philosophy of religion isn't possible

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

PeteJ
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:15 pm

Re: philosophy of religion isn't possible

Post by PeteJ »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 10:32 am It is for this reason we need philosophy to supervise over religion and influence people to the truth.
Very much agree. But not the philosophy of our universities, which is just a rag-bag of non-reductive speculative theories with no global theory in sight.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: philosophy of religion isn't possible

Post by henry quirk »

Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 3:09 am
PeteJ wrote: Sat Aug 29, 2020 2:42 pm I'm baffled why it is said here that religion is all about faith and dogma. It goes to show how narrow a view of religion we have in our society. I would recommend a study of comparative religion.
The reason why is that dogma is an inherent part of every religion. Every single religion has it.It's the most defining feature, giving answers based on faith, one way or other.
I'm a deist: where's my dogma? Where are my answers?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: philosophy of religion isn't possible

Post by RCSaunders »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:27 pm
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 3:09 am
PeteJ wrote: Sat Aug 29, 2020 2:42 pm I'm baffled why it is said here that religion is all about faith and dogma. It goes to show how narrow a view of religion we have in our society. I would recommend a study of comparative religion.
The reason why is that dogma is an inherent part of every religion. Every single religion has it.It's the most defining feature, giving answers based on faith, one way or other.
I'm a deist: where's my dogma? Where are my answers?
Good question, Henry. What exactly is a deist?

If you read the Wikipedia history of deism, just about anything one believes can be called deism. Here's the description of, "modern," deism:
There are a number of subcategories of modern deism, including monodeism (this being the default standard concept of deism), pandeism, spiritual deism, process deism, Christian deism, polydeism, scientific deism, and humanistic deism. Some deists see design in nature and purpose in the universe and in their lives. Others see God and the universe in a co-creative process. Some deists view God in classical terms and see God as observing humanity but not directly intervening in our lives, while others see God as a subtle and persuasive spirit who created the world and then stepped back to observe. Most contemporary deists do not believe in divine intervention, but some still find value in prayer as a form of meditation, self-cleansing, and spiritual renewal
.
Does any of that describe you?

I think deism is a useful device for justifying anything one would like to believe or think short of a rational argument. If there is nothing you believe that is not based on reason, what do you need deism for?

If there is anything you believe as a deist, you would otherwise not believe, if anything you believe is justified by saying, "I'm a deist," that is your dogma.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9205
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: philosophy of religion isn't possible

Post by Immanuel Can »

Advocate wrote: Wed Aug 26, 2020 1:40 pm Religion requires dogma and dogma is faith - belief without recourse to evidence.
"Religion requires dogma," and "faith [is] belief without recourse to evidence."

Does anybody else see that these two definitions are arbitrary? :shock:

There is actually no "faith" without "recourse to evidence," since then one has nothing to have faith IN.

Does religion require "dogma"? Only in the sense science does. Science is not discovered ex nihilo, "from nothing" by each new generation of scientists. Rather, as children, they are taught it first as an idea, and then induced to practice it as they grow, and only afterward begin to see that science 'works' for things. In other words, scientific education begins dogmatically. Children do not know whether or not what their science teacher is telling them is right; but he is a big adult in a white lab coat, and they don't suspect he's lying, so they go with it. It's that simple...and that dogmatic.

So why shouldn't a religion be the same? Why couldn't it involve learning some of the theory before the practice? Indeed, how else could it "begin" at all? :shock:

Even science can't do otherwise. And if that's "dogma," well, so what?
Advocate
Posts: 1053
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: philosophy of religion isn't possible

Post by Advocate »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:27 pm
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 3:09 am
PeteJ wrote: Sat Aug 29, 2020 2:42 pm I'm baffled why it is said here that religion is all about faith and dogma. It goes to show how narrow a view of religion we have in our society. I would recommend a study of comparative religion.
The reason why is that dogma is an inherent part of every religion. Every single religion has it.It's the most defining feature, giving answers based on faith, one way or other.
I'm a deist: where's my dogma? Where are my answers?
Deism isn't religion in and of itself, but it's also dogmatic. You subscribe to the notion, without possible evidence, that beings vastly bigger in scope than us are possible in a way that can be adequately understood with/in our limited minds and language. Without that faith-based conclusion as a prerequisite, deism isn't possible. If you reach any conclusion at all with reasoning than includes suppositions that cannot be logically or physically supported, that "answer" is also indistinguishable from fiction.
Advocate
Posts: 1053
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: philosophy of religion isn't possible

Post by Advocate »

>It may be obvious to you but not the more than 90% of the 7 billion theists on Earth who believe God exists as real is so true, to the extent God will listens and answers their prayers.

99% of ALL people on earth have terrible ideas for some very simple reasons, the greatest of which is that they're just trying to get by and don't have the time (even those remarkable few who have the ability) to pursue deep thoughts to their logical conclusions. This is why the cult of open-mindedness is particularly pernicious. It assumes at some fundamental level that everyone has something meaningful to say. This is clearly not the case, exponentially so when you add the particular context. Meanwhile, businesses all try their hardest to mislead people and create imaginary value they can get a dollar from... but i digress.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9205
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: philosophy of religion isn't possible

Post by Immanuel Can »

Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 3:54 pm 99% of ALL people on earth have terrible ideas for some very simple reasons
You're very fortunate to find yourself among the elite, wise 1%. How nice for you.

