The use of religion in philosophy. - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

cellophanedeity · 06-06-2005, 11:58 AM

In one of my highschool philosophy courses, we quickly learned to never support our arguments with religious claims. We were taught that though theology could be a useful tool to guide one in one's daily activities, we should not defend our moral choices, metaphysical arguments, and other choices solely upon theology.

Instead, we must defend our views in a philosophical manner, attempting to define morality and metaphysics beyond simply quoting from texts or leaders.

This in no way implied to us that we were to give up our religious beliefs for the purposes of philosophy. In fact, we were urged to strenthen ourselves and our spirituality by questioning what we have come to believe.

I think that one of the better (or at least better known) examples of a philosopher who has done this is Aquinas. He was an avid believer in Christianity, but he also wished for a Reasonable (note the capital R!) proof of God. He would not settle for only the Bible to help him define his God, but also used ontological proofs. He's now known as one of the greatest Christian philosophers in history (even though his proofs had nothing to do with the Christian God, but I'll let that slip for this thread.)

Unfortunately, I've noticed that devoutly religious people don't seem to do this as often anymore. Even in these forums, I occasionally find people supporting their philosophical beliefs with no more than quotations from their religious texts or prophets. In my opinion, this is poor philosophy, and I wish for these people to strive for more.

I believe that if people were to consider their beliefs beyond their books and were able to provide explainations beyond quotations and references, then perhaps we would get along a bit better.

Charlatan · 06-06-2005, 12:12 PM

To me, this is a healthy approach to religion. One must always poke and prod at your beliefs regardless of what they are... to move blindly through life without reflection is just asking for trouble.

The problem with poking and prodding is that sometime you damage what you are poking... It is no longer usuable to you. But you realize that you must move onto something else... something different. Many people are afraid of what comes after this... and the answer is never an easy one if you are truly searching.

On the other hand, sometimes poking and prodding can make the thing you are prodding better... more beautiful (like the bits of stone Michalangelo removed from the hunk of rock that became David).

In my mind, both conclusions are worthwhile and as with all things... the journey is the most imprortant part of the process...

tecoyah · 06-06-2005, 02:30 PM

It is important to incorporate as much information into belief as possible, in my opinion. There is great value in much of the texts out there....the key is to form your own path from the Data....and strive to become more.
But I have to agree that I am turned off quickly by those that adhere strictly to these texts, as I feel they are guides....not fact.

Robaggio · 06-06-2005, 03:33 PM

I think that was very well written cellophanediety.

In my experiences, most people are afraid to do a little poking and prodding. I think they fear their faith may perhaps be damaged like Charlatan says. To me, this is very telling as to where these people stand. I'm sure everyone's heard religion called a "crutch". I can see how it would make sense for these individuals to not poke their cruch. It is supporting them after all.

filtherton · 06-06-2005, 04:39 PM

I think it is interesting to note that religion often serves not as a guide, but as a justification. Many of the most devout do not mold themselves to conform to the apparent ideology of their chosen savior. Rather they mold their chosen savior to conform to their own ideology. This is the crux of the problem of arguing from a religious perspective; all you're really doing attempting to use the source of your faith to justify your own perspective. This is convenient, however, in that 1) The infallibility of a divine being is impossible for a mere mortal to effectively question; and 2) One who argues from this perspective doesn't have to claim any kind of responsibility for their own perspective. If you ever want to save yourself the trouble of having to question your own assumptions, just pawn them off on a divine being. Though i suppose this summary only applies to the majority of christians who believe that god hasn't had anything important to say for two thousand years.

Charlatan · 06-06-2005, 07:07 PM

A very good point filtherton... very nicely argued.

Ustwo · 06-06-2005, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Though i suppose this summary only applies to the majority of christians who believe that god hasn't had anything important to say for two thousand years.

This isn't quite quite true. Basicly a Saint would be doing gods work and spreading his will directly, otherwise the Saint would not be able to perform miracles. These micracles are what sets a saint appart from a good priest or any other 'holy' person in the church.

So a counter argument would be that god is constantly talking to us, but its up to us to listen, hes not going to beat us over the head with it.

I personally see most religions as a way to avoid philosophy.

Religion makes it easy, you don't question it, it just is. While there have been some get philosophers which were also religious, the majority of people have no use for philosophy and religion helps them from needing to ask themselves difficult questions.

Why shouldn't we do this?
What happens when you die?
What is our future?

Its all laid out, right there in black and white, so don't worry your head, get back to making the donunts.

Charlatan · 06-07-2005, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I personally see most religions as a way to avoid philosophy.

Religion makes it easy, you don't question it, it just is. While there have been some get philosophers which were also religious, the majority of people have no use for philosophy and religion helps them from needing to ask themselves difficult questions.

Why shouldn't we do this?
What happens when you die?
What is our future?

