Back for a Limited Time.

[Uccisore]

@Ned Flanders

@Uccisore

If anybody has any questions, I’m here for a while. If you don’t know why you’d want to ask me questions, ask around.

Glad to hear that your doing well. Hope grad school works out for you. You’ll make a great lecturer one day. You’ve got the cranium for it.

I’ve given a few lectures and presentations already at some regional conferences. People tell me they went better than I feel like they went at the time. Here’s hoping your right, that’s what I’m most looking forward to.

I rarely check-in here any more myself. I’ve been really busy with NIH grants and other obligations for the last year or so. My lab has expanded and I don’t have as much time to care about Bob’s heresy, or talk with every fresh-faced atheist who just decided that the church is evil and that they are the new ordained one man anti-christian army.

Yeap. That’s about how school has me. Dealing with philosophy all the time makes it less appealing to take it as a recreation. And really, Bob doesn’t need dealing with. Heretics and rabid atheists belong on internet message boards, don’t they? As far as I’m concerned, everything is right as rain in that regard.

Plus, when I do check-in here, I just don’t see much worth commenting on anymore. Maybe it’s just me, but it’s mostly nonsense that I can’t work up the enthusiasm to care about.

Yeah, I’m starting to get that feeling. I was all excited about being back, and…it’s pretty worn out. I think ‘internet philosophy’ is starting to become a completely seperate, completely pathetic thing of it’s own that will estrange the serious. Every once in a while I meet somebody in one of my classes, and it’s painfully clear they are ‘from the internet’. It’s especially poignant when you see some of the bad arguments we’re familiar with coming from flesh-and-blood lips.

Anyway! Glad that you checked-in again, snake-boy!

Thanks.

[Bob]

@Uccisore

@Bob

But what about the less prominent carriers of the word, the unknown prophets and martyrs who have died in prison or been executed - were they proud? Did they see virtue in themselves?

I dunno, are you comparing yourself to them, too in your humility? Really, what are you darkening my doorstep for just now?

I am quite aware of how unimportant I am, and I know that you will always side-step me, like someone sat on the floor, so perhaps I “darken your doorstep” just to remind you that we are still here, still actually coming to terms with life, death, illness, sadness, loss and lack of hope, when you are studying at leisure.

Sometimes things aren’t about comparisons, but about approaching real circumstances and finding answers … as imperfect as that may be.

Shalom

[Ingenium]

@Ucci

Yeah, I’m starting to get that feeling. I was all excited about being back, and…it’s pretty worn out. I think ‘internet philosophy’ is starting to become a completely seperate, completely pathetic thing of it’s own that will estrange the serious. Every once in a while I meet somebody in one of my classes, and it’s painfully clear they are ‘from the internet’. It’s especially poignant when you see some of the bad arguments we’re familiar with coming from flesh-and-blood lips.

I had a similar experience when I took classes and it became painfully clear when somebody was ‘from the churches’. Didn’t happen often, though, thank Poseidon.

Work hard in your classes, Ucci! Who knows, maybe your college experience will humble you more than your God experience has. I like the idea of you sitting in a class where the stink of reason and rationality wafts all around you, permeating your thin membranes. We’ll get you over to our side yet, it’s just a matter of time, heh heh.

It stands to reason that academic study of any subject is going to be superior to discussions on that subject found on public Internet sites, because pursuing it through a college course requires one to meet at least the minimum standard of learning the facts and background, thinking critically and supporting one’s arguments well enough to convince an instructor and get a passing grade. I don’t know how dumbed down it is in academia these days, but I’d like to think there are still plenty of institutions and academic programs where the expectations remain fairly high. Also, you can expect that your peers in a class have completed the pre-requisite courses and, for the most part, aren’t poorly-informed 17-year-old, snot-nosed boys with both ten seconds’ worth of self-reflection on their life experience and an Internet connection.

None of which is to say that you can’t find pretty decent philosophical discussion and debate on the Internet. It’s just that there’s the time-consuming necessity to sort the wheat from the chaff, find the right sites. Who’s got that much time? I tend to gravitate toward sites where science and reason happily co-habit. That’s because my experience has led me to conclude that the ‘quality’ problem almost certainly arises once belief in the supernatural gets spilled into the mix.

OH, AND MY QUESTION IS: Have you debated your reasons for religious belief with your fellow students in any of your philo classes? Given all that evidence you were so kind to share with us over the years? How’d it go? (Okay, technically that’s three, I just couldn’t help myself, since it seems you’re going away so soon.)

