BTW, this topic has made me think, "what do people consider overtly Christian? " — Count Timothy von Icarus

Great question. Given the immense variations and range of Christian traditions, I imagine you could argue almost anything in this space. There are Christian fascists, Christian socialists, Christian literalists, Christian radicals... What do they have in common? Not much of substance I would have thought. Can we really say that the message/teaching of Jesus in the various scriptures (assuming this can be clearly articulated) is shared by all or most traditions? And if you break down the tradition to some essential principles, does this reduce the Christian teaching to bland pap a.k.a. motherhood statements?

Perhaps its your assessment/interpretation of my postings that cause you to judge my viewpoints as simplistic. That's not my problem, it's more your inability to interpret my postings in the same way I do.
I fully accept that this is a very common circumstance, that we have no choice but to each endure in our own way. — universeness

If I misunderstood you, and you are not condemning religion holus bolus, then perhaps we have no argument after all.

That's not my problem — universeness

If you do not communicate successfully, that IS your problem. Granted: there are people who manage to misunderstand a simple phrase like "Good morning". But quite often when posters are misunderstood, it is the poster's fault, and the problems are typical of writers in general. That's why publishers and newspapers employ editors.

Moderator Mikie's thread on religion has been troubled by unclear communication which I think is his problem. I don't quite know why he's not stating his case more clearly. Perhaps a vague concept at the beginning--God & Christianity Aren’t Special--has hobbled his thinking,

I don't think so. I think you really are missing the point of unenlightened's post. Questions about divinity and Christianity aren't as simple as you're making them out to be. I would encourage you to delve into them and find out. — frank

Treating religious stories as literature, which may convey wisdom, as any good literature may, is not the same as arguing pointlessly over the existence of God or gods or the reality of ideas like karma or rebirth.

Those ideas may have their place in theology or discussion within the context of shared faith, but not in philosophy, whereas the practical human wisdom (phronesis) which may be exemplified in literature, including religious scriptures, does have a place in philosophy.

That's my take, anyway, which makes the criticism @unenlightened levelled against @MIkie seem inapt to me.

Sure, but I’m not really advocating avoidance.

Here’s the problem with OP, I think: I’m making a lot of assumptions which are not explained and using a lot of words that I haven’t defined (e.g., philosophy, religion). (Also, that the title is too provocative, potentially evoking an adversarial response on the part of the reader.)

I agree we all have perspectives, beliefs, and stories. In one sense, I see them all as part of a bigger whole and respect them as important, and in another sense I discriminate some as sillier than others, and so deserving of less attention — like my made up god tries to show.

That’s a personal judgment. For example, I think the story of the Big Bang is deserving of more time than creation stories— even though it is a kind of creation story itself. I do think there’s something to naturalism, in other words, that is indeed unique and special.

So this can be seen as my religion, when put like that. But then again, I also believe in something “bigger” than nature. I prefer terms like “such-ness” over God or Brahman, but it’s still something not within the purview of science (which I see as the philosophy of nature; assuming naturalism by default).

Anyway— I see the problem now, and it’s that I’m presupposing that there is no such thing as Christian philosophy, and I assume most others here agree with that. Turns out that’s not the case. So my advice is bound to fall flat, except for a few outliers.

Those ideas may have their place in theology or discussion within the context of shared faith, but not in philosophy, whereas the practical human wisdom (phronesis) which may be exemplified in literature, including religious scriptures, does have a place in philosophy. — Janus

:up:

You put it much more succinctly than I did.

Moderator Mikie's thread on religion has been troubled by unclear communication which I think is his problem. — BC

You’re right. See my response to unenligtened, above. I try to go over the reasons for why it’s unclear and thus misunderstood.

Unless that is unclear as well— in which case I may have to accept the fact that maybe I suck at writing and should hang myself. :lol:

The thread has generated some rich discussions. I love that we can put things out here and be open to revising our thinking and, where necessary, tweak, or change our views. This is what philosophy is about.