Its all laid out, right there in black and white, so don't worry your head, get back to making the donunts.

I don't disagree with this at all.

The average person doesn't have the time or inclination to ask the difficult questions... they are busy getting on with life. I've said it before, religions of all stripe have one major thing in common they answer the existential questions that we all ask: Where did we come from and what happens when we die?

It is very comforting to have a plan laid out for you. The fear of death and the uncertainty of life are easier to bear if you have an instruction manual.

That said, I think this unquestioning adherence to scripture (or those who interpret it for us) is a large part of the reason there is conflict between different religions.

frogza · 06-07-2005, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Religion makes it easy, you don't question it, it just is. While there have been some get philosophers which were also religious, the majority of people have no use for philosophy and religion helps them from needing to ask themselves difficult questions.

Why shouldn't we do this?
What happens when you die?
What is our future?

Its all laid out, right there in black and white, so don't worry your head, get back to making the donunts.

Except with most religions it is not laid out in black and white. Most churches don't address these questions becauase they quite simply don't have an answer.

Ustwo · 06-07-2005, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frogza

Except with most religions it is not laid out in black and white. Most churches don't address these questions becauase they quite simply don't have an answer.

Well being brought up Catholic I can tell you they most definately have a plan, and it is indeed black and white.

Charlatan · 06-07-2005, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frogza

Except with most religions it is not laid out in black and white. Most churches don't address these questions becauase they quite simply don't have an answer.

I, again, agree with Ustwo... The whole point of religions is that they *do* lay it out in black and white -- especially the Catholics...

That said, there are some religions that are open to interpretation... Protestantism has allowed any number of branches of Christianity to develop. The think is, the rules within those sects *are* laid out (Presbyterians believe one thing and Baptists another but they remain true to their own interpretations of Christianity).

frogza · 06-07-2005, 09:50 AM

When I have asked priests and/or elders of many religions these kind of questions the answer ends up being something along the lines of "That is one of God's mysteries that we don't have the ability to understand"

While I believe that a finite mind and understanding can't perfectly grasp the inifinite, I don't for a second believe that God couldn't provide us with answers to questions like, Why are we here? Why were we created? Who/what is God? What is our destiny? and so on.

Understanding the why's and how's only help firm up a person's resolve to have faith. I think at times people equate philosophy with questioning faith with the intent to destroy. However it is quite obvious that those whose writings we find in books of scripture did just that, they asked questions, then lived by the answers they got.

Johnny Rotten · 06-07-2005, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

I think it is interesting to note that religion often serves not as a guide, but as a justification. Many of the most devout do not mold themselves to conform to the apparent ideology of their chosen savior. Rather they mold their chosen savior to conform to their own ideology. This is the crux of the problem of arguing from a religious perspective; all you're really doing attempting to use the source of your faith to justify your own perspective.

And let's not forget how leaders use political dogma to explain why they do what they do. And there's our current commander-in-chief, who appears to use conservative religious dogma when looking for political guidance. It unsettles me that the man has claimed on more than one occasion that God has spoken to him and told him to do things--but I'm getting off-topic.

What I'm trying to say is that religious motivation is often merely a guise used to gain political power.

06-08-2005, 05:36 AM

I can't remember if this has been posted here before or not, but I do think it's pertinent to the points raised in this discussion:

From Man On The Moon--A Colossal Hoax that Cost Billions of Dollars

Quote:

....The Vedic account of our planetary system is already researched, concluded, and perfect. The Vedas state that the moon is 800,000 miles farther from the earth than the sun. Therefore, even if we accept the modern calculation of 93 million miles as the distance from the earth to the sun, how could the "astronauts" have traveled to the moon--a distance of almost 94 million miles--in only 91 hours (the alleged elapsed time of the Apollo 11 moon trip)? This would require an average speed of more than one million miles per hour for the spacecraft, a patently impossible feat by even the space scientists' calculations.....

While this is an extreme example, it does show an example of this thing about blackness and whiteness in sharp relief. While the writer is asking valid questions about the authority of the 'presumed' moon landings (i.e. few of us have ever been there, yet we all accept that they happened. I'm not saying that they didn't, just that it's not unreasonable to question whether they happened or not), he is at the same time placing his faith blindly in the authority of his religion. When I see people arguing against one authority, showing that x argument is false, and then turning around and using the same argument to validate their own chosen authority, it makes me blush - but it happens all the time.