[Uccisore]

@Ingenium

I had a similar experience when I took classes and it became painfully clear when somebody was ‘from the churches’. Didn’t happen often, though, thank Poseidon.

Work hard in your classes, Ucci! Who knows, maybe your college experience will humble you more than your God experience has. I like the idea of you sitting in a class where the stink of reason and rationality wafts all around you, permeating your thin membranes. We’ll get you over to our side yet, it’s just a matter of time, heh heh.

Not so far. Maybe I’m just in a terrible school, but so far the general impression is that I’ve been working too hard. I.E., see my ‘materialism is dead’ thread. These forums prepared me for a battle that really isn’t going on, except down on the pop-levels like with Dawkins and stuff.

It stands to reason that academic study of any subject is going to be superior to discussions on that subject found on public Internet sites, because pursuing it through a college course requires one to meet at least the minimum standard of learning the facts and background, thinking critically and supporting one’s arguments well enough to convince an instructor and get a passing grade.

Sure. But the internet has become such a dominant research tool that the edges are getting blurred. The other thing too, is that you meet people who get to college thinking they already know what’s what because of what they did on the internet (ahem)…and I’m not convinced that what it takes to get a good grade is enough to shake them of that.

OH, AND MY QUESTION IS: Have you debated your reasons for religious belief with your fellow students in any of your philo classes?

Yes-and-no. We’ve debated plenty of fringe issues like dualism, free will, morality, &c for which my religious belief comes up indirectly, but we haven’t actually had any knock down debates about the existence of God or so on in class. Outside of class, I’ve had a few with students- agnosticism seems to be more popular than atheism amidst the philosophy majors just now. I’ve seen a lot more atheism among poli-sci and computer-sci majors that are friends of mine, but they aren’t any better equipped to discuss the matter than the snot-nosed 17-year-olds you mentioned here, so it generally doesn’t happen.
About the closest you’d find is a paper I wrote defending substance dualism. I posted it on here last year when I wrote it. I won something called the Levinson Award for it (local thing), then went on to present it at the Northern New England Philosophy Association Conference, or something like that. Won an award there for best undergraduate presentation, though it’s pretty obvious to me I didn’t deserve it- there was this little Japanese girl from Oxford who…I’m rambling.
Anyway, yeah, I haven’t held back on presenting my ideas whenever it’s appropriate, and they’ve been generally well recieved.
I’m actually taking a class on philosophy of religion next semester, so hopefully that’ll give me more of a chance to explore that kind of stuff more directly.

[Rouzbeh]

I was inclined to swear at you in my response after I’d read your post. I now have time and the patience not to so here’s my response.

We do have a good if not full understanding of how the world functions.

@Uccisore

So you’re conceding ‘not full’? I don’t really see how your assertion gets off the ground without full human understanding. Accepting things that seem to contradict what we know becomes a lot less problematic when we admit we don’t know it all. Especially when they aren’t actually contradictions in the formal sense, which miracles never are, as far as I’m aware.

I don’t think it’s possible to ever have full knowledge of anything. Polymaths lived who knew ‘everything’ by the age of 20, now professors spend their entire lives studying the effects of bubbles in diesel. To borrow from Isaac Asimov, knowledge is like a fractal. We can never know everything. It doesn’t mean we can’t issue definite statements. Energy doesn’t get created. It doesn’t. Energy doesn’t get destroyed. These are laws of the universe. They’re grounded in thermodynamics. Your miracles, and divine intervention through supernatural events, violate those laws. The gurus violate those laws, as Jesus turning water to wine would have. Based on those laws, I can say that supernatural events, like perpetual motion machines and blood-crying statues, don’t exist. If you’d read the remainder of that article, you’d also read about the physical explanation for a lot of other ‘supernatural’ or ‘mind based’ events. Based on the large number of cronies whose tricks are exposed, I can say that those who claim otherwise are also likely to be fake since they operate in the same world and under the same laws. I can also infer that since miracle performers tend to prosper where literacy is low, like in India’s villages, or and since all religions for the past 1000-5000 years have prospered under these conditions, they’re also likely to have been false. If the story of the blind man that Jesus healed is of any relevance, where he said it wasn’t him but the blind man himself who had healed his eyes, it could be said that Jesus didn’t perform miracles so much as people believed what they wanted to. The seeming contradiction between believing in Jesus and not believing in miracles would then be removed.

