Religious Philosophy's Greatest.....

[PsychoticEpisode]

Accomplishments. Maybe it's the wrong word here, how about ideas or notions, theories and hypotheses? Still not right, then let's try moments. That works I think, but I like discoveries better. Maybe this will do....

Benefit...... how has religious philosophy benefitted mankind? What startling insights and conclusions have religious philosophers made that the world can't do without?
Are religious philosophers full of themselves, enjoying nothing more than listening to or reading their own thoughts? Just what good do they serve? Are they making us think or is it vice versa?

Can a theist believe in God without their input? Can you call it wisdom? I don't consider their knowledge factual, who can? Are they chasing rainbows?

I have no respect for religious philosophers who insist that what they're preaching is the dead nuts truth. Just once I'd love to hear a 'maybe' or a "can't be sure' but no, we have to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous pomposity. Religious philosophy...good or bad?

 

[lightgigantic]

Accomplishments. Maybe it's the wrong word here, how about ideas or notions, theories and hypotheses? Still not right, then let's try moments. That works I think, but I like discoveries better. Maybe this will do....

a philosophical discovery?

how about the direct perception of the cause of all causes?

Are religious philosophers full of themselves, enjoying nothing more than listening to or reading their own thoughts? Just what good do they serve? Are they making us think or is it vice versa?

I take it you have never encountered critical analysis in scriptural analysis? (something there is tons of ...... from the left, from the right, from above, from below)

Can a theist believe in God without their input?

could you venture into manufacturing a nuclear reactor without the contributions of the past 400 years of physics?
possibly?
but it sure would a damn sight harder ....

Can you call it wisdom? I don't consider their knowledge factual, who can? Are they chasing rainbows?

well if you want to can the past 400 years of physics, nuclear reactor production might as well be a rainbow ....

I have no respect for religious philosophers who insist that what they're preaching is the dead nuts truth.

then you don't get the benefit of the knowledge they present
its as simple and as difficult as that

Just once I'd love to hear a 'maybe' or a "can't be sure' but no, we have to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous pomposity. Religious philosophy...good or bad?

what is so demoralizing about a conclusive statement?
eg 1+1=2
or it will be cold next winter

for that matter, can you say anything about anything that doesn't rest on some axiomatic foundation?
Like why are you so puffed up that you cannot entertain that perhaps you are wrong to think that perhaps theism is out to lunch

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Ok, imagine if you can, a world where God never visited or dictated His story & rules to its most intelligent inhabitants. What path would religious philosophy take? Assuming that the inhabitants are conscious of their existence, if someone one day suggests a god as the cause to beat all causes, would you pursue it like the religious philosopher of today?

Personally I think you would. Herein lies the dilemma, knowing there's a god(I say that tongue in cheek) and suggesting the possibility of a god would result in the same conclusions as you and your compadres have reached. How do you know if God is real or imagined if the philosophical waxing about either possibility results in the same conclusions?

A real god requires just as much philosophical thinking as an imagined one. You can't possibly be sure of the scenario you're in. Text for one thing could be the first step in postulating gods. There is no certainty and thus it is an unnecessary pursuit, totally non productive and a total waste of a valuable resource, your brain.



So it is a senseless diversion, worthless in the scope of benefit for mankind.

 

[lightgigantic]

Ok, imagine if you can, a world where God never visited or dictated His story & rules to its most intelligent inhabitants. What path would religious philosophy take? Assuming that the inhabitants are conscious of their existence, if someone one day suggests a god as the cause to beat all causes, would you pursue it like the religious philosopher of today?

the default position is issues of sleeping, eating, mating and defending
(which, ironically, is explained in scripture)

SB 7.15.46 Otherwise, if one does not take shelter of Acyuta and Baladeva, then the senses, acting as the horses, and the intelligence, acting as the driver, both being prone to material contamination, inattentively bring the body, which acts as the chariot, to the path of sense gratification. When one is thus attracted again by the rogues of visaya —eating, sleeping and mating—the horses and chariot driver are thrown into the blinding dark well of material existence, and one is again put into a dangerous and extremely fearful situation of repeated birth and death.

Personally I think you would. Herein lies the dilemma, knowing there's a god(I say that tongue in cheek) and suggesting the possibility of a god would result in the same conclusions as you and your compadres have reached.

not really
there is a glass ceiling on the mere "suggestion" of god

How do you know if God is real or imagined if the philosophical waxing about either possibility results in the same conclusions?

by application
how else?

