The point I'm labouring in all this, is the philosophical one - that (true or false) religious philosophies provide a framework within which to situate humankind in the Cosmos, and not just as the accidental collocation of atoms (Bertrand Russell's phrase) - which seems to me the bottom line of secular philosophy.
— Wayfarer

And I guess I keep saying is that it isn't a forgone conclusion that the former is better than the latter. It seems more about aesthetics or personal taste. — Tom Storm

I'm not talking specifically about Christianity or belief in the Bible. I'm saying that philosophically, the idea that human life has an intrinsic connection to the cosmic order is better than the view that life is the product of fortuitous causes. I mean, I'm not even going to argue the point, beyond saying that I would have thought it better to be part of a plan than part of an accident ;-) .

But you seem to have red flags about whatever can be called religious. On the other hand what I'm opposing 'religion' to, is 20th C nihilistic materialism. For example - Arthur Schopenhauer is regarded as a textbook atheist. His bitter diatribes against the folly of religion are well known. But then in the SEP entry on Schopenhauer, we read:

Schopenhauer believes that a person who experiences the truth of human nature from a moral perspective – who appreciates how spatial and temporal forms of knowledge generate a constant passing away, continual suffering, vain striving and inner tension – will be so repulsed by the human condition and by the pointlessly striving Will of which it is a manifestation, that he or she will lose the desire to affirm the objectified human situation in any of its manifestations. The result is an attitude of denial towards our will-to-live that Schopenhauer identifies with an ascetic attitude of renunciation, resignation, and will-lessness, but also with composure and tranquillity. In a manner reminiscent of traditional Buddhism, he recognizes that life is filled with unavoidable frustration and acknowledges that the suffering caused by this frustration can itself be reduced by minimizing one’s desires. Moral consciousness and virtue thus give way to the voluntary poverty and chastity of the ascetic. St. Francis of Assisi (WWR, Section 68) and Jesus (WWR, Section 70) subsequently emerge as Schopenhauer’s prototypes for the most enlightened lifestyle, in conjunction with the ascetics from every religious tradition.

So - would Dawkins/Dennett accept Schopenhauer into the fold of scientifically-enlightened materialist atheism?

I expect not.

As noted, I agree with him that a major role of philosophy is questioning, even interogating, religion. He says that doesn't mean rejecting it. — Wayfarer

Yes, it’s a liberal view that’s hard to disagree with, namely that philosophy helps us moderate our ideas and prevents the descent into fundamentalism. It could even be argued that it’s conservative, in that it positively helps prevailing beliefs to continue prevailing, since moderate beliefs are easier to live with, more stable, less open to attack (motte-and-bailey again).

Even so, I wanted to highlight the basic critical role of philosophy. It’s another matter whether the aim of this criticism is to maintain or destroy existing belief systems. As to that, I tend in a more radical direction than Moeller.

I've often mentioned the connection that has been discovered between the sceptic Elis of Pyrrho and Buddhism (extending all the way to David Hume). There are numerous books and papers on it, to the effect that the Pyrrhonian 'suspension of judgement' (epoché) was derived from Buddhists. 'But', some will ask, 'how could he learn scepticism from Buddhists? They're religious, aren't they?'

What is the meaning of 'post-secular'?
ChatGPT: The term "post-secular" refers to a cultural and philosophical shift away from the dominant secular worldview of modernity towards a renewed interest in spirituality, religion, and the transcendent. The post-secular is a term used to describe a contemporary cultural moment in which the traditional boundaries between the religious and the secular are being redefined.

This shift is characterized by a growing recognition that secularization has not led to the disappearance of religion or religious sensibilities, but rather to their transformation and diversification. The post-secular perspective acknowledges the continued relevance of religion and spirituality in people's lives and in the public sphere, while also recognizing the need for a more inclusive and pluralistic understanding of these phenomena.

The post-secular perspective also emphasizes the importance of dialogue and engagement between different religious and secular worldviews, as well as between different cultural and philosophical traditions. It seeks to promote a more nuanced and complex understanding of the relationship between religion and society, and to explore the ways in which religion and spirituality can contribute to social and political change in a globalized world.

For example - Arthur Schopenhauer is regarded as a textbook atheist. — Wayfarer

I think of him more as a classic crank (in the Orwell use of the word).

I mean, I'm not even going to argue the point, beyond saying that I would have thought it better to be part of a plan than part of an accident ;-) . — Wayfarer

Fair enough, but you see I prefer the notion of accident. And I think this is a question of taste. I happen to like the random, the unplanned, the enigmatic.

