philosophy of religion isn't possible

[Advocate]

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.

*state of humans (Sadly, we live in a pre-truth society. Enlightenment values never stuck.)

[Advocate]

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.

The problem with fundamentalism isn't in how their holy text is interpreted, it's that it MUST be interpreted. You can recognize a peaceful religion by all it's fundamentalists being fundamentally peaceful.

[Immanuel Can]

You can recognize a peaceful religion by all it's fundamentalists being fundamentally peaceful.

You mean,..." by their fruits ye shall know them?"

Yes. In fact, I've ready that somewhere...

You are correct.

[PeteJ]

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.

Sorry to go right back but I want to argue. Religion does not require dogma, it just often is dogma. Often it is not.

Philosophy and religion go hand-in-hand in my world and are more or less indistinguishable. Both study the nature of Reality.

They tend to be divided only where philosophers are dogmatic theists or naive realists.

[Advocate]

[quote=PeteJ post_id=471335 time=1600165696 user_id=11479]
[quote=Advocate post_id=468141 time=1598445617 user_id=15238]
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.
[/quote]
Sorry to go right back but I want to argue. Religion does not require dogma, it just often is dogma. Often it is not.

Philosophy and religion go hand-in-hand in my world and are more or less indistinguishable. Both study the nature of Reality.

They tend to be divided only where philosophers are dogmatic theists or naive realists.
[/quote]

Every religion has dogmatic beliefs, so how is dogma not an inherent part of religion? Karma or the moral equality of all beings is also dogma. Dogma requires faith which is belief without regard for the value of evidence. Philosophy is logical evidence. You couldn't be more wrong. They are diametrically opposed ideas.

Religion does not study the nature of reality or it would be philosophy or science, not religion. Religion is a control mechanism that has fuckall to do with reality.

[PeteJ]

Every religion has dogmatic beliefs, so how is dogma not an inherent part of religion? Karma or the moral equality of all beings is also dogma. Dogma requires faith which is belief without regard for the value of evidence. Philosophy is logical evidence. You couldn't be more wrong. They are diametrically opposed ideas.

Religion does not study the nature of reality or it would be philosophy or science, not religion. Religion is a control mechanism that has fuckall to do with reality.

I've read quite a few of your posts now and see that you are not a scholar or student of truth. Please don't be too offended, but I have no intention of engaging in a discussion with you.

[Luxin]

deleted 452

[Advocate]

[quote=PeteJ post_id=475162 time=1602413310 user_id=11479]
[quote=Advocate post_id=471358 time=1600176375 user_id=15238]
Every religion has dogmatic beliefs, so how is dogma not an inherent part of religion? Karma or the moral equality of all beings is also dogma. Dogma requires faith which is belief without regard for the value of evidence. Philosophy is logical evidence. You couldn't be more wrong. They are diametrically opposed ideas.

Religion does not study the nature of reality or it would be philosophy or science, not religion. Religion is a control mechanism that has fuckall to do with reality.
[/quote]

I've read quite a few of your posts now and see that you are not a scholar or student of truth. Please don't be too offended, but I have no intention of engaging in a discussion with you.
[/quote]

Bring offended is the provenance of feelers. I'm a thinker. I'm a Disciple of Truth, not a student of Truth. I can speak authoritatively about any topic in epistemology or metaphysics. I know more than you. Your loss. Not sure what your definition of scholar entails but if it's anything besides academic i certainly am.

[odysseus]

PeteJ wrote
Sorry to go right back but I want to argue. Religion does not require dogma, it just often is dogma. Often it is not.

Philosophy and religion go hand-in-hand in my world and are more or less indistinguishable. Both study the nature of Reality.

They tend to be divided only where philosophers are dogmatic theists or naive realists.

It does take a desire to to give the whole affair analysis, that is, look plainly at the what public religions say and what it is about them that makes it relevant, important. What is in the world that makes religion something not altogether dismissible. Granting that certainly a great deal IS made of incidentals, like liturgies, narratives, dogmas, groundless metaphysics, a close look at the existential dimension of religion (that is, the actualities that are embedded in the "giveness" of the world that are not invented at all) reveals a lot that goes to why we have to take religion seriously, even as the most serious thing imaginable.

So, what are you reading? I mean, who do you read that makes thinking like this clear?

[Advocate]

[quote]PeteJ wrote
Sorry to go right back but I want to argue. Religion does not require dogma, it just often is dogma. Often it is not.
[/quote]

Name a religion and i'll show you the dogma. It's a defining characteristic.

[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.

I believe you have got on the track of "philosophy of religion."
As I had stated, the 'Philosophy of Religion' is a meta-study of the whole spectrum of religion not merely to argue whether religion [theistic] is true is true or not.