A real god requires just as much philosophical thinking as an imagined one. You can't possibly be sure of the scenario you're in.

I guess a real cure for cancer requires just as much thinking as an imagined one for as long as one resists applying it ....

Text for one thing could be the first step in postulating gods. There is no certainty and thus it is an unnecessary pursuit, totally non productive and a total waste of a valuable resource, your brain.

generally what transforms a text (in any field of knowledge) into something greater is application.

Actually the value of philosophy is that it provides a means of application, not that it is the be all and end all of a claim (for instance, you could talk of the philosophical implications of empiricism etc etc)

So it is a senseless diversion, worthless in the scope of benefit for mankind.

any discipline of knowledge that doesn't approach application is useless

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

the default position is issues of sleeping, eating, mating and defending
(which, ironically, is explained in scripture)

SB 7.15.46 Otherwise, if one does not take shelter of Acyuta and Baladeva, then the senses, acting as the horses, and the intelligence, acting as the driver, both being prone to material contamination, inattentively bring the body, which acts as the chariot, to the path of sense gratification. When one is thus attracted again by the rogues of visaya —eating, sleeping and mating—the horses and chariot driver are thrown into the blinding dark well of material existence, and one is again put into a dangerous and extremely fearful situation of repeated birth and death.

Part of my OP said

imagine if you can, a world where God never visited or dictated His story & rules to its most intelligent inhabitants

And I get scripture in the response? LG....Imagination is that other thing that came along with self consciousness.

I see the problem. I can imagine a god but you can't. My imagination does not convert God into something real whereas yours already has.

Now don't get uppity because I lumped God in with imagination. You are in the same position as I am, no genuine proof of God, although you believe that in some spiritual way you sense Him/Her. So if one is sure of God but has no proof then one can only imagine God's attributes, His place of business and His thoughts plus an assortment of other divine associations. You've expanded your imagination to include more than just a belief in a deity.

I really hate to see religious philosophy rely on ancient texts for guidelines. It stifles the imagination. Oh it can generate images and such but it isn't pure imagination. I have more respect for a pure philosopher than one who needs a prop or device to motivate thought.

I take back everything I ever said about your philosophic prowess. Unfortunately I can't class it as pure, sadly it has been contaminated with the musings of others. I'm no longer sure that what you do is philosophy in the true sense.

 

[Diode-Man]

The Universe has always existed. Life in some form or another has always existed. Life itself is proof of God.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

The Universe has always existed. Life in some form or another has always existed. Life itself is proof of God.

Where have I been? How could I have missed that one? Philosophy's crowning achievement right here on SciForums.

How so?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

The Universe has always existed. Life in some form or another has always existed. Life itself is proof of God.

*************
M*W: How so?

 

[nietzschefan]

I actually find some of Thomas Aquinas still useful today, even knowing he probably believed in a lot of bullshit.

"Now the object of the theological virtues is God Himself, Who is the last end of all, as surpassing the knowledge of our reason. On the other hand, the object of the intellectual and moral virtues is something comprehensible to human reason. Wherefore the theological virtues are specifically distinct from the moral and intellectual virtues"

Sometimes I wonder how good he would have been, without dancing around ... "God".

 

[greenberg]

I take back everything I ever said about your philosophic prowess. Unfortunately I can't class it as pure, sadly it has been contaminated with the musings of others. I'm no longer sure that what you do is philosophy in the true sense.

It appears that by "philosophy (in the true sense)", you mean 'neverending speculation, whereby a person's philosophical uniqueness is that which is commonly considered the person's individuality'.

 

[lightgigantic]

Psychoticepisode

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
the default position is issues of sleeping, eating, mating and defending
(which, ironically, is explained in scripture)

SB 7.15.46 Otherwise, if one does not take shelter of Acyuta and Baladeva, then the senses, acting as the horses, and the intelligence, acting as the driver, both being prone to material contamination, inattentively bring the body, which acts as the chariot, to the path of sense gratification. When one is thus attracted again by the rogues of visaya —eating, sleeping and mating—the horses and chariot driver are thrown into the blinding dark well of material existence, and one is again put into a dangerous and extremely fearful situation of repeated birth and death.
”
Part of my OP said
“
imagine if you can, a world where God never visited or dictated His story & rules to its most intelligent inhabitants
”
And I get scripture in the response?

what, asides from issues of sleeping, eating, mating and defending, do you imagine could be at the forefront of such a society?