But you seem to have red flags about whatever can be called religious. — Wayfarer

Fair point. I'm not a big fan of any meta-narratives in general. I think I dislike social media and pop music more than religion if that means anything. :wink:

Anyway let's move on. Thanks for your continued nuanced contributions.

In my own perspective, I view philosophy as a tool for expanding on concepts or ideas with a strategy of thought. It's a toolset of conceptualization in which you can test your ideas while avoiding bias.

I think that the idea that one of its purposes or definitions to "questioning religion", isn't really a primary definition, it is a by-product of philosophy's internal logic.

If a primary function of philosophy is to remove biases and fallacies in reasoning, in order to help conceptualization past an individuals mental traps in logic, then it naturally starts to dismantle religion since religion requires a bias towards the faith.

Anyone who's religious and who starts reasoning with philosophy will either fail at that philosophy reinforcing their religion, or break down their religion through the logic found in philosophy. The only reason why religious people have created philosophical concepts is that they intentionally fail at philosophy at a certain level, concluding it with "because God" or similar.

The reason I argue that it's a form of anti-bias toolset is because before we even had a word for cognitive bias or such a concept formulated, it was part of philosophy. The constant demand to include logic. Even in Continental philosophy there is logic. People didn't read Nietzsche and agreed because of some arbitrary reason, but because there was logic in his observation and conceptualization.

It is a form of abstract observation of reality. If scientists observe actual reality, doing experiments, gathering data, calculate predictions, then philosophy is more abstractly observing reality, doing experiments, calculate predictions but not limiting where the mind goes based on the constraints of physical experiments. That doesn't mean it lacks logic more than science, but that the logical experiments uses analogies and thought experiments as its experimental ground.

So the critical role of philosophy is a framework for conceptualization and true observation that removes bias, when done correctly. And through that, the byproduct becomes anti-religion as religion requires bias to that religion in order to function.

Because of this I don't think the critical role is to question religion, it's just that religion becomes the biggest target for philosophy based on its opposing internal logic. And through history we've primarily witnessed the clash between religion and philosophy because of this.

By 'nihilism' I understand the belief that nothing human (i.e. mortal, finite, caused, contingent, imperfect) is meaningful or significant or real. Thus, I interpret 'supernatural religions' (e.g. Abrahamic, Vedic, pantheonic, shamanic, animist, ancestral, divine rightist, paranormal, ... cults) as manifest 'nihilisms' which, as Freddy points out, devalue this worldly life by projecting – idealizing (i.e. idolizing, disembodying) – 'infinite meaning, significance & reality' as originating with and/or only belonging to some purported 'eternal otherworldly life' — 180 Proof

Yes, I like this way of putting it. Feuerbach’s critique was similar.

What we see then are different kinds of nihilism: from the devaluation of earthly life in traditional societies to morality and reason as purely subjective under capitalism. Roughly speaking.

post-secular — Wayfarer

Interesting. Seems reasonable.

My own interest in some sort of secular sacredness is in a different direction: immanent and earthly rather than transcendent and heavenly, more like magic than mythology or religion. Art is probably the model here, though it’s notable that even that model may have been lost, since the rise of postmodern, conceptual art.

Any time one has a use for philosophy, one is not doing philosophy, but rhetoric. The tool-maker makes the tools he uses to make tools, but he is never using the tool he is making while he is making it.

That’s a good argument, and I think @Ciceronianus and @Banno were saying roughly the same thing. I think it’s basically in line with the OP, in which I generalize the questioning of religion to the role of critique.

Still, there’s something about it that makes me suspicious. The idea that philosophy is an independent ever-expanding toolbox, ready to apply to whatever exists—this is surely a fantasy. Philosophy is itself always historically situated, and part of what it does is to apply its tools to itself, even to its own tools, depending on the social conditions.

Agreed, but I was pointing out that it is not the only role of philosophy, which saying that is what philosophy is for seems to suggest.

Ok, I’ll go along with that. In the video, Moeller actually identifies three things that philosophy is for: questioning religion, coining concepts, and giving jobs to failed poets (continental philosophers) and failed mathematicians (analytic philosophers).

Any time one has a use for philosophy, one is not doing philosophy, but rhetoric. The tool-maker makes the tools he uses to make tools, but he is never using the tool he is making while he is making it. — unenlightened

I’m very sympathetic to this. The instinct to identify a use or function might be associated with the instinct to commodify, to put a price on it. Philosophy is attractive partly because its usefulness is at the very least non-obvious.

Even so, I don’t think it’s contradictory to look at some period in history and say that philosophers were important in particular ways that led to good outcomes, or that the philosophical thought of the period sets an example of how to think independently and critically.