You should quit studying philosophy if you want to know how much more.

@Uccisore

Understand that what’s happened here so far is that you’ve confronted me with what I consider to be hideously bad arguments, which you’re already starting to back away from because I raised my cyber eyebrow. With that in mind, you’ve just told me that I need to stop studying philosophy if I want a fuller understanding of the world. Do you understand that you’re making it very, very hard NOT to be condescending? But I shall try.

I’m not sure how I backed out but anyways, you’re studying philosophy. You can’t honestly think you know anything about how the world functions, law, finance, mechanical/civil/electrical/computer/chemical/aeronautical engineering, psychology, biology, physics, medicine, through only a philosophy degree can you?! What can you do with a debate about god’s existence? Or duality? Or morality? You can go to conferences, or stay in academia, but so can everyone else.

There’s no rational basis for why one is more believable than the other

@Uccisore

I think the above is demonstrably absurd. If you have claim A that is attested by a reliable source, and claim B that is attested by an unreliable source, then claim A is more believable than claim B. If you personally witness event A, and only hear about event B second hand, then event A is more believable than event B.
In order for your claim above to be true, you’d have to be saying that every human being stands in the same witness relationship to every alleged miracle, and that every alleged miracle is attested-to by equally (un)reliable sources. Is that your position, or am I getting you wrong?

I don’t think the apostles are reliable. You think those who wrote their respective part of the bible, and those who subsequently packaged it into the bible, are reliable. There’s popular examples of biblical contradictions between the apostles with respect to political events. The census by Rome being one. Those who witness miracles tend to be poor and illiterate, and they have no way of verifying a miracle unless someone puts in the time to prove that it wasn’t one. Hence why miracles are miracles only with a poor confidence level.

@Uccisore

I suppose in the case of a healing, it would be a situation in which a disease was said to be healed, and it was actually healed. And before you ask, no, I’m not going to go hunting all over the internet to post you a link that you can dismiss as quickly as I dismissed yours. We both know there’s cases of healing miracles that turned out to be frauds or mistakes, and others for which their remain ‘no medical explanation’.

I know of personal experiences with people who think they’ve been healed. My point here was that I don’t think they were healed. Everyone knows of placebos. I can only imagine that intense belief might reinforce the effect. The issue is that miracles can’t simply be taken as miracles as by default. Just because it’s unexplained, doesn’t mean it’s a miracle. An earthquake was not god’s will until someone decided it was the movement of tectonic plates.

[Ingenium]

About the closest you’d find is a paper I wrote defending substance dualism. I posted it on here last year when I wrote it.

Can you give a link to it?

I’m actually taking a class on philosophy of religion next semester, so hopefully that’ll give me more of a chance to explore that kind of stuff more directly.

That should be an interesting experience, an academic setting wherein (I imagine) you’ll be subjecting theological propositions to the standards of reason. We know that naturalism can’t be supernaturalism, and that reality can’t be made into unreality. So I wonder where it will go, ‘big picture’-speaking, that is. God outside of space and time, perhaps? Would like to be a fly on the wall, although I can’t imagine being able to keep that quiet during such discussions.

[Uccisore]

@Ingenium

Can you give a link to it?

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=167822

I’ve already outgrown some of the ideas there (having actually taken more classes on philosophy of mind since then), but the basics are still reflective of me.

That should be an interesting experience, an academic setting wherein (I imagine) you’ll be subjecting theological propositions to the standards of reason. We know that naturalism can’t be supernaturalism, and that reality can’t be made into unreality. So I wonder where it will go, ‘big picture’-speaking, that is. God outside of space and time, perhaps?

Dunno, the professor is a scholar of Hinduism and Ghandi specifically, so I don’t even know how much of western theistic tradition will be brought up without me injecting it.

[Arcturus_Descending]

Uccisore,

You have it wrong here. I wasn’t criticizing Christianity as a whole – I wasn’t even criticizing Christianity, just pointing to the fact of how we as human beings sometimes like to put our own responsibility for our actions onto someone else.

No, you were specifically saying that the Judeo-Christian creation myth counts as an instance of doing this. How the hell is that not a criticism of Christianity?

Hmmm, well now, you just spoke of the Judeo-Christian creation myth yourself. Up to this point, I wasn’t actually sure if you believed in evolution as beginning in the garden of eden or 15 billion years ago… that I can recall anyway. Lol.