LG....Imagination is that other thing that came along with self consciousness.

obviously

I see the problem. I can imagine a god but you can't. My imagination does not convert God into something real whereas yours already has.

I assumed that when you were problematizing the issue by asking us to imagine an alternative existence where there is no god, you were asking us to imagine in a realistic sense as opposed to a fantastic sense

Now don't get uppity because I lumped God in with imagination. You are in the same position as I am, no genuine proof of God, although you believe that in some spiritual way you sense Him/Her.

the only reason you cannot imagine someone discerning the factual nature of god is because you are reluctant to apply yourself

So if one is sure of God but has no proof then one can only imagine God's attributes, His place of business and His thoughts plus an assortment of other divine associations. You've expanded your imagination to include more than just a belief in a deity.

hence the suggestion that proof is arrived at by application

I really hate to see religious philosophy rely on ancient texts for guidelines.

makes me wonder why you don't display the same abhorrence when you buy a new computer that comes with an instruction book ...

It stifles the imagination. Oh it can generate images and such but it isn't pure imagination. I have more respect for a pure philosopher than one who needs a prop or device to motivate thought.

imagination = pure philosophy?
JRR Tolkein is up there with the best?

I take back everything I ever said about your philosophic prowess. Unfortunately I can't class it as pure, sadly it has been contaminated with the musings of others. I'm no longer sure that what you do is philosophy in the true sense.

there's a subtle difference between a philosopher and a mad artist who feels like he has to re-invent the wheel

 

[Leo Volont]

Okay, NO Civilization has coalesced without a Religious Foundation.

If Barbarism is enough then Atheism has it made. But if you want a Civilization, you NEED a Religion.

What is the Difference? Barbarism can support only about 1 or 2 people per every Square Mile of Land Area... thats a Population Density of about .15/mile squared. What happens is that all the Wars and Aggressions. Rapes and Murders, keep the Population Levels very low. However, to have Urban Areas requires Civilized Institutions. Civilized Institutions are based on Morals which are derived from Religions. Without Religion, well, morals are entirely optional and people would tend to ignore Morality whenever it conflicted with Personal Convenience.

You can see from out own Mixed Society that the Non-Religious Elements are prone to Crime, Fraud and Republican Party Membership.

 

[Oli]

The Universe has always existed. Life in some form or another has always existed. Life itself is proof of God.

Thoughtless supposition.

Okay, NO Civilization has coalesced without a Religious Foundation.

And the reason for that would be...
Oh yeah, religion has been the default position.

If Barbarism is enough then Atheism has it made. But if you want a Civilization, you NEED a Religion.

Doesn't follow, sorry.

...Morals which are derived from Religions.

Actually they aren't.

Without Religion, well, morals are entirely optional and people would tend to ignore Morality whenever it conflicted with Personal Convenience.

You do like to compound your errors don't you?

 

[Leo Volont]

Dear Oli

Your job is to cite any Civilization that has arisen without Religous Moral support.

My job is to cite all of the recently ever secular societies in which Morality has been going to hell in a handbasket, the more with every generation in which there is more separation from the Civilization's original Religious Moral Foundations. Europe, Russia, China, America.

You Liberate people from Religion, they you have a Renaissance of Evil. Check your History.

You can asser "no". You can demand that I prove my argument... being too lazy to prove yours. But if you have eyes to look around in the least then you know that there are Moral Differences between Religious Societies and Secular Societies. Even in Criminal Societies. The Italian Mafia, a Criminal Organization with close connections to a remnant and weakened Catholic Church, is bad, but they acknowledge LIMITS, lines even they will not cross. But the RUSSIAN MAFIA, indoctrinated for generations in the strictest Scientific Materialism, these MO FOs know no moral limits and will do anything. Ruthless, remorseless, cold as ice. When all trace of Religion is erased, we have the Russian Mafia.

yes, they are very successful. That's all that matters, isn't it?

 

[swarm]

The Universe has always existed.

Only if by always you mean in some state or another. In its current form it has lasted 16 billion years, give or take.

Life in some form or another has always existed.

No, life requires the formation of carbon in solar furnesses. So for the first few billion years there was no life any where. Only after the first stars went nova was there any carbon. Also life needs a planet with liquid water so it was a few billion years more for the novas to collapse back into new stars and planets to form and cool.