It is this authority that stops people asking questions - If philosophy is the love of, or the search for truth, then we must be wary of being seduced by any authorities until we have worn ourselves out by our own relentless searching.

d*d · 06-08-2005, 06:43 AM

Thats brilliant - we are to accept the possibility that the sun is closer, but that we can't travel faster than one million miles an hour - both are just as plausible if we are going to completely disregard our scientific beliefs for the vedic scriptures.
Science and religion simply don't mix, one cannot be used to verify the other

meembo · 06-08-2005, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d*d

Science and religion simply don't mix, one cannot be used to verify the other

Hear, hear! I admire Aquinas, but I think the approach is always full of assumptions, ultimately fundamentally flawed, and doomed to fail.

cellophanedeity · 06-08-2005, 06:26 PM

Well yes, I wasn't going to argue for Aquinas, I just think that it's wonderful that he wanted to find a Rational way to define his faith.

meembo · 06-08-2005, 06:38 PM

I appreciate that. I've felt the same desire. I don't believe that rationality and faith speak the same language, or share the same goals. I think the approach of finding a rational way to define faith is asking two artforms to share a common language that doesn't exist.

Disk_Pusher · 06-08-2005, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

The average person doesn't have the time or inclination to ask the difficult questions... they are busy getting on with life.

I am currious about this. While I can't debate that certainly in this day in age this is the way things are, I wonder what would happen if we had a generation of people encouraged to think about the more challenging questions of human existance without using dogma as a crutch. I'd like to hope that it would lead more people to spend time thinking, writing, and reading and most importantly, discussing. I can't help but wonder if the "average person" is simply a social construct that is easy to fall into when one is not challenged.

~Liz

chickentribs · 06-09-2005, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cellophanedeity

Unfortunately, I've noticed that devoutly religious people don't seem to do this as often anymore. Even in these forums, I occasionally find people supporting their philosophical beliefs with no more than quotations from their religious texts or prophets. In my opinion, this is poor philosophy, and I wish for these people to strive for more.

I believe that if people were to consider their beliefs beyond their books and were able to provide explainations beyond quotations and references, then perhaps we would get along a bit better.

Cello - I think that you and others on this thread are missing a great opportunity to try and understand what faith means to people and the true nature of religion.. You are asking the ideals of something very personal, and then pull away the tools for them to effectively talk about it. Similar maybe to asking you what love means to you, but then saying, "I don't want to hear about your family or relationships though. Everybody always brings up family and relationships and I don't like my family."

You can have some great conversations with really intelligent people and instead of a debate to be won (I am the worst at this) try to imagine what they feel and why. Even if you can't agree on how to debate the issue with them, appreciating the rules they play the game by is a good exercise to discipline your own philosophical inqueries. The respect we give others always describes our nature more than we could ever describe someone else...

tecoyah · 06-09-2005, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chickentribs

You can have some great conversations with really intelligent people and instead of a debate to be won (I am the worst at this) try to imagine what they feel and why. Even if you can't agree on how to debate the issue with them, appreciating the rules they play the game by is a good exercise to discipline your own philosophical inqueries. The respect we give others always describes our nature more than we could ever describe someone else...

The above to me....pretty much defines the way to gain information. Having spent a good part of my life relying on faith to get by, I see great value in trying to understand the base reasons we lean on it. Philosophy requires faith as well.

martinguerre · 06-09-2005, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cellophane deity

I think that one of the better (or at least better known) examples of a philosopher who has done this is Aquinas. He was an avid believer in Christianity, but he also wished for a Reasonable (note the capital R!) proof of God. He would not settle for only the Bible to help him define his God, but also used ontological proofs. He's now known as one of the greatest Christian philosophers in history (even though his proofs had nothing to do with the Christian God, but I'll let that slip for this thread.)

Unfortunately, I've noticed that devoutly religious people don't seem to do this as often anymore. Even in these forums, I occasionally find people supporting their philosophical beliefs with no more than quotations from their religious texts or prophets. In my opinion, this is poor philosophy, and I wish for these people to strive for more.

Two things to consider. Aquinas, or any rationalized system, carries the risk of intellectual coherance at the cost of livability. For instance, to deal with the problem of evil, Aquinas introduced the anti-humanist concept of Original Sin. We've had fun with it ever since...and a whole host of anti-body, anti-sex, anti-person theologies have stemmed from it. I know you're not on the Aquinas bandwagon, but i want to suggest the problem with philosophical reasoning. It may be intellectually satisfying, but leave problems in other areas.

why i think this to be true is that all reasoning carries with it assumptions. philosophy claims to state those it employs. i beg to differ.

i think therefore i am.

Descartes assumes a being, observes thought, and draws a conclusion. Where's the confession of belief behind this all? That "I am" is better than to not be. It's funny that way, but the conclusions and reasonings of philosophy reveal a great deal of confessional theology (statements of value or belief that are authorized by the adherants statement that they believe). When i do theology, i'd prefer to get that over with, and confess my beleifs, draw conclusions from those starting points, and then take the conversation from there.

so i don't want to leave alone the idea that it's not a good idea for people to be citing the leaders or texts of their group....as confession, that citation indicates an assumed starting point. hopefully, that person will be willing to discuss and elaborate from there....but i can't think of a better starting point than to review assumptions.

cellophanedeity · 06-09-2005, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chickentribs

Cello - I think that you and others on this thread are missing a great opportunity to try and understand what faith means to people and the true nature of religion.. You are asking the ideals of something very personal, and then pull away the tools for them to effectively talk about it. Similar maybe to asking you what love means to you, but then saying, "I don't want to hear about your family or relationships though. Everybody always brings up family and relationships and I don't like my family."

