You do not know whether or not posing such questions, or entertaining such considerations are a waste of time. — creativesoul

I know it for myself. I think I’ve been clear that this is my opinion— and only applicable to a narrow case, which you’d know if you deigned to read the OP.

Mikie was not just addressing God and Christianity, which should be clear if you read the OP. — Janus

Yes — if this were India I’d be saying the same things about Brahman and Hinduism.

Thanks for reading the OP and not simply reacting to what you think the OP is saying. Appreciated.

Don't hate me, but I'm not sure I fully get your position. — Tom Storm

:lol: No hatred buddy.

I read the words and understand the sentences and I also understand that you are not hating on religion per say, but you seem to me making a fairly simple point. — Tom Storm

Guilty as charged. Apparently TOO simple.

Are you saying that if you inherit religious beliefs from your culture and upbringing, you are not entitled to treat these as if they are philosophy arrived at through careful reflection, a set of beliefs and values which others should also take seriously? — Tom Storm

Just that they shouldn’t be treated as special — IF, and this is very important and maybe I wasn’t clear about, you assume Christianity is indeed one religion among others.

That includes those who argue against the existence of God! I think this is being overlooked. They too are treating Christianity as special.

It wouldn’t be easier to ignore, since they can provide reasons, evidence and arguments. — DingoJones

But remember: everyone thinks they have good reasons, evidence, and sound arguments. True, I didn’t specify that this person believes this “delusionally,” as you said — but given that it’s obviously made up, isn’t that assumed?

To claim this isn’t easier to ignore is just crazy to me. If this isn’t easy to ignore, then nothing is easy to ignore. Maybe that’s your position, I don’t know. But it strikes me as bizarre.

Part of what philosophy does is to examine various beliefs and belief systems in relation to reality (physical or metaphysical). Some of the philosophical tools used to examine these beliefs are logic (correct reasoning), epistemology, and linguistic analysis. To the extent that people use these three tools they are doing philosophy. — Sam26

That’s all very nice. It’s not philosophy in the sense I mean. I don’t agree with your particular characterization. So my former point stands.

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

I never said that though.

Hypothetical thesis: The God Xhandizi is the one true God. He was revealed by a man in Bora Bora. He is known to have one thousand eyes and fifteen heads. If you don’t believe in him you go to hell.

Questions: does he care about us? What would we do without him, morally speaking? Some say he only has 10 heads— let’s discuss. How does he manifest in the world? Is he only metaphorical? If we don’t believe, should we be worried about the consequences? Is he infinite? Who created him? Is he even a “he”?

—

Why or why not should the above be taken seriously, philosophically speaking? Let’s assume the imagined interlocutor can give loads of reasons and evidence and arguments. Why is this easier to ignore than other (similar) claims? Or is it easier to ignore?

Welcome brother! To the group of TPF members, described by another TPF member as fanatic! — universeness

Bound to happen whenever one brings up Christianity — or any belief with strong emotional aspects. You get both the thin-skinned faithful and the non-believers who come to display their sanctimony by rushing to the defense of those being “attacked” (even when no such attack exists).

Too bad so few bother to read (or read carefully). What can you do.

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. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I never set up such a dichotomy. Any bigotry is projection on the readers’ part. I made no claims about the value of religion. In fact I’ve often been a staunch supporter of religions. For evidence, look at anything I’ve written for the last 5 years.

You’re just misreading me. The point should be clear by both the title and what’s written. It’s a narrow one— it does not make sweeping claims about religion.

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. — Sam26

Then we define philosophy very differently. Anyone can argue in favor of their beliefs. That doesn’t mean it’s philosophy … or science.

Do you consider folks such as Dan Dennett, Sam Harris et al, deserving of the title 'philosopher?' — universeness

Not really. If they are it’s for reasons apart from critiques of faith.

I'm neither a believer nor am I offended by your "disclaimer". — Alkis Piskas

Cool.

I consider this "disclaimer" already quite offensive — Alkis Piskas

Oh.

And I'm afraid that the fanatic in the present case is yourself. — Alkis Piskas

Well that doesn’t sound too good for me.

From what I gathered reading your post, is that you are supercritical against not only Christian believers, but also theists, independent of any religion. — Alkis Piskas

Well then you “gathered” wrong. You’re welcome to review anything I’ve written over the years to see why.

I guess you must be a young person. You show revolutionary tendencies and immaturity. — Alkis Piskas

:rofl:

Thanks pal.

Would you consider that idea as philosophically significant? — Quixodian

Absolutely.