Life itself is proof of God.

Life is proof of life. No goD needed.

 

[Oli]

Dear Oli
Your job is to cite any Civilization that has arisen without Religous Moral support.

Um, no. As stipulated religious belief was the default state. Just becasue it did happen that way does not imply that it couldn't haven't happened any other way.

You Liberate people from Religion, they you have a Renaissance of Evil. Check your History.

Oh yeah, bring back the crusades, the Inquisition, witch burning...

You can asser "no". You can demand that I prove my argument... being too lazy to prove yours.

And you can't read: I didn't ask (or even demand) that you prove your assertion, I merely pointed out that you're making a flawed assumption based on biased data.

But if you have eyes to look around in the least then you know that there are Moral Differences between Religious Societies and Secular Societies. Even in Criminal Societies. The Italian Mafia, a Criminal Organization with close connections to a remnant and weakened Catholic Church, is bad, but they acknowledge LIMITS, lines even they will not cross. But the RUSSIAN MAFIA, indoctrinated for generations in the strictest Scientific Materialism, these MO FOs know no moral limits and will do anything. Ruthless, remorseless, cold as ice. When all trace of Religion is erased, we have the Russian Mafia.

Spurious side-stepping of the point of your argument...

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Religious philosophers, those labelled as sages by the multitudes who consider them closer to God if for no other reason then the fact that they have spent countless hours contemplating the issues, have traditionally been held in high esteem by those who don't have the time to do it themselves. Superstars in their own right, religious philosophers accept the notoriety of being the interpretative voice for the faithful. Like most humans it is comforting to have an ego stroked for serious dedication to a cause considered beneficial. Are religious philosophers willing to give that up? How much of what is said here, is said to protect their investment?

 

[greenberg]

Religious philosophers, those labelled as sages by the multitudes who consider them closer to God if for no other reason then the fact that they have spent countless hours contemplating the issues, have traditionally been held in high esteem by those who don't have the time to do it themselves. Superstars in their own right, religious philosophers accept the notoriety of being the interpretative voice for the faithful. Like most humans it is comforting to have an ego stroked for serious dedication to a cause considered beneficial. Are religious philosophers willing to give that up? How much of what is said here, is said to protect their investment?

Get your head out of Saint Anselm's ass. Seriously. :bugeye:

 

[one_raven]

I'd say that secular moral beliefs arose long before religious ones, and, in fact, the religious beliefs were based on secular moral beliefs.

We had to learn how to work together and cooperate before we even invented religious morality.
Without cooperation, we would not have even reached a stage in our evolution to invent such stories.

Quoting myself again...

When did man become man?
When he could tell stories.

The earliest humans recognized their many vulnerabilities and were keenly aware of their own mortality.
They did not have fur to protect them from the elements.
They did not have razor sharp claws and fangs to fight off predators.
They were not terribly fast runners.
They could not see very well in the dark.
They could not swim long distances.

Humans had two saving graces on which to depend for survival: intellect and community; aside from that, they were weak and knew it.
Everywhere humans looked, there was something more powerful than they were.
These more powerful things held sway over their lives, and as a result, over their collective psyche.
People fear what is more powerful than them.
They also respect what is more powerful than them.
People began to anthropomorphise the forces of nature and animals and tell stories about them.
They began to pray to what was more powerful than them.
They began to develop Gods - God to fear - Gods to worship - Gods to respect - Gods to beg for food and rain - Gods to blame for drought and pestilence.

Until they learned to cooperate and follow community moral codes, they would not have been able to survive outside their riparian habitats.
Commuinity necessarily developed before religion.

 

[Leo Volont]

Can we appeal to Statistics then. Of the Twenty One Civilizations all of them were founded upon Religions. Oh, a great many declined when they grew beyond their Religious Foundations.

Is it supposed to mean nothing that Religion SEEMS to be so important. Is it supposed to be an ACCIDENT that Atheism seems so much more related to Barbarism and Chaos?

Yes, yes, Proof proof. Ever read Hume "Critique on Human Reason"... he thought he was making a joke, but you took it seriously. The punchline was that if you pay too much attention to scientific proof, you can't KNOW anything.

Um, no. As stipulated religious belief was the default state. Just becasue it did happen that way does not imply that it couldn't haven't happened any other way.