"philosophy" of Religion

[Kuznetzova]

Anyone, convince me that the "philosophy of Religion" is anything more than systematically listing the logical fallacies of creationists and spiritualists.

[bobevenson]

Anyone, convince me that the "philosophy of Religion" is anything more than systematically listing the logical fallacies of creationists and spiritualists.

Religion is the biggest scam on Earth, not to be confused, of course, with the spiritual philosophy of the book of Revelation and "The Ouzo Prophecy."

[jackles]

The pholosophy of religion is where the super self of an observer trys to resolve its position of existance in the universal event.

[tbieter]

Anyone, convince me that the "philosophy of Religion" is anything more than systematically listing the logical fallacies of creationists and spiritualists.

The philosopher of religion investigates philosophically the human experience of religion (basic religious ideas and practices). For example, in my library is the Philosophy of the Buddha by Christopher W. http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Buddha ... r+w+gowans. :

"Philosophy of the Buddha is a philosophical introduction to the teaching of the Buddha. It carefully guides readers through the basic ideas and practices of the Buddha, including kamma (karma), rebirth, the not-self doctrine, the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path, ethics, meditation, non-attachment, and Nibbâna (Nirvana).

The book includes an account of the life of the Buddha as well as comparisons of his teaching with practical and theoretical aspects of some Western philosophical outlooks, both ancient and modern. Most distinctively, Philosophy of the Buddha explores how Buddhist enlightenment could enable us to overcome suffering in our lives and reach our full potential for compassion and tranquillity."

Some are incapable of engaging in the detached philosophical investigation of an aspect of human experience. They start and end with a dogmatic assertion.

[YehYeh]

Once we can figure out what philosophy, religion, and personal faith might and might not be, we might be able to make some sense of this topic.

[Immanuel Can]

The term "religion" is an imaginative construct from the secularist perspective. It supposes an essential "likeness" among items in the category it embraces, a "likeness" those systems themselves deny. It also presupposes that their denials are inauthentic, since it brackets them all anyway under criteria secularism itself deems relevant -- and truth-value is not one of these categories secularism attributes to any of them.

In short, "religion" is a category that already gives away the game to secularism, just like "right to life" gives away the game to anti-abortion advocates, and "right to choice" gives away the same game to pro-abortionists.

To have a fair discussion of the alternatives, you have to drop that category.

[The Voice of Time]

The term "religion" is an imaginative construct from the secularist perspective. It supposes an essential "likeness" among items in the category it embraces, a "likeness" those systems themselves deny.

Woot? There's lots of similarities between all religions, the Abrahamic religions for starters all have the same root and share prophets. Buddhism however distinctive it wants to be is basically an off-spring of Hinduism. What I know of Confucianism and Taoism they are what happens when superstition, tradition and speculation melts with philosophy.

[Immanuel Can]

Ah, I have found you again, dear VOT. How nice to have a friend so soon after my arrival.

Have you solved my little brain puzzle yet? (see Introduce Yourself forum)

In response to your post here, similarities and differences exist between many things. The key question is, "What is a substantial difference, and what is merely cosmetic?' What you call "religion" is a collective noun premised on the belief that the similarities among those beliefs is profound, and the differences are superficial.

I would simply contest that assumption. So would all of those traditions you mention.

That's woot.

[The Voice of Time]

In response to your post here, similarities and differences exist between many things. The key question is, "What is a substantial difference, and what is merely cosmetic?' What you call "religion" is a collective noun premised on the belief that the similarities among those beliefs is profound, and the differences are superficial. .

What all religions have in common is 1) a disregard for the causal uncertainty of the natural world, even the more analytical-empirical aspects of buddhism will still hold onto the more preposterous aspects of its religion, 2) this disregard manifests as spirituality which in turn is transcendent emotion-based knowledge, or emotional transcendence, which differs from rational transcendence in that it doesn't require explanation and will not sway before criticism (sway means here "not take criticism into careful consideration"), in other words religions are dogmatic and emotion-based. All religions are this way, you won't find a single religion that is not, and you won't find a real philosophy that is this way.

