Well, ok then. Theology doesn’t count as real philosophy, and real philosophy is futile. That sounds like an endorsement of Theology to me.
I think Science can operate that way, because it has material reality as a measuring stick- they can constantly refer back to what's actually there to see if they are on track. However, philosophy deals with things where that's not an option. Philosophy is essentially a dialogue that is either coherent, or else not. I think most times, a philosopher starting with a question and working towards and answer with either never get to destination, or else will arrive at an answer that he knew before he started.
Ultimately, I think most good philosophy [i]does[/i] start with the answers, in fact. "We know that there is such a thing as right and wrong- how is this possible, and how does it work?" Or "We know that we can have knowledge about the world outside our minds. Why is it that we can trust this information?" Investigations [i]like that [/i]can be fruitful.
Dr.Satanical
Just to be clear, it sounds like like infants and trees would be atheists, under your explanation above- atheism is about not having a position?
Jerry
That is on my mind as well, especially since I can think of a few good theistic philosophers off the top of my head.
[/quote]
We know we subjectively call things “right” and “wrong”. Does these terms also have a reality outside of our own subjective minds?
We know that we percieve what seems to be a reality outside our minds. Can we know that this “reality” exist ourside our mind, or could there be another explanation?
Ah, that’s the philosophical question of the ages, isn’t it? And one possible answer may potentially lead us to seek theological explanations for reality. And maybe, if we’re honest (and thorough) seekers, we ought to at least look in that direction. Rationally, critically, logically…using the tools of the philosopher. The theological road is one we are able to travel down taking our philosophical capabilities along with us.
That’s ridiculous. " assumption that there is an absence of any theological implications"?
If honest critical and reasonable thinking lead me to include ‘theological implications’ into my philosophy I would.
The difference is that I am not bound to an iron cast set of rules and answers which are to be accepted on blind faith, while you are, therefore you are forced into dishonest quasi-philosophy, while I am free to seek answers wherever the questions lead.
Uccisore,
In a world where most of the population is religious, a term to describe those that are not is useful.
Atheist literally translates into ‘without god’ It does not translate into ‘denial of god’
a=without
So, yes. infants ARE atheists…until the poor little buggers get brainwashed by fools like PoR and company.
However a term useful to describe people that don’t believe in god is hardly useful for describing inanimate objects.
What, specifically from what you know of me, based on my posts here, makes you say this of me?
Would it be your position, then, that the great thinkers of history, the great minds from throughout the long and storied history of philosophy - that have happened to reach, through rational and critical thinking, and embrace, theological positions - were also practicing “dishonest quasi-philosophy�
Oh, this was your answer? Okay.
Why cannot philosophy be “in the business†of answers? Are you interested in philosophy merely for the questions? Are you not seeking answers? And if not, why not? Do you think they are unattainable? And if so, how do you know this without having somewhere arrived at the conclusion as an answer? And do all theists “start with the answers� Why do you believe this? Why cannot a theist arrive at theology honestly and by starting with questions? And do no atheists start with preconceived answers? Do all atheists start with questions? And what’s the difference anyway since answers apparently are not achievable in philosophy, a discipline you claim only to be in the question business?
I’ll give you one more chance and then move on to something more worthwhile. This is getting silly.
How is it that you can claim that any philosopher “worth his salt” is an atheist?
Yeah, there’s a number of ways to phrase the issue…I’m not sure what you’re driving at, exactly.
Dr.Satan
I wasn’t trying to criticize, that’s how a lot of folks use the term, and I’m fine with it. One minor niggle, though- if infants count as atheists, then do you have any use for the term ‘agnostic’? That’s what I would call people that have never heard about God- they simply have no belief one way or the other. I reserve the term ‘atheist’ specifically for people who feel comfortable claiming that there isn’t a God.
Jerry,
As a prisoner of christ, I would not expect you to get it. I also could not care less, I have stated both my position and my reasoning.
Uccisore,
No.
You are either a theist or you are not.
I think the word agnostic lends too much credibility to the idea of deities, which in my mind rank right up there with the ideas of flying spaggetti monsters and purple people eaters.
The way you phrased it implied that we can know that “right” and “wrong” are objectively real, we just need to figure out how we know. This is not correct. I had a similar objection to your other question.
My point was to “correct” Uccisore, not to ask a question. The answer to the question is simple, btw…
If I found a logical reason to believe in God and his book, and he did actually exist, then the only thing “limiting” my philosophy would be the truth. So yes, you are correct. However, when honestly searching for the truth one has to take nothing as a given. If you start with a theological position, you are limited from the beginning—and very unlikely to find the real truth.
Would you be willing to give up your faith to search for the truth? Unlikely. And that’s why most religious people will never see reality for what it is.
This is interesting because I think this highlights the problems I am having here. Why is it a given (especially ironic for those of you who claim to hold no starting points) that a person who believes in God, a person who studies theology, a person who attempts to know something of God perhaps through religious ritual and tradition and fellowship, must have necessarily started from a theological position? Must have necessarily limited himself “from the beginning”? Arrived at faith before searching for truth?
From where do these assumptions come?
Look at the assumptions above that Dr. Satanical has made, for example. If we’re going to search for truth, and we’re going to have no preconceived ideas, then why are we arguing with Jerry based on the assumptions that have been made here about him?