You can have some great conversations with really intelligent people and instead of a debate to be won (I am the worst at this) try to imagine what they feel and why. Even if you can't agree on how to debate the issue with them, appreciating the rules they play the game by is a good exercise to discipline your own philosophical inqueries. The respect we give others always describes our nature more than we could ever describe someone else...

Chickentribs, I am not trying to say that I have no interest in hearing about religious views and dogmas and beliefs. I think that it is a wonderful thing for people to be religious and have faith. I envy them.

In fact, I find that many of my most stimulating conversations deal with religious values, when someone teaches me about their faith from the side of their faith. But, I find that the worst philosophy is when someone says something along the lines of "We are here to appease God" or "This is wrong because my prophet says so," and then they leave the discussion at that.

I would find it to be much better if the person I am talking with could be willing, even if not quite able, to defend their view beyond the dogma, such as "This is wrong because my prophet says so, and I agree because..."

It seems to me that philosophy is not simply about having beliefs, but having reasons to believe what one does. If you were talking to someone and they said "I'm an idealist" and when you asked them what the support for this idea was they said "Because I'm an idealist," you'd quickly tire of their "philosophy." I don't think that religion is drastically different, though I do understand that it can be more personal.

cellophanedeity · 06-09-2005, 06:33 AM

Oh, and martinguerre, I'm not ever going to say that philosophy provides complete answers. It never will... but that's another thread.

chickentribs · 06-09-2005, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cellophanedeity

Chickentribs, I am not trying to say that I have no interest in hearing about religious views and dogmas and beliefs. I think that it is a wonderful thing for people to be religious and have faith. I envy them.

Cello - It is easy to see by your posts I have read, that empathy is probably second nature to you. I just thought after reading through quite a few posts in the thread that were focused on "winning" the debate that I would bring up something I have been working on myself. Competition seems more natural than empathy for me many times and this was as much a post to me as to anyone else. (I'm funny that way) Thanks...

loganmule · 06-09-2005, 08:16 AM

The inherent problem with your suggestion to integrate philosophy and one's religious views, cello, is that the two are incompatible. By definition, religion involves "the service and worship of God or the supernatural" while philosphy broadly deals with "all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts" (per Merrriam-Webster). The obvious and humbling (for me at least) truth of this came when I played the "god" games at TPM Online:

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/whatisgod.htm

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.htm

It would be nice if there were some philosophical substantiation for one's religious beliefs, but it ain't gonna happen. You can't have religion without a leap of faith, i.e, the acceptance, as true, of facts central to the religion, notwithstanding the absence of objective supporting evidence or logical proof.

There can be a convergence of certain principles, but that still doesn't get you there. At the end of the day, there simply is no philosophical proof to validate one's belief in the diety or dieties of his or her choice.

cellophanedeity · 06-09-2005, 12:51 PM

Perhaps there isn't proof to validate the existence of a supreme being, but I'm not calling on that. I understand that religion is based upon leaps of faith. Hell, it's even refered to as Faith. But I'm generally okay with people saying there is a God, then saying "This world is too beautiful for there to not be one" or something lofty like that.

It's when people use their faith to defend their moral choices and metaphysical beliefs when I get more annoyed. As I said in the second paragraph of my first post,

Quote:

...we must defend our views in a philosophical manner, attempting to define morality and metaphysics beyond simply quoting from texts or leaders.

irateplatypus · 06-09-2005, 06:43 PM

hmm...

well, as groundbreaking as Aquinas was in establishing some of the logical/reasoning underpinnings of Christian doctrine... he never really started from scratch.
that is to say, Aquinas assumed God and worked backwards to find a rationale.

for those who say that religion and philosophy are incompatible (who, i think, are most certainly mistaken), Aquinas cannot be considered a true philosopher. certainly a Scholar (with a capital "S"

) and logician, but not a philosopher.

it's is ex nihilo or nothing these days.

^
|
read that back to yourself and try not to get dizzy

loganmule · 06-09-2005, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cellophanedeity

It's when people use their faith to defend their moral choices and metaphysical beliefs when I get more annoyed.