The emotional transcendence is what allows a religious follower to point his heart, his "affective feelings", towards a location that is not situated in this world, but in the conjured imagination of his mind. This is why mythical and allegorical aspects often colour religious teachings, as they are the way in which the mind is tempted to use imagination instead of attentive free-roaming sight, hearing and touching.

[Immanuel Can]

All religions are this way, you won't find a single religion that is not, and you won't find a real philosophy that is this way.

Au contraire, mon ami: I have met many who subscribe to views traditionally called "philosophical" rather than "religious" whose hard-headedness, bigotry, and, if I may say, self-righteousness are second to none, but who, since they believe themselves to be religious skeptics, and hence beyond being self-deceived, are doubly incapable of realizing the arbitrary nature of their convictions. Soviet Russia was ardently anti-religious by profession and Marxist in philosophy; but you cannot find a more blind, propagandized worldview anywhere.

"Affective" dimensions are an aspect of what is called "religion": but their presence is a superficial similarity; the substantial difference is what objects and values elicit the affective elements in each "religion." Likewise, that they all have "allegory" is superficial; what the allegories teach is substantially different.

As for "attentive, free-roaming sight, hearing and touching," these are notoriously perfidious in the presence of drugs, partial information, or even first impressions; and their interpretation is shaped by predisposition and paradigm. While I agree with you that they are important sources of information, I agree with Socrates and Descartes that we must regard their deliverances as open to error and in need of the guidance of faculties of reason.

The idea that science deals with "pure facts" and belief implicates "imagination" only is a false dichotomy. That supposition will not bear much scrutiny. See M. Polanyi's "Personal Knowledge" (1958). He was a master chemist and physicist, but also a top notch philosopher; and for that reason he was too wise to align himself with that errant dichotomy.

[The Voice of Time]

"attentive free-roaming sight, hearing and touching" is not what you talk about. What it is instead is a pursuit of the material world, the real world, the natural world and what lies within it, and constantly "adding up" experience and making judgements based on that incremental adding and the dialectic of its at times contradictory content.

We impose rules indeed, but unless our rules are not ultimately open for change when faced with substantial evidence we are trapping ourselves back into a direction that goes parallel with religion. It's not the same as religion, and can look quite differently, but dogma is poor thinking. What you mention of Marxism is not the same because it lacks the final statements I make about otherworldly affections ("transcendence" means to "go beyond", and it's in the "beyond" that the feelings lie, not in the real world). Indeed the Marxists had their "ideals" but their idealism were ultimately rooted in our world and consisted of changing our world through worldly means, a substantial difference. Their hearts lay in imagination but the imagination was chained to the world. You could of course slightly adjust on some aspects of the Leninism and get religious phenomena, like cults of personality that gave godly powers to the leaders (otherworldly emotional attachments, making their leaders appear super-human and cultivating a culture and view based on this, in that sense cultivating a non-real view of them, an otherworldly view, a parallel universe view de facto), I don't really know what kind of ideas they had about their leaders as I'm not sufficiently into soviet history to know that, but I don't think it'd be sufficient to call it really "religious", maybe by a scarce, but nothing more.

[Immanuel Can]

I take your point about "transcendence," and a that surely is at least a superficial point of contact among what gets called "religions." However, on what basis would we think some reference to "transcendence" is a bad thing in a philosophy, especially if such a thing as "transcendence" should turn out to exist? Surely we would need good reasons to eliminate a things so generally intuited by so many people, no?

As for Marxism, I don't think it's as far off "religion" as everyone thinks. True, Marx called the criticism of religion "the first critique," but at the same time scholars have noted that Marxism is little more than a secular Messianism. Clearly Marx's own Jewish and Christian experiences had a profound effect on shaping the eschatological expectations he had for historical forces and the "triumph of the proletariat" -- which, after all, was a future event he prophesied (another "religious" activity), not one that he had seen, and not one that was ever to come about. Materialism itself did not provide him with such speculations. Materialism has no opinion on such things, or indeed on any transcendent causes and effects at all.

