philosophy study, anyone?

[TrevorLarsen]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but if God does not exist, then life is absurd and philosophy becomes rather pointless. I was exposed to philosophy as a new Christian through apologetics. Which utilizes a lot of philosophy and science in an effort to defend the existence of God, or the Church (I’m Catholic).

For example, I learned that without a metaphysical mind as the ground and foundation for meaning, purpose and morality, none of it can be objective. Basically, those three things are ideals or thoughts that we can observe to exist only in our human minds. So it would only logically follow that another mind, that is, God, would be necessary for those things to exist outside of our minds. Which is necessary if we want to move beyond opinion and into truth.

Opinions concerning meaning, purpose and morality are true or false, and not opinions in the sense of preference (chocolate versus vanilla). And if God does not exist, they’re all false, and become nothing but preferences. But when you push this to its extreme, it all becomes absurd. You might say that to live is to love and laugh, but the gang banger might say life is all about hustling and pimping and making money. The former opinion isn’t in any way, shape or form right or more valid than the other, just different preferences. It becomes even more absurd when considering morality, like whether or not murdering your wife for cooking your food wrong is immoral. You can say it is, but that’s just, like, your opinion.

So unless you want to be irrational or live a life of absurdity, you need to take that leap of faith that God exists. But here’s the main problem once you take that leap of faith: How do you know anything about God unless he reveals himself to you? Either you accept that one of the scriptures are true, or you live a life of pure speculation. And in my eyes, if you take the former route sincerely and with a spirit of truth, you’ll become a Christian. And after digging into the different denominations, considering it all, you’ll become a Catholic.

Just my take on it all.

It shows your were introduced to philosophy through apologetics, and not in a good way. Maybe learn more from people not trying to convince you of something before you jump into the “used car sales” version of philosophy.

 

[Gabler]

It shows your were introduced to philosophy through apologetics, and not in a good way. Maybe learn more from people not trying to convince you of something before you jump into the “used car sales” version of philosophy.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss apologetics outright, even if you disagree with @Peter.Constantine325's particular approach. At a minimum, if it hadn't been for the rich and academically rigorous intellectual tradition of the Roman Catholic Church, I wouldn't be typing this sentence on an iPhone right now. The Church is directly responsible for modern science, and it wasn't a mere accident. It's the intentional result of the quest for the ultimate Truth. To this day, the Catholic Church is a strong supporter of the natural sciences (unlike certain "fundamentalist" Protestant denominations).

To be clear, I'm not Catholic. My statements are made purely from a sense of gratitude. I can disagree with Catholic doctrine on certain minutiae but agree with its fundamental mission of sustaining the moral fabric of society upon which all our institutions rest.

 

[TrevorLarsen]

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss apologetics outright, even if you disagree with @Peter.Constantine325's particular approach. At a minimum, if it hadn't been for the rich and academically rigorous intellectual tradition of the Roman Catholic Church, I wouldn't be typing this sentence on an iPhone right now. The Church is directly responsible for modern science, and it wasn't a mere accident. It's the intentional result of the quest for the ultimate Truth. To this day, the Catholic Church is a strong supporter of the natural sciences (unlike certain "fundamentalist" Protestant denominations).

To be clear, I'm not Catholic. My statements are made purely from a sense of gratitude. I can disagree with Catholic doctrine on certain minutiae but agree with its fundamental mission of sustaining the moral fabric of society upon which all our institutions rest.

It’s hard to be grateful when we have no idea what we would have if things happened differently. Where would we be if the Catholics were not dominating all other world views? No religion “sustains the moral fabric” of anything it’s human nature and us being a social species that makes us want to be moral. Our evolutionary ancestors biggest strength (before modern humans evolved our intelligence) was the fact that our ancestors stuck together. So I’m not sold that religion was more of a positive than a negative since we don’t know how it could have been.