You're preaching to the choir. It would be great if the legitimacy of a claim to the moral high ground required the concurrence of religious beliefs and sound philosophy, and I personally characterize those people as spiritual, in the most complementary sense. If everyone shared your view, I have no doubt that we'd all get along much better. Unfortunately, "religious" people (i.e, those who on faith accept their religious texts as the literal and irrerant word of their deity), could care less about the soundness of their reasoning, simply because it's irrelevant to them...for those folks, scripture will always trump philosophy. Because of this, and with all due respect to irateplatypus, religion and philosophy ultimately mix about as well as oil and water.

irateplatypus · 06-09-2005, 09:04 PM

loganmule,

i have difficulty understanding your meaning. you say religion cannot encompass legitimate philosophy because it relies on underlying assumptions about God.

yet, nearly all philosophies assume things we cannot empirically prove that are built from the mind's perception of truth.

i'm doubting you would disqualify every philosophical tradition built on an assumption of from the corpus of philosophy though they exhibit the characteristics you fault philosophy-from-religion for.

loganmule · 06-09-2005, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

loganmule,

i have difficulty understanding your meaning. you say religion cannot encompass legitimate philosophy because it relies on underlying assumptions about God.

yet, nearly all philosophies assume things we cannot empirically prove that are built from the mind's perception of truth.

Sorry for the confusion. Clearly, religion can encompass legitimate philosophy, if the practitioners take a liberal view, openly conceding their assumption of the accuracy of the sacred texts they rely upon in practising their faith, and considering that the texts may properly be read as metaphor or variously interpreted.

Here in the Bible Belt, however, we are populated extensively with Christian fundamentalists. To them, or to fundamentalists of other faiths, there are only facts, not assumptions, and anyone taking a contrary view would be branded a heathen. As they are certain they have empirical proof, they have no need for philosophy, and would reject it anyway, to the extent it is inconsistent with the "facts" as enunciated in the Bible or other sacred texts.

As my earlier post suggested, my remarks were based upon a narrow view of religion to refer to fundamentalists. Thanks for calling to my attention the need for some clarity on that.

asaris · 06-10-2005, 06:58 AM

irateplatypus -- I'm a bit confused. You say that "it's ex nihilo or nothing these days" (ala Descartes, I assume), but in your next post, you say, "nearly all philosophies assume things". Maybe it's just early and I'm not quite thinking straight yet, but this seems like a contradiction?

In any case, we all have assumptions that we tailor our philosophies around. Our epistemic state is never that of someone building a system up from a foundation. Rather, its more like someone in a boat on the open seas, replacing one board at a time. We use some of our beliefs to critique other beliefs. So I don't know why belief in the inerrancy of scripture would be in a different category than the belief that only empirically verifiable claims are true or false (other than that the second has been proven incoherent).

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.

cellophanedeity · 06-10-2005, 05:09 PM

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.)

irateplatypus · 06-10-2005, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asaris

irateplatypus -- I'm a bit confused. You say that "it's ex nihilo or nothing these days" (ala Descartes, I assume), but in your next post, you say, "nearly all philosophies assume things". Maybe it's just early and I'm not quite thinking straight yet, but this seems like a contradiction?

i was just playing around by implying that "ex nihilo" grounded philosophy was in fashion at this particular time, not that all philosophy was such.

Sage · 06-10-2005, 08:57 PM

"But, I find that the worst philosophy is when someone says something along the lines of "We are here to appease God" or "This is wrong because my prophet says so," and then they leave the discussion at that."

"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.""

Any Christian I've ever met would answer that last question as [because the Bible is the Word of God]. The Bible, to Christians, is the be all end all Word of God. Period, no discussion allowed. Now, where the "fun" begins is when mankind gets ahold of it and starts arguing about exactaly what was meant by this or that or the other. For example, my mother's interpretation of what it means to be a Christian and my father-in-law's interpretation are two really, really different things, and yet they're both Southern Baptists. The Bible says a lot of things. Personally, I think that the Bible basically boils down to "Base your life off of Jesus, who was God, therefore be more like God."

I think it's interesting that in this discussion Christianity comes up, and stays up, and pretty much every other religion isn't looked at. I'd really love to hear how Islam handles this discussion, or Hinduism, or Shinto, or things like that.

A lot of religious talkings happen because you get two people together and they're both saying "I really know what's going on and you don't." I find that Christianity in particular doesn't open itself up to philosophical discussion (in the general population, Thomas Merton aside) because it's only got one set of guidelines to go by. So, you can nitpick the Bible to death, but if you start adding your own philosophy to the Bible, then you're getting out of the realm of possibility because the Bible is all there is. But, some people (like Thomas Merton) interpreted the Bible in new and different ways, and brought about a lot of fresh air into Christanity. Personally, I think God just wants us to be happy and Enjoy ourselves, but the debate comes when you then ask "How am I supposed to be happy? What, exactaly, can I do and not do when it comes to enjoying myself?"

martinguerre · 06-10-2005, 09:09 PM

sage...i won't contest that that view of the bible and truth is not true, for some Christians. but i guess i'd like to throw out there that this is not always the case. there are quite a few theologically liberal Christians out there, and we're well represented on this board.

all i had to say.

asaris · 06-10-2005, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cellophanedeity

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 [say] "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.