Actually it was inferred that I was doing both! As far as the garden of eden myth goes, there are people out there who hold as truth that the fall of man is as a result of adam and eve eating this apple. And anyway, that myth is from the O.T… Is there anything that Jesus or Christianity is supposed to have revealed that points to belief in that myth? It is not so much a criticism of Christianity per se but of certain people…they can be any denomination whatsoever.

Oh, right. Because putting our responsibility for our actions onto someone else isn’t a bad thing, right?

This doesn’t even make sense to me. I’ve already stated that that is something negative – something that doesn’t cause us to mature/grow/face reality. Stop twisting my thoughts around to serve whatever purpose you have in mind. It doesn’t work because I know what I think.

Do you feel that the religion that Christ founded and that some people profess to and practice today is the same that Christ for the very most part, had in mind? Do you?

Yes.

Okay, I will grant you this. I know that there are a great, great number of good practicing Christians who try to live up to the teachings of Christ. On the other hand, I was more thinking in line with those who do not.

What I meant above is that if Christ truly was loving and compassionate, and taught the same, then we are not meant to feel and to impose on ourselves such shame and guilt – sometimes shame and guilt deprive us of seeing what we have done and our responsibility, but we are to just see what we are doing to ourselves and to others, to take responsibility for that and to do no harm, to try to do no harm, even to do no harm to ourselves!

So, when Christians DO feel shame and guilt for their actions, then we are going against the words of Christ who taught compassion and forgiveness, and when we DON’T feel shame and guilt for our actions, it’s because we’re abdicating responsibility to Adam and Eve. I see.

It makes sense at least to me that if Christ preached love and compassion for all people, then he also included each individual within that. In other words, that we ought to have the same love and compassion towards ourselves when we feel we have sinned. I do understand that guilt and shame can lead us to have knowledge of our having sinned, but here I was talking about wallowing in that guilt and shame. If one believes in Christ, than one ought to believe in the words of Christ and trust that forgiveness also includes him- or her own self, not just others.

And let’s get real here – I don’t hold that anytime someone abdicates guilt and/or responsibility for their own actions (when they are obviously responsible) that they hold adam and eve responsible. I wasn’t saying that. What I meant was that we are all responsible for own actions…even if somehow we think/feel they are a result of what someone has done before. We do have free choice.

Maybe this- maybe somethings guilt is good, and sometimes guilt is bad. Maybe sometimes people act shitty, and sometimes people act great, and none of it is some amazing insight into the nature of Christian theology, hmm?

OH, HOW I DO GO ALONG WITH THAT. LET ME SHAKE YOUR HAND!!!

And yes, growing is good and restrictions under certain circumstances are not good.

Alright then, now that I choked that out of you, we can agree that “Do you find it a negative thing to not want to box a God in” is a loaded question. Whether or not Christians ‘box God in’ is the relevant question, you’re just assuming the conclusion that characterizes the faith the way you want to characterize it, and giving me a trapped ‘yes or no’ option. “Do you still beat your dog?”

I reject your characterization in the first place that Christianity is about putting God in a box, and that abandoning Christianity has anything to do with letting one’s conception of God grow.

Let’s not get violent here, okay? Lol…Okay, I will broaden that a bit. It is an individual thing, insofar as people boxing a god in, it is not a religious or spiritual thing. It is simply part of a person’s paradigm or the way in which they look at god or the universe.

As far as the restrictions of how limited or not we see or visualize god, I personally feel that it can and does disallow one from seeing a much larger picture of god. I could be wrong but it is just my way of seeing/thinking, at least for now. But, on the other side of that, so what? I can also look at it this way - “What’s the big deal?” Any way that one intuits or believes in god – if it makes that person happy and causes them to be a better person for it/have a better life for thinking that way, what does it matter?

…But I will let sleeping dogs lie…until they wake themselves up. Lol. I thought that was funny. Lol.

Man, are you picky. Well, yes you are right though - to qualify. I am speaking about life-giving and beautiful creativity. And maybe you’re not being so picky – like me, perhaps, not to assume, but just perhaps, you just want to paint a larger clearer picture.

Um, no. You were NOT talking about ‘life-giving and beautiful creativity’, you were talking about me making shit up about who the serpent in the Garden of Eden was. That’s certainly not ‘life-giving’, and whether it not it was beautiful- well, maybe I’m an accidental poet, but I sure didn’t intend it that way.

