Faith v Philosophy

[The Fury]

May I suggest you take philosophy out of what now seems to be primarily the Faith thread. If you need to lump it in with something, why not psychology as they have a great deal in common and many of the threads in psychology are directly related to philosophy.

Although this would give religion and faith it's own area (something I can't say that I'd be happy with) it would be far better than the current situation as many of the greatest philosophers were atheists.

 

[loveofreason]

Yeah... a quick glance over that forum reveals a proliferation of faith threads... it was once more balanced. It has always been a tough call how to split/lump these topics as they overlap so much, but would seem there are a lot of 'pure' faith threads now...

As much as I prefer fewer sections so that arguments can range over all the relevant ground... the time may have come to split.

Thanks for suggestion. Now pondering.

 

[Jordan~]

How about "Theology and Spirituality" and "Philosophy"?

 

[Da Blob]

Despite the protestations of Psychologists, who like to see themselves as scientists and not philosophers, Psychology is a branch of Philosophy, so that would be an appropriate division.

However, I do not see the difficulty. Each thread is unique and stands alone despite classification. If one is not interested in a thread topic, one just doesn't participate.

While it is true that a handful of philosophers have been atheists, only the atheists consider them to be the greatest philosophers...

 

[Jordan~]

Only the theists consider the likes of Kant and Hegel worthy of reading.

 

[The Fury]

GOD *irony* I hate Kant, mainly because one of my philosophy lecturers was so fascinated by him, every second essay he gave us to write was about him. You can only read the Critique of Pure Reason so often.

Atheist philosophers contain a great deal more than just a handful, Rand, Camus Russell, Satre to name just a few. I think any philosopher with any worth would consider these great.

 

[Da Blob]

GOD *irony* I hate Kant, mainly because one of my philosophy lecturers was so fascinated by him, every second essay he gave us to write was about him. You can only read the Critique of Pure Reason so often.

Atheist philosophers contain a great deal more than just a handful, Rand, Camus Russell, Satre to name just a few. I think any philosopher with any worth would consider these great.

But isn't that rather 'country clubish". According to atheists it is only atheist philosophers that are worth anything? There is a vicious cycle there - that unless one is an atheist first one can not legitimately to be a philosopher. Therein lies the death of the Philosophy departments and the demise of respect for philosophers.

Everyone has a philosophy - the exclusionary nature of the Philosophers' Club more or less ensures that most will be getting their philosophies from television not school...

Satre is a joke! C. S. Lewis summarized Being and Nothingness in 25 words, I do not think he missed anything...(?)

 

[Ben]

Philosophy should be YOUR own thinking and shouldn't be put into the Theist or Atheist group. If you put your philosophy into a group like that then your not being philosophical, your summarizing what people already know.

Most, if not all of philosophy is clouded by some kind of belief so none of it is pure.

 

[Da Blob]

Philosophy should be YOUR own thinking and shouldn't be put into the Theist or Atheist group. If you put your philosophy into a group like that then your not being philosophical, your summarizing what people already know.

Most, if not all of philosophy is clouded by some kind of belief so none of it is pure.

I agree, after all it was the intent of the early Greeks simply to find "the right way to live life", I think that this is the goal that has been been ignored too often and for too long by Academicians. We each need to discover for our Selves the 'right' way to live our lives as individuals within a society. Anyone who does not think for his or her self in this regard deserves his or her fate...

 

[FusionKnight]

I think a "Spirituality" section is a good idea. Then it can flow into philosophy, religion, spiritual experiences, etc. "Religion" seems a bit narrow of a term for the conversations we usually have...

 

[Sapphire Harp]

I don't think it needs to be a crisp division between the new categories, but the faith quotient of the science/faith/philosophy is definitely making the category lopsided now.

We have pure science now, maybe we should have a pure faith (replaced with a better name...) section, and keep the original as the muddy cross over of all three.
​

 

[Anthile]

^ I agree with that.

 

[echoplex]

One idea would be to have a forum titled "Philosophy" with two subforums titled "Theology and Spirituality" (Jordan's idea) and "Society and Politics".

We don't need it to say "science" really, 'cause there's already a Pure Science forum. Of course, I realize there's a "...world affairs" forum already, but many of the topics there are political, and are therefore related to philosophy, imo.

Connecting philosophy to the Psychological forum could work too, I suppose.