God may mean nothing to you, — Quixodian

And to the person I’m directing my advice to. It’s not that it means nothing — it has sentimental value perhaps, for example — but there’s no reason to privilege it. It’s simply not special, any more than Santa Claus.

Again, this ASSUMES we’re facing this philosophically, in the same way we’re facing the fossil record scientifically rather than through creationism.

:up:

The issue I’m raising isn’t really a mod one. I’m not suggesting censoring anyone or deleting anything. I’m merely giving a personal view on a fairly narrow issue.

But that itself is tendentious. You're asking others to question their beliefs, but taking your own for granted. — Quixodian

I don’t take them for granted. I’m happy to question them. It’s more of a definition, really — I don’t consider creationists to be doing science, while they would disagree. Likewise, I don’t see those explaining the miracles of Jesus to be doing philosophy — that’s more Biblical studies or theology.

If I’m asking anything, I’m asking for less privileging of “God” amongst philosophers simply because they were raised in the Christian faith or in a Christian culture.

You can hear yourself, right? — Srap Tasmaner

Yes. I stand by that. Vindictive people going around bad-mouthing others simply because they’re called out on their sanctimony is something I’ll gladly point out for the pettiness it is. Being a moderator has nothing to do with it — I’m not modding him in any way.

If even responding to such childishness makes me petty too, as you’re implying, so be it. But I don’t initiate these things.

No, because the one that catalyzed me to write this is actually someone who I like and who is a good contributor. But there are usually dozens of discussions a month with “God” in the title. I’m all for theology if that’s what people want to discuss.

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

Sad to say, Mikie is a moderator. — T Clark

Sad to say, you’re as petty a member as they come.

I’m objecting to otherwise non-religious people who want it to engage in philosophical inquiry spending inordinate amount of time wallowing in — giving special attention to — mythical stories, just because they were raised with them.

It’d be like discussing the philosophical aspects of Santa Claus when you’ve long recognized him as a myth. Do why the endless theses about him? Santa Claus isn’t anything special.

I think you're right, Mikie – the topic (re: god religion theology faith etc) is a waste of time. — 180 Proof

I don’t really think that though— I’m saying it’s a waste of time to treat God or Christianity as special (here the thread name), assuming that you approach the matter from a philosophical (or historical or anthropological) point of view. If one doesn’t approach it that way, I have no personal gripe with them — I would only argue that they’re not doing philosophy or anthropology, they’re doing theology.

On a philosophy forum, I take the liberty of assuming most people approach it in the philosophical sense. That is, they’re not devout or literal believers, but were likely raised with it (as I myself was and I imagine many people in the West were too). Of these people, my argument is that to privilege the stories of youth and take seriously those questions — but not, say, the questions of Vishnu — is a waste of time and, in a way, ethnocentric.

What’s pathetic is your understanding.

that their considerations regarding their own worldview are a waste of time — creativesoul

Complete straw man. Not once did I say that. But keep fabricating all you want if it makes you feel virtuous.

You are rejecting the specificity of people's experience and their development as persons. — BC

I’m doing the exact opposite of this.

If you were raised in a secular family and have no religious experiences or interests, there's no reason for you to ditch that. — BC

I’m not advocating anyone ditch their culture or religion.

How about some nuance, some context? I think Mikie means that talk about religion and Gods is a waste of time, not that practicing religion is, for the faithful, a waste of time. No doubt he will correct me if I have misrepresented his view. — Janus

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. What’s 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.

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.

As an example: if one is a creationist, fine. But don’t pretend you’re doing science. If one is a Christian believer, do theology — but don’t pretend to be questioning philosophically. If one isn’t a Christian believer, but was raised in a Christian culture, then don’t waste time by dwelling on and privileging Christian stories simply on account of being raised in it.

That’s my point. I’m not saying religion is a waste of time — one is free to search my history on what I’ve written about religion for evidence.

he thing is, much of Western philosophy is based on esoteric or religious foundations. — schopenhauer1

That’s an interesting point. The similarities between religion and philosophy is worth discussing. I think we all have a religion, in a sense. But that’s not really what I’m getting at here. I’m making a much more narrow argument about objects of philosophical inquiry, what’s worthwhile and what isn’t.

Unlike you to deliberately quote out of context. Kind of disappointing. The context:

To me, all this talk/questioning about God is as silly as watching people in India talking about the specific patterns of Vishnu’s tunic. It’s a waste of time. — Mikie

This does not mean religion is a waste of time. Giving special attention to the minutia of one myth is a waste of time— assuming you view it as a myth.