The rest of us poor 99% of simpletons are probably not worth your time. Sorry we take up so much space. 8)
Advocate
Posts: 1053
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: philosophy of religion isn't possible

Post by Advocate »

>You're very fortunate to find yourself among the elite, wise 1%. How nice for you.

It's not a blessing, it's a curse.

>The rest of us poor 99% of simpletons are probably not worth your time. Sorry we take up so much space. 8)

You're probably not, but that way lies nihilism, and i graduated from that school long ago. Now i hope to be wrong.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9205
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: philosophy of religion isn't possible

Post by Immanuel Can »

Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 5:31 pm i graduated from that school long ago.
You were a Nihilist once?
seeds
Posts: 1011
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: philosophy of religion isn't possible

Post by seeds »

Advocate wrote: Sat Aug 29, 2020 1:52 pm ...no matter what you can prove about religion, the fact that it relies on faith and faith isn't compatible with knowledge (justified belief) is sufficient to disregard any further claims.
If you want to view a level of “faith” that would put to shame the most devout Christian, Muslim, or Jew, then look no further than the faith that the scientific community has in the creative powers of gravity and thermodynamics, and how those two blind and mindless processes were somehow able to grasp the fabric of reality and shape it into a context of order that defies our comprehension.

Now I totally agree that much of the nonsense that the religions put-forth should be disregarded.

However, to replace it with the even greater nonsense that the manifestation of the universe is a product of chance, is foolish beyond measure.
_______
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9205
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: philosophy of religion isn't possible

Post by Immanuel Can »

Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 3:49 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:27 pm I'm a deist: where's my dogma? Where are my answers?
Deism isn't religion in and of itself, but it's also dogmatic. You subscribe to the notion, without possible evidence...
Who said "without evidence"? Only you, for some reason none of the rest of us understands.

For Deism, the first evidence of a Creator is the "Divine Watch," the precision instrument called "Earth" that shows the evidence of design in the materials. And yet, you call their belief "without evidence"?

There's more of course, but let's pause here. If you understand Deism, then you know that Deism is based on an argument-to-the-best-explanation, and its data is the designed nature of the universe. It partakes of the same fundamental assumption as all science, namely that the Earth is a "law"-exhibiting system that can be evaluated and measured by its regularities, intricate in its complexity and, in the Deistic view, far too subtle and interactive a thing to be a product of mere chance.

How then can you say, "There's no evidence?"

Surely the claim "Advocate chooses not to recognize the evidence" is different from the claim "There is no evidence." :shock:

So what can you mean?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

RC

Post by henry quirk »

Good question, Henry. What exactly is a deist?

For me, this works...

God (is) a subtle and persuasive spirit who created the world and then stepped back to observe.


If there is anything you believe as a deist, you would otherwise not believe, if anything you believe is justified by saying, "I'm a deist," that is your dogma.

Based on the above, I have no dogma. My deism is a result, not a starting place; an explanation, not an answer.
Advocate
Posts: 1053
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: philosophy of religion isn't possible

Post by Advocate »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 5:49 pm
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 5:31 pm i graduated from that school long ago.
You were a Nihilist once?
Not that. It is an essential step in any philosophical journey to find a way to deal with the literal meaninglessness of everything. TWS answers what meaning is and how to have it even though free will isn't free.. and so forth.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Advocate

Post by henry quirk »

Deism isn't religion in and of itself

Define religion.


You subscribe to the notion, without possible evidence, that beings vastly bigger in scope than us are possible in a way that can be adequately understood with/in our limited minds and language.

Nope. I believe, with evidence, in a Creator, and I believe, with evidence, the motives of this Creator are obvious.

The question: would you accept as evidence what I accept as evidence?

I suspect you wouldn't.
Advocate
Posts: 1053
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: philosophy of religion isn't possible

Post by Advocate »

seeds wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 5:56 pm
Advocate wrote: Sat Aug 29, 2020 1:52 pm ...no matter what you can prove about religion, the fact that it relies on faith and faith isn't compatible with knowledge (justified belief) is sufficient to disregard any further claims.
If you want to view a level of “faith” that would put to shame the most devout Christian, Muslim, or Jew, then look no further than the faith that the scientific community has in the creative powers of gravity and thermodynamics, and how those two blind and mindless processes were somehow able to grasp the fabric of reality and shape it into a context of order that defies our comprehension.

Now I totally agree that much of the nonsense that the religions put-forth should be disregarded.

However, to replace it with the even greater nonsense that the manifestation of the universe is a product of chance, is foolish beyond measure.
_______
That's a complete misunderstanding of everything about epistemology.

Gravity is a theory in the scientific sense - a story that best explains the available evidence. Even if it is wrong, it's still right "for all intents and purposes" with the information currently available to us, and there's no standard of certainty possible that is any greater. It's a Fact in any way the word fact matters. Faith is Always belief without justification. The instant there's justification, it's not faith any longer, it's reason, with the corresponding values of evidence that entails. And as previously shown, the things scientists "believe" is the polar opposite of faith in every respect.
Last edited by Advocate on Sun Aug 30, 2020 6:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Post Reply