philosophy of religion isn't possible

[seeds]

...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.

I hope everyone will forgive me for constantly using the same arguments and graphics I have used in prior postings, but...

...okay, so where is the “justification” in thinking that the blind and mindless meanderings of, again, gravity and thermodynamics could not only cause disparate (post Big Bang) quantum particles to coalesce into forming the perfect source of light and bio-driving energy (the sun)...



...but also the unfathomably stable setting** (the earth) from which life and consciousness could then effloresce from the very fabric of its being?

**(a setting, mind you, that “chance” also managed to equip with every possible prerequisite ingredient necessary to facilitate our awakening into existence.)

And as previously shown, the things scientists "believe" is the polar opposite of faith in every respect.

Nonsense!

Again, as I stated earlier, scientists (materialists) have every bit as much “faith” in the creative powers of their own invisible “god”...

(a god who goes by many names such as Randomness, Serendipity, Chance, Mother Nature, etc.)

...as do theists have in their invisible God.

The only difference is that despite the childish depictions of what the theists think their invisible God might be like, it is at least presumed to be in possession of intelligence and creative intentions, as opposed to something with the IQ of a bag of hammers.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

>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.

Not sure of where you are heading.

My point is >90% of people on Earth at present are theists.
Thus it is critical that 'philosophy' be infused into 'religion' as the philosophy of religion so that the religious can be progressively be tuned toward the rational and eventually be weaned off from religion.

I believe "open-mindedness" is definitely more positive than 'closed-mindedness'. But open-minded by be guided by philosophy-proper towards rationality, wisdom, optimality and whatever is net-positive to the well being of the individual, humanity and the universe.

[Belinda]

>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.

Not sure of where you are heading.

My point is >90% of people on Earth at present are theists.
Thus it is critical that 'philosophy' be infused into 'religion' as the philosophy of religion so that the religious can be progressively be tuned toward the rational and eventually be weaned off from religion.

I believe "open-mindedness" is definitely more positive than 'closed-mindedness'. But open-minded by be guided by philosophy-proper towards rationality, wisdom, optimality and whatever is net-positive to the well being of the individual, humanity and the universe.

But "theist" refers to people who are able to compare theism with varieties of atheism, and with people who are agnostics.The great majority of people are not interested in or could not understand theology.
In everyday words, most people are traditional in outlook because they want to stay alive, put food on the table, and rear their children. Some very few of those may be 'theists' but for most people theological categories are of no interest at all.

[Immanuel Can]

Some very few of those may be 'theists' but for most people theological categories are of no interest at all.

The "very few," according to the CIA Factbook, is about 92% of the world's population -- 96% if you classify agnostics as possibly open to Theism, as well . Ordinarily, we would regard that as rather many.

[Belinda]

Some very few of those may be 'theists' but for most people theological categories are of no interest at all.

The "very few," according to the CIA Factbook, is about 92% of the world's population -- 96% if you classify agnostics as possibly open to Theism, as well . Ordinarily, we would regard that as rather many.

Do you seriously think many people, let alone 92%, are interested in theology?

[Immanuel Can]

Some very few of those may be 'theists' but for most people theological categories are of no interest at all.

The "very few," according to the CIA Factbook, is about 92% of the world's population -- 96% if you classify agnostics as possibly open to Theism, as well . Ordinarily, we would regard that as rather many.

Do you seriously think many people, let alone 92%, are interested in theology?

I did not say so. I said that 92% believe that a god or gods exist, which makes them one or another variation of Theist. And around 4% more think it's possible, and are agnostics.

And I don't "think" so...the CIA thinks so.

[bahman]

While philosophy can be applied to anything, the idea of applying it to religion is inherently a waste of time. Religion requires dogma and dogma is faith - belief without recourse to evidence. It's possible to philosophize about how religion relates to other things but not about religion in and of itself. That's called theology and is arbitrary, not a study of reality.

In other words, philosophy is a study dedicated to finding truth while religion is all about accepting revealed and apparent facts with complete disregard for whether they're physically or logically possible. The two movements toward "truth" move in opposite directions.