 

[Sapphire Harp]

A section titled "Thoughts and Topics Uncategorizable" perhaps?
​

 

[Jordan~]

Science can all go in "Pure Science", which ought to be renamed "Science" since very little "science" is actually "pure science". I imagine that forum will stagnate if all that's allowed is the discussion of verification by observation. "Philosophy" and "Science" are very general categories, perhaps "Science" could have a subforum for the purely theoretical, too. There might be some ambiguity as to where certain things go - if it was possible to have a structure in which "Theoretical Science" (working title) was a subsubforum of both the Science and the Philosophy fora, that might be best. Philosophy is far too huge not to have a subforum of its own, anyway, I think. "School, Work and World Affairs" seems an odd grouping, and one which might need revision - perhaps it could be replaced with "Sociology and Anthropology" under "Science" - "Psychology" could also go under "Science", given that "Science" would now include the soft sciences. Purists might insist on a "Hard Science" subsubforum, but that should probably be voted on.

i.e., I propose:

INTP Forum
----Science
--------Sociology and Anthropology
--------Psychology
-----Philosophy
--------Faith and Spirituality [or Faith, Spirituality and Theology - contentious, perhaps]

The Lounge might also be generalised to The Miscellany. INTP seems a valid category, though it perhaps should be a subsubforum of MBTI and Other Typing (since this is an MBTI forum, I don't think it's necessary to make that a subdivision of "Psychology". INTP Interests and Affairs might merit its own subforum.

 

[Sapphire Harp]

"School, Work and World Affairs" seems an odd grouping, and one which might need revision - perhaps it could be replaced with "Sociology and Anthropology" under "Science" - "Psychology" could also go under "Science", given that "Science" would now include the soft sciences.

I don't know about that... the school, work, and world affairs category is about us and our lives. The rest of these are the 'big idea' threads.

Personally, I like the categories messy, but just a little less messy than they are right now.
​

 

[Jordan~]

The stuff about our lives could go in The Miscellany - or even INTP Interests and Affairs, if it was relevant.

 

[FusionKnight]

I suggest we have a "Politics and World Affairs" category. That seems to cover a fairly distinct group of conversations we have.

 

[Carnap]

I totally disagree. Kant contributed so much to science, Pascale was a mathematician and contributed to theories of probability among many other things, Descartes and St. Augustin totally set the standard for how we perceive subjectivity (for a long time, anyway).

Philosophy is not just about religion. Both religious philosophers and atheist philosophers have contributed to philosophy in areas that have nothing to do with metaphysics.

I totally agree with Da Blob. Thank goodness my philosophy department doesn't discount religious philosophers, or we would only be studying half of philosophy and not even be understanding any of the atheist philosphers coming afterwards, if we are still keen on classifying them as such, that is.

 

[Da Blob]

I totally disagree. Kant contributed so much to science, Pascale was a mathematician and contributed to theories of probability among many other things, Descartes and St. Augustine totally set the standard for how we perceive subjectivity (for a long time, anyway).

Philosophy is not just about religion. Both religious philosophers and atheist philosophers have contributed to philosophy in areas that have nothing to do with metaphysics.

I totally agree with Da Blob. Thank goodness my philosophy department doesn't discount religious philosophers, or we would only be studying half of philosophy and not even be understanding any of the atheist philosphers coming afterwards, if we are still keen on classifying them as such, that is.

What? Well, that was totally unexpected in this forum
(of course, it is just once, perhaps an incidence of the Structured Randomness that so many believe in...)

 

[Carnap]

I think Sartre is a joke, too. I think people who do theses on him are just taking an easy way out of doing something harder like Leibniz or anything else.

However, I will agree somewhat with the others that I find some of the proofs of God that Kant and Descartes drivel on about, or about faith, etc., I do find that all very boring.

But when these religious philosophers touch on science and experience, I listen to them like I would listen to any other philosopher, no matter what their beliefs.

 

[Da Blob]

I think Sartre is a joke, too. I think people who do theses on him are just taking an easy way out of doing something harder like Leibniz or anything else.

However, I will agree somewhat with the others that I find some of the proofs of God that Kant and Descartes drivel on about, or about faith, etc., I do find that all very boring.

But when these religious philosophers touch on science and experience, I listen to them like I would listen to any other philosopher, no matter what their beliefs.

Ahhh! that's better a return to the staus quo, where no one agrees with me! I find security in being alone. If people started to join me I would have to start thinking in terms of 'We' - a novel and therefore scary prospect.