You put it much more succinctly than I did. — Mikie

:cool:

The thread has generated some rich discussions. I love that we can put things out here and be open to revising our thinking and, where necessary, tweak, or change our views. This is what philosophy is about. — Tom Storm

:100:

Treating religious stories as literature, which may convey wisdom, as any good literature may, is not the same as arguing pointlessly over the existence of God or gods or the reality of ideas like karma or rebirth. — Janus

Scholastic philosophers taught the skill of argumentation by having students create proofs of God on their own, and their arguments would be critiqued. For a newbie, it's very fertile ground. It's like a philosophy gymnasium.

Scholastic philosophers taught the skill of argumentation by having students create proofs of God on their own, and their arguments would be critiqued. For a newbie, it's very fertile ground. It's like a philosophy gymnasium. — frank

Sure, but that is "a shared context of faith": scholastic philosophers presupposed the validity of orthodox theology.

For example, Anselm's 'ontological argument' presupposes faith, and in its presentation of it he makes that explicit.

Sure, but that is "a shared context of faith": scholastic philosophers presupposed the validity of orthodox theology. — Janus

Aristotle made proofs of God as well. What's your expert opinion on that?

Aristotle made proofs of God as well. What's your expert opinion on that? — frank

I don't have an "expert opinion" since I am not a scholar of Ancient Greek philosophy, but the argument from first causes, for example, presupposes the ancient Greek understanding of causation. Also, unless I am mistaken, Aristotle did not argue for a personal creator God, but for a "Prime Mover" or demiurge.

I don't have an "expert opinion" since I am not a scholar of Ancient Greek philosophy, but the argument from first causes, for example, presupposes the ancient's understanding of causation. Also, unless I am mistaken, Aristotle did not argue for God, but for a "Prime Mover" or demiurge. — Janus

He had multiple proofs of God. Aquinas' proofs are modeled on them. The Christian founders approved of the use of ancient Greek philosophers in Christian thinking. What's your expert opinion on that?

...think it's a mistake to think that the only people who can do philosophy are those trained in philosophy. — Sam26

Sure. But generally, those with no training do not do it well.

Philosophy is not done well by dabblers. You have spent years studying and writing about Wittgenstein, and it shows in the quality of your threads, yet you have spent time answering objections from folk with no more than a superficial appreciation of what are broad, complex and difficult topics.

I'll also disagree with the view that philosophy consists in presenting arguments for what you believe. Any sophist can do that. To move from sophistry to philosophy, one must then expose one's arguments to critique. As with unexamined lives, so with unexamined arguments.

Philosophy isn't just making shite up; it's also tearing it back down.

The fora are occasionally blighted with mostly Christian, but occasionally Islamic, Buddhist or Hindi folk who present their religious panacea. There are also many of what I have come to think of as "retired engineers" who operate in a similar vein. The worst show themselves quickly and the mods, to their great credit, remove them.

But despite these efforts, there is a persistent background of idolatry, and so 's point is valid, and indeed can be generalised beyond Mere Christianity.

He had multiple proofs of God. Aquinas' proofs are modeled on them. The Christian founders approved of the use of ancient Greek philosophers in Christian thinking. What's your expert opinion on that? — frank

I already told I don't have expert opinions. I know Aristotle had multiple proofs of a first cause, a "designer", I just don't remember what they all were, and I can't be bothered looking them up. How about you present them and then we can discuss. I don't believe they were arguments for God as conceived by the Christian founders, but I am aware that they were adapted by the latter to support their Christian theology.

Anyway, I'm not seeing the relevance to this thread. I understand philosophy to be about questioning all and any presuppositions, apart from the most basic general ones which make it possible at all, so perhaps in the time of the Greeks, there were those kinds of basic presuppositions for them, which are no longer part of our contemporary set, and if so, that would amount to a "shared context of faith". Our overarching contemporary shared context of faith is not in question, it cannot be, because it is necessary for any discussion at all to proceed.

Thank you for your kindness.

Far and away the best posts hereabouts come from @Ciceronianus, @Tobias and @unenlightened.

How about you present them and then we can discuss them. I don't believe they were arguments for God as conceived by the Christian founders, but I am aware that they were adapted to support their Christian theology. — Janus

You have it backward, Janus. Christianity as we know it was adapted to Neoplatonism, the dominant philosophical view of the time, not the other way around. God, as the Christian founders conceived it, is Neoplatonic. Augustine actually read Aristotle. Ancient Greek philosophy is in the underpinnings of Christianity. See how interesting the topic is?