Depending on one’s point of view, that could be beautiful creativity. DO NOT take away my point of view. If you were to eventually write a book from that so-called shit as you refer to it, how do you know that book wouldn’t be life giving to some people. Science fiction is great – to me. After all, hasn’t the adam and eve in the garden of eden myth been life giving to millions of people – what’s wrong with putting a different slant to it? Lol.

So anyway, yeah- whether or not God wants us to be creative depends on what we’re creating and why. Pretty sure being ‘creative’ about His teachings wouldn’t qualify.

I don’t necessarily intuit that God wants anything from us – except perhaps to be as we are becoming if even involved enough with us to want that. I know you’re going to shoot that down. Go ahead, SHOOT AWAY!!!
……

believing* because some trusted authority told them so….still seems like assuming to me…

Oh. Well, it isn’t. Look up what the word ‘assume’ means, and contrast it with believing something because you were taught it by a trusted authority, and you’ll see they’re completely different.

Okay, I looked it up.
[b]Assume:

*to take for granted or without proof; suppose; postulate; posit: to assume that everyone wants peace.

*to take upon oneself; undertake: to assume an obligation.

*to take on (a particular character, quality, mode of life, etc.); adopt: He assumed the style of an aggressive go-getter.

to take on; be invested or endowed with: The situation assumed a threatening character.

Archaic. to take into relation or association; adopt. [/b]

[b]Believe:

*to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.

*to have confidence in the assertions of (a person).

*to suppose or assume; understand (usually fol. by a noun clause): I believe that he has left town.[/b]

Okay, I am not actually sure how much distinction I see here. I think it would perhaps depend on the individual who is assuming or believing. Believing something that is taught by a trusted individual can still be assuming UNLESS that person has done their homework, and actually has a lot of knowledge and has investigated it. Unless they have thought it out scientifically and come to the same conclusions and then believe that authority. Otherwise to me it is just assuming which much belief is.

Of course. There’s only 24 hours in a day, the vast majority of the things I believe (outside of direct observation), I believe because I heard somebody say it (or read it) and decided to believe them. I think rigorously about philosophy and religion because that’s the area I chose to study. When I hear something about the history of Uruguay or or the mineral composition of the Moon, I just sort of believe if it it’s coming from a trusted source.

In your case, I may give you the benefit of the doubt as you do think rigorously. Anyway, I sort of have a problem with the word belief. Maybe if you use the word affirm maybe… I can go along with you.

Maybe you do things differently, but then again, YOU aren’t even sure if you’re Napoleon or not, so your way of doing things doesn’t recommend itself very well.

I won’t even qualify what to you ought to have been a joke (the Bonaparte thing) and maybe I ought NOT to have given you the benefit of the doubt above. Lol. At the same time, who truly knows - perhaps one of us is the next incarnation of Bonaparte.

Really. Many Christians who have never heard of the Bible before, decide on first glance to believe everything it says without reading it first. Really.

Yep, they would. It’s called blind faith. And I didn’t say all but many, yes.

Look at that. “Afraid” “Blind” “Comfort Zone”. Whether you mean it or not, you’re presenting Christians as retarded children who are unable to think for themselves. Now, we’ve already established that you don’t mean ALL Christians, just some…but, what we haven’t established is, why you feel the need to harp ON and ON and ON and ON and ON about this particular ‘some’, and why it is that every time you mention Christians, this is the ‘some’ you choose to mention.

I don’t think of Christians as retarded children – that is your word which you seem to like. I don’t even see that word. And again, let me just gather in all kinds of people who assume without thinking and examining, including myself, when I do it. Does that make you happy?

Seriously, you could say the above about SOME atheists, SOME Jews, SOME Muslims, SOME whatever-the-hell-you-are’s, etc. Any group at all, short of “The set of all people who don’t do that”. But what does it serve us to talk about them? If I went to an atheist forum, and asked, “Why are some atheists afraid to step out of their blind faith, their comfort zone, and really examine what Richard Dawkins is saying?”, wouldn’t the most appropriate answer be, “For the same reason that some Christians act that way”?

Yes, this is true – I can say that. And I like Richard Dawkins. Lol.

Some people, in any group, are just like. There’s nothing to be concluded from pointing out (repeatedly, and with great joy) that some people in THIS or THAT group are like that. Settled issue?