 

[pandacular]

I think I mentioned this in the thread above, but I went through a long, jaded ex-Catholic before coming back to Catholic philosophy. There’s quite a lot of great Catholic philosophy, and a good deal of bad (I hate Aquinas and anyone in the suffering cult). It’s certainly true that the Church at times supported science, but its also true that they repressed it at other times. I don’t think it’s worth trying to make a clear cut judgement one way or another.

I think the value of religion for the study of philosophy is that sets some guardrails, a general, relatively narrow focus that a huge group can work on. The biggest issue here is when the various religious scholars shut themselves off from secular study or other religions. All my favorite Catholic philosophers have complicated relationships with the church.

the “used car sales” version of philosophy.

I love this

 

[Gabler]

It’s hard to be grateful when we have no idea what we would have if things happened differently. Where would we be if the Catholics were not dominating all other world views? No religion “sustains the moral fabric” of anything it’s human nature and us being a social species that makes us want to be moral. Our evolutionary ancestors biggest strength (before modern humans evolved our intelligence) was the fact that our ancestors stuck together. So I’m not sold that religion was more of a positive than a negative since we don’t know how it could have been.

I'm not convinced morality is possible without a religious underpinning. Morality is certainly possible across a wide array of different world religions, but some form of religion is always present in a just society. Attempts to organize society around secular principles and/or stamp out religion have invariably ended in mass murder—be it fascist genocide or starvation under communism.

I would add that Christians, overall, have historically done a poor job of keeping the Third Commandment, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain..." It is the only commandment which God finds unforgivable, because it does the most harm. A tremendous amount of evil has been done by falsely invoking the will of God.

 

[TrevorLarsen]

I'm not convinced morality is possible without a religious underpinning. Morality is certainly possible across a wide array of different world religions, but some form of religion is always present in a just society. Attempts to organize society around secular principles and/or stamp out religion have invariably ended in mass murder—be it fascist genocide or starvation under communism.

I would add that Christians, overall, have historically done a poor job of keeping the Third Commandment, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain..." It is the only commandment which God finds unforgivable, because it does the most harm. A tremendous amount of evil has been done by falsely invoking the will of God.

I think we are very young in our journey as a society. To say only religion has worked so far (even if true) isn’t saying much considering how little time we have had. I think we need a few hundred years of more progress to decide religion is the only way. The internet changed everything when it comes to information (for better or worse) so saying what worked in the past has limited value. Unfortunately we won’t be alive to see if I’m right, but to me it looks clear that religion has had its time in the Sun and only the truth can hold up in the Information Age. But like I said unfortunately we likely won’t know for sure. Anyway bonsai is fun.

 

[pandacular]

I'm not convinced morality is possible without a religious underpinning. Morality is certainly possible across a wide array of different world religions, but some form of religion is always present in a just society.

I’m not sure that I accept this premise, unless one has bizarre ideas of what a just society is or if you take religion very loosely. Perhaps I have problems with the western delineation between philosophy and religion, which is usually either over-simplified or whitewashed. Why is Buddhism a religion whole Stoicism is a philosophy? Both of these have been the prevailing thought of just societies.

I also wonder what extent you can relate religion to justice in a society where religious positions are purely political and few of the ruling class actually believe—such as late Republican Rome. What about systems of religion that serve a role more closely aligned with modern science, such as many forms of animism?

I do think that religion has likely been the best entry point into philosophy for most of history. My emerging view of religion is that it is a tool for crystallizing wisdom for consumption by those for whom certain levels of thought are inaccessible, often provided in multiple levels of accessibility (in Christianity, this is modeled by the Trinity).

Oh, and one last thought about that claim—what societies can we truly say are just? I don’t think I would consider any society that permits slavery or caste systems to be just, which rules out a substantial the vast number of civilizations (and indeed our own society, which is still yet to truly outlaw slave labor).

I think generally I agree with Trevor that we can must move on beyond religion as it is today to something higher. In recent generations, this has increasingly become science, but that does not match the communion and accessibility of religion. Living in a tech land, it’s clear that the popular philosophy of Rationalism and its tendency to preclude spirituality from discussion misses the mark too. I’m not sure how we can balance the inherently conservative (and too many times oppressively so) nature of a religious system with the human need for progress, but i’m hopeful that it can happen.

 

[Peter.Constantine325]

It shows your were introduced to philosophy through apologetics, and not in a good way. Maybe learn more from people not trying to convince you of something before you jump into the “used car sales” version of philosophy.

You didn’t actually show me how my education was wrong. What about how I described reality is wrong?

 

[Peter.Constantine325]

I’m not sure that I accept this premise, unless one has bizarre ideas of what a just society is or if you take religion very loosely. Perhaps I have problems with the western delineation between philosophy and religion, which is usually either over-simplified or whitewashed. Why is Buddhism a religion whole Stoicism is a philosophy? Both of these have been the prevailing thought of just societies.

I also wonder what extent you can relate religion to justice in a society where religious positions are purely political and few of the ruling class actually believe—such as late Republican Rome. What about systems of religion that serve a role more closely aligned with modern science, such as many forms of animism?

I do think that religion has likely been the best entry point into philosophy for most of history. My emerging view of religion is that it is a tool for crystallizing wisdom for consumption by those for whom certain levels of thought are inaccessible, often provided in multiple levels of accessibility (in Christianity, this is modeled by the Trinity).

Oh, and one last thought about that claim—what societies can we truly say are just? I don’t think I would consider any society that permits slavery or caste systems to be just, which rules out a substantial the vast number of civilizations (and indeed our own society, which is still yet to truly outlaw slave labor).

I think generally I agree with Trevor that we can must move on beyond religion as it is today to something higher. In recent generations, this has increasingly become science, but that does not match the communion and accessibility of religion. Living in a tech land, it’s clear that the popular philosophy of Rationalism and its tendency to preclude spirituality from discussion misses the mark too. I’m not sure how we can balance the inherently conservative (and too many times oppressively so) nature of a religious system with the human need for progress, but i’m hopeful that it can happen.

What makes it true that slavery is absolutely wrong?

 

[Gabler]

what societies can we truly say are just?

It's tricky to pin down precisely what justice is. Entire books have been written about it. Notwithstanding that uncertainty, I would stipulate that a perfectly just system of laws is at least in part a system where the rules apply equally to everyone.

That has never happened. There will always be those allowed to bend the rules and those against whom the rules are bent. Every legal system is warped by human vice. That includes every theocratic legal system—hence my earlier comment about taking the name of the Lord in vain.

Regardless, some systems of laws are clearly better oriented toward justice than others. I would describe the least flawed systems as just systems of laws. Those systems which intentionally eschew religion tend to veer off course toward totalitarian oppression or anarchy. In either case, power rests not in the hands of just authority but in the hands of thugs—sometimes dictators and sometimes bandits.

 

[Gabler]

What makes it true that slavery is absolutely wrong?

Every man and woman is made in the image of God, and the human soul is a reflection of the essence of the divine.

 

[Peter.Constantine325]

I think we are very young in our journey as a society. To say only religion has worked so far (even if true) isn’t saying much considering how little time we have had. I think we need a few hundred years of more progress to decide religion is the only way. The internet changed everything when it comes to information (for better or worse) so saying what worked in the past has limited value. Unfortunately we won’t be alive to see if I’m right, but to me it looks clear that religion has had its time in the Sun and only the truth can hold up in the Information Age. But like I said unfortunately we likely won’t know for sure. Anyway bonsai is fun.

You can’t have objective meaning, purpose and morality without a metaphysical mind. And you can’t know what this objective meaning, purpose and morality is, or anything about that metaphysical mind, without scripture. Religion is necessary for this, because it’s religion that provides scripture. I’d say the real reason people are moving away from religion today is because religion says no, and we’re becoming a proud and hedonistic people and don’t like that. Religion has a high moral standard, and we don’t want to live by that.

 

[Peter.Constantine325]

Every man and woman is made in the image of God, and the human soul is a reflection of the essence of the divine.

I’m talking to someone I’m assuming doesn’t have a God in their worldview, or the idea that we’re made in the image of God. Ultimately, in an atheistic worldview, we are no more significant than the fecal matter we wipe off ourselves after using the bathroom. Kind of extreme, but true.

 

[Gabler]

I’m talking to someone I’m assuming doesn’t have a God in their worldview, or the idea that we’re made in the image of God. Ultimately, in an atheistic worldview, we are no more significant than the fecal matter we wipe off ourselves after using the bathroom. Kind of extreme, but true.

I've certainly yet to encounter a convincing argument against slavery that isn't rooted in the divinity of the soul. The most fundamental moral rule is that it's wrong to treat people as a means to an end, rather than an end in and of themselves. Even people who claim to be atheists generally agree with that rule, and those who disagree with that rule we call sociopaths or psychopaths, irrespective of their professed religious affiliation. I'm not sure how you can logically support that rule without recourse to the divinity of the human soul.

 

[Peter.Constantine325]

I've certainly yet to encounter a convincing argument against slavery that isn't rooted in the divinity of the soul. The most fundamental moral rule is that it's wrong to treat people as a means to an end, rather than an end in and of themselves. Even people who claim to be atheists generally agree with that rule, and those who disagree with that rule we call sociopaths or psychopaths, irrespective of their professed religious affiliation. I'm not sure how you can logically support that rule without recourse to the divinity of the human soul.

Exactly. Atheists don’t believe in the divinity of the human soul. The logical consequence of their atheism is that humans are no more significant than rocks or trees. Whether slavery is a wrong is up to the individual, and nobody really has a true opinion on the matter. Because there is no moral truth.

 

[NashsMan]

I've certainly yet to encounter a convincing argument against slavery that isn't rooted in the divinity of the soul. The most fundamental moral rule is that it's wrong to treat people as a means to an end, rather than an end in and of themselves. Even people who claim to be atheists generally agree with that rule, and those who disagree with that rule we call sociopaths or psychopaths, irrespective of their professed religious affiliation. I'm not sure how you can logically support that rule without recourse to the divinity of the human soul.

I agree with everything in this statement except for the use of the word "divinity ". I can get there by recognizing the "kinship " or "brotherhood " of a humans. As an atheist, I don't see the necessity a "god" to enforce grace and kindness towards my fellows.
As George Carlin said, if we could all just recognize the cruel cosmic joke of being given consciousness AND the certainty of death, we should treat all humans with the kindness we would afford to fellow death row inmates.

 

[pandacular]

Exactly. Atheists don’t believe in the divinity of the human soul. The logical consequence of their atheism is that humans are no more significant than rocks or trees. Whether slavery is a wrong is up to the individual, and nobody really has a true opinion on the matter. Because there is no moral truth.

another strawman, big surprise.

i am an atheist who believes in the divinity of the human soul. have run telling me i’m wrong about what i believe or something.

 

[Gabler]

I agree with everything in this statement except for the use of the word "divinity ". I can get there by recognizing the "kinship " or "brotherhood " of a humans. As an atheist, I don't see the necessity a "god" to enforce grace and kindness towards my fellows.
As George Carlin said, if we could all just recognize the cruel cosmic joke of being given consciousness AND the certainty of death, we should treat all humans with the kindness we would afford to fellow death row inmates.

Why? What is it about other humans that makes them worthy of the brotherhood and kinship you describe? What makes it wrong for me to kill or enslave you?

 

[Gabler]

another strawman, big surprise.

i am an atheist who believes in the divinity of the human soul. have run telling me i’m wrong about what i believe or something.

I'm not sure I understand that. Can you explain how you would define divine and how you would define atheist? It seems to me that the two words are mutually exclusive, so it's evident we're not using those terms in the same way.

 

[pandacular]

Have you ever read Huxley? My view of divinity is heavily influenced by his, as well as Vaishnavist Hinduism and Gnosticism.

The divine is that which is beyond human comprehension and unitive. This is the Brahman in Hinduism, the Gnostic Monad, or the capital-S Self in neo-platonism. It is not related to a god.

There are plenty of atheist religions with a concept of divinity; most forms of animism has this trait.