View Single Post
Old 06-10-2005, 05:09 PM   #33 (permalink)
cellophanedeity
Heliotrope
 
cellophanedeity's Avatar
 
Location: A warm room
Quote:
Originally Posted by asaris
Further, I don't know why we're not allowed to use scripture to defend our moral and/or metaphysical beliefs and/or choices. If you ask me why I chose to give money to charity, and I answer "Because the Bible says that's a good thing", why isn't that a good answer? Similarly, if you ask why I believe in angels, and I say, "Because the Bible says that there are angels", why is that a bad answer? Surely it's, at the worst, no worse than believing in the existence of Australia because your Uncle Joe says it's there.
Good points to bring up.

I think that solely using scripture to defends one's beliefs and choices is a poor method of philosophy because there are stronger and more valuable means of discussion.

Lets use your example of giving money to charity. If the reasoning behind your giving "is because the Bible says it is a good thing", this is less philosophically valuable than questioning it. I think that it would be more valuable to question one's reasoning, perhaps even after the fact. Such as, "The Bible says that charity is a good thing, and this [insert other reason here] is why this is true."

I am not saying that it is necissarily inappropriate for people to believe things solely upon scripture. I would not advocate it, but I'm not particularly against it. What I am against, is people passing scripture for philosophy. If it is not open to questioning it is not philosophy. If one believes that their view is infallible and does not ever need to adapt,change, or evolve, then they will not make a good philosopher.

For the same reason, people who scream "THERE IS NO GOD!!" and do not listen to any other opinion is just as poor a philosopher.

(And as far as the Australia thing goes, Australia can be easily verified. Angels can't really be. It's sort of like me saying "I believe in jabberwocks because Lewis Carrol says so, and Lewis Carrol is infallible." It's not bad, but why bother trying to figure out philosophically if jabberwocks and angels exist? That is neither moral nor metaphycial.)

Last edited by cellophanedeity; 06-10-2005 at 05:12 PM..
cellophanedeity is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360