out just now.

Theism: God, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent.

The philosopher's ultimus meta, the be all and end all of philosophy, philosophy's holy grail, wisdom has been defined as knowledge of what is true & good i.e. (omni)science & (omni)benevolence. Thus it's not too much of a stretch that philosophers are seeking god (in themselves).

There was a time I believe when western philosophy declared truth (verum), good (bonum), beauty (pulchrum) as the primary objectives of (doing) philosophy.

Satyam shivam sundaram: Truth, Go(o)d(li)ness, Beauty.

Exactly, and far more useful for us than only being objective. — ssu

That itself is subjective.

We have a habit of flipping back and forth to which ever suits us at the moment.

I'm doing it now. I often like to distinguish between man and nature. Then I will turn around and look at the objective view.

should not be confused with religion as (the) "alternative" to confessional, or spiritual, practice. — 180 Proof

I don't have anything to disagree about your post except maybe only that.

For me, of course we can't consider that philosophy can be an absolute substitute for religion. But I think that in some crucial aspects-issues both try to give to each person individually some answers.

For example questions like "what happens after death?", "what is the purpose of life? "," how should I live my life as to be happy? "etc exc, I think you agree that both Religion and Philosophy share as a common base.Right?

In conclusion, yes it is wrong to consider philosophy as" antidote " to religion. But I also find it wrong as to consider that philosophy has nothing to do with religion! They are connected in many things. Their routes get crossed in crucial issues of human life,in many corners.

That's why I mentioned at my first posts here on this thread that I see philosophy as a refugee for atheists. A Shelter.

At least that's how it works for me.

Why, you think moral questions are easy and self-evident? Or that what you or I think are obviously the correct answers? Or just you?

Ok.

So an easy universal issue is that killing other people is wrong. Huge agreement with that, when we say it like that. But how about self-defense? When is it morally right to use lethal force for self defense?
Is it right or wrong to kill other animals? Is it harmful that human society has advance from the hunter gatherers to what we are today? A lot of species have died and there's global warming, yet for "human ecology" our way to mold this planet to serve us has been a great success story. Or how about issues with sex? Or substance use? Abortion?

All those issues that we now see as 'political' and where we see 'cultural divides' emerging on how people answer them. — ssu

Excellent.

I've pointed out a few times already what I think philosophy has to do with religion. And I disagree that those "religious questions" which you mention also belong to philosophy; rather they are "seeds" of further, more nuanced, explicitly conceptual inquiries. Once more, philosophy proposes questions and inquiries (i.e. reflective exercises), not "definitive answers" (i.e. dogmas). "Answers" are the wanton droppings of preachers & sophists.

And I disagree that those "religious questions" which you mention also belong to philosophy — 180 Proof

I mentioned questions, not religion questions. Existential questions. And I can't understand how you can disagree with that.
Isn't the question "what happens after death?" available both in philosophy and religion? Aren't there philosophers who dealt with this matter?

And I will go it even further. At the end isn't religion itself just a philosophy theory and nothing more?? Well different theories in fact since there are many religions!

Bible for example, was written by human (or humans) being(s).
Well he wasn't nothing more but an excellent philosopher.If not excellent for sure a great influential one!

How old are you, dimo9? How long have you been pursuing your interest in philosophy?