What is a waste of time is engaging in philosophical questioning and discussion about various aspects of God when you already accept that Christian dogma is one of many and accept the anthropological point of view. — Mikie

Sorry to quote your two "waste of time" statements out of context. But it really isn't clear to me why you hold the view presented in the quoted sentence. It seems like what you are describing here is what people who are interested in "religion as a topic" engage in periodically. People have written books comparing and contrasting Jesus and Buddha, for example. They treat both of them seriously as subject matter rather than as gods. They might well not believe a word of either man, but believing isn't what they are after.

So many aspects of human endeavor amount to colossal wastes of time, effort, and cash. We are not very good at evaluating the actual worth of a lot of what we are busy doing.

I would never try to undermine anyone's personal convictions — Janus

Why the hell not? What could be more constructive than undermining BAD personal convictions?

is an expression stemming from combined ignorance, unjustified certainty, blatant inconsideration for others(immoral behaviour if there is such a thing),and spiteful arrogance — creativesoul

Is that attitude best described in 1 word as "gall" or "chutzpah"?

I appreciate the effort to give a least a small benefit of the doubt.

It’s not a waste of time for believers. That’s theology— which is fine by me. — Mikie

Right, I should have explicitly included that, but I understood that was implicit in what I said, since I think that part of religious practice includes, or at least should include, since we should want to exercise our intelligenece as much as possible in relation to any of our practices, theology.

How does this not then apply to the metaphysical conviction that anything which some might deem “spiritual” – such as the belief that death to this world does not equate to an absolute cessation of personal being – can only be baloney?

After all: materialism, too, is but only a metaphysical conviction. — javra

That conviction is fine for individuals to hold, but should not affect our political or economic lives, which are rightly only concerned with the life that is evident— this life.

Why the hell not? What could be more constructive than undermining BAD personal convictions? — BC

If they are socially harmful convictions then, sure. Or if people want to discuss their convictions with others who don't share them, then that's fair game too, because it is then not undermining, but simply presenting alternative perspectives, which is what the person seeking discussion is surely asking for. Beyond those caveats, I don't see anything positive, I only see arrogance, in trying to control what others believe.

I think what he means is that all human endeavor comes to nothing, it helps nothing, and it ultimately means nothing. — frank

No, that's not what I meant. I meant what I said - there's a taboo on ideas associated with religious philosophy.

Ah.

No, that's not what I meant. I meant what I said - there's a taboo on ideas associated with religious philosophy. — Quixodian

That's because religious philosophy only has meaning to the religious, it's not so much a taboo as a rejection based on lack of interest on the part of the irreligious. Why should religious people be concerned with trying to convince others of their intersubjectively groundless convictions?

That's because religious philosophy only has meaning to the religious — Janus

Subjectivism.

That's because religious philosophy only has meaning to the religious, it's not so much a taboo as a rejection based on lack of interest on the part of the irreligious. — Janus

Countless threads here would suggest otherwise.

I’m not suggesting censoring anyone or deleting anything. — Mikie

I am.

You should be banned.

I wasn't suggesting that irreligious philosophers are not interested in arguing their viewpoint against religion when they are presented with claims that religious beliefs can be justified by logic; I meant that they have no interest in religion itself.

I personally think that religious discussion should be confined to religion, and as you should know from my posting history I have no argument with people's personal religious beliefs, but when they seek to justify those beliefs in a public forum then they make themselves fair game.

I do think that all the ontological and cosmological arguments for religious beliefs are dismal failures, and I also doubt that anyone is really motivated to religious belief by those kinds of arguments.

The claim that there is a "taboo" against religion is, in my view, a lame apologetic. It is a kind of ad hominem that suggest that people are blinkered by introjected social taboos, and that if only they could get past their blind spots, they would become religious. I think that is not only nonsense but is an insult to the intelligence of those who simply do not have any motivation to religious belief.

People are led to religious belief by personal experiences, which they have every right to consider as evidence for them—but have no justification to consider as evidence for others who do not share their experiences and/ or interpretations of such experiences.

You should be banned. — Noble Dust

Yep. Not sure why I am still here, in this increasingly superficial chatfest. I guess the mods haven't noticed me.

These last few months the retired engineers have been fucking around with the forum more than the Christians, apart from a sudden rash of god-related nonsense in the last day or so

No no, you're completely clueless. Don't worry.

You won't be surprised to learn that I agree with you, by and large. I maybe have some small things I would argue, but by and large, I'm of agreement.