Everyone loves the tool-maker, and everyone uses the tools he makes for the purposes they have. The carpenter says that the purpose of tool making is to enable wood-work. The stonemason says the purpose of tool-making is to enable the shaping of stone. The beautician says...

The purpose of the tool maker himself is to make tools. He is important to every function because he has none of his own.

The idea that philosophy is an independent ever-expanding toolbox, ready to apply to whatever exists—this is surely a fantasy. Philosophy is itself historically situated, and part of what it does is to apply its tools to itself, even to its own tools, depending on the social conditions. — Jamal

Since the dawn of writing, has not the pen been developed to be a better pen? A tool is constantly being improved upon and philosophy has undergone iterations of improvements to sharpen its ability to help conceptualize. And just like a pen or any tool for writing, it has the shape of the time it is used in.

But I think the core principles has been valid since people first had critical thought and questioned each others logic. We could possibly argue that even during hunter gatherer societies, there were arguments on how to best hunt a certain prey or where to find the best source of food. And the most successful were the ones detaching themselves from cognitive bias, without ever knowing about such concepts theoretically. This is probably why philosophy and science has been confused together as well as been argued to be different. They share similarities, but form different functions. One is forming predictive truths, while the other is mentally structuring concepts that functions as principles in thought.

Essentially it helps guide thoughts and ideas through a forest of confusion. Speeding up the process of arriving at logical conclusions in situations where scientific facts aren't fully present to achieve absolute predictable truths.

I do think that it can be applied to anything if the general purpose is to detach conceptualization from the mental traps of bias. A self-examination of one's ideas in order to reach higher understanding about something without adding personal fantasy to the mix.

Because when someone propose a philosophical concept that lacks in logic or rationality, on any level, even abstract ones, it is a failure in philosophy, and when we examine such arguments for flaws, we are looking for biases and fallacies as the prime source for their failures.

Those proposed concepts can be about anything, but the framework seems to be consistent throughout time and the level of analytical sharpness is depending on which historical time we are in, just like a writing tool has been a stick with red paint, to an iron rod marking stone tablets, to a feather in ink, to a mass produced charcoal pencil, to a keyboard. It has sharpened the efficiency of writing, and so we have sharpened the efficiency of anti-biased conceptualization.

Few today can propose philosophical concepts without the internal logic being absolutely watertight. If someone today propose a wildly inconsistent concept (that could have been common hundred of years ago and still pushed concepts and ideas about the world forward), it will be broken down and discarded by its lack of internal logic. Biases and fallacies would be pointed out and the one proposing the concept is required to rework that inner logic. Even in continental philosophy, the inner logic is examined closely. Does it have high probability or not?

Time sharpens any general concept of a tool and that tool will always evolve to be better throughout history.

But that’s too neutral and aloof for my taste and I want more.

You have on the one side, the confidence of science, which has given rise to the astounding technology which characterises today's world and with which we sorrounded (and even defined), but which situates itself in a universe which it has already declared is devoid of meaning. — Wayfarer

The concept of a universe devoid of meaning, does not account for the time/moment when 'life' that was self-aware, came into existence. For me, this destroys any notion of a universe devoid of meaning.
Lifeforms such as humans (and not just humans), results in a universe with very definite meaning.
How can concepts such as 'legacy' and 'memorialisation' and 'inherited genetics' and 'natural selection based on a survival imperative,' be devoid of meaning.' I am demonstrating meaning right now, by typing this response. No supernatural input is required to demonstrate meaning, purpose and intent. There is no nihilistic imperative then, as living a meaningful life is fully available. Living life as a nihilistic curse, is a personal choice.

I would also argue that the universe before life, was always moving towards the moment of sparking life. Life is perpetually emergent, all over the universe and always has been. Entropy will end this universe eventually, but if you are a fan of a cyclical universe then, life will resurface during each aeon.

I really can't see how the kamikaze pilot could be interpreted as self-centred when the entire narrative was created around self sacrifice. Same for jihadis (and even though I think their zealotry is tragically warped.) They are indoctrinated to believe that they will receive their just rewards in the hereafter. — Wayfarer

Imbeciles like kamikaze and jihadis worship the very self-centred concept of martyrdom.
A horror like Alexander the butcher, placed his glorification and the fact that he will be remembered for millennia, over any immediate threat to his existence. Those who covet martyrdom/glorification and are very willing to make themselves a blood sacrifice to 'save' their fellows, are following such as the christ crucified exemplar. That's why those who wrote the bible made up the christ crucified and then resurrected story. It's very attractive to those self-centred enough to be attracted to martyrdom.
How do you feel about this image and use of the word philosophy?