Of course, the problem with "Proofs of God" is that they are too complex. Here is the proof of God. "You can't get something from nothing". Where did the structure of the Universe originate? The blueprint for DNA is not written on a electron...

 

[NoID10ts]

Of course, the problem with "Proofs of God" is that they are too complex. Here is the proof of God. "You can't get something from nothing". Where did the structure of the Universe originate? The blueprint for DNA is not written on a electron...

Where did God come from? God only takes the problem back a step. Maybe there is no such thing as "nothing".

 

[Da Blob]

Where did God come from? God only takes the problem back a step. Maybe there is no such thing as "nothing".

Hmmm I do not know - perhaps you may wish to ask Him that when you meet Him?
Agreed though, 'nothing' is a relative and not an absolute term...

Although the question I posed was where did the Structure originate? I had hoped that this is a non-religious question and I am really interested in a logical answer...

 

[NoID10ts]

One of my favorite bumperstickers.​

 

[Carnap]

Status quo? I agree with you on some parts, and I disagree with the others almost entireley (they want to revise history and only study atheists... how could I not disagree).

There is no status quo here.

 

[Da Blob]

Status quo? I agree with you on some parts, and I disagree with the others almost entireley (they want to revise history and only study atheists... how could I not disagree).

There is no status quo here.

There is no status quo here!
Yeah! that's why I like this forum, no pressure to conform!

"The Bible says it..."
What Does the Bible actually say?
It seems (to me) that most passages of the Bible have been perverted
by Self-serving Pharisees, or the demons thereof,
creating Man-made doctrines in an attempt to box God in and manipulate
the minds of other men...
The sabbath is a prime example of that
God invents the weekend for relaxation
and look what religion has done with it, throughout history....

I think that an unbiased reading of the Bible would reveal an incredibly open-ended
universe...

 

[NoID10ts]

How open to interpretation should the Bible be? At what point do you stop taking it literally? Who decides, and why? Is there a hell? Is there a heaven? Can one go to the afterlife as long as they live by their conscience or is there something specific one must do?

 

[Da Blob]

How open to interpretation should the Bible be? At what point do you stop taking it literally? Who decides, and why? Is there a hell? Is there a heaven? Can one go to the afterlife as long as they live by their conscience or is there something specific one must do?

From my POV alone. I believe that the Bible should be completely open to an individual's own POV. How could it have any real meaning otherwise?

Although it is written that "scripture is of no private interpretation" I see that as confirmation of my 'belief', not reproof. I mean is it not true that each denomination is founded on some type of 'private interpretations' on the part of the founders of the various denominations?
However, I do have to add one disclaimer-condition. I believe the Bible to be quite a unique work of art and One's POV must embrace at least some of the rules of heuristics for it to remain so...

 

[Fedayeen]

How open to interpretation should the Bible be? At what point do you stop taking it literally? Who decides, and why? Is there a hell? Is there a heaven? Can one go to the afterlife as long as they live by their conscience or is there something specific one must do?

I suppose thats what church is for....to tell who what it is supposed to be.

 

[Da Blob]

I suppose thats what church is for....to tell who what it is supposed to be.

That is a good question.
What does the Bible actually say about gathering together as believers?
How many of today's churches conform to that Biblical template?

 

[Fedayeen]

That is a good question.
What does the Bible actually say about gathering together as believers?
How many of today's churches conform to that Biblical template?

Maybe church is just a cover for the priests to have fun with kids Michael Jackson style

 

[NoID10ts]

From my POV alone. I believe that the Bible should be completely open to an individual's own POV. How could it have any real meaning otherwise?

Although it is written that "scripture is of no private interpretation" I see that as confirmation of my 'belief', not reproof. I mean is it not true that each denomination is founded on some type of 'private interpretations' on the part of the founders of the various denominations?
However, I do have to add one disclaimer-condition. I believe the Bible to be quite a unique work of art and One's POV must embrace at least some of the rules of heuristics for it to remain so...

I spent 20 years of my life as a follower of Christ, most of that either in the ministry or preparing to go into the ministry. I no longer believe, but I still maintain the lifestyle (in spite of the impression I give on this forum).

I still live my life according to much of the biblical teachings. I am convinced that you can live the "Christlike" moral life without belief in God or the Bible or Jesus.

Of course the question is, if I have lived a moral life without accepting the existence of God what happens to my immortal soul if I turn out to have one?

I suppose thats what church is for....to tell who what it is supposed to be.