Both good points, and points I would completely agree with. Just for the sake of clarity, I assume that in the first paragraph quoted above, you mean something like my saying that charity is good because, were I in need, I would want people to be charitable towards me. For your second point, I agree with it as long as you don't think that everyone needs to be a philosopher. I think that to some extent, we should all lead thoughtful lives. But it's simply not the case that the people I work with at the factory could or should lead a life as thoughtful as that of a monk or a philosopher professor. Exactly how this works out, I don't know.

cellophanedeity · 06-11-2005, 07:02 AM

Oh! I thought I had clarified, or that other people had clarified for me.

I don't think that everyone should be a philiosopher. If we all were philosophers, nothing would ever get done! I think it would be beneficial if each person took a bit of time each week to consider themselves and their place in the world philosophically, but I don't even desire to have everyone philosophize all the time.

I think that when people are discussing politics or philosophy and things like that, they should act philosophically. When people are going about their daily business, I don't care what their thought process and defences are, as long as they're not being harmful.

loganmule · 06-12-2005, 09:05 AM

cellophanedeity, I'm interested in your comment that "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." This seems to be inconsistent with the point which you made at the outset, that we might all get along better, if, as you put it, "people were to consider their beliefs beyond their books and were able to provide explainations beyond quotations and references".

I agree with tecoyah, and bet that you actually do as well. In essence, you have raised the delemma faced by all open minded souls, who can allow for the validity of the views of fundamentalists of all stripes, and in turn are rejected by them.

I personally would rather have your world, but unfortunately it's not the one I find myself in.

cellophanedeity · 06-12-2005, 09:41 AM

I did say "things" not "everything."

What I meant was that when people have a bit of extra change to throw into the donation box, I don't expect them to go through the philosophy to decide. If they want to give their money because God says that it's a nice thing to do, let them. If they want to believe in angels, go ahead. None of this affects anyone other than themselves in any sort of negative way.

On the otherhand, I think it's ridiculous to hate gays, and not allow homosexual unions for no more than the bible saying it's wrong. That people are against abortion because the bible says its wrong. That the president of the United States claims that god is on his side.

Any time one enters into philosophic or political discourse, one must have more defence than "cawz the gewd lawrd sayid sao."

06-06-2005, 11:58 AM	#1 (permalink)
cellophanedeity Heliotrope Location: A warm room	The use of religion in philosophy. In one of my highschool philosophy courses, we quickly learned to never support our arguments with religious claims. We were taught that though theology could be a useful tool to guide one in one's daily activities, we should not defend our moral choices, metaphysical arguments, and other choices solely upon theology. Instead, we must defend our views in a philosophical manner, attempting to define morality and metaphysics beyond simply quoting from texts or leaders. This in no way implied to us that we were to give up our religious beliefs for the purposes of philosophy. In fact, we were urged to strenthen ourselves and our spirituality by questioning what we have come to believe. I think that one of the better (or at least better known) examples of a philosopher who has done this is Aquinas. He was an avid believer in Christianity, but he also wished for a Reasonable (note the capital R!) proof of God. He would not settle for only the Bible to help him define his God, but also used ontological proofs. He's now known as one of the greatest Christian philosophers in history (even though his proofs had nothing to do with the Christian God, but I'll let that slip for this thread.) Unfortunately, I've noticed that devoutly religious people don't seem to do this as often anymore. Even in these forums, I occasionally find people supporting their philosophical beliefs with no more than quotations from their religious texts or prophets. In my opinion, this is poor philosophy, and I wish for these people to strive for more. I believe that if people were to consider their beliefs beyond their books and were able to provide explainations beyond quotations and references, then perhaps we would get along a bit better.

06-06-2005, 12:12 PM	#2 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	To me, this is a healthy approach to religion. One must always poke and prod at your beliefs regardless of what they are... to move blindly through life without reflection is just asking for trouble. The problem with poking and prodding is that sometime you damage what you are poking... It is no longer usuable to you. But you realize that you must move onto something else... something different. Many people are afraid of what comes after this... and the answer is never an easy one if you are truly searching. On the other hand, sometimes poking and prodding can make the thing you are prodding better... more beautiful (like the bits of stone Michalangelo removed from the hunk of rock that became David). In my mind, both conclusions are worthwhile and as with all things... the journey is the most imprortant part of the process... __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

06-06-2005, 02:30 PM	#3 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	It is important to incorporate as much information into belief as possible, in my opinion. There is great value in much of the texts out there....the key is to form your own path from the Data....and strive to become more. But I have to agree that I am turned off quickly by those that adhere strictly to these texts, as I feel they are guides....not fact. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

06-06-2005, 07:07 PM	#6 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	A very good point filtherton... very nicely argued. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

06-08-2005, 06:38 PM	#18 (permalink)
meembo Junkie Location: Connecticut	I appreciate that. I've felt the same desire. I don't believe that rationality and faith speak the same language, or share the same goals. I think the approach of finding a rational way to define faith is asking two artforms to share a common language that doesn't exist. __________________ less I say, smarter I am

06-06-2005, 03:33 PM	#4 (permalink)
Robaggio Crazy	I think that was very well written cellophanediety. In my experiences, most people are afraid to do a little poking and prodding. I think they fear their faith may perhaps be damaged like Charlatan says. To me, this is very telling as to where these people stand. I'm sure everyone's heard religion called a "crutch". I can see how it would make sense for these individuals to not poke their cruch. It is supporting them after all.