See how interesting the topic is? — frank

It may be interesting in the context of the history of ideas. I know Christianity absorbed and repurposed some Neoplatonic ideas, but there is no personal God in Neoplatonism, so the central plank is derived from elsewhere.

It may be interesting in the context of the history of ideas. I know Christianity absorbed and repurposed some Neoplatonic ideas, but there is no personal God in Neoplatonism, so the central plank is derived from elsewhere. — Janus

I've lost track of your point.

That's alright, I never understood the point of your responses from the start of the present conversation.

That's alright, I never understood the point of your responses from the start of the present conversation. — Janus

Inscrutability of reference probably.

Perhaps so...

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that Plato's type of Platonism is still alive and well in modern philosophy and physics, rather, more reified versions exist. E.g. quarks and leptons are the fundemental forms and everything else emerges from this austere ontology. Most of the popular Platonist-like conceptions of physics center around things being fundementally mathematical. E.g., of quarks Wilzek says "the it is the bit," as they only exist as spaceless mathematical entities.

Penrose is probably not the best example of this; I thought of him because he actually uses the words "realm of Platonic forms," in one quote. Tegmark's form of ontic structural realism is the most obviously Platonist I can think of. Pancomputationalism isn't necessarily Platonist, but it definitely can be as well.

The variety of people who hold on to universals is actually quite surprising. Russell is in there too. IMO, the more interesting question is what defines an object? Is an object just the sum of all the universals (or tropes) it instantiates? I.e., an object just a bundle of traits? Or do the traits need to attach to some sort of bare substratum, a pure haeccity?

Bare substratum sounds ridiculous, but if you ditch it then it becomes hard to justify why two identical red balls aren't the same ball, or why a things identity doesn't change when it moves. This sort of puzzle always interested me.

Treating religious stories as literature, which may convey wisdom, as any good literature may, is not the same as arguing pointlessly over the existence of God or gods or the reality of ideas like karma or rebirth. — Janus

I agree about that. But again, who involves themselves in such arguments except committed believers and equally committed disbelievers? As if religion were nothing but an alternative physics.

Do we argue that Plato's cave does not exist, and therefore it is a waste of time talking about it? No one does that. I have a thread of my own about all that

But i would also like to point out that the idea that time can be, and ought not to be, wasted in pointless activity is very much a Protestant Christian attitude derived usually from the parable of the talents. It would make little sense in any African or Indian tradition for example. All things must pass, but nothing is wasted.

If I misunderstood you, and you are not condemning religion holus bolus, then perhaps we have no argument after all. — Janus

I don't like to quote a well abused line by almost all UK politicians but, 'Let me be crystal clear on this.'

I do think that the human race would benefit greatly if all theism and theosophism was abandoned, as the BS I think it is. But, religious belief can absolutely help some individuals in their personal lives, when they are facing trauma. It can also compel some people to be more altruistic towards other people. I have theist friends and neighbours who I would place in that category.
I don't debate the topic with such individuals in quite the same way as I do with strangers here on TPF.

In the final analysis however, I do agree with the Carl Sagan quotes of:
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe."
“Better the hard truth, I say, than the comforting fantasy.”

Based on the opinions you express on many topics in your posts. We probably do have more common ground than ground we contest. I actually find myself arguing more with atheists, than I do with theists because being an atheist does not prevent you from being a racist or misogynist or xenophobic nationalist or capitalist or tory etc, etc.

If you do not communicate successfully, that IS your problem. Granted: there are people who manage to misunderstand a simple phrase like "Good morning". But quite often when posters are misunderstood, it is the poster's fault, and the problems are typical of writers in general. That's why publishers and newspapers employ editors. — BC

I think that all you do with statements like this is offer succour to sophists.
As you confirm yourself, interlocuters are not always honest in anyway shape or form.
It is NOT my problem, if a third party thinks I have failed at explaining my position to an interlocuter.
I have experienced many occasions as a teacher, when some in the class understand the lesson and others don't, either because they have chosen not to, or they genuinely have tried but just don't get it.
I will make concentrated/focused effort to engage those students who don't get what I am saying, on a one to one basis during class time, or offer them more help during a lunchtime or such (this is offered via the PM system on TPF imo).
But those who have chosen not to understand because it does not suit their own agenda, will continue to claim they don't understand your position, regardless of how clearly you try to describe it.
It is rarely as open and shut as some claim. As a third party, you might well claim that I don't 'communicate successfully,' but other 'third parties' might think I do.

