Man, go away for a job interview and you miss so much...I've tried to catch up on the thread's discourse, but I may miss something.
Re: incidental side discussion with
Knife et al - I was simply reacting to a line of commentary that could easily be interpreted by those with religious beliefs as being condescending. It doesn't really matter - it's hard to capture and interpret others meanings via online posts, and its not particularly a big deal. Both sides of this discussion can feel condescension in the other side's position, as it tends to attack their fundamental worldview at its elemental position. The funny thing, to me, is that at the root level, I tend to pretty much agree with
KnifeMissile basic assertions. I don't understand how people hold to deities at this point. I don't think
KnifeMissile is "mean" at all - just very direct and perhaps not always "user-friendly."
As I see it, philosophy is basically the study of everything. Philosophy isn't limited to the study of hoky claims that can never be substantiated - its the umbrella term for the investigation and classification of all knowledge. In this sense, science is simply a sub category of philosophy. This is inherent in the fact that the highest degree you can achieve in scientific education is a Ph.D. - a
Doctor of Philosophy. I used to get a huge kick out of all the grad students in engineering and various scientific areas of study who had such huge derision for philosophy.
"Yeah, good luck loser. Try and get a job with that. I don't know if it will come in handy after you get your degree, but I like my latte with extra cream, and not too hot."
You then ask them what degree program they're in. "Oh, I'm finishing up my Ph.D. dissertation."
Oh really? Self-loathing much?
As far as I understand it, personified deities probably made terrific sense a long time ago. You're trying to figure out what all this experience and existence stuff means, why you're here - all the classic questions - and in doing so a hypothesis is formed. People reasonably conclude they are the top dogs in the local area, and if they are being acted upon by forces out of their control, well a super-person would be a pretty decent guess as to who's poking them with sticks. Such a belief system would serve its purpose and let them move on to hunting some buffalo, smoking some herb and drinking a beer, getting it on, etc. I just think that hypothesis has outlived its usefulness.
As far as I can see, there is no good reason to presuppose the existence of any personified deity. I don't think that makes the pursuit of the questions that were represented by those deities any less useful, only that the face of those questions has changed. (Nevermind the anthropomorphic use of the word 'face'
) We've always been aware of the limitations of our knowledge - its how we deal with it. We used to shovel it all over on "God" or "gods." Why does the world turn? Don't kow, that's God's job. Why do good things happen to bad people? Beats me, talk to God. Now the atheist just tends to say "Don't know."
My personal problem with particularly strong atheistic positions is the notion that study of the physical universe is all that matters, period. There are so many questions that such studies can't answer, and therefore the strict atheist says "I don't care about the other questions. Waste of time." Which I think is fine, but it doesn't mean that the pursuit of questions and answers outside the purview of physical science are a waste of time for
everybody, just that they don't care to pursue them. However, it seems that in pursuit of the answers to questions which we may view as being outside the realm of "classic scientific inquiry," we tend to slowly move knowledge from "bullshit philosophy" into "classic scientific knowledge." Many of the areas that we now think we understand and accept as having explanations were once the strict purview of mystics and shamans. Disease, electricity, fire (me like fire), etc - we used to accept on a hyper (or maybe sub) rational level, and we now think we have a firmer grasp on them. I don't see any reason to differentiate science and philosophy - I'm not even sure what such a distinction would mean - it seems that its all pursuit of knowledge, and the means of inquiry (scientific method, more or less) is the same across the board.
Incidentally, all "science" says is that one has a set of
a priori theoretical hypotheses which seem to be consistent with our interpretations of our perceptions. It doesn't mean any of it is real - only that its useful. The whole thing could very well be nothing but smoke and mirrors - but its useful for making computers and bridges and such. I don't think any of the diagrams in scientific textbooks exists - they are just convenient ways for us to categorize what we think we know, so that we can move forward in making more intricate toys and tools. Out of all the potential interactions and potential causal relationships that govern our universe, we've carved out a set of theories which seem to work for us. I personally like to remind myself every so often how little we actually know - and I think that to truly accept everything in reality is to also embrace all of the aspects of reality, including those of we we have no knowledge. To me, on a fundamental level, that is one of the main purposes of relgions in the abstract.