Why is our starting point one that proclaims that anybody seriously engaged in philosophy can automatically not be also seriously engaged in theology?
I know many Christians, I used to be one myself. As far as I can tell not a single one of them has done, or would be willing to do, what I suggest to find the truth (I have challenged them, and they are afraid to permanently loose their faith and go to Hell if they do). To be fair, not many atheists will ever do it either—we live in a world of sheep.
Sorry, I sometimes make assumptions purely out of probability. Am I wrong in my assumptions of you? Only you can clear that up.
Just let me know: Did you start your search for the truth with no preconceived notions? If not, would you be willing to start doing it right now?
Until then my assumptions are the best I have, and I thought I’d let you know what they are.
That’s not my opinion. If someone could give a logical explanation for their theological beliefs, then I would have no problems with it. Also, the fact that someone is limited in one area, does not automatically mean they can’t contribute valuable things in other areas of philosophy.
Personally I am not of the opinion that that’s even completely possible. And anybody who’s honest with himself would agree. The best we can do is attempt to keep an open mind, but even then one huge preconceived notion that we have is that our idea that our mind is open is, in fact, an accurate idea.
Of course it's correct, or at least, there's nothing wrong with it. If we're talking about how one might enter into a philosophical investigation, that seems like a perfectly fine place to start. Perhaps the person doing the investigation [i]does know [/i]that there is such a thing as right and wrong? (Or rather, they feel certain, if you think truth is a condition of knowing). You seem to be saying that a person is obligated to enter into philosophy as a skeptic- my point is that people who do so are unlikely to move very far from that.
For the record, I believe that 'right' and 'wrong' are kinds of values that are objectively there, but that wht specifically we label as right or wrong is almost, if not always, subjective.
I think I see your point, of course you have to start where you are. But real philosophy can not start before you have broken down your illusions/abstractions—that is, understood them for what they are.
They definately should, or else they will be blinded by what they already “know” to be true.
They are unlikely to ever view anything (beside their own perceptions) as definite truths, because they understand that they can never know. What they are likely to find is that some beliefs are more rational/probable than others, and then base their philosophy upon that, rather than some absolute truth from “above”.
All I’ve ever seen of “right” and “wrong” has been subjective labels. Where is the evidence that makes their objective reality a probability?
Deciding that one's most taken-for-granted truths are illusion and abstraction (skepticism) doesn't sound like a starting point at all to me, it sounds like something that should be arrived at after careful examination. I would agree that "everything you know is wrong" seems to be a common place to begin with philosophy, maybe it's that attitude that I'm criticizing.
The only thing you can know is your perceptions. Not what they are of, only the perceptions themselves. To understand this is the open mind. From there you have to start using logic and reason, which are tools you can never know to be accurate. However, experience shows that these are the most useful tools we have, and therefore the tools most appropriate for philosophy (and I would say, the only tools appropriate).
I’m afraid the open mind is a difficult state to attain for a religious person, and most other people for that matter. The reason is that you can’t just throw away everything you believe in—it’s impossible, because for you the beliefs are real. Before you can start doing real philosophy, you have to break down everything you hold to be absolute truth. If you seriously question your theistic beliefs from the position that they could well be false, you may soon start to question even their probability.
What’s the use of philosophy if you already know the truth? Use it to argue your beliefs so that others may come to them also? The problem is that there are so many different beliefs in the world, that you have to consider that what you “know” may well be wrong—what are the chances of your exact conditioning being the “correct” one?
You should not start with “all I know is wrong”, you should start with “all I know may well be wrong”. Then you start questioning what you can know, and what you can only infer. When you have found this answer, you can finally start doing what I would call real philosophy.
The answer I have found is that I can only know my own perceptions, and that everything else is at best informed guesses. Do you agree with this?
There's plenty to examine in philosophy beyond such rudimentary truths as "There is a material world" and "some actions are wrong". I don't see how that could be argued.
About those matters in which there are 'so many different beliefs' in the world, I certainly agree with you. Those are not the matters we've brought up so far, though. That there is such a thing as right and wrong, that there is such a thing as outside reality, these are beliefs held by everyone that doesn't go through a rigorous process of denial and philosophy to rid themselves of them. They are part of our [i]constitution[/i], Reid would say. They don't at all resemble beliefs about a religion or a political ideal.
The problem is, doubting implies a hidden conclusion. For example, take perception of an outside world. Now, I’m not saying that it can’t be doubted. I’m saying that to doubt it as a matter of course implies that it is doubtable, which isn’t something that should happen without argument.
In effect, the skeptic says “Yes, I realize that everyone everwhere believes in external reality, and no doubt we always will. I realize that it is impossible to function without this belief, and that even I can only doubt it when I’m concentrating very hard- when I’m thinking of anything but philosophy, it comes back in full force. So, granting all of that, [i]why ELSE should I believe it to be true?[/i]” The hidden assumption is that all of the above isn’t sufficient for some reason, and ought to be disregarded.
EDIT: Your final question. I believe that our perceptions are those things we can know most certainly. I believe that with everything else, it is possible for the skeptic to devise a scenario in which we are fooled or tricked or mistaken. I don’t think I would tie the word ‘knowledge’ to this impossible standard, though, and I don’t think the skeptic offers much that should give pause.