But back to the "religion" construct: it's a bit deceptive, because it suggests that there's one group of people doing straight thinking, who all happen to be Materialists or secularists, and everybody else is simply imagining things. But I think this is not only false to "religion," but false to the truth about how people do science as well. Again, I recommend Polanyi on this, and haven't time (or the ability for that matter) to expound his thesis for him. But it is very worthwhile.

[The Voice of Time]

I take your point about "transcendence," and a that surely is at least a superficial point of contact among what gets called "religions." However, on what basis would we think some reference to "transcendence" is a bad thing in a philosophy, especially if such a thing as "transcendence" should turn out to exist? Surely we would need good reasons to eliminate a things so generally intuited by so many people, no?

Transcendence exists in full health in philosophy, but it's rooted in the real world. Where it is not in the objective world, it's still in a subjective world that is factual to us all, namely our minds, or perhaps, the rationally objectified mind, to make further separation from the emotional transcendence of religion that also has presence with the mind. I like the concept of transcendence in philosophy because it often explains or hints towards solutions found elsewhere. For instance, in the phenomenology of literature, you can talk about the transcendent value of literary texts, as their value is greater than the sum of their parts. But really, real life is quite transcendent, as particular pieces of situations become transcendent in the face of the rest of the situation. For instance, the reason why we work (or at least those who do work, I'm a lazy ass social services client), those who work don't usually do it just for the sake of the immediate experience of the work, as it contains a lot of crap usually as well (it's why it's "work" and not "fun and play"), but for things that go beyond those immediate situations and relate to things like income, social relationships, positions of honour in the society, and a learned commitment to social roles like work. None of those you find by looking at the immediate situation, it is all transcendent of it. But! It's still in the real world.

As for Marxism, I don't think it's as far off "religion" as everyone thinks. True, Marx called the criticism of religion "the first critique," but at the same time scholars have noted that Marxism is little more than a secular Messianism. Clearly Marx's own Jewish and Christian experiences had a profound effect on shaping the eschatological expectations he had for historical forces and the "triumph of the proletariat" -- which, after all, was a future event he prophesied (another "religious" activity), not one that he had seen, and not one that was ever to come about. Materialism itself did not provide him with such speculations. Materialism has no opinion on such things, or indeed on any transcendent causes and effects at all.

Why did you use the word "transcendent" in this context? It seems misplaced. I don't really buy into comparing "prophesies" with "expectations". If you'd ask Marx he'd not be that certain he couldn't have doubts about it, I find that extremely improbable, Marx was a man of reason and critique. What's special about prophecies is that they are not grounded in worldly explanations and worldly reasoning, Marx was grounded deeply in both, whether you think him right or wrong is another question, it doesn't mean he didn't intend to or try. To make an expectation that turns out to be wrong or that hasn't had the opportunity to materialize yet doesn't mean it is religious, it just means it's either a fault or a yet to be realized phenomena. I remain firm that Marxism is very far from religion as Karl Marx was, and that it is preposterous to compare them even, there has seldom been a more real-world affirming philosophy than that of Karl Marx. Now, Adam Smith, that's a religious man, his "Invisible Hand" argument is religion at its finest, now he turned out to be pretty right about that to some extent, does that make him scientific or philosophical in his argument? No, it just means he put his faith in the right place. Like a general who thinks he will win the fight so he allows for the battle to be engaged, whether he'll win will be decided by the virtues of his intuition which is a gamble to anyone who cares about information and facts.

But back to the "religion" construct: it's a bit deceptive, because it suggests that there's one group of people doing straight thinking, who all happen to be Materialists or secularists, and everybody else is simply imagining things. But I think this is not only false to "religion," but false to the truth about how people do science as well. Again, I recommend Polanyi on this, and haven't time (or the ability for that matter) to expound his thesis for him. But it is very worthwhile.

