Does that mean that it’s philosophically unproductive to discuss the reasons why it’s not possible to answer those questions in a satisfactory way? I’m intrigued, too, by what makes an answer philosophically satisfactory, but that’s probably a whole new thread, and likely one you’ve already started here before.
I get the sense that your radical atheism in this sense is of a piece with your opposition to metaphysics more broadly. That may be a rather trivial observation, perhaps, but for me it raises interesting questions. If I find the idea of God unnecessary and unhelpful then that probably applies to everything that could be called a first principle.
Fear, direction, security, absolutes, positive. , etc , etc. I don’t see any one answer. There is too many beliefs within beliefs. Some are fanatic just as atheists can be and some are pretty damned laid back just as atheists can be. Then you get the middles of both. One answer does not fit all.
matty - it means that no matter how much atheist propaganda I read, and it’s been a lot, it never goes anywhere. I don’t think my atheism is radical at all. It pretty much boils down to this - I don’t think there is a god. Any god, anywhere. But I think what you say is correct, if I get you right. I think that metaphysics is error, is born of error and leads to error. Theism is just a particular case of metaphysics.
Religion is politics. Politics is necessary. But it’s not philosophy. Fighting over whether or not there is a god is almost always (I’ll add that qualifier, sure) politics. It’s just not philosophy. Or usually very interesting.
It’s funny - I now work for a politician. maybe I came back here to purge all the politics. I don’t hate it, but I think politics can cloud your mind.
James - Take “being”, for instance. Waste of time. As soon as you contemplate it, you lapse into error. What is “being”? It’s nothing. No investigation into “being” has ever, so far as I know, born fruit. You’d do better to contemplate your navel. At least your navel exists.
Aren’t all endeavors fruitless until someone finally succeeds? How many times did Edison have to try?
And on that particular issue, I found it fruitful to realize that “to be” or “to exist” means to have affect. If any proposed entity is certain to have absolutely no affect, then it certainly doesn’t exist. And that realization leads to some very serious after thoughts in every field of endeavor; Science, Religion, Philosophy, Art, Language,… And from that thought I created “Affectance Ontology” (an ontology based upon the necessary behavior of affectance and covering literally all fields of study - even military). So I couldn’t call it a “waste”.
The only problem is that there isn’t one.
At least not a visible interactive one.
It’s not like all atheists hate God.
It’s that they have to live without it.
See, it’s like making a burger at A&W,
but using oats and carrots and crap for the meat patty.
It tastes wrong. There is no meat.
So from there, we can be called an aemeatist.
We see and taste no meat, therefor dont believe it is a meaty burger.
Other people though, they feel they have to call it meat.
And they dont even call it meat, they call it god beef or something.
Oxygenism is a lot more substantial.
We breath the air. Therefor the air exists.
I’d certainly agree with that, the likes of Dawkins just seem shrill and as moralistic as any preacher. That’s the way with propaganda.
Perhaps the choice of word wasn’t ideal, it came more from your statement about being as atheist as it’s possible to be. It sort of is radical in that it is striped down, though. It certainly wasn’t meant as a pejorative description.
I’m still not clear whether you think this is something that needs to be addressed, philosophically, or just assumed. It seems (note caveat) important to you to address these types of errors, but I don’t know whether it’s important to you whether anyone agrees or not.
I think it can be entertaining, but obviously not philosophical for that. I feel like there’s a way in which that issue can be used to demonstrate philosophical and non-philosophical ways of thinking, but I guess you’d say there are much better ways of doing that.
As for the point about politics, do you mean that religion is about taking sides?
Being is a question of language, though, isn’t it? It’s important for how we talk about things.
I am not saying that philosophy is science, although it partly is of course (duh!), but I am saying that “philosophy without metaphysics is like science without physics”. For this comparison it is absolutely irrelevant whether philosophy is science or not.
I disagree, Army. The Arts without Abstract Expressionism would still be The Arts. And in the main, better for it. Comedy would still be comedy without Tim Allen. And it would certainly be funnier.
matty - That religion is a particular case of metaphysics - it’s just obvious at first glance, is it not? Does anyone indeed disagree? I do not think this is even a little bit controversial. Perhaps I’m wrong.
Metaphysics is a study in reference to the beyond, the beyond of nature.
Religion is practices and dogma in reference to higher powers. There may be a perceived overlap, as when
the higher powers are not understood or perceived to be co-incidental to nature, but generally they are distinguished by the later’s subscription to reliance,
whereas the former only ascribe to the study beyond
nature, including conscious, human endeavors and thoughts.
Although early metaphysics did not concern itself with religion, the broader philosophy, did, as can be seen with the preoccupation with the pagan gods.
Metaphysical questions relating to ontic issues such as universals, and causation, did indirectly influence the anthropomorphic behavior of those gods, but that just about sums up the relationship.
Only much later did philosophy of religion become more central to philosophic thought, especially after Kant sealed up metaphysics, inviting religion to fill the void.
Faust, You are not wrong, only your concepts are unwarranted stretched toward and through an impassible derivation of the sameness of religion and metaphysics.
Faust, I think you were on much stronger terms when you said that theism is metaphysics. Unless you’re claiming that any metaphysical elements are fatally corrupting to everything they touch then I’d say there is more to religion than that - ethical and social features that are still of value to us.
