Why is so much rambling theological verbiage given space on 'The Philosophy Forum' ? To All,
Thankyou for the responses on a thread I thought had been 'closed'.
I was asked what an atheist would see as 'quality' in a discussion about religion. A few example might be....
1. Discussion of the concept of 'creation' and whether it required 'an agent'
2. Discussion of the concept of 'morality' as either an evolutionary asset or a transcendent one.
3. Discussion of the nature of the process we call 'life', and the implications for religion of the developments in biotechnology.
Now it may be that the annals of this forum would yield examples of this type, but it seems to me, not recently. Instead, what I am seeing is 'poor quality' in which assumptions are made that a particular religious argument lays claim to 'the moral high ground'. Christianity seems to be the significant claimant here. (The Catch 22 caracature of the military padre comes to mind here). Nor do I find that the demands for 'logical argument' convincing when the Zeitgeist of the origins of religious thinking fail to be considered in the assertion of religious axioms.(The adage 'life was brutish and short' in past times seems to he ignored in that respect)
NB My mention of contextual factors above, like Zetgeist, implies that I do not concur with inclusion of 'continental,philosophy' in my 'rant'. Indeed, I think, for example, that Derrida's concepts of parergon and aporia can add significant depth to any philosophical,discussion.