Religion and Philosophy

[bobover3 (imported)]

Aren't you *assuming* that an objective description of reality, independent of one's situation, is the goal of philosophy? It would be as plausible to say that we begin with what we are. We see things, after all, as human beings living on this earth, so it's unreasonable, and probably uninteresting, to inquire into the reality of stars, or extraterrestrials, etc.

You also *assume* that the Theory of Knowledge - what we know and how we know it - is the central concern of philosophy. It has been, for some philosophers, but there are other schools. Philosophers have also thought about logic, language, mathematics, ethics, aesthetics, ontology, etc.

I suspect that much of philosophy falls silent in the face of science. Now that we're capable of rigorous empirical studies of brain function, perception, physiology, behavior, etc., we can find, or are starting to find, verifiable factual answers to many of the classical questions asked by philosophers. Why speculate about how we think, feel, decide, etc., when provable answers are at hand, and we know more every day?

I think philosophy still has a role in seeking the best ways for us to live or how to think about our lives. For example, the Stoics or Spinoza can still inform our responses to the world. (Although, even there, a visit to the Popular Psychology section of a bookstore may offer better answers for most people.) I suppose that for some people unpersuaded by religion, yet still in need of a belief system that claims to hold all the answers, philosophy may be a satisfactory solution. Philosophy may now be the agnostic's religion. For atheists like me, philosophy seems to be an important relic of history, often beautiful like the stained glass of a cathedral, but of ever diminishing importance. Speculative thought crumbles before specific knowledge.

[Kortpeel (imported)]

Philosophy may now be the agnostic's religion. For atheists like me, philosophy seems to be an important relic of history, often beautiful like the stained glass of a cathedral, but of ever diminishing importance. Speculative thought crumbles before specific knowledge.

Very good post Bobover3. However very often, if not always, it is speculative thought that leads to specific knowledge. And since at his stage we do not know everything there is still opportunity for speculative thought.

How much don't we know? Well, we don't know the answer to that question for a start. There are probably things as yet undreamt of that mankind will one day discover.

Take plane geometry for example. That is a finite subject and it is very possible for a kid to leave high school knowing everything there is to know about it. But then you get on to subjects like quantum physics, cosmology, astronomy and we are all wallowing in ignorance. Those subjects may be finite but we can't even see where the far boundary is, yet alone say we've reached it.

So a little speculative thought is still needed. My own personal hope is that the more we know about the mechanical universe as a whole the closer it will bring us to an accurate model of creation and possibly even the Creator.

[bobover3 (imported)]

Speculative thought is what scientists and scholars do when they frame hypotheses and theories. All these are subject to empirical test, which is what separates them from the speculative thought of philosophers. A testable proposition must be precise in a way beyond the ability or intention of classical philosophy.

The requirement that our ideas have a precision and specificity allowing for verification is a crowning achievement of modernity. It's a standard of logic and method with aesthetic and even moral consequences.

So yes, I concede the necessity of speculative thought, but that's not an invitation to wallow in the muddle of a dark past. It's a call to further extend the reach of our thought.

[A-1 (imported)]

Speculative thought is what scientists and scholars do when they frame hypotheses and theories. All these are subject to empirical test, which is what separates them from the speculative thought of philosophers. A testable proposition must be precise in a way beyond the ability or intention of classical philosophy.

The requirement that our ideas have a precision and specificity allowing for verification is a crowning achievement of modernity. It's a standard of logic and method with aesthetic and even moral consequences.

So yes, I concede the necessity of speculative thought, but that's not an invitation to wallow in the muddle of a dark past. It's a call to further extend the reach of our thought.

Cartesian DUALISM lead to what is now referred to as Positivism or perhaps better understood as the Empiricism of Science.

Atheism, Agnosticism (or atheism for Pragmatists) and many sorts of things happen when you throw the "GHOST out of the Machine". Don't feel badly about doing this, the Modernists have done it for years.

The Postmodern way of framing the question goes something like this...

...Can anything ever be MORE than the sum of its parts?

Of course, linguists may explain that watches are more than just a collection of levers, gears, rachets and springs. Or whatever...

But, again, life becomes so dull by claiming it is no more than just a bunch of complex chemical reactions that like a fire burns until it dies...

Science IS built upon EMPIRICAL methods, but is SCIENCE all that there is to life?

Eunuchs do not have spiritual experiences from SEX, but yet... they stilll LOVE? :-\ You all cannot deny this, we see it here on this message board every day... not only do you all love each other... (Platonic) ...but most seem to love the whole darned world...

We go around claiming that there is NOTHING to this spiritualism, then we as a society and nations scream at various professional sports teams that fill our needs to have team... er... how should I say... "SPIRIT"?

We are so starved for spirituality that we cannot see the science for the tears...

:shakemitk

Bobover, I understand how it is to be COLD... But do you understand how it is to be warm? (I bet you do! )

[bobover3 (imported)]

A-1, I am warm. Being warm doesn't mean embracing stupidity.

Empiricism does not follow from dualism. Just the opposite, empiricism insists that mind and body are inextricably joined, unless there's evidence to the contrary, which there isn't. You may have forgotten that Descartes was laboring to prove the existence of God, and that his dualism was a precursor to arguing that we may trust our irrational intuitions to confirm God's existence. Descartes was a smart man making a career by flattering the beliefs of the stupid majority.

You won't "make friends and influence people" by raising the Spock/Kirk dualism to a metaphysical principle.

[Uncle Flo (imported)]

Well, well, it looks like we do have a philosophy section after all. --FLO--

[moi621 (imported)]

Well, well, it looks like we do have a philosophy section after all. --FLO--

I'd say it look like we need an area for philosophy & religion threads.

With apologies to kristoff.

Thanks for all you do for us, Mr. k.

:lightbulb

Moi the Thinker

[gareth19 (imported)]

Was he pro-life?

Obviously not, unless you mean in the Ronald Reagan/Antonin Scalia sense of pro-life: that the right to life begins at conception and ends at birth.

[Akrilon A. (imported)]

From what I can tell, the biggest problem of talking about religion and philosophy, is the people used as examples, regardless of what the belief is, there's always going to be a bad apple in every bunch. "Lutherans are wrong, see what that member did, (forgive me if he turned out not to be Lutheran), he shot a doctor", well you can also say evolutionists are wrong, I mean look at Hitler. It's hard to speak on these kinds of topics because quite frankly, it's hard to find accurate ground with unbiased(not meaning unbelieved) people, to speak and 'discuss' what and why. A good thought to keep in mind, not only in this topic, but any topic really: "It's better to lose the battle and win the war, than to win the battle and lose the war."