I reject "optimism". Courage is my preferred adaptive conduct — 180 Proof

The philosopher has to be capable of comprehending conditions that are largely hostile to his being. Where courage is lacking there the mind constructs fantasies, delusions of reality to make it more palatable. Where are the philosophers of courage? We don't need more abstractors, we need more courageous and tough-minded thinkers!

I have already given Metaphysican Undercover a compliment in private, but I believe his diligent conduct in philosophizing with people at great length warrants public praise. There are others who will go on at length, but they are few and far in between. This fella is repeatedly clarifying himself and this takes tremendous patience and effort. Further, he is always trying to reason with people. This is not something I see very often on this Forum. It is exemplary.

But the human race is not a consequence of order destroying Entropy. It is instead, in my humble opinion, the work of organizing Enformy. — Gnomon

Sounds to me like you are describing the ministry of thought. Unless you are saying this is some kind of mystical force?

But it also then makes the point that the model is "self-interested" in its knowledge. It embodies a purpose. And in coming to do that - in developing a "point of view" - a selfhood is constructed. And also the "world" that self inhabits is constructed accordingly. The world - as it "intelligibly" becomes as the "other" to this self - is a system of interpreted signs. A phenomenal world and not a noumenal one.

This is how it has to be for life and mind to exist. Biology is a relation where bodies find a way to stand apart from the physics and chemistry that they need to regulate. That involves a model - an epistemic cut. A sense of self - an embodied state of purpose - emerges in conjunction with a similarly intelligible sense of "the world".

So it is an irreducibly triadic relation, not the simpler dyadic one of a (mental) subject relating to a (physical) object.

The intelligibility lies in the discovery of a way of looking at the world which itself crystalises the thing of a subjective point of view with its idea of the world. And the intelligibility of this model is confirmed to the degree it then works in serving that embodied purpose. — apokrisis

Here one has a concise masterclass in man's formation and value of knowledge. Very impressive Sir. Though one could argue over the details it seems to me every position is going to fall into this materialist structure in one form or another. There is also a required humility to it, so far from seeing ideals as some kind of transcendent entities contained in the universe, this views deals with them as they are, cognitive attempts to gain some kind of control [make order] out of existence.

Here's another point of high value in this debate. If one is not allowed to make arguments then one is not allowed to be a philosopher. If one is not allowed to criticize what the human psyche considers sacred, then one is not allowed to exercise philosophy. Philosophers do not fight with swords, we use words and make progress through negativity, through the medium of the argument. Religion, though it is forced to abide by this method in our secular world, this is not the kind of world it creates. It creates a world that suppresses and kills the philosopher, a world of dogma. To prove this all one has to do is look at the actual political stances that religious philosophers take when it comes to religious legislation. Though many of them have pretended to be serious philosophers, they are actually just making use of philosophy until the time they no longer need it. As a philosopher I am beginning to wonder, is one even allowed to be a philosopher on this forum?

I believe it's necessary to point out that Christianity still has an exceedingly strong hold over a good portion of our species and its cultures. Because of this religion is embraced on emotive terms, totally void of objective, philosophical criticism. The emotive claim that is validated by so many emotional beings, is the claim that says, religious values are an example of transcendent intelligence. This is a tragic presumption that keeps the species locked down in primitive superstition. The truth is that all these values are themselves culturally constructed and created. This is what the contemporary thinker fails to see. When the religious man says, "you cannot do better, you had better be afraid of walking away from these," people fall in line with the presumption, failing to see that what is being referenced is the exact same thing that is being rejected! This is a masterful maneuver that seems to work every time.

:up:

"What does a question require to exist?"

Beautiful question. The answer is obvious, a functioning human brain coupled with social knowledge.

:up:

There is no responsibility or demarcation in philosophy? From what then does it distinguish itself? I have long understood philosophy to be criticism.

I feel religion is a truly complex set of beliefs — TheMadFool

Well then, who cares what philosophy has to say about it. A conceptual toy box that strikes your fancy. I'm not sure one can refute a hedonist.

How should we call that which is beyond described reality?

Undescribed reality. — 180 Proof

Well, that was light work. I thought I was going to have to give my whole day to this thread on "deepity."