Philosophy of religion is a useful tool to know the truth in religion.

[Belinda]

The "very few," according to the CIA Factbook, is about 92% of the world's population -- 96% if you classify agnostics as possibly open to Theism, as well . Ordinarily, we would regard that as rather many.

Do you seriously think many people, let alone 92%, are interested in theology?

I did not say so. I said that 92% believe that a god or gods exist, which makes them one or another variation of Theist. And around 4% more think it's possible, and are agnostics.

And I don't "think" so...the CIA thinks so.

But if these 92% of believers don't call themselves "theists" how can they be theists?

Surely theists are people who understand alternatives to theism, which is a term that pertains to theology.
To believe or not believe that a deity exists does not necessarily show a knowledge of alternatives but may show attachment to tradition or social custom, or even keeping peace with the wife.

[Immanuel Can]

Do you seriously think many people, let alone 92%, are interested in theology?

I did not say so. I said that 92% believe that a god or gods exist, which makes them one or another variation of Theist. And around 4% more think it's possible, and are agnostics.

And I don't "think" so...the CIA thinks so.

But if these 92% of believers don't call themselves "theists" how can they be theists?

Most do call themselves something that one would recognize as a Theist, such as a Muslim, Catholic or Hindu. That they don't use the word "Theist" is of no consequence at all.

A "Theist" is, by definition, somebody who believes in some conception of god. So anybody who does that is certainly a Theist, whether he or she knows to say the name or not.

[Belinda]

I did not say so. I said that 92% believe that a god or gods exist, which makes them one or another variation of Theist. And around 4% more think it's possible, and are agnostics.

And I don't "think" so...the CIA thinks so.

But if these 92% of believers don't call themselves "theists" how can they be theists?

Most do call themselves something that one would recognize as a Theist, such as a Muslim, Catholic or Hindu. That they don't use the word "Theist" is of no consequence at all.

A "Theist" is, by definition, somebody who believes in some conception of god. So anybody who does that is certainly a Theist, whether he or she knows to say the name or not.

Yes,I think you are right. Still, I really don't think most people are interested in the finer points of theology and 'believe' out of habit, or custom, or social convenience.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes,I think you are right. Still, I really don't think most people are interested in the finer points of theology and 'believe' out of habit, or custom, or social convenience.

That's true of everyone. Do Democrat voters know what J. Biden stands for? Do Trump voters know what the China situation is? Do BLMers know what they mean when they say "Black Lives Matter"? Do they know who they're even complaining against, who allegedly said black lives don't matter? Or the local Atheist...most of them don't even read Dawkins, let alone something credible. Yet they've 'decided' to be Atheists. And do you suppose that most of the people who talk about "believing science" know what they're talking about? No, they just means "believing the last guy in a lab coat who told me.." or worse, "Believing my teacher," or worse still, "Believing what I think some teacher I never met might have said if I'd ever bothered to ask him."

Believing is what human beings do. And it's actually the exceptional person who knows more than than the basics.

[Belinda]

Yes,I think you are right. Still, I really don't think most people are interested in the finer points of theology and 'believe' out of habit, or custom, or social convenience.

That's true of everyone. Do Democrat voters know what J. Biden stands for? Do Trump voters know what the China situation is? Do BLMers know what they mean when they say "Black Lives Matter"? Do they know who they're even complaining against, who allegedly said black lives don't matter? Or the local Atheist...most of them don't even read Dawkins, let alone something credible. Yet they've 'decided' to be Atheists. And do you suppose that most of the people who talk about "believing science" know what they're talking about? No, they just means "believing the last guy in a lab coat who told me.." or worse, "Believing my teacher," or worse still, "Believing what I think some teacher I never met might have said if I'd ever bothered to ask him."

Believing is what human beings do. And it's actually the exceptional person who knows more than than the basics.

That is so.