That conviction is fine for individuals to hold, but should not affect our political or economic lives, which are rightly only concerned with the life that is evident— this life. — Janus

First off, I admire and applaud what I see as the general gist of your stance: basically, that of tolerance for what does not harm. But not for what does.

I want to point out that the same should be said for all those who uphold the existential finality of worldly death. Yes, including in respect to those who consider it a kind of mercy, if not virtue, to kill off their entire family before committing suicide (because death is taken to be lack of all suffering). But I’m here primarily thinking of those of the following generations, both already birthed and yet to be birthed: What we do in this life is more than just about this life; its very much also about what follows.

To give better context to this, for one example, one of the pragmatic benefits to belief in reincarnation (its reality or lack of here overlooked) is that one cares about the world one helps to produce today because it will be the world into which one will be birthed into tomorrow. (To not get into possible complexities of belief in incorporeal afterlives.)

In direct contrast to this, if one were to reason with “all I am vanishes with my death”, then there is no valid reason to give a shit about others that will live tomorrow. Gain the biggest piece of the pie for oneself today at expense of all others as best one can and fuck-all tomorrow, kind of thing. Which can be an exceedingly rational perspective in acceptance of the premise that death is final.

This just mentioned non-spiritual perspective too is affecting our daily politics and economy – often with direly harmful consequences. Politically, economically, and ecologically.

in this increasingly superficial chatfest. — Banno

Why do people always talk like things are getting worse? No they aren't. They're as fucked up as they ever were. Enjoy it!

I want to point out that the same should be said for all those who uphold the existential finality of worldly death. — javra

What we do in this life is more than just about this life; its very much also about what follows. — javra

To give better context to this, for one example, one of the pragmatic benefits to belief in reincarnation (its reality or lack of here overlooked) is that one cares about the world one helps to produce today because it will be the world into which one will be birthed into tomorrow. — javra

In direct contrast to this, if one were to reason with “all I am vanishes with my death”, then there is no valid reason to give a shit about others that will live tomorrow. — javra

I think there should be motive enough for extending what one cares about beyond the self in the fact that caring only for the self is an attitude based on a self-protective closing off to the rest of life, whereas caring about others and even about all life is based on being relaxed and open to whatever life brings to the self. The first is a shrinking away and the second is an opening up, and I don't think it takes much imagination or intelligence to be able to recognize which is the happier state.

I agree therefore that what one does is about more than just this present life of one's own, it's about what follows in this life for others. So the focus is still on this life, not on an imagined afterlife.

The problem with the idea of rebirth is that concern about one's own state, whether in this life or the next, is an impediment to the kind of openness I'm talking about. And with the Buddhist model, there is even less motivation given that, even if is there is rebirth, we don't remember our past lives, so from the individual egoic perspective there would be no more connection between me in this life and 'me' in the next life than there would be between me in this life and anybody else in the next life. So, in short, I don't see how egoic concerns about one's rebirth could reasonably be any kind of motivation; I think such stories would only work on those who don't think about it much, and I doubt it would lead to any genuine openness anyway.

You won't be surprised to learn that I agree with you, by and large. I maybe have some small things I would argue, but by and large, I'm of agreement. — Noble Dust

You are right I'm not surprised at all. :smile: :cool:

You were taught these stories as a child. Anyone who thinks them through, if they’re strong enough, will just let them go as cultural fairytales — on par with Santa Klaus and caring about the National Football League. Others don’t — and that’s fine, but that’s religion and theology, not philosophy. Just as creationism is religion, not science. — Mikie

Any system of beliefs, to the extent that they use reason (logic) or some other epistemological method of justification to support their ideas, is doing philosophy on some level. It overlaps with theology in many instances, but it doesn't have to. It's called philosophy of religion. You may disagree with that philosophy, but it's still philosophy.

Anytime someone gives an argument in support of their beliefs, even if it's in defense of the Earth being flat, their applying reason to defend their belief. The only questions should be, is their argument a good one, or are they doing good philosophy? Hell, many philosophical views are just as bad, and just as dogmatic as many religious beliefs.

Yep. Not sure why I am still here, in this increasingly superficial chatfest. I guess the mods haven't noticed me. — Banno

Well, I appreciate your responses here. You keep me on my toes and actually know your philosophy. Your statement that 'philosophy is difficult' seems entirely on the money. You've alerted me to Midgley, Austin, Nussbaum, Searle and others and included papers for us to read. I would have thought that is what this site is about. Expressing differences of opinion with other members is surely a reasonable thing on a philosophy site.