If you wish to discuss theism or omniscience — Dfpolis

No, I do not wish to discuss these, but the thread I linked to above deals with the more important topic, the ministry of philosophy itself.

I do not wish to go off on that tangent in this thread. Here, one can take it as an ideal standard for human cognition I am rejecting. — Dfpolis

Wait a second. This is not fair, it is intellectually dishonest. You were the one who introduced "divine knowledge." We have got to get something straight on this Forum. It is not okay to point the finger at those who call out this kind of stuff as somehow derailing the thread, that is not philosophical, it is emotional. Philosophy precisely targets and calls out these kind of loaded terms. It is part of your central argument. It reminds me of Plantinga with Michael Tooley, Plantinga is allowed to just use a thousand general terms and fantastic concepts, and no one is allowed to call them out? How can this be philosophy? No friend, you don't get to bring this kind of stuff up and then evade your burden of proof. If that's what this Forum is about then it's not a philosophy forum.

Of course, you don't want to explain these fantastic terms, the burden of proof here is too great and you know it, hence you feign to some kind of false nobility. My real problem with it is that it's hypocritical and unphilosophical.

So far as we know based on evidence there is no such thing as "divine knowledge," how then do you introduce this term into philosophy? If it's a mere hypothetical it's a nonsense hypothetical because it doesn't even have a probability, it's a religious assertion.

I'm open to all counter views here, but if the legitimacy of a counter position is only sustained by rejecting the very essence of philosophy's negativity, then we are no longer doing philosophy, we are playing a different game.

Because thinkers identify with their beliefs, which is a huge mistake, this is why they get so emotional and defensive when it comes to refutation. As philosophers we must learn to grow past such immaturity. Real philosophy will always produce psychological pain in one form or another. If it's not producing this you are doing it wrong because philosophy is directly set against man's primitive psychology -- man's psychology is not philosophy, but is thwarted by it. This is painful.

I MOVED THIS CONVERSATION TO ANOTHER THREAD: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9214/high-philosophy-and-the-burden-of-proof

which appears to be false for the simple reason that nothing is not philosophy — TheMadFool

?

after all philosophy is, among other things, an attitude, an attitude of unbiased neutrality. — TheMadFool

?

The scope of philosophy is the universe itself and religion is but one aspect of our universe. — TheMadFool

?

If the religious are inclined to be philosophical, it's a sign that they, whoever they are, finally see the light, so to speak. — TheMadFool

?

What maybe more problematic for you - given the views expressed in the OP which likely is just a passing thought - is not the philsophical believer but the believing philosopher. — TheMadFool

A problem, philosophical theology?

The philosophical believer may eventually join your ranks but the religious philsopher is the one thinning your crowd, — TheMadFool

Thinning my crowd?

The religious philosopher might be onto something and you'll never know if you decide not to engage — TheMadFool

This is far too general to be of any value, most especially when it comes to religion.

I am merely saying that divine knowledge is not a proper paradigm for human knowing, — Dfpolis

Our knowledge is human, not divine — Dfpolis

I was not aware there was such a thing as divine knowledge?

Philosophy is about new ideas and the effects they can have on society. — Outlander

No it's not. It's not about making stuff up, it's about the power of negation. I have already made myself clear in this thread, I am not against philosophical theology, I am against cults, organized religion, as every sane, responsible human being should be. The reason why Christianity is emphasized is because that's what we deal with here in America and that's what there has been an influx of on this forum. Contrary to the status quo here, religion is not just some innocent belief system, it's a dangerous ideology that propagates delusion in the world at the expense of reality. No serious philosopher can remain neutral to this.

Still, I'll dangle it in the mod thread and see if anyone bites. — StreetlightX

You are giving privileged status to delusion by validating false premises that characterize these positions as equivalent. Those who refute religious error are not harming the species, it is those who are bent on prolonging it through an unwarranted and romantic respect, who do harm to the species. There is more to the analysis here than just the assertion of a false equivalence. It's exceedingly strange that the refutation of error should be considered as some kind of malignant or hostile action, when it is actually the thing that contains the highest level of value. This is allowing the sophists to dictate the narrative. It is a way to poison the well against a strong polemic that one cannot refute. Others should speak out on this as well, something is very wrong here. Those who refute the ideology of God should not be considered the enemies of thought or man. Would Nietzsche then be banned from this philosophy forum? Come now, something is wrong here.