Scepticism is a good thing to apply to both science and politics; and also to components of religiosity that have to do with what authorities tell you to do. The more authoritarian a religion is, the more one should be sceptical about its moral authority.
Islam I view as very authoritarian. RC too, very authoritarian, and also Xian fundamentalism is very authoritarian.

On the same spectrum of authoritarian----liberal , Unitarian Universalist and Society of Friends are
at the liberal end of the spectrum where there is nothing much in the way of rules and regulations to be sceptical about.

[Veritas Aequitas]

>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.

Not sure of where you are heading.

My point is >90% of people on Earth at present are theists.
Thus it is critical that 'philosophy' be infused into 'religion' as the philosophy of religion so that the religious can be progressively be tuned toward the rational and eventually be weaned off from religion.

I believe "open-mindedness" is definitely more positive than 'closed-mindedness'. But open-minded by be guided by philosophy-proper towards rationality, wisdom, optimality and whatever is net-positive to the well being of the individual, humanity and the universe.

But "theist" refers to people who are able to compare theism with varieties of atheism, and with people who are agnostics.The great majority of people are not interested in or could not understand theology.
In everyday words, most people are traditional in outlook because they want to stay alive, put food on the table, and rear their children. Some very few of those may be 'theists' but for most people theological categories are of no interest at all.

Those interested in theology are specifically identified as theologians beside being a theist.

In general a theist is one who simply believes in the existence of God, a Supreme Being or Supreme Deity. This is the default psychological state of the modern humans.

The beliefs of theists are represented in a continuum to being a fundamentalist, to an average believer, the easy going and the agnostic.

The theist is one when asked will reply they believe in a God in various ways.
Note the theists from Christianity, Islam and Hinduism already represent >70%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... opulations

[Immanuel Can]

The more authoritarian a religion is, the more one should be sceptical about its moral authority.

Absolutely, I totally agree. And the more formally organized it is, and the more politicized it is, the worse it is. That's pretty much a certainty.

Islam I view as very authoritarian. RC too, very authoritarian, and also Xian fundamentalism is very authoritarian.

Yes to the first two, of course...and organized, and highly political. Christian "fundamentalism" is a bit different. It comes in many, many different shades, and though some are "fundamental" in their faith and practice, they are often very informal and sometimes adamantly non-political. That's too broad a spectrum to paint with one brush. But it is true there are some variations of Christian "fundamentalism" that are legalistic and autocratic, and some are even political. Just not most, you'll find.

On the same spectrum of authoritarian----liberal , Unitarian Universalist and Society of Friends are at the liberal end of the spectrum where there is nothing much in the way of rules and regulations to be sceptical about.

Well, there's a paradox there.

The reason that groups like, say, the Uniteds, or the Universalists, or liberals don't have many rules is because they actually don't believe anything very strongly...except that they don't want to believe anything very strongly. Nothing is at stake, in their view. All people are good, everybody gets Heaven, God doesn't speak, and truth is not available in any single form anyway, so there's really nothing to debate. Just be nice, and win PR points.

The reason that more committed groups are more willing to contend with each other is that they believe more strongly, and think something important is at stake. Where ideas are taken seriously, fractiousness is going to happen...just look at the PN forum. Where ideas are held loosely and carelessly, there's a whole lot less to debate, and rhetoric tends to become civilized, but also indifferent, cold, uncaring and shallow. Politeness there becomes the highest "virtue," since nothing much is really at stake.

It's only when somebody has something worth fighting for that they will fight. That's just common sense. So maybe we don't want to admire the coolness and politeness of the latter groups, until we exercise some of that critical reflection of which you speak on them as well as on the "fundamentalists," and decide whether their politeness is born of good nature or weak values.

[Belinda]

Immanuel, that is not at all my experience of being a Unitarian, and a Humanist. Quite opposite in fact. In both of these organisations many people were actively concerned about good and evil, and how to alleviate distress caused by evil, and how to live a good life.

Good is done for the love of good, not for the sake of personal gain in this life or the next life.

When I was a Presbyterian long ago ,there was no seeking going on at all.

Maybe you would consider the value of situation ethics.