Which church? They all interpret the Bible differently, not to metion completely other religions who have other scriptures. Much of it is plainly contradictory and mutually exclusive and they can't all be right.

 

[Fedayeen]

I spent 20 years of my life as a follower of Christ, most of that either in the ministry or preparing to go into the ministry. I no longer believe, but I still maintain the lifestyle (in spite of the impression I give on this forum).

I still live my life according to much of the biblical teachings. I am convinced that you can live the "Christlike" moral life without belief in God or the Bible or Jesus.

Of course the question is, if I have lived a moral life without accepting the existence of God what happens to my immortal soul if I turn out to have one?




Which church? They all interpret the Bible differently, not to metion completely other religions who have other scriptures. Much of it is plainly contradictory and mutually exclusive and they can't all be right.

I meant that the churches take the bible, interpret it, and tell that interpretation to their followers.

 

[Da Blob]

Maybe church is just a cover for the priests to have fun with kids Michael Jackson style

It certainly is for those priests you speak of...!
Unfortunately, "church" has also been the "cover" for many Antichristian individuals.

it is written of the Antichrist "he was from us, but he was not of us"

 

[Fedayeen]

It certainly is for those priests you speak of...!
Unfortunately, "church" has also been the "cover" for many Antichristian individuals.

it is written of the Antichrist "he was from us, but he was not of us"

Going to a church is a good why to analyze certain types of people, and their beliefs.

 

[NoID10ts]

Who decides who is anti-christian? That requires an understanding of what it means to be Christian in the first place. Most knowledge of what it means to be a Christian is found in the Bible. If the Bible is open to everyones interpretation then anyone might be considered anti-christian by anyone else.

 

[Fedayeen]

Who decides who is anti-christian? That requires an understanding of what it means to be Crhistian in the first place. Most knowledge of what it means to be a Christian is found in the Bible. If the Bible is open to everyones interpretation then anyone might be considered anti-christian by anyone else.

In other words religion is grey matter.

(as in not black and white, but shades of grey)

 

[Da Blob]

Who decides who is anti-christian? That requires an understanding of what it means to be Crhistian in the first place. Most knowledge of what it means to be a Christian is found in the Bible. If the Bible is open to everyones interpretation then anyone might be considered anti-christian by anyone else.

well that certainly could explain the conflict between 'religious' individuals and groups.
However, this was anticipated as these 'religious' types with a form of godliness were described in 2nd Timothy and we were instructed to simply turn away (ignore) such people. The question is what is the attitude promoted by the Bible concerning other types of unbelievers? Are we ever supposed to do anything more aggressive than simply turning away?

2 Timothy 3
"1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away"

 

[Da Blob]

In other words religion is grey matter.

(as in not black and white, but shades of grey)

I think that when we look at an Other's religion all we can see are various shades of grey. I think that for one's own religion some of those areas need to be converted into black and white by an exercise of faith. To me, Gray is a term that can be used to describe situational ethics and morals, relative to one's environment. I think it is important to stand for something - some cause no matter what the environment may be. It is a matter of integrity to hold up a white banner in the midst of gray flags...

 

[Fedayeen]

I think that when we look at an Other's religion all we can see are various shades of grey. I think that for one's own religion some of those areas need to be converted into black and white by an exercise of faith. To me, Gray is a term that can be used to describe situational ethics and morals, relative to one's environment. I think it is important to stand for something - some cause no matter what the environment may be. It is a matter of integrity to hold up a white banner in the midst of gray flags...

Faith converts shades of grey to black and white. and those that turn to religion to help with troubled times are even more likely to simply overlook things to help them get by.

 

[Da Blob]

Faith converts shades of grey to black and white. and those that turn to religion to help with troubled times are even more likely to simply overlook things to help them get by.

Yes, How could a case be made for religion if it were of no practical use?
The church I attended was a congregation of former drug addicts, criminals and social outcasts, that in 'religion' found a way to save their lives and get through troubles that have defeated many an Other...

 

[Fedayeen]

Yes, How could a case be made for religion if it were of no practical use?
The church I attended was a congregation of former drug addicts, criminals and social outcasts, that in 'religion' found a way to save their lives and get through troubles that have defeated many an Other...

Are you disagreeing or agreeing with me?

 

[Da Blob]

Are you disagreeing or agreeing with me?

That is a decision you need to make...