06-06-2005, 04:39 PM	#5 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I think it is interesting to note that religion often serves not as a guide, but as a justification. Many of the most devout do not mold themselves to conform to the apparent ideology of their chosen savior. Rather they mold their chosen savior to conform to their own ideology. This is the crux of the problem of arguing from a religious perspective; all you're really doing attempting to use the source of your faith to justify your own perspective. This is convenient, however, in that 1) The infallibility of a divine being is impossible for a mere mortal to effectively question; and 2) One who argues from this perspective doesn't have to claim any kind of responsibility for their own perspective. If you ever want to save yourself the trouble of having to question your own assumptions, just pawn them off on a divine being. Though i suppose this summary only applies to the majority of christians who believe that god hasn't had anything important to say for two thousand years.

06-07-2005, 09:50 AM	#12 (permalink)
frogza Registered User Location: Right Here	When I have asked priests and/or elders of many religions these kind of questions the answer ends up being something along the lines of "That is one of God's mysteries that we don't have the ability to understand" While I believe that a finite mind and understanding can't perfectly grasp the inifinite, I don't for a second believe that God couldn't provide us with answers to questions like, Why are we here? Why were we created? Who/what is God? What is our destiny? and so on. Understanding the why's and how's only help firm up a person's resolve to have faith. I think at times people equate philosophy with questioning faith with the intent to destroy. However it is quite obvious that those whose writings we find in books of scripture did just that, they asked questions, then lived by the answers they got.

06-08-2005, 06:43 AM	#15 (permalink)
d*d Addict	Thats brilliant - we are to accept the possibility that the sun is closer, but that we can't travel faster than one million miles an hour - both are just as plausible if we are going to completely disregard our scientific beliefs for the vedic scriptures. Science and religion simply don't mix, one cannot be used to verify the other

06-08-2005, 06:26 PM	#17 (permalink)
cellophanedeity Heliotrope Location: A warm room	Well yes, I wasn't going to argue for Aquinas, I just think that it's wonderful that he wanted to find a Rational way to define his faith.

06-09-2005, 06:33 AM	#24 (permalink)
cellophanedeity Heliotrope Location: A warm room	Oh, and martinguerre, I'm not ever going to say that philosophy provides complete answers. It never will... but that's another thread.

06-09-2005, 08:16 AM	#26 (permalink)
loganmule Junkie Location: midwest	The inherent problem with your suggestion to integrate philosophy and one's religious views, cello, is that the two are incompatible. By definition, religion involves "the service and worship of God or the supernatural" while philosphy broadly deals with "all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts" (per Merrriam-Webster). The obvious and humbling (for me at least) truth of this came when I played the "god" games at TPM Online: http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/whatisgod.htm http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.htm It would be nice if there were some philosophical substantiation for one's religious beliefs, but it ain't gonna happen. You can't have religion without a leap of faith, i.e, the acceptance, as true, of facts central to the religion, notwithstanding the absence of objective supporting evidence or logical proof. There can be a convergence of certain principles, but that still doesn't get you there. At the end of the day, there simply is no philosophical proof to validate one's belief in the diety or dieties of his or her choice.

06-09-2005, 06:43 PM	#28 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	hmm... well, as groundbreaking as Aquinas was in establishing some of the logical/reasoning underpinnings of Christian doctrine... he never really started from scratch. that is to say, Aquinas assumed God and worked backwards to find a rationale. for those who say that religion and philosophy are incompatible (who, i think, are most certainly mistaken), Aquinas cannot be considered a true philosopher. certainly a Scholar (with a capital "S" ) and logician, but not a philosopher. it's is ex nihilo or nothing these days. ^ \| read that back to yourself and try not to get dizzy __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

06-09-2005, 09:04 PM	#30 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	loganmule, i have difficulty understanding your meaning. you say religion cannot encompass legitimate philosophy because it relies on underlying assumptions about God. yet, nearly all philosophies assume things we cannot empirically prove that are built from the mind's perception of truth. i'm doubting you would disqualify every philosophical tradition built on an assumption of from the corpus of philosophy though they exhibit the characteristics you fault philosophy-from-religion for. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill Last edited by irateplatypus; 06-09-2005 at 09:12 PM..