Settled issue? I don’t know. Have we covered everything at this point? Lol.

I never said that people have to have the same paradigms that I do. All I have been saying is that we ought not to assume.

And as far as what the word ‘assume’ actually means, almost nobody ever does that.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

People put varying degrees of effort into examining their beliefs depending on their interest, and what else they have going on in their lives.

I will grant you that – on a scale of 1 to 100, some way down in the left hand corner.

If you live the kind of life where you have thousands of hours to devote to reading about religion and staring at the sky thinking about stuff, then good for you…so do I. But what about the people who don’t have our same luxuries? Or what about the people who have that time, but choose to spend it doing something else, like learning how to perform surgery or play the piano or something?

So what are you saying – that life and what pertains to it ought not to be truly examined – but just only what is in one’s little corner of existence? Learning how to perform surgery or playing the piano? That can’t lead one into questioning the concept of a god and the universe – and examining that – the miracles of medicine/science and music?

Surely you can’t be saying that everybody, everywhere, needs to be a philosopher or else they aren’t allowed to believe anything because they didn’t ‘earn’ it. So…assuming you AREN’T saying that, what is there for these people to do except believe whom they consider trusted authorities- the people who DID put in the time and study that you’ve been praising as so very important?

What we can do is try to think for ourselves, don’t you think? Of course, only if they are NOT. If someone wants to believe in their trusted authorities, fine, it’s okay with me but don’t you think they can take that many steps forward and examine why they feel this way? In what ways can they take the thoughts of those people and see if they can go further with them and perhaps adapt or adopt something different, something more creative from the thoughts of those trusted people?

Hasn’t it been because of doing such things that knowledge of science and the universe has been discovered and moved forward, on and on and on. If we just rest on the laurels of who came before – then what does that mean in terms of evolution?

We all have enough time – it is those who feel they never have the time who don’t can’t find the time. If someone is interested enough – there is more than enough time within the universe…if we can even say that time exists in the universe. Lol.

[Uccisore]

Hey arcturus, the whole ‘people should think for themselves’ bit towards the end really caught my interest, so I’m skipping to that.

So what are you saying – that life and what pertains to it ought not to be truly examined – but just only what is in one’s little corner of existence? Learning how to perform surgery or playing the piano? That can’t lead one into question in the concept of a god and the universe – and examining that – the miracles of medicine/science and music?

Well, it’s just a fact that if everybody spent as much time thinking about philosophy/religion as I do, the world would fall apart because nothing would get done. So whatever standard you’re advocating, it’s got to be something less than me.
Then, you also have to consider that philosophy/religion isn’t the only issue. It’s easy to sing it’s praises here on these forums, but in other places, people are saying you need to think for yourself about politics, environmental ethics, entertainment/consumer culture, cutting edge scientific issues, some more hot-button issue of the day, art culture, sexuality, health issues, and probably a bunch of other stuff. All these fields have experts, web forums, and proponents lamenting that people don’t spend enough time thinking about their favorite issue.
I’m just saying, there’s not enough time in a day/lifetime for people to be independently minded about all of it. Not that it’s bad to think about these things, but that you CAN’T think about all of them to a sufficient degree to make some kind of progress. Add to all of this that the world needs geologists, electricians, doctors, artists, plumbers, and a bunch of other folks who’s vocations take a lifetime of dedication in order to master.

What we can do is try to think for ourselves, don’t you think?

Everybody, about everything, all the time? Or are you saying that religion is way more important to think about than the other stuff I listed, such that every single human being ought to devote a ton of time to thinking about religion to the extent that thinking about, say, politics or their health languishes?

If someone wants to believe in their trusted authorities, fine, only , it’s okay with me but don’t you think they can take that many steps forward and examine why they feel this way?

They CAN, sure. Or they could do some other thing that’s equally important.

Hasn’t it been because of doing such things that knowledge of science and the universe has been discovered and moved forward, on and on and on. If we just rest on the laurels of who came before – then what does that mean in terms of evolution?

Absolutely! By that same argument, if everybody spent all their time thinking about religion, then knowledge of science would NOT have advanced...because everybody would be too busy thinking about religion!
 If your argument is for the advancement of humanity as a whole, then it seems even more obvious to me that the ideal way to procede is for SOME people to develop some field, while the rest of us follow their lead...and develop some other field. 