 

[Fedayeen]

That is a decision you need to make...

well your example neither agrees nor disagrees with my point, but I could explain my opinion further to agree with your example if you are disagreeing

 

[NoID10ts]

well that certainly could explain the conflict between 'religious' individuals and groups.
However, this was anticipated as these 'religious' types with a form of godliness were described in 2nd Timothy and we were instructed to simply turn away (ignore) such people. The question is what is the attitude promoted by the Bible concerning other types of unbelievers? Are we ever supposed to do anything more aggressive than simply turning away?

2 Timothy 3
"1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away"

The Bible says alot of things about the end times. It even speaks of a great turning away and look at me, I've turned away, so in a sense there is some truth there.

But Biblical prophecy is always open to interpretation. Throughout history events have taken place on the world stage that have caused believers to interpret it as the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy, yet it never comes to fruition.

As far back as the first century, Christians (including Peter and Paul and arguably John), prompted by Jesus Himself, seemed to associate the end times with the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple which occured in 70 AD. And here we are almost 2,000 years later.

As I understand it one of the factors involved in the the Crusades was that the 1,000 year mark came and went without the second coming. Retake the Holy Land and hasten the return.

The World Wars were supposed to be the end so was the gulf war and now the war in Iraq.

Google Edgar Whisenut and his 88 reasons the rapture is coming in 88 and the follow up in 89.

There will always be something going on in the world that will fit some aspect of "End Times" Prophecies. That's why they work and titillate the masses generation after generation.

But according to the Bible all of this is moot, because it says that no one knows the day or the hour and that it will happen when we least expect it. By that rationale, let's keep talking about it and trumping it up because that's exactly when it won't happen.

My question is simple, why should I trust what the Bible says?

 

[Da Blob]

well your example neither agrees nor disagrees with my point, but I could explain my opinion further to agree with your example if you are disagreeing

Truth, but what has just happened is such a good example of the point I was trying to make. There was no way for you to see my comment as other than gray. It is up to you to decide whether it was a black comment or a white comment...

(I'm tempted to reveal more of my tactics in this regard - but who knows who is lurking about, I think I smell robotic lubricants in the atmosphere)

 

[Fedayeen]

Truth, but what has just happened is such a good example of the point I was trying to make. There was no way for you to see my comment as other than gray. It is up to you to decide whether it was a black comment or a white comment...

(I'm tempted to reveal more of my tactics in this regard - but who knows who is lurking about, I think I smell robotic lubricants in the atmosphere)

STOP MAKING ME USE MY J!!!!!!!!

 

[Da Blob]

The Bible says alot of things about the end times. It even speaks of a great turning away and look at me, I've turned away, so in a sense there is some truth there.

But Biblical prophecy is always open to interpretation. Throughout history events have taken place on the world stage that have caused believers to interpret it as the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy, yet it never comes to fruition.

As far back as the first century, Christians (including Peter and Paul and arguably John), prompted by Jesus Himself, seemed to associate the end times with the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple which occured in 70 AD. And here we are almost 2,000 years later.

As I understand it one of the factors involved in the the Crusades was that the 1,000 year mark came and went without the second coming. Retake the Holy Land and hasten the return.

The World Wars were supposed to be the end so was the gulf war and now the war in Iraq.

Google Edgar Whisenut and his 88 reasons the rapture is coming in 88 and the follow up in 89.

There will always be something going on in the world that will fit some aspect of "End Times" Prophecies. That's why they work and titillate the masses generation after generation.

But according to the Bible all of this is moot, because it says that no one knows the day or the hour and that it will happen when we least expect it. By that rationale, let's keep talking about it and trumping it up because that's exactly when it won't happen.

My question is simple, why should I trust what the Bible says?

This is all true.

However, what is the purpose of prophesy?
Certainly not the common idea, that you provided a few of many examples of.
I mean despite the hundreds of prophesies that Jesus fulfilled how many in His day recognized Him for who He was...An unborn baby, one old man and one old woman...(?)

"why should I trust what the Bible says?"

i do not know..
Why should you trust your own self?
If you are like me, you have betrayed your self on any number of occasions.
Why should you ever trust any human?
I do not know that any human can answer that question
Why?"

Perhaps the challenge that could be met
would be to try to answer the question
"How could I ever trust the Bible" (again?) ?

 

[NoID10ts]

"How could I ever trust the Bible" (again?) ?

I suppose it would take an act of God that can be interpreted no other way, but by god and god alone. But he only did that sort of thing in the Bible. But I don't believe what the Bible says so he would have to do it in the hear and now, but he only does things like that in the Bible and so on and so forth .............