To quote Christopher Hitchens:

“One must have the nerve to assert that, while people are entitled to their
illusions, they are not entitled to a limitless enjoyment of them and they are
not entitled to impose them on others. Allow a friend to believe in a bogus
prospectus or a false promise and you cease, after a short while, to be a friend
at all. How dare you intervene? As well ask, How dare you not? Are you so
sure you know better? Ask yourself this question a thousand times, but if you
are sure, have the confidence and dignity to say so. Remember that saying
nothing is also a decision, and that the relativists and nonjudgmental have
made up their minds just as much, if not as firmly.”
Letters to a Young Contrarian, pg.82-83, MJF Books 2001

Then you would agree the word "atheism" should be added to the guidelines, right next to religion. — Srap Tasmaner

Absolutely not. These are not equivalent, what makes you think they are? Further, and this is way more important, a quick dose of reality, are you claiming that there is a problem with Atheists coming on this forum trying to introduce the topic of religion in a polemical way? Because it seems to me that what's really going on, is that there's a bunch of Christians on here who are trying to sneak God into the picture, and they get refuted by Atheists. Religious delusion is not a virtue, it's dangerous. At what point did we forget this? I can't even think of anything that has had a more disastrous, suppressive effective on our species. An advanced species wouldn't even be having this conversation.

One group is trying to assert the validity of faith as a method for obtaining knowledge, the other group is proceeding according to philosophical tools, evidence and reason, and you're trying to claim there's an equivalency here?

If you believe atheism is already covered by "ideology", then nothing is changed by specifying it. — Srap Tasmaner

Atheism is not an ideology.

Take for example Dfpolis, he recently posted a thread titled, Fallible Foundationalism. In this thread he tries to talk about the limits of knowledge, but this is not just an innocent thread, and I called him out on it. This is a thread that is bent in the direction of his theism, he's trying to weave the argument in the direction of belief in God. Here's a quote that proves his theism:

"I think it is absolutely certain that there is an uncaused cause which has all the philosophical attributes of God. So, I don't think you have reviewed the case for theism adequately." https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/452328

And in another place:

"Let’s start by clearing up some confusion. (1) While some people may think of God as an old man in the sky, that is not the notion of God in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, nor that addressed by Aristotle or the Buddhist Logicians." https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6187/a-proof-for-the-existence-of-god

This guys a straight-up Christian trying to use the medium of Reformed Epistemology to smuggle in his premise of Jesus, pretending that his real concern is philosophy. Yes, I have a problem with this. Aside from the fact that it's pure sophistry, it's also dishonest.

What is one suppose to do when they repeatedly encounter this kind of thing? You say ignore it? It's a bait and switch tactic. These people are the ones who are bringing God into the equation.

As long as they're talking philosophy I don't care. — Srap Tasmaner

Agreed.

but actually I'm up for kicking anyone who's primary activity seems to be denouncing religion, denouncing religious belief, and so on, people who seem to have come here mainly to do that, whose experience of philosophy seems to consist entirely of figuring out that god is dead and now they want to let everyone know and pick fights with people who haven't had this life-changing experience. It ought to be considered just as unacceptable as coming on here to push your religion. — Srap Tasmaner

Your argument here is wrested from context. There are lots of Christians on this site, one meets them everywhere. And this is the point that makes all the difference in the world: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Religion bears the burden of proof, and this means your position is not an equivalency. Anti-religious threads, in the sense you are trying to say they exist, must specifically be related to organized religion to be considered a legitimate antithesis. This forum does not have an overabundance of people posting anti-jesus-cult-threads, what it has is an overabundance of Christian threads pretending to be philosophy threads. Further, philosophy is by its very nature agnostic. I think your attempt at a parrot here is not only indefensible, but in bad taste.