We all have enough time – it is those who feel they never have the time who don’t can’t find the time. If someone is interested enough – there is more than enough time within the universe….

I think this is where I disagree. From what I can see, to get anywhere serious in even 1 field takes pretty much the complete dedication of your life, and if you think you're a hip 'independent thinker' about a bunch of different stuff at once, you're probably just ignorant or fooling yourself about all of it. 
Besides, the other side of it is that you don't inspire confidence! Nothing against you, but I have a feeling that if somebody read your posts here, they'd conclude that if they thought about religion as much as you did, all they'd have to look forward to is being even more confused than before they started.  In order to motivate somebody to explore a field, you kinda have to affirm that there's something out there to discover.

[Arcturus_Descending]

Uccisore,

So what are you saying – that life and what pertains to it ought not to be truly examined – but just only what is in one’s little corner of existence? Learning how to perform surgery or playing the piano? That can’t lead one into question in the concept of a god and the universe – and examining that – the miracles of medicine/science and music?

Well, it’s just a fact that if everybody spent as much time thinking about philosophy/religion as I do, the world would fall apart because nothing would get done. So whatever standard you’re advocating, it’s got to be something less than me.

Then, you also have to consider that philosophy/religion isn’t the only issue. It’s easy to sing it’s praises here on these forums, but in other places, people are saying you need to think for yourself about politics, environmental ethics, entertainment/consumer culture, cutting edge scientific issues, some more hot-button issue of the day, art culture, sexuality, health issues, and probably a bunch of other stuff. All these fields have experts, web forums, and proponents lamenting that people don’t spend enough time thinking about their favorite issue

Lol. I wasn’t speaking ONLY of philosophy nor religion. Yes, there are a great many different subjects and avenues that someone might become interested in and dive into them. All I was saying is that life must be, well, at least ought to be questioned and examined. Just looking up at the stars, lol, or taking a walk in nature and observing dragonflies or a bug crawling around you on the bench can begin those questions if we want to question. I was sitting in the park one day and looked up at the tree tops swaying back and forth. For some strange reason, I began to question cause and effect in a broader sense. It came to me that POSSIBLY the universe doesn’t actually flow that way but that EVERYTHING is a continuum – and ongoing motion. Nothing is disconnected or in parts. In other words, it is ALL connected as in just ONE river – instead of many, many different rivers. I know that this has all been said before in books – different ways of looking at things but somehow, just looking at those branches and the way in which they moved started those thoughts in me for the first time.

When I began to let go of my old paradigms and intuited (for myself) that the concept of a god is not perhaps the way I always viewed it, I became more interested in seeing a wider viewpoint of the universe and that is why I picked up Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene . I was almost completely ignorant of everything in that book and it so fascinated and interested me. Books also have a way of helping you think along further lines. From there, I went to The Extended Phenotype another fascinating book though tougher for me. How much of both I have retained…well, I will answer that question for myself after I’ve read them again. Anyway, this is just about pointing out how one thing leads to another and another.

I agree with you as far as what you’ve written above. Everyone will gravitate to different interests, depending on who they are and how they view the world, I guess. I personally have just decided to get a Spanish book from the library and self-teach myself. I know a few words and phrases but I want to teach myself to speak and to write the language, beginning at the beginning at first, and then going onto intermediate. I am also fascinated with black holes for some reason and plan to read up as much as I can about them. Maybe I came through one once…LOL…only kidding…before I get a comment about that. I also want to get a book on quantum physics…maybe I can find one called “Quantum Physics for Dummies”.

I’m just saying, there’s not enough time in a day/lifetime for people to be independently minded about all of it. Not that it’s bad to think about these things, but that you CAN’T think about all of them to a sufficient degree to make some kind of progress. Add to all of this that the world needs geologists, electricians, doctors, artists, plumbers, and a bunch of other folks who’s vocations take a lifetime of dedication in order to master.

No, we are not talking about thinking about all of them. We can focus on our main interests but also get a taste of some others. I am not here talking about our careers but, like you, on many things of interest and/or our hobbies basically.

Everybody, about everything, all the time? Or are you saying that religion is way more important to think about than the other stuff I listed, such that every single human being ought to devote a ton of time to thinking about religion to the extent that thinking about, say, politics or their health languishes?

