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.
A religion is a particular philosophy from a particular ontological construct (metaphysical construct) being put into social practice. Every ontology is a conceptual model of reality based upon someone’s conjecture. Modern “physics” (formerly known as “natural philosophy”) is no different. In each era and in each social region, one particular ontological construct gains more dominant belief as “The Truth” than others, hence separate religions.
Science became the most recent means to establish firm belief and built a particular ontological construct that is considered “The Truth” in this era and region. Despite empirical success, its ontology has been proven to be less than perfect (aka “not truth”). But that hasn’t stopped Science from becoming the latest religion with all of the same trappings; dogma, ostracizing, blessings, condemnations, garbs, prophets, worshipful followers, priests, preachers, pastures, evangelists, churches, temples,… Science is merely the religion of “technology” (hence all of the math) with the names changed so as to help in the effort for wealthy men to become gods … that never ending wet dream that perverts everything Man ever does.
“Metaphysics” merely refers to the principles behind the physics. There is nothing magical about it but in the past, before the method of science, metaphysics was cursed with an enormity of speculative and “superstitious” ontology. Names of conceptual entities were freely invented so as to fill the gaps of ignorance (exactly like modern day quantum physics, fairy-tale physics). And thus a great many people today have a loathing attached to the word “metaphysics”. In reality, every theory in science is metaphysics. But they don’t dare call it that.
Theism is the use of theory, although the word is used more specifically to target prior religions that involved a supreme “god” - a “Grand Unified Theory” for everything. The atheist arguing against a “God” is actually arguing against Science as well, merely ignorant of it due to the change in names. The religion of Science demands that other religions be seen as entirely bad, evil, and wrong while itself is promoted as the new Truth and savior of Mankind via the new sword called “technology” (“Worship no god before ME”). Anyone speaking against technology is black-marked as “extremist” (aka “devil”) and if in any way a potential threat, a “terrorist” (aka “demon”).
Only the names have changed. The people are the same power lusting maniacs as always, using the exact same methods as always other than better ensuring their success via the weapon known as the “scientific method”.
It has always been:
- Metaphysics (ontological construct)
- Philosophy (a recommended manner of thinking and behaving)
- Religion (a required way of thinking and behaving)
And always driven by power lust and jealousy:
“Nothing new under the Sun” … except for the tic of the tech and the tech of the tic.
jerkey - I’m not going to argue about your reading comprehension abilities, but thanks for weighing in.
matty - I am very much claiming that metaphysics corrupts everything it touches. I did mention in an earlier post that religion is also politics. None of the ways in which I would slander either religion nor metaphysics is exhaustive by itself. As I said, I could complain about either all day. However, religion is by no means entirely objectionable.
You are slightly off-topic, Fausty.
Again:
It’s also true for atheists. The drive behind most atheism is the fear of someone other than yourself as judge over your actions. Atheism vs religion, that battle is always gonna go down to morality wars. Atheism morals will always be dictated by the majority or the powerful, whilst religious nuts will base it of their god(s).
Army - snappy comeback.
Yes, forbid anybody from questioning the religious fairy tales of others. 
The cosmic universe has always existed in some form or another.
If anything the big bang theory was created to satisfy a religious public consumption.
Off-topic again.
Do you know the Lord and Mephistopheles? 
Translation:
Reference: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=190138&p=2600387#p2600385 .
Source: Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust, Prolog im Himmel (Prologue in Heaven).
Another one:
Translation:
Source: Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust, Prolog im Himmel (Prologue in Heaven).
[tab][/tab]
Dude you got your quotes wrong
Eh I only see my own morals. I criticize even the law, so you can’t say atheists have to rely on powerful leadership or majority. Morals aren’t dictated for intelligent people, they’re dictated for fools. In general.
True power is knowledge, so even if atheism did rely on a powerful leader then they would have to be knowledgeable. But I don’t anyways, this is what I call spiritual atheism. What other atheists and religious dislike, but it’s the most powerful concept between the three.