Anti-religion and its concerns are as much a distraction from what really matters as religion and its concerns. You don't need to worry about saving anyone. — Janus

For me, such a viewpoint is naive nonsense. All religion can be used for nefarious purposes and can destroy peoples lives. A family which is ran on religious principles means that anyone breaking the often irrational and ridiculous and contradictory familial 'rules' involved, can be refused further familial support, and be left almost destitute. Do you seriously think people with any sense of justice, need not worry about such a horrific effect of pernicious religion?
There are of course even far worse possible effects of extreme religious faith. Do you think we need not worry about those who are willing to kill others, to keep a theocracy in place. Do you think it's a good idea to not worry about the people in Iran or Afghanistan, forced to live under vile theocracies.
In what way is being anti-religious, when it manifests in the myriad of pernicious ways it always does, a distraction?

Which is also to acknowledge the culture and beliefs of the rest of the world, and thus that we shouldn’t give Christianity special treatment. — Mikie

I fully agree with your point about not giving any religion 'special treatment.'
If your general advice to theists is, 'its time to get rational and move on,' they I fully agree.
If your more important message is, don't discuss gods and religion on a philosophy forum, then I don't agree.

I know there are many descriptions of philosophy and I have a beginners knowledge at best, of academic philosophy. I would still suggest that discussion of theism/religion in philosophy can be found within:

Philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
SIMILAR: reasoning, thought, wisdom, knowledge
A theory or attitude that acts as a guiding principle for behaviour.
"don't expect anything and you won't be disappointed, that's my philosophy"

Also, if 'philosophers' did not debate the merits/dangers/social and political effects of theism/religion and its applications within human civilisations, then imo, philosophy as a subject would become less important to improving the human experience, than it is now.

But in the narrow case I mean, I think it’s treating Christianity as special and is a waste of time. — Mikie

Do you consider folks such as Dan Dennett, Sam Harris et al, deserving of the title 'philosopher?'
How about scientists such as Richard Dawkins, is he also a philosopher?
Why do they spend so much of their time disavowing christianity in particular?

"chutzpah"? — BC

Wow! is that how you spell that word I heard Judge Judy say a lot when I used to watch her show?
I had always assumed it was something like 'hootspur,' :lol: Sorry @Mikie I didn't mean to make an unrelated point on your very interesting thread. Just a wee throwaway post, please ignore.

I personally think that religious discussion should be confined to religion, and as you should know from my posting history I have no argument with people's personal religious beliefs, but when they seek to justify those beliefs in a public forum then they make themselves fair game. — Janus

In your first part I understand you to mean you think religious votaries should be confined to interactions with other religious votaries. I see this as a partial curtailment of free speech. Free speech is tolerated within a specified context (ghetto). A religious votary speaking outside of their designated free speech context (speaking herein, for example) is guilty of violation of the cognitive segregationism you're advocating.

In your second part I understand you to mean religious advocacy within a philosophical context is tolerable if it's agreed by all participants that such advocacy is fair game for rigorous logical examination and possible thoroughgoing refutation.

I think your second part is an apt description of the understanding that's in force herein.

The first is a shrinking away and the second is an opening up, and I don't think it takes much imagination or intelligence to be able to recognize which is the happier state. — Janus

Most I think would not find the openness of someone who is homeless and starving to be a happier, or else more preferable, state than the closedness of someone who is a multimillionaire.

The problem with the idea of rebirth is that concern about one's own state, whether in this life or the next, is an impediment to the kind of openness I'm talking about. — Janus

Because such openness can result in the absence of egoic interests? I’ve yet to witness this, even in examples such as that of Mother Teresa or of Gandhi, and find it exceedingly unrealistic.

I disagree with the rest, but don’t want to turn the thread into a discussion on the logic of reincarnation.

God and Christianity aren't special, I agree, but probably not in the sense you have in mind.

First, I think anyone with an internet connection and enough interest in philosophy to check out this site is probably quite aware that:

1. There are multiple world religions.
2. People often tend to have the faith that they grew up with.

But this is by no means a rule. Millions of people have professed some sort of faith, and then become atheists or agnostics, have been atheists and then converted to a faith, or switched between faiths. It seems a little strange to assume that all people who take a faith seriously grew up within that tradition.

Zen and Chan Buddhism have had wide ranging success in the West. Catholicism didn't get to 1.4 billion members by only appealing to current members, it has adherents from Korea, to Central Africa, to Latin America, to the Middle East (granted it has always been in the Middle East, but the Syriac Rite and Chaldeans joining the Roman Catholics is newer.)