Moderator Mikie's thread on religion has been troubled by unclear communication which I think is his problem. I don't quite know why he's not stating his case more clearly. Perhaps a vague concept at the beginning--God & Christianity Aren’t Special--has hobbled his thinking. — BC

The fact you refer to him as 'Moderator Mikie,' is (in the context you use it,) a cheap shot and a rather pathetic one on your part.
As an interested participant in @Mikie thread, I think I have understood his main points, after a little clarification.
1. All religions should be assigned the same priority, when it comes to its inclusion in debate. Christianity should not be prioritised in the way it is, in western theological debate.
2. Christians themselves should not be given any priority platform, just because their religion has had the biggest impact in the country they are living in/speaking in.
3. By using the term 'let it go' in bold. I think Mikie was suggesting to Christians in the West in particular that they should stop trying to occupy this 'priority platform' they want to have in the west and atheists would be wise, if they refused to help them maintain such a platform as Mikie thinks they are doing at the moment.

If I am wrong here then I am sure @Mikie will type so, PDQ.

This sort of puzzle always interested me. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I love sentences like this. As long as folks like yourself, feel this way about scientific questions then my hopes that our species is worth its survival costs, is reinforced.
I would be depressed if you had typed something more like, 'God knows all the answers to that which puzzles human, so I choose to 'keep the faith' and choose to stop calculating.'
I am glad and grateful to famous theists such as Georges Lemaître, who chose to keep calculating, despite his theism.

E.g. quarks and leptons are the fundemental forms and everything else emerges from this austere ontology. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Platonist-like conceptions of physics center around things being fundementally mathematical. E.g., of quarks Wilzek says "the it is the bit," as they only exist as spaceless mathematical entities. — Count Timothy von Icarus

So, what do you think of evidence such as from The Nobel Prize in Physics 1990:
The discovery was made when protons and neutrons were illuminated with beams from a giant “electron microscope” – a two-mile-long accelerator at SLAC in California, USA. The inner structure was interpreted to mean that quarks form the fundamental building blocks of protons and neutrons.

and from LHCb discovers three new exotic particles
The international LHCb collaboration at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has observed three never-before-seen particles: a new kind of “pentaquark” and the first-ever pair of “tetraquarks”, which includes a new type of tetraquark. The findings, presented today at a CERN seminar, add three new exotic members to the growing list of new hadrons found at the LHC. They will help physicists better understand how quarks bind together into these composite particles.


I include this, not as proof that quarks exist (although I think the dominant view in physics, is that they do) but just as an attempt to assign more significance to such objects as quarks, than 'as they only exist as spaceless mathematical entities.' What for you, does 'spaceless' mean, in the context of the 'Wilzek' quote you used. I assume you mean Frank Wilczeck, 2004 nobel prize winner currently at MIT.
I don't mean I had prior knowledge of him, I just got that info by typing your 'Wilzek' into google.

That's nice of you. I like yours, also.

I agree about that. But again, who involves themselves in such arguments except committed believers and equally committed disbelievers? As if religion were nothing but an alternative physics. — unenlightened

I think this is right. It's probably mostly committed believers and disbelievers who do argue for their preferred metaphysical standpoints, probably because they think that their standpoint is the "right" one to move humanity forward, or maybe just because the possibility they argue against scares, disgusts or horrifies them.

But i would also like to point out that the idea that time can be, and ought not to be, wasted in pointless activity is very much a Protestant Christian attitude derived usually from the parable of the talents. It would make little sense in any African or Indian tradition for example. All things must pass, but nothing is wasted. — unenlightened

That's a fair point: the protestant work ethic,,,we must have productivity,,,

"All things must pass, but nothing is wasted": reminds me of Shpongle's album 'Nothing Lasts,,,But Nothing Is Lost'

I do think that the human race would benefit greatly if all theism and theosophism was abandoned, as the BS I think it is. — universeness

We are not going to agree about this, but that's OK.