There are substantive philosophical questions entailed by religious belief. — Quixodian

I’m not sure about that. This is where I think the disagreement perhaps stems from. There are important religious questions entailed by religious beliefs. But I wouldn’t call them philosophical. The question “Does Xenoghi allow bad things to happen?” is not really philosophical, although it may very well be important to those who believe in Xenoghi.

More personal insults, then, just like the OP. — Leontiskos

Your defensiveness is clouding your reading comprehension:

Of those who do— and there are a sizable number — I think it’s worth giving the advice I did: — Mikie

It has nothing to do with insults. I realize YOU’RE very clearly insulted. But I’ve now told you repeatedly this advice doesn’t apply to you. So if you choose to feel insulted, that’s your own business.

The idea that only a select few are "capable of recognizing their own religion as a product of their upbringing" is anti-religious. This is obvious. — Leontiskos

How? It’s either a select few or it’s not. In this forum, I think it’s quite a few people.

Most people don’t really question their beliefs. Of those who do— and there are a sizable number — I think it’s worth giving the advice I did: move on from it. Don’t get stuck with those questions alone, because there’s nothing special about your particular religion.

then you should be informed that bundling together a bunch of anti-religious clichés in an anti-religious OP will certainly have the opposite effect. — Leontiskos

It’s not anti-religious. I’m speaking to those capable of recognizing their own religion as a product of their upbringing. See the quote below. You’re clearly not one of them, so it really doesn’t apply to you. You should study theology. I see philosophy as different in many ways from that— and, with this being a philosophy forum, I figured I would voice my opinion about it.

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 — Mikie

Again— this doesn’t apply to you. So be happy with what you believe. I’m just not interested in theology. I’m talking about those who wish to engage in philosophical questioning.

To a lot of people it's the most important fact about life. — Quixodian

To a lot of Hindus it’s an important fact about life. For those who are capable, I think stepping outside one’s upbringing and enculturation and questioning things philosophically is possible. I think that ultimately leads to “Why am I privileging the stories of my youth?”

If talk about the god Xhadima, as an outsider, is kind of absurd, then perhaps that’s worth examining.

This is not a statement about theology— study God or Christianity all you like. When it comes to philosophy, I don’t see it that way anymore. I see it as boring as I see the “philosophical” obsessions about Xhadima. Like, move on already. Your particular childhood stories don’t carry social weight.

There's an asymettry - you don't see it as anything other than myth, whereas for those who believe it, there is something real - and vastly important - at stake. — Quixodian

I’m assuming people who do philosophy assume it’s myth as well. Nothing wrong with myth and stories — they’re important. But let’s acknowledge our privileging it over many others simply because we were raised in it.

It’s like privileging the NFL. Yes, because I grew up with it I give it more personal importance— but the rest of the world doesn’t care, and to assume they do is utter arrogance. From an anthropological view, it’s one sport of many and, if questioned at all, should be questioned with that in mind.

And I have found much of value in all those stories that you seem to want me to dismiss. — unenlightened

I never once argued that should be dismissed. I’m arguing we shouldn’t raise one particular story for special treatment on the basis of the sheer chance we were raised being told it.

So what do you have that is better than stories? — unenlightened

Questions. Questions that aren’t limited to one special story.

On the contrary, one cannot understand oneself and one's potential biases without some study of the history of the culture in which one was raised. — unenlightened

Of course. You’re bound to care more about your own culture. But that’s the point. It’s a bias.

If you really believe your culture is special, exceptional, deserving of privileged treatment, etc — fine, go study it. If this were India, I suppose there would be endless debate about how many arms Shiva has or whatever — yet in terms of philosophy, I’d say the same thing: it’s boring, and the only reason we care in the first place is because we grew up in it.

But it’s really not special from a philosophical or scientific point of view, where the happenstance of one’s upbringing is removed. There’s a kind of ethnocentrism to it all.

I’m assuming, I guess, that most people here approach these issues without being hardcore believers. Perhaps I’m wrong, and they really do believe. In that case, it’s not really philosophy at all, is it?

Nevermind — you did. Great— be well.

Cool. So perhaps move this to the Feedback section.

Like I said, it’s really not you. I don’t mean to single you out— there are almost always a number of (in my view) tedious discussions going about one aspect or another of Western culture’s deity. I’m reacting in part to that.

Yeah, this just proves you really don’t have a clue about what I was saying. I’ve explained the argument a few times — your defensiveness and “outrage” is both embarrassing and is preventing you from seeing it. That’s your problem, not mine.