Within the "alt-right," sphere, the resurrection of the works of Rene Guenon and Julius Evola have led to intense interest in Hinduism (and IMO, given the general beliefs of this segment of the web, this has been an overall positive influence, even if it does involve a very weird promotion of the caste system by Westerners, with all the young Western men reading this stuff clearly recognizing they must belong to the castes of warriors or priests, never the menial laborers lol).

You were taught these stories as a child. Anyone who thinks them through, if they’re strong enough, will just let them go as cultural fairytales — on par with Santa Klaus and caring about the National Football League. Others don’t — and that’s fine, but that’s religion and theology, not philosophy. Just as creationism is religion, not science

This same line of attack is leveled against science, or "scientism. These are also a set of "cultural stories," we grow up with as kids. Indeed, most of us attended public schools where we are drilled on these stories. And, at least in my experience, the narrative I was given isn't even one that is widely embraced by science itself anymore. I came out of my K-12 education, and my undergraduate studies in neuroscience with a view of the world that was most similar to mechanical corpuscularism: i.e., "everything is little balls of stuff that bounce around based on extrinsic laws, and all things can be explained by how the balls bounce around."

This is an ontology that had been essentially debunked for over a century prior to my having absorbed it as dogma. None of the problems with causal closure re: systemic overdetermination, causality as a transitive property, or problems defining supervenience were included in this instruction. Those issues were safely bracket off as "philosophy," (whereas what we learned was "science"), while the problems posed by quantum foundations were bracketed off as "irrelevant to anything above the scale of lone electrons." It seems to me that this view has been considered "good enough," and, since no one dominant metaphysics has come along to replace it, we just run with a cultural narrative that doesn't have good grounding in the empirical sciences anymore.

This is not to say that even bad framings of what science says about the world are equivalent with a religion. The point is merely that we all have ideas about the world that are grounded in cultural experiences we had growing up. If you want to appeal to other types of knowledge as being superior to the revelations of religion then you need an argument for why those types of knowledge are different, not the bald assertion that "anyone who is strong enough," will come to some one view.

A lot of stuff packaged with "science" is not the sort of subject matter we generally think science should concern itself with in the first place. The assertion that the world is essentially valueless and meaningless is a philosophical assertion. Assertions of physicalism are, to date, underdetermined vis-a-vis competing ontologies, and its questionable with ontology itself is the sort of thing science should be concerned with (I would say yes, but this seems to be a minority opinion).

Questions of a creator come up in the sciences all the time. The explosion of interest in multiverse theories are explicitly motivated by the fact that these theories are a way to solve the apparent "fine tuning" of the universe, i.e., what many see to be empirical support for some sort of design or teleology at work in nature. This isn't a problem that only interests the religion, atheists like Thomas Nagel have taken up this issue as well.

Point being, this post seems motivated by a fairly bigoted conception of religion. Not all religion is necessarily at odds with naturalism and science, so the dichotomy set up is a false one. The creator of the Big Bang Theory was a Catholic priest after all. There is a tendency I've noticed to equate all religion with the most outlandish versions of fundamentalism. That or to focus on a lack of nuance or consistency in folk theology, which, aside from seeming mean spirited at times, seems to miss that most folk explanations of science are similarly lacking in consistency, clash with current scientific thinking, etc.

It's also pretty much impossible to discuss ancient and medieval philosophy without reference to the religions of the time. And I'd argue it's impossible to understand what these thinkers are saying, and engage seriously with them without taking the religious claims seriously.

At the same time, considerations of things like Heraclitus or the Patristics' conception of Logos, etc. will tend to show that philosophy still contains plenty of this flavor of speculation. I don't think you can have philosophy without it.

It's also pretty much impossible to discuss ancient and medieval philosophy without reference to the religions of the time — Count Timothy von Icarus

Seems reasonable to me.

And I'd argue it's impossible to understand what these thinkers are saying, and engage seriously with them without taking the religious claims seriously. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Well, I'm not sure I would use the word 'impossible' but understanding what ancient and medieval philosophers and theists were saying when they were alive is certainly very difficult as they have been dead for so long, so we only have what memorialisations they left behind or what others claim they said.
I don't know quite what you mean by 'taking the religious claims seriously?' Are you including their claims of witnessing supernatural events?

At the same time, considerations of things like Heraclitus or the Patristics' conception of Logos, etc. will tend to show that philosophy still contains plenty of this flavor of speculation. I don't think you can have philosophy without it. — Count Timothy von Icarus

My knowledge of the term Logos only goes as far back as what I have read about Plato's use of it.
I personally think the platonic idea of the existence of such as an ideal chair or an ideal philosophy is BS. Do such proposals still hold value in modern philosophy?