I don't think that's what philosophy is about. You just make it substitute for religion. — GraveItty
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
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. — dimosthenis9
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
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 will never be able to create immortality. That's just a fairytale — GraveItty
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
How can you be sure about that? — dimosthenis9
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". — 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! — dimosthenis9
Like I said, immortality is a fairytale. — GraveItty
This is why I wrote "via defeasible reasoning" instead. We're capable of discerning what normative conduct doesn't work becauseWhich actually just shows that there's no objective answer, no logical deductive reasoning for such a subjective issue. — ssu
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.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
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 ...)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
Christianity is Platonism for the masses. — Freddy Zarathustra
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
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?So an easy universal issue is that killing other people is wrong. Huge agreement with that, when we say it like that. — 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?But how about self-defense? When is it morally right to use lethal force for self defense? — ssu
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.The only objective view is the one that sees everything we do as natural. — James Riley
Yes. As I've said earlier, moral philosophy is for a reason a different branch of philosophy than let's say logic.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. — ssu
Exactly, and far more useful for us than only being objective.Being normative is natural. — James Riley
Add to this that things are very complex in reality. You can have good intentions while the outcome can be harmful.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
Exactly, and far more useful for us than only being objective. — ssu
should not be confused with religion as (the) "alternative" to confessional, or spiritual, practice. — 180 Proof
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
And I disagree that those "religious questions" which you mention also belong to philosophy — 180 Proof
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.