I always say, in philosophy be a Greek, in sexuality, be a Roman! :smile:

Truth is not correspondence to reality. Why? First, because our knowledge is not exhaustive, but leaves an untold amount behind. It is only a diminished projection of what we encounter. Second, because we do not and cannot know reality as it is, but only as it relates to us. — Dfpolis

This already claims to know beyond what it says cannot be known. Seems to me this criteria of exactitude that you seem to leverage is unproductive. I know mountains, grass, stones, words, successful surgeries are performed on the basis of empirical knowledge. I reject the kind of skepticism (and I have good suspicion of where you got it) that says knowledge must entail exhaustive comprehension. You do not live by this standard, it is just a formal objection, one that I suspect, allows you to posit the probability of another kind of premise. I don't see what you are putting forth here as the conclusion of your polemic, interesting that you mentioned God. I wonder...

I honestly enjoy reading your comments, they are always original in their thought and interesting. I see you have your own style and concise way of making points. I am not being condescending here. I have seen you make many intelligent points. I hope the moderators will see that though your approach is sometimes idiosyncratic, it really brings an out of the box quality to this form. :smile:

You're suggesting a new category be created in addition to Philosophy of Religion -- with, I'll note, no hope of keeping them separate. That looks to me like an endorsement of this as a place to post theology. Give it a few years and the place might get renamed The Philosophy & Theology Forum. After a few more, people will be surprised there's a philosophy section tucked in next to the bustling theology discussion forum. Eventually the comparatively low traffic in the original section will lead to long emotional debates about whether to just put it out of its misery, and then one day the coin will drop, and this will be The Theology Forum. — Srap Tasmaner

This is a good point. The only benefit of such a category is that it removes these kinds of posts from the general forum threads, just like the lounge. There is value in this. If these Christians are going to be cluttering up this forum to the point were mega-threads have to be constructed... well then, doesn't it just make so much more sense to isolate them in their own subcategory? It is a valid and intelligent way of dealing with the problem. The category doesn't have to be titled "Religious Theology," although that's what the category would actually contain.

This thread is the attempt to make a philosophical argument that threads dealing with organized religion, revelational theology, should be placed into their own subdomain that functions just like the lounge. This means the posts will not clutter up the general philosophy threads.

Banno has made the following arguments in this direction:

"These threads take scripture or revelation as a starting point for discussion; theology, not philosophy.

"God is not a suitable tool for philosophical explanation because god is omnipotent and omniscient. Any question is given a sufficient reply by blaming god. Hence, philosophical discussion stops at god. Of course, that does not imply that god is the correct answer.

"In summary there are three things that identify a move from a philosophical inquiry to mere theology:

"claiming that god is the answer to a philosophical question
using scripture, revelation or other religious authority in an argument
entering into a philosophical argument in bad faith. These merit deletion or banning."

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8647/demarcating-theology-or-what-not-to-post-to-philosophy-of-religion/p1

I would like expound on this thinking. We must keep in mind that this is a philosophy forum and the Philosophy of Religion as a discipline, according to Graham Oppy, "...doesn't date much earlier than the second world war."

In making this case there is really no need to look much further than John Loftus' excellent book on the topic:

"It should never be considered stupid to tell students the truth. Scientists tell their students the truth. So should philosophers. There is no longer any debate about what the truth is among intellectually honest individuals. Faith-based reasoning is not a virtue. Faith as a method is unreliable. It should never be tolerated as a justification for anything in secular universities. We can no longer take obfuscationist philosophy used in defense of the Christian delusion or any other religion seriously. Atheists who want to deal with obfuscationist philosophy correctly must seek to end its grip over our institutions of higher learning. They must seek to end its influence in our world. It's time to remove faith from philosophy. Gamesmanship will not do. Puzzle-solving will not do. Special pleading will not do. Dealing with questions that are interesting for the sake of an interesting discussion will not do. Atheists who are seeking affirmation from Christian pseudo-intellectuals will no do. A delusion is a delusion is a delusion. Two thousand years of Christianity is enough... It's time to lay it to rest, to put it away from the university and beyond." Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End, John W. Loftus pg.113-114, Pitchstone Publishing 2016

And we might add, two thousand Christian threads is enough. It's time to give the Jesus cult its own subdomain. Perhaps a section titled, "Religious Theology."

Knowing that the table is also made mostly of space, and has a certain atomic structure, does not mean that we are wrong about the table's being solid. — Banno

The other position is lost in abstraction. There is a concretion to reality, which not even the most fundamental idealist or radical skeptic can deny.