Btw, there are theistic [God based] and non-theistic religions [Buddhism, etc.].

• “If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”
  ― Dalai Lama XIV, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality

You cannot accuse Buddhism-proper with having terrible ideas that are useless to humans.

While I believe theistic religions are relying on a God [illusory] that is impossible to be real, theistic religions at present [not future] are a net-positive "crutch" to theists since there are no effective alternative to deal with the inherent existential crisis - which is a very primal psychological problem to humans.

How else can we counter the falsehoods of theistic religions if not to rely on logic and wisdom from applying Philosophy to theistic religions.
In applying Philosophy to the study of religions, we will bring all the relevant knowledge and skills to expose the falsehoods of theistic religions and in addition search for the root causes of why people cling to theistic religions so fanatically.

It is with Philosophy as the base, that humanity can find solutions to assist theists to give up their the irrational belief in God and find foolproof alternatives that enable them to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

So the 'Philosophy of Religion' is very necessary and very possible.

[Advocate]

>As I had stated, the 'Philosophy of Religion' is a meta-study of the whole spectrum of religion not merely to argue whether religion [theistic] is true is true or not.

That's history or psychology or anthropology, not philosophy. Religions aren't Only dogma, but the inclusion of dogma requires they not be taken seriously in a philosophical sense.

>Btw, there are theistic [God based] and non-theistic religions [Buddhism, etc.].

Theism is the usual culprit but not the only one.

>You cannot accuse Buddhism-proper with having terrible ideas that are useless to humans.

But i have and i do! Buddhist concepts that are needed to follow Buddhist doctrine but unsupportable by logic or science: karma, samsara, nirvana

It is their claims of knowledge of the beyond which is intellectually bankrupt, whether it's god or simply the existence of a soul as in Buddhism.

>While I believe theistic religions are relying on a God [illusory] that is impossible to be real, theistic religions at present [not future] are a net-positive "crutch" to theists since there are no effective alternative to deal with the inherent existential crisis - which is a very primal psychological problem to humans.

It's positive to them only in an immediate sense. It harms everyone in the larger sense, not least of which is by teaching people it's ok to believe lies for immediate gratification of life's inherent existential crises.

>In applying Philosophy to the study of religions, we will bring all the relevant knowledge and skills to expose the falsehoods of theistic religions and in addition search for the root causes of why people cling to theistic religions so fanatically.

Yeah, i'm still going to be calling that psychology and as far as i see, it's simple and obvious to any non-religious person with a basic understanding of psychology and/or human nature.why religious people cling to religion.

>It is with Philosophy as the base, that humanity can find solutions to assist theists to give up their the irrational belief in God and find foolproof alternatives that enable them to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

Philosophy is a Substitute for religion and entirely incompatible with theology or apologetics of any kind, including the Buddhist apologetics you pulled out above. The dogma found in Every religion is an abduction of the search for Truth and philosophy is the search for Truth. They're diametrically opposed.

One last point about dogma; to the extent a belief system does Not require dogma, it's not a religion. This is a defining characteristic, not an optional one. There's no reason to give the benefit of the doubt to such things. Truth can only lose in compromise.

[attofishpi]

First, the concept of god would need to be defined in such a way as to be verifiable.
Then, the verification of the infinite must be within reach of us, the finite.
Finally, the verification must be done and the results must be positive.

Anything less and god is indistinguishable from fiction.
Ergo, god is indistinguishable from fiction.

EDIT: and not very good fiction.

Duh! You have just contradicted the entire premise of your own thread...muppet!

[Advocate]

[quote=attofishpi post_id=475620 time=1602789598 user_id=6293]
[quote=Advocate post_id=468216 time=1598481976 user_id=15238]
First, the concept of god would need to be defined in such a way as to be verifiable.
Then, the verification of the infinite must be within reach of us, the finite.
Finally, the verification must be done and the results must be positive.

Anything less and god is indistinguishable from fiction.
Ergo, god is indistinguishable from fiction.

EDIT: and not very good fiction.
[/quote]

Duh! You have just contradicted the entire premise of your own thread...muppet! :P
[/quote]

How To Recognize Bullshit is basic critical thinking aka Common Sense. I guess you can call it philosophy if you want.

[attofishpi]

First, the concept of god would need to be defined in such a way as to be verifiable.
Then, the verification of the infinite must be within reach of us, the finite.
Finally, the verification must be done and the results must be positive.

Anything less and god is indistinguishable from fiction.
Ergo, god is indistinguishable from fiction.

EDIT: and not very good fiction.

Duh! You have just contradicted the entire premise of your own thread...muppet!

How To Recognize Bullshit is basic critical thinking aka Common Sense. I guess you can call it philosophy if you want.

And there is another of your failings, you need more than 'Common Sense' to attain gnosis.