You are very unlikely to see me reading any book or paper because you recommend it, if there's anything to say about it then say it, else it's a useless reference and only bother to the reader. You don't need to be a "materialist" or a "secularist" to be a philosopher, you just need to stick to the real world, and if you do conjure up unreal worlds, like planes of existence, then they better be metaphors, or, as you can be both religious and philosopher, you must be able to separate the concerns and not blend them, or else you pollute philosophy with religion. When it comes to philosophy of religion, it's often hard to know where philosophy ends and theology starts, like the discussion on the omnipotence of god ("If God can do everything, could he then make a stone which is so heavy he couldn't lift it?"), at first glance it's pretty much theology, but then you can ask yourself if it's not a discussion on logic and whether the rules of logic apply or how to alternatively solve the tautological dogma of the omnipotent god, then you might start asking yourself if it's not ontology and not just a question about the existence or not of omnipotence and whether god might not be as omnipotent as omnipotence would suggest, but perhaps it's even epistemology, perhaps it's just a deception that god couldn't do both at the same time and perhaps we just need to allow god some parallel universe-ing.. but might it also be about ethics, that questioning such questions is really not seeing the significance of the concept of omnipotence... as such, the possibilities seem endless, but that's perhaps why it's a field of its own, philosophy of religion, because then there's a place where such rather meaningless question can be asked by people who do not really care if it does not make a difference in the natural world, only that it disturbs the dogma.

[Immanuel Can]

We need to clear up the meaning of "transcendent" we want to share in our discussion. You're right about that. You seem to see it as supervening on the natural world; but if so, you'd have a funny sort of thing to explain...if the natural world is all there is, then why would we suddenly impute "transcendence" to it? And if the natural world is not all there is, then why would we think "transcendence" ought to depend on it? Something disconnected in your idea here, perhaps? Maybe we should go to a more conventional, philosophical definition. Just a suggestion.


As for Marx, he was by no means the "man of reason" you suppose him to have been. Read his biography, and you'd see. However, I would suggest that's ad hominem anyway, so we can set his character aside. My point is only that his reasoning was unquestionably shaped as a secularization of ideas well-formed for him already by Judaism and Christianity. His "triumph of the proletariat" has indeed never been realized anywhere...but it's not for lack of trying, since his ideology has been one of the major ones of the 20th Century, tried over and over again throughout the Soviet Bloc, South America, Africa and Southeast Asia. Yet it always produces horrors. Maybe it's time we asked why.


Well, as for Polanyi, I only suggest you may want to read him in future, assuming you have any enduring interest in the question. I'll leave that to your discretion, but I'm just trying to be helpful. As for the God-rock paradox you suggest, it's flimsy and has been well-refuted already. At the risk of being maudlin, I'll summarize for you. You are right: it is a "meaningless question," as you say, but perhaps more precisely than you mean. It contains one meaning in the premise (omnipotent) and its contradiction in the second premise (couldn't). It's as silly as a square circle or a married bachelor: it makes no logical sense on any account. However, that does not imply the concepts of bachelors or circles are incoherent, just that self-contradiction is. As for God, theologians do not agree that "omnipotence" means "can do anything at all, including evil, failure, lying, etc." It means only that He can do anything consistent with His character, which by nature is definitive of right, coherent action. So the question is indeed "meaniningless", i.e. lacking even enough "meaning" to be asked by a rational being.


Your comments also suggest that perhaps in your range of life you have never met a rational person who believes in God.


In that case, I'm very pleased to meet you. Ask what you will. I have not all the answers, but Immanuel does.

[The Voice of Time]

We need to clear up the meaning of "transcendent" we want to share in our discussion. You're right about that. You seem to see it as supervening on the natural world; but if so, you'd have a funny sort of thing to explain...if the natural world is all there is, then why would we suddenly impute "transcendence" to it? And if the natural world is not all there is, then why would we think "transcendence" ought to depend on it? Something disconnected in your idea here, perhaps? Maybe we should go to a more conventional, philosophical definition. Just a suggestion.

It's quite obvious isn't it, I've already strongly implied it, my example was a whole arrow pointing to the answer: you only perceive a portion of the world at a time. We move through time and transcendence tells us about what we'll find in the future and likely elsewhere than our current location but also that we'll likely find it having a different mindset and/or perspective. So, for instance in the case of literature, we'll first have to make our analysis and our pondering upon the book to be able to draw out conclusions of its transcendent meaning. We'll attain that understanding not just after having read the book but after having taken time to digest it properly, so it'll be in the "beyond" of the moment and the immediate.