Also, I never once told anyone “what to believe.”

Thank goodness most Christians aren’t as thin-skinned and dogmatic as you.

It’s an argument against evangelism by being against giving special attention and privilege to the beliefs and stories one happened to be brought up in.

You’re welcome to discuss God’s existence or anything else. For theology, it’s fine. For philosophy, it’s a bore. In my opinion. But no one’s stopping you from doing so.

As an aside — the fact that you’re so offended by this opinion kind of points to your own dogmatism. But so be it.

I figured this post would be interpreted as simplistically as possible, so as to fit it in with arguing “Move on from Christianity.” But look again — that’s not the argument. I’m not against religion.

If one wants to study God, study theology. If one wants to raise philosophical questions about God— ask yourself why you’re so preoccupied with God and not Thor or Shiva. I think that’ll lead you to see that this obsession is a complete waste of time, and that your caring so much is based on a residue of upbringing. Move on from that. It’s not special.

From a psychological, anthropological, and historical point of view, it’s just one more worldview. — Mikie

For pernicious aspects, I’d try my best to educate them — but like any cult, that’s difficult once it’s been ingrained.

Tell me more about what I should let go of, and how you know its value so well. — unenlightened

I can make up a god right now. Now let’s endlessly argue about if it exists or not, what impacts it has on morality, etc etc. Odd that Vishnu doesn’t get brought up as much here — I wonder why?

Anyway— I don’t care about whether people are Christian or not; I care about what they do. But in terms of philosophical questioning on a philosophy forum, especially if you’re otherwise secular — yeah, people should move on from that. Either study theology or treat god like any other god. No reason to give “god” special attention just because you happen to be raised in that faith.

Should we not let go of those very Christian values too? — unenlightened

I didn’t say anything about Christian values.

It sounds like you have an axe to grind, but given that your post contains no arguments and has no relation to philosophy, why post this sort of thing on a philosophy forum? — Leontiskos

It does have an argument. That you missed it is your business.

The argument is simple: because one happens to be raised in a Christian culture doesn’t afford special attention to one’s “questions” about God. Very easy to see if you replace “God” with “Wodin.”

“And yet” makes no sense.

Also, it’s not anti-religion. But thanks for your always-riveting comments. :yawn:

The Church is a useful institution; it's a place to maintain social contacts. A lot of clubs and bowling leagues have gone out of business. The church is still there on the corner. Potluck, anyone? — BC

True. I think the social aspect is important. From a philosophical point of view, however, these questions are — in my view — a waste of time. It’s not even philosophy of religion — They should be studying theology.

Is "religion" a waste of time? For some, yes; for others no. — BC

Sure. I don’t think religion is a waste of time.

We'll have to come back from the grave to see whether that makes all that much difference. — BC

I plan on living to 120, so maybe I’ll get to see it.

Instead of derailing your thread, I created another one. But the TL; DR is I think it’s a waste of time. But that’s all I’ll say here.

Incidentally, I think you’re a great contributor here. My sentiments aren’t directed solely at you.

Hey, he is older than Cat Stevens and only a couple of years younger that Niel Young. — Sir2u

Touche.

Kissinger…yeah. Don’t know if it’s fantastic, but certainly bizarre.

Just saw Oppenheimer. Nolan is representative of the times— the “auteur” of plebs.

The entire thing has a cold, engineered quality. It’s also confusingly written and edited, has non-stop overbearing “music” (no melody and themes, just continuously jarring notes), and no soul.

The actors try their best, but it’s 3 hours of bells and whistles that tries desperately to be a “masterpiece,” when in reality it’s just an empty, boring, and enervating piece of shit.

Last time I’m convinced to go to one of these.

A little “young” for the above list, but I’ve added anyway because it FEELS like he’s been around since the Big Bang.

I know Dick Van Dyke's grandson. Good dude. — Noble Dust

That’s cool!

Influencers — Sir2u

:up: Yes.

Dragon fruit. — L'éléphant

:lol:

I like dragon fruit! What’s annoying is how expensive it is.

the one that annoys me that everyone goes on about is the Shawshank Redemption, which I dislike — Jamal

In the past I would have taken umbrage with that — but after seeing it again, I get it. Especially when people go on and on about it. Becomes such an obvious, cliched choice. I used to love that movie, too — but now I think mainly because of Freeman’s narration.

It’s also syrupy.

Discontinued or unavailable manufacturing parts or planned obsolescence (should be laws against this bullshit) — Nils Loc

Yes!

Well, cross Bennett off the list…
:confused: