The Problem of Religious Philosophy

Axis Austin
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 11:56 am
@de Silentio,
In makes sense that discussion in the Philosophy of Religion forum would be religiously driven. Further, As Hammer pointed out, this philosophy and theology are nearly the same thing. Thus, we shouldn't be upset that discussion in this forum is religiously based, and not always logical.

That said, I definitely agree that it is a sad state if discussion of anything/everything turns into two-way debate about God, which I may be partially to blame. I'll work on this.
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 12:18 pm
@Axis Austin,
Christianity is only one concept, we should be considering all the mythological concepts. Both sides know that proof of god's existence or non-existence does not itself exist, so lets just get on with the verious traditions addressing the ultimate mystery, that would be religious philosophy.
0 Replies
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 02:40 pm
@de Silentio,
I have a distaste for the view that says: If you don't like X when Y is present, you therefore are saying X is always wrong. ugh.
We've spoken about this before, and I completely concur. This was what I was hoping was not being implied by democritus's initial statement -- that Theological discussion, in every light, is wrong.

I was hoping that the moderators would agree that this forum is appropriate for any spiritual discussion I would like to partake in (that may suspend reason), but be held to the same standards as you and DT discuss:

  1. That my points may be rationally criticized just as any points within any other facet of this site.
  2. If the thread does begin to get tiresome and over-saturated (just as many other topics can), it will be moderated just as any other tiresome and over-saturated thread.

This seems fair to me, and I don't understand what else is being sought.
Didymos Thomas
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 06:16 pm
Axis Austin wrote:
Thomas: I will first state that I will not respond to your further posts as long as you continue to claim that language about God is necessarily figurative without adequately defending this statement. I know this is a bit rude on my part, and I apologize. But I have not yet seen you adequately do so, while you challenge me by asking why anybody would buy into my notions. Also, sorry to note quote the post to make it easier, but it was a rather long one.

No need to apologize, friend.

It isn't so much that the language of God is necessarily figurative, it's that to speak of God of spirituality the language must be figurative; otherwise, one is being idolatrous.

To say something X is literally true of God requires that God can be measured. The only measurements we have seen have been measurements in a figurative sense: God is all powerful (figuratively speaking). To make the claim that God is literally all powerful, you would have to be able to demonstrate that claim.

Axis Austin wrote:
What you say about the difference between knowing about the center of the earth and knowing about God is essentially the claim that we can't literally know anything metaphysical. To that, I have no response, I simply disagree.

I would go further and claim that metaphysics is meaningless. But that's another topic. If you are interested, however, I recommend this article, and if you can find it, a book by the same author titled simply Metaphysics:
Metaphysics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

My claim about God and the center of the earth has nothing to do with metaphysics, because God is experiential and metaphysics is pure speculation. We can increasingly understand God through academic study, but we cannot know God purely through academic study.

Axis Austin wrote:
Your assertion that every theologian, bible scholar, etc. says the Bible isn't to be read literally is bogus. Perhaps I am wrong in thinking that it's the complete opposite: that most scholars think at least some things can be read literally (you're probably a lot more well-read than I). But I know numerous serious scholars you think it can. I would argue that you're notion that language about God is necessarily metaphorical is more out of line with common thinking, and thus requires more defense than my idea. But I'll meet you in the middle and agree that we should both support our claims. But to say that all the scholars agree is simply not true.

Who are these scholars? I never said all thinkers/scholars/teachers; I said the vast majority, nearly all.

Axis Austin wrote:
No, I am not confusing the terms literal and figurative, and I take slight offense at that notion. I agree that an accurate description isn't necessarily literal, but you're missing the fact that it can be. If I accurately (assuming it's true) state that Jesus rose from the dead, sure I could be speaking figuratively. But I could just as well be speaking literally.

It would be impossible to assert, with any honesty, that Jesus literally rose from the dead as rising from the dead is literally impossible.

Accurate descriptions can be literal, but we cannot know if a literal description is accurate unless we can demonstrate the accuracy of the description. For example: I can say my car is literally red and I can present my red car as evidence. But if we say God is literally all knowing, how can we support this claim? How can we provide evidence of this claim beyond pure speculation?

Axis Austin wrote:
For the next response, you've changed the question. Now you're limiting things to spiritual practice. But that's not the only part of religion, as you agree at the end. We both agree experience is at least the most important part of spiritual practice and that spiritual practice is part of religion. So we have no disagreements. Earlier it seemed like you were saying that experience is the only important thing in religion, which is different than saying it's the most important part of one aspect of religion.

Spiritual practice is the practice of experiencing God. Spiritual practice is the means by which we have the most important of experiences. That's the purpose of practice.

Axis Austin wrote:
I disagree that experience is the only way to know. But I don't want to get into it here, as I've been having a lengthy discussion about what constitutes knowledge, in relation to rocks breaking windows, in another post.

Perhaps you might also be interested in the two links regarding Spiritual Materialism I provided Zetherin.
Reply Sat 7 Mar, 2009 12:17 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
the ramblings on of the unwise

I think that this matter is one of qualification. I believe something to be accurate and genuine, a conflicting belief (especially when well articulated) challenges my qualification for having the original belief. If I am found to have an unqualified belief then the relativity of my value is brought to bear against the scales of the collective body. For many particular reasons the need for value is inculcated into all men, so to have value, even questioned (that is even a questioned value), assumes a defensive posture in the accused and unaccustomed. therefore, the very postulation of my errant composition arouses in my incipience the precedence which provides the preamble to my diatribe concerning the convolution of conclusive evidence. Which in this matter is disingenuously imposable or able to be imposed while inaccurate, because proof of what i believe does not need to be heavy, but evidence for what I do not believe has to bear much weight.

Insomuch that this is the irreconcilable truth of debate, the functionality of even the greatest discourse is relative to the audience. So if one or many consider this forum or site or page or any other sufficient description of this URL inappropriately religious concerning a debate of religion and philosophy, maintaining that the abstract nature of philosophy allows for any abstract thing to be philosophical provided it is not a law causes to me a conundrum in that "X" and "Y" in philosophy are relative (sigh. . . .).

All things considered theology can be done without dogma, because the dogmatic views of the religious are primarily their beliefs; and one can entertain a thought without ascribing to it. The Philosophy of theology is anything you want it to be, because philosophy is relative to everything. So relative to theology, why do people believe in God; the reasons include experience, tradition, fear, psychology, predisposition,and many other influences. The philosophy is not the why, its the what.

Such as God is all powerful is a claim provable because of the provided definition of God is an all powerful creator, and this definition is based on experience. Consider a lie, If I said the sky was red and you were blind, you would perhaps believe me because you were incapable of experiencing the sight of a blue sky. So the definition of something unprovable by you becomes the proof to you. The philosophy of this matter I think is how can anyone do anything relative to God, either prove, define, or experience.

I think the best way to explain this is to use what i think is math. The next dimension up from us is describable as an additional degree of freedom which is presently not attainable by us in the dimension below it. This understanding of how we discern reality is the fundamental paradox of such discussions. If harbored according to the theory of relativity time is something i cannot experience because i can only describe it and its affects, however i cannot alter its course because as a part of the fourth dimension i cannot exercise the freedom of or from time, because my confines are in the dimension below time. Relate this to theology and i think you will find the futility of such debates.

I make no apology for any offense taken because the truth is intolerant of a lie. Gravity does not tolerate my desire to fly, and whatever my ideology or philosophy the fact is that reality is not relative, only my experience of reality is relative, in that what is relative is also by nature universally untrue, I and you are both and all incorrect. The point of all life is moot other than to achieve convenience amidst inescapable certainty of death. :brickwall:
Reply Sun 8 Mar, 2009 06:29 am
inconsekwenshul wrote:
the ramblings on of the unwise

I think that this matter is one of qualification. I believe something to be accurate and genuine, a conflicting belief (especially when well articulated) challenges my qualification for having the original belief. ....

Is it possible to translate all of that into language an average person like me could understand? Or could you summarize your conclusions as direct statements?

I have absolutely no clear idea about what you are trying to say.
Reply Sun 8 Mar, 2009 10:57 pm
it is impossible to have a philosophy of God because we as people cannot experience the plane of existence that God is in, and thus have no frame of reference. I can philosophize religion without dogma because I can think about pantheistic God's without believing they are real. and finally is the issue of what gives me the right to have an opinion, and what am I allowed to do with my opinion in reference to society.

I am sorry I just like to be grandiloquent and sometimes become pusillanimous i am just wasting time but the reason in my opinion for academics is to learn big words so that like bricks they will cause damage when we strike our foe with them.
0 Replies

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/27/2022 at 09:18:38