As for Marx, he was by no means the "man of reason" you suppose him to have been.

I've never had a reason to doubt that, please consider to tell me what evidence you have to the contrary? And more than just the occasional outburst of emotion, as no human being is 100% rational.

Read his biography, and you'd see.

I've read about his life but not his full biography, but when I said "man of reason" I was talking about his work and not his personal life, as his work is by far a work of reason, it'll have to be his personal life you are referring to.

However, I would suggest that's ad hominem anyway, so we can set his character aside.

Yes, indeed.

My point is only that his reasoning was unquestionably shaped as a secularization of ideas well-formed for him already by Judaism and Christianity. His "triumph of the proletariat" has indeed never been realized anywhere...but it's not for lack of trying, since his ideology has been one of the major ones of the 20th Century, tried over and over again throughout the Soviet Bloc, South America, Africa and Southeast Asia. Yet it always produces horrors. Maybe it's time we asked why.

Yes... why does it produce horror? I like thinking that my home-country Norway is in a lot of sense a communist paradise. Universal Health Care, Social Services largely unmatched in time, huge wealth, among the top freest countries in the world... Karl Marx said something interesting: he said "democracy is the road to communism", and it has been through the demise of the aristocracy and the introduction of democracy that Norway has risen to socialist ideals. He also talked a lot about freedom and about the freedom his future society should have, and that freedom pretty resembles modern social-democratic states today in what little I have caught of the writing... perhaps not everywhere failed x) But through dialectics the successors merged with capitalism and democracy merged with its past (Norway is a constitutional monarchy as well) like the aristocrats and produced an unprecedented result: modern European social democracy, with all its diversity.

Well, as for Polanyi, I only suggest you may want to read him in future, assuming you have any enduring interest in the question.

If people could point me to books they've read all the time I would never have the chance to argue but only be sent on missions that might or might not be a silly waste for me. So, mention all the books you want, but if you want to convey information about them, then give excerpts, and don't be lazy and shift the burden unto your opponent.

I'll leave that to your discretion, but I'm just trying to be helpful. As for the God-rock paradox you suggest, it's flimsy and has been well-refuted already. At the risk of being maudlin, I'll summarize for you. You are right: it is a "meaningless question," as you say, but perhaps more precisely than you mean. It contains one meaning in the premise (omnipotent) and its contradiction in the second premise (couldn't). It's as silly as a square circle or a married bachelor: it makes no logical sense on any account. However, that does not imply the concepts of bachelors or circles are incoherent, just that self-contradiction is. As for God, theologians do not agree that "omnipotence" means "can do anything at all, including evil, failure, lying, etc." It means only that He can do anything consistent with His character, which by nature is definitive of right, coherent action. So the question is indeed "meaniningless", i.e. lacking even enough "meaning" to be asked by a rational being.

Yes yes a lot of theology x) I only know this stuff because of the wonders of Wikipedia.

Your comments also suggest that perhaps in your range of life you have never met a rational person who believes in God. In that case, I'm very pleased to meet you. Ask what you will. I have not all the answers, but Immanuel does.

mehehe, that's just so typical, but sadly so predictable from older people (they just can't help themselves but act, however weakly, still, somewhat condescending to those younger than them). First you talk about the vice of character focus and now you presuppose I've never met a rational person who believes in God? I'd call that an attack on my character, though I have some doubts you would admit that. I grew up in a Christian family but their rationality was pretty strong, my mother pragmatic and extremely competent at rationalized work and systematic thinking (a dominant woman, a complete ass though) and yet she was a close friend with the local priest, a highly desired leader for the local Christian people's party and a leader in local community-church work, my father inquiring and with the doubt of any philosopher (although he was a temperamental abusive ass at times) a person who read and sought out ranges of knowledge and made his own thoughts on the world though quiet about them.