Additionals: An interesting side question I tend to ask Christian's is, do you think we would have heard of Jesus Christ, if the Romans had let him go free? Would Jesus/god have been forced to harden the Roman hearts against him like he did to Pharaoh in the OT?

@Jamal, @180 Proof should a title like 'The philosophy of martyrdom,' offend your average academic philosopher?

Ever the Marxist, eh? The point is to change the world. That's fine by me; I'm just pointing out that using philosophy is not making philosophy.

I’m not so sure they can be so neatly separated.

↪unenlightened I’m not so sure they can be so neatly separated. — Jamal

The tool-maker makes the tools he uses to make tools, but he is never using the tool he is making while he is making it. — unenlightened

:ok:

I would also argue that the universe before life, was always moving towards the moment of sparking life. — universeness

I might agree, but materialism has no concept of telos. There is no possibility of intentionality outside the intentional actions of agents.

if you are a fan of a cyclical universe then, life will resurface during each aeon. — universeness

Carl Sagan was very interested in Hindu cosmology, partially as a consequence of this idea. (Also because the mythological Hindu time-scales were scientifically feasible occupying billions of years)

There is no possibility of intentionality outside the intentional actions of agents. — Wayfarer

Why would such be a requirement for meaning to exist in the universe. Each of us is an individual agent of meaning, purpose and intent, why is that not enough to demonstrate that meaning exists in the universe?

Carl Sagan was very interested in Hindu cosmology, partially as a consequence of this idea. (Also because the mythological Hindu time-scales were scientifically feasible occupying billions of years) — Wayfarer

I would not choose the term 'very interested.' He found Hindu cosmology to have some common ground with the cyclical universe proposals, posited by science but he assigned far more credence to scientific cyclical/oscillating universe posits that he did to hindu cosmology. Carl also liked the idea that this universe could be contained in a particle and that every particle in this universe, is a universe. He called that a 'nice idea.'
Carl had a wonderfully, awesome, romantic view of human existence as well as a brilliant scientific mind.
I try to mimic him whenever I can.

I think you are right, but only half right. Philosophy helps tear down dogmas, but it also helps construct and sustain dogmas. Opposite any critical philosopher is always a set of orthodox philosophers attempting to preserve the current edifice.

Galileo, Copernicus, and Kepler, got into hot water for heliocentrism precisely because it conflicted with Aristotle's physics, which by then had become a dogmatic framework for the Church.

Platonism became the religion of Neo-Platonism with Plotinus, Proculus, etc., i.e. philosophers building up religion. The Patristics framed early Christian philosophy in Stoic and Neoplatonic terms because these ways of thinking were dogmatically held as the correct way to view nature, and anything that radically shifted away from them was necessarily suspect.

Saint Augustine is widely held as the creator of the Western concept of "the will," and the originator of both libertarianism and compatiblism (you see both, since Augustine's thought doesn't fit nicely in one box and changes over his 43 year career). He is also the first philosopher to investigate semiotics, although he's less influential here since no one else picked up on it for a long time.

Augustine challenged Neoplatonic dogmas, both outside and inside the Church (e.g., writing against Origenist positions or Arian emanationist positions that hewed closer to Neoplatonic orthodoxy). Yet, Augustine's teachings also became dogmas in turn, shaping the Western church in particular in a fundemental way. So here we have a philosopher building up religion.

Philosophy is a process that both builds up and helps take down dogmas. Philosophy gave birth to the natural sciences, which were originally "natural philosophy," the social sciences, and a number of humanities fields (e.g. semiotics). You see the same dynamics at work in these fields, where a given paradigm is defended as orthodoxy when challenges to it first appear.

Dogmas exist in the sciences. Physics had a 70 year span where work on quantum foundations was anathema, and orthodoxy enforced by torpedoing the careers of people who dared to investigate the interpretation of QM. Biology has a similar struggle over the Central Dogma that has blown up into public view recently

Philosophy has shown up to help destroy dogmas in the sciences and to help erect new ones. The idea of "philosophy becoming divorced from the sciences," in the early 20th century is itself a dogma pursued by philosophers. Copenhagen orthodoxy wasn't "just the science," it was a philosophical view that claimed it was the absence of philosophy, and thus unchallengeable without "degrading the science by injecting woo filled metaphysics." This was, in retrospect, still a philosophy, and a particularly dogmatic and uncharitable one (e.g., constant claims that almost every topic under the sun is essentially "meaningless").