Science describes the world, but gives no value to it.
So it’s all good and well to say that science advances civilizations as far as far as progress in medicine, technology, etc. goes.
But that leaves out the entire sphere of values, for which humans beings and far more importantly, human civilizations cannot thrive. And that is where both philosophy and religion come into play. And don’t say “but atheists have values too” because of course they do/can. That’s not the point. The point is that science fundamentally is incapable of providing values. And without values, we are nothing but highly sophisticated apes playing around with dangerous toys and developing more of them for the sole sake of playing around with and developing more dangerous toys.
As Nietzsche predicted accurately, we are a civilization struggling mightily with meaning, purpose, and valuations, in the absence of our supreme value giver (God), and with only Science (which is incapable of creating values) to take its place. And this lack of a value centre has played a mighty, mighty role in the terrors that played themselves out in the 20th century and continue to play themselves out today.
Of course, the answer isn’t to go back to believing in mythological creatures, and/or to deny the value of science as a tool of description. But creating values is no easy task. And that, again, is where religion, spiritually, ethics, and other disciplines come in. A world in which everyone belongs to the church of Scientism is horrifying beyond comprehension. It will (and does) make the reign of the catholic church look like child’s play.
Religion doesn’t need to be destroyed. It needs to be yet again reformed to compliment a post-modern civilization.
Already explained this point before. Philosophy is what is needed, one can do philosophy without being restricted to religion though.
Faust wrote
Why do you feel that way, Faust? Based on what conclusions?
Not even an impersonal god? Not even the god who is completely NOT the god of the Jews and the christians?
When you say god, what is it that you mean?
I think that sometimes atheists feel the need to argue their view that there is no god simply because they are still not convinced. That moment of argument also lies within their self. Their atheism is based more on a denial to “believe”, more on emotions that any god could possibly allow what happens in the universe. Maybe atheism is based more on a lack of understanding and wishful thinking. I’m not saying that yours is.
If god cannot be the almighty and powerful daddy in the sky god simply disappears. Which is a good thing. That just means that someone has come to some kind of a more real realization.
But if you could possibly say that god, well, we won’t say, has existence, that’s our word - if you could give just one word really important word to define what you think/feel/imagine/intuit that Something (for lack of a better word) is - what word would you use.
I’m agnostic. I couldn’t be an atheist but then that’s just based on my observation of the universe and the way in which it works. Humans aside, where did it come from, aside from the scientific explanation?
How did it all come to be? How can any philosopher seeking truth state that there is for certain nothing which preceded EVERYTHING?
What is the problem? Language, a lack of understanding. Oh, yes it is certainly that. What do we do when we have a lack of understanding and knowledge? Deny? or do we try to stretch our necks out to see possibilities though we have no idea what those possibilities are.
We haven’t a clue but do we deny? How much fun is that when engaging in mystery?
I think perhaps that atheism is just another word for sweeping everything under the carpet. No?
I see no evidence of any type of god.
I don’t think I need to argue for that view at all. Of course it’s a denial to believe. I deny belief in all sorts of things. So do you. So what?
This is sloppy verbiage. To say that I have to come to a more real realization assumes that there is something more real to realize. That something is “nothing”. There is no reason to describe something that you don’t think exists. I can put this another way, though. All those people who think some kind of god exists? I disagree with them. It’s not really about a non-existent god at all - it’s about people. people who think a god exists. I disagree with those people.
I don’t know. I don’t even know if it makes sense to ask the question. Why would the world have to come from something? Wouldn’t that just be another version of the world? Now, the physical universe we know something about - that may have come from conditions that we cannot conceive of. So you could say that those conditions precede the universe as we know it. That does not imply a god.
I am not seeking truth. I do seek understanding. But please reread your last sentence and try to make sense of it. I cannot. If it’s everything, then nothing could precede it.
Why do we have to do anything when we have a lack of understanding and knowledge? Have a banana and enjoy life.
You may pass the time as you wish. It is no concern of mine, generally.
No.
Yep.