06-10-2005, 06:58 AM	#32 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	irateplatypus -- I'm a bit confused. You say that "it's ex nihilo or nothing these days" (ala Descartes, I assume), but in your next post, you say, "nearly all philosophies assume things". Maybe it's just early and I'm not quite thinking straight yet, but this seems like a contradiction? In any case, we all have assumptions that we tailor our philosophies around. Our epistemic state is never that of someone building a system up from a foundation. Rather, its more like someone in a boat on the open seas, replacing one board at a time. We use some of our beliefs to critique other beliefs. So I don't know why belief in the inerrancy of scripture would be in a different category than the belief that only empirically verifiable claims are true or false (other than that the second has been proven incoherent). 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. __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

06-10-2005, 08:57 PM	#35 (permalink)
Sage hoarding all the big girl panties since 2005 Location: North side	"But, I find that the worst philosophy is when someone says something along the lines of "We are here to appease God" or "This is wrong because my prophet says so," and then they leave the discussion at that." "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."" Any Christian I've ever met would answer that last question as [because the Bible is the Word of God]. The Bible, to Christians, is the be all end all Word of God. Period, no discussion allowed. Now, where the "fun" begins is when mankind gets ahold of it and starts arguing about exactaly what was meant by this or that or the other. For example, my mother's interpretation of what it means to be a Christian and my father-in-law's interpretation are two really, really different things, and yet they're both Southern Baptists. The Bible says a lot of things. Personally, I think that the Bible basically boils down to "Base your life off of Jesus, who was God, therefore be more like God." I think it's interesting that in this discussion Christianity comes up, and stays up, and pretty much every other religion isn't looked at. I'd really love to hear how Islam handles this discussion, or Hinduism, or Shinto, or things like that. A lot of religious talkings happen because you get two people together and they're both saying "I really know what's going on and you don't." I find that Christianity in particular doesn't open itself up to philosophical discussion (in the general population, Thomas Merton aside) because it's only got one set of guidelines to go by. So, you can nitpick the Bible to death, but if you start adding your own philosophy to the Bible, then you're getting out of the realm of possibility because the Bible is all there is. But, some people (like Thomas Merton) interpreted the Bible in new and different ways, and brought about a lot of fresh air into Christanity. Personally, I think God just wants us to be happy and Enjoy ourselves, but the debate comes when you then ask "How am I supposed to be happy? What, exactaly, can I do and not do when it comes to enjoying myself?" __________________ Sage knows our mythic history, King Arthur's and Sir Caradoc's She answers hard acrostics, has a pretty taste for paradox She quotes in elegiacs all the crimes of Heliogabalus In conics she can floor peculiarities parabolous -C'hi

06-10-2005, 09:09 PM	#36 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	sage...i won't contest that that view of the bible and truth is not true, for some Christians. but i guess i'd like to throw out there that this is not always the case. there are quite a few theologically liberal Christians out there, and we're well represented on this board. all i had to say. __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

06-11-2005, 07:02 AM	#38 (permalink)
cellophanedeity Heliotrope Location: A warm room	Oh! I thought I had clarified, or that other people had clarified for me. I don't think that everyone should be a philiosopher. If we all were philosophers, nothing would ever get done! I think it would be beneficial if each person took a bit of time each week to consider themselves and their place in the world philosophically, but I don't even desire to have everyone philosophize all the time. I think that when people are discussing politics or philosophy and things like that, they should act philosophically. When people are going about their daily business, I don't care what their thought process and defences are, as long as they're not being harmful.

06-12-2005, 09:05 AM	#39 (permalink)
loganmule Junkie Location: midwest	cellophanedeity, I'm interested in your comment that "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." This seems to be inconsistent with the point which you made at the outset, that we might all get along better, if, as you put it, "people were to consider their beliefs beyond their books and were able to provide explainations beyond quotations and references". I agree with tecoyah, and bet that you actually do as well. In essence, you have raised the delemma faced by all open minded souls, who can allow for the validity of the views of fundamentalists of all stripes, and in turn are rejected by them. I personally would rather have your world, but unfortunately it's not the one I find myself in.

06-12-2005, 09:41 AM	#40 (permalink)
cellophanedeity Heliotrope Location: A warm room	I did say "things" not "everything." What I meant was that when people have a bit of extra change to throw into the donation box, I don't expect them to go through the philosophy to decide. If they want to give their money because God says that it's a nice thing to do, let them. If they want to believe in angels, go ahead. None of this affects anyone other than themselves in any sort of negative way. On the otherhand, I think it's ridiculous to hate gays, and not allow homosexual unions for no more than the bible saying it's wrong. That people are against abortion because the bible says its wrong. That the president of the United States claims that god is on his side. Any time one enters into philosophic or political discourse, one must have more defence than "cawz the gewd lawrd sayid sao."