What's most interesting, if civilization lasts long enough we will look back on this philosophical age and see the school of analytical theists as a branch of contemporary sophistry. This will be quite clear in the future, it's only not clear to people now because they are caught up in the form of this sophistry. They see it as a valid way to discourse about reality and it's not. This analytical form gave theism new life that it did not deserve. It created just enough confusion to get people to play the abstract game.

They are back. — Banno

Yeah, what we have going on here is noble posturing to free speech, which is already regulated in many cases through the lounge. It's beyond backward, none of the administrators or moderators of this forum are Christians, would they allow Nazis to post on here if they made abstract arguments? Because this can be done in the form of Carl Schmitt. What about abstract threads on Unicorns of Fairies? Because this can be done with Plantinga's arguments (he said Zeus was an acceptable deity for his position). I feel I have taken quite a bit of opposition for merely stating the obvious, and my position is not extreme. I don't have a problem with philosophical theology, let's discuss Whitehead or Spinoza, I'm talking about organized religion, specifically the cult of Jesus. This presumption of unconditional respect for religious error is unfounded.

My words were not an invitation to discussion. — Philosophim

This is massively authoritarian, and a contradiction of your own program. I can indeed put this in simpler terms. I am against Nazis because they unleashed mass violence and suffering on the earth, I am against organized religion for the exact same reason. That you would even stoop to defend it is a bearing on your own character. Religion is not innocent. Let me repeat that, religion is not innocent, it is a dangerous and proliferating ideology that leads to massive violence and suppression, including the suppression of philosophy. Were Galileo or Nietzsche on this forum they would side with me.

So has the Left, in the same manner. — praxis

What? You are sore mistaken about the nature of Left violence. Vast research has been done on authoritarian personalities. The Left favors democracy, the right, monarchy and a violent system of law. Do some research, you will be surprised.

I doubt they can be lead to significant violence by the orange fool. — praxis

You doubt this? They have already killed people.

Publicly attacking a segment of people — Philosophim

??? Poor Christians?

The philosophy of religion — Philosophim

The philosophy of religion is a pseudo-category of philosophy.
See Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End, by John Loftus.

If you don't like people posting philosophy of religion, then don't partake in them. — Philosophim

Please keep in mind, I don't have a problem with Spinoza or Jefferson discoursing on a philosophical God. My complaint is specifically about cults, organized religion. I believe these non-philosophical superstitions belong in their own fairy tale volt so they don't keep on cluttering the main forum page.

You are speaking your anger and frustration that you cannot control what other people think and do. That is not philosophy. — Philosophim

This is a poisoning of the well fallacy. Even if my post was based on anger, which it is not, this would not stand as a refutation. Maybe back in the 1800's the premises of religion still had some kind of validity, but now we have Hadron Colliders and Smart Phones, time to start living in reality friend.

My dear god man, will we survive these people? Will we? Wait until Trump's Storm Troopers hit the streets. These people rally behind violence, they are the very worst of America. We get what we deserve, the Left retreated into the Ivory Tower over the last fifty years. This allowed the Right to seize the culture. We have not hit bottom yet, hold on everybody because the fireworks are just about to begin.

I swear, Notre Dame must be heavy into omnipotence right now because the number of threads related to this have been off the charts in the last few days. Are all the theology students flocking to this website to discuss the abstractions they covered in their theology classes?

there are countless ways for God to help humans survive and thrive in society — Matthew724

I mean, how can this in any way be serious? Why would God even make it so people have to struggle to survive? This is nonsense. Tell me how your God cheers on the doctors trying to save children's lives through intricate surgeries. Just stands there, with mouth gaping, wishing them luck as a little girl's life hangs in the balance.

Another God poster who makes a thread and doesn't interact with it. This is a violation of the rules for posting.

If Hitler thinks you're Jew, he won't care what you think; and whether you care or not about what he thinks, it's off to the gas chamber you go. Not having to care what others think about you is a privilege of power. — unenlightened

It is precisely the duty of philosophy to combat and prevent this kind of viciousness in the world.

I tried to read the paper by Hillary Putnam, but there were too many difficult equations — Dusty of Sky

As with most analytical philosophy, it's just a waste of life. Don't be hard on yourself with Putman, analytical philosers have an arrogant style, they just can't help themselves, it makes them feel superior.

I think you have asked an excellent question here.