Scientism is a dogma supported by a set of particular philosophical outlooks. This dogma is defended in the same way the old religions were. On this front, philosophy is still both maintaining and breaking down old dogmas. I read a lot of popular science, and hit books often contain tons of discussions of philosophical topics or metaphysical claims. These topics can often take up the majority of a book ostensibly not about philosophy, even when the same book denies a role for philosophy in modern science.

This is why I am starting to wonder if the claim that "science doesn't make ontological claims, it is merely a set of epistemological methods," isn't simply a No True Scottman fallacy.

Each of us is an individual agent of meaning, purpose and intent, why is that not enough to demonstrate that meaning exists in the universe? — universeness

There is a basic philosophical issue of how intentionality arises in the first place. Materialism ascribes that to chance - as the outcome of a fortuitous physical process which happened to give rise to bioogical evolution - and there are considerable philosophical implications of that.

:clap:

I've read the whole of your post and that's what I'm responding to, but I'll just quote this bit and go from there:

Since the dawn of writing, has not the pen been developed to be a better pen? A tool is constantly being improved upon and philosophy has undergone iterations of improvements to sharpen its ability to help conceptualize. And just like a pen or any tool for writing, it has the shape of the time it is used in. — Christoffer

Philosophers who are critical of the idea of progress in history point out that while humanity’s ability to control nature or achieve freedom from nature, and to make the tools that make that possible (technology), has indeed improved steadily, the same cannot be said for anything else humans do. In living memory there were genocides and famines, and despite having a really cool philosophical toolbox, humanity is as stupid as ever (QAnon, white supremacy, nationalism, and so on and on).

If philosophy is such a great mental technology, as you imply, wouldn’t we expect society to have become more rational over time, just as it has become more technological? Why hasn’t that happened?

The view I'm sympathetic to, from Adorno & Horkheimer, is that societies have become more rational, but only instrumentally so; the very concept of reason has been impoverished. You echo this state of affairs in describing philosophy as an instrument.

So we have the instrumental reason in science and technology that leads to vaccines, dentistry, washing machines, Zyklon B and weapons of mass descruction. This is based on the use of tools from out of the philosophical toolbox that you describe. So philosophy is there to "guide thoughts and ideas through a forest of confusion" towards ... genocide?

To me it follows that philosophy, as eminently critical, has to step in and say wait a minute, do we really want to be doing that? Philosophy often doesn't do that, I realize. I guess I'm emphasizing and celebrating the times when it does, thereby saying it ought to do more of it. This amounts to an attempt to form a richer notion of rationality than the one we have.

All of that's not so much a rejection of your position as an addition to it.

There is a basic philosophical issue of how intentionality arises in the first place. — Wayfarer

I know that. That gap does not prevent full recognition by 'philosophers,' and theistic sympathisers or even theists themselves that agents who can DEMONSTRATE meaning, intent and purpose, exist, in this universe and as they are OF this universe their intentionality can be ascribed in it's totality, to an overall concentration of intentionality, whose future effect can extend beyond this planet. So, an intentionality that requires no supernatural agent, other than as a plug invented by ancient theologians out of primal fear. A plug that does not fit the gap you describe.

A plug that does not fit the gap you describe. — universeness

And that you haven't addressed.

Great post, thanks. I agree.

Quick one-liner, or so…..what did you get out of The Eclipse of Reason? What is it the author wants to say, bottom line kinda thing?

And that you haven't addressed. — Wayfarer

Oh, that's easy and I have done so many times on TPF, you obviously don't read all my posts with the enthusiasm I expect. :joke:
It's a gap! so it's vacant for any plug, that's why theist's get to throw any shaped plug at it that they can imagineer, so it becomes a matter or what credence level your own personal critical faculties and rationale allows you to assign to a particular proposal. I can do likewise.

At the simplest level, my origin for the universe, is a mindless spark, that no longer exists but reforms at the end of this universe, we might even use the placeholder name 'singularity.'

if you want something with more scientific rigor behind it, then I vote for the conformal cyclic cosmology of Roger Penrose or > 3d superstring theory, or Mtheory with each universe being created by interacting 5D branes. These extra dimensions of the very small, that are 'wrapped around' every point in our 3d existence, are undetectable to us but are the reason why some posit nonsense such as 'something from nothing.' Quantum fluctuations are probably caused by these extra dimensions. The system is most likely (so for me, warrants a high credence level,) cyclical and eternal.
All of these similar 'cyclical and eternal' proposals are far far more likely and far far more rational that any theological posit (normally flavoured by some supernatural agency with intentionality) I have ever heard and any I am ever likely to hear about.