I never said that religion was the most important thing to focus on or study – it certainly isn’t for me. At the same time, I think it can be interesting if I come to it from the vantage point of the writers of religion and not from the point of where I started and ended. As a study, not as a way of life. Lol. For the scholar or the priest/minister sure – and one man’s meat is another man’s poison, after all. You live for philosophy/religion obviously – you love it and it will be, I guess, part of your career or maybe I can say vocation in a way. It is your life and your main focus, but it is not every man’s.

If someone wants to believe in their trusted authorities, fine, only, it’s okay with me but don’t you think they can take that many steps forward and examine why they feel this way?

They CAN, sure. Or they could do some other thing that’s equally important.

Yes, of course. Many different pieces of that puzzle to put together before it is all seen in its entirety.

Hasn’t it been because of doing such things that knowledge of science and the universe has been discovered and moved forward, on and on and on. If we just rest on the laurels of who came before – then what does that mean in terms of evolution?

Absolutely! By that same argument, if everybody spent all their time thinking about religion, then knowledge of science would NOT have advanced…because everybody would be too busy thinking about religion!

Why do you keep bringing religion into it? This thread has been about religion but I am not focused just on that. Actually, religion is probably a topic in here that I am least into, except for maybe when I had long exchanges with alyoshka in the past, which I actually did thoroughly enjoy. I love exchanging, I live for it. If exchanging about religion helps me to get closer to the truth, or my truth or awareness about something, I am happy. Speaking of science, you can see where at times religion has a tendency to befuddle science when such restraints are put upon it not to see the larger picture – as in the world being created in 2000 years ago – because people just do not want to see the beauty and the awesomeness of where we have come from (the primorial soup) and everything that we’ve come through to get here – and for instance, at that time when it was religiously believed that our world revolved around the Earth and not the sun and scientists were persecuted for speaking their truth. I mean really, is there anything more fascinating than the universe? Well, for you philosophy, but they do a very harmonious dance, don’t they? Why does it seem so incompatible and inharmonious for some to see that we could have possibly - both - come from divine energy, and at the same time, took billions of years and many long painstaking steps to reach human evolution as it is. Can you see the beauty and the mystery in THAT?

If your argument is for the advancement of humanity as a whole, then it seems even more obvious to me that the ideal way to procede is for SOME people to develop some field, while the rest of us follow their lead…and develop some other field.

…Yes, and at the same time, have fun with many, many more, right?

I think this is where I disagree. From what I can see, to get anywhere serious in even 1 field takes pretty much the complete dedication of your life, and if you think you’re a hip ‘independent thinker’ about a bunch of different stuff at once, you’re probably just ignorant or fooling yourself about all of it.

But I agree with you here. At the same time, what I was speaking about was basically enriching our lives by delving and diving into a great many different subjects, with which I am sure you would agree with. But I won’t assume. The more we know, the more we come to see a universe as it is, or at least might be. Every bit of knowledge adds more pieces to that puzzle of the universe that we create as we go along. We never really see it as it is but as a glimmer and that’s okay. Perhaps you think I am denigrating the sacrifices and the study that people make in order to focus on their life’s work. That would be the furthest thing from the truth and I personally feel that when someone has that main focus of love on some life’s work, they are really blessed – but still, not at the exclusion of ALL AND EVERYTHING.

Besides, the other side of it is that you don’t inspire confidence!

Okay then, I suppose I will have to work on inspiring confidence. Tell me, how do you figure I ought to go about doing that? Lol. Seriously though - how?

Nothing against you, but I have a feeling that if somebody read your posts here, they’d conclude that if they thought about religion as much as you did, all they’d have to look forward to is being even more confused than before they started. In order to motivate somebody to explore a field, you kinda have to affirm that there’s something out there to discover.

LOL. You are funny, I have to hand you that – though you may not be trying to be. Perhaps if you do a little reading between my lines, you may come to realize that I, more than many people, I think that there is much, much, much, much out there to discover. I DO AFFIRM IT!!!

Don’t confuse Religion with an intuition of and sometimes intimate knowing of the Divine. They CAN be two different things!!! At the same time, they can be compatible in instances. And intuition is just as equally important and valid, to me, as is someone else’s beliefs, whether examined or unexamined. If there is the divine, perhaps one of the ways in which we have truly been created in this image and likeness is through our intuition and less than through the so-called labels that some affix to the divine in order to be comforted and in order to have some kind of an answer.

You see, some people, when they look at the blue sky or the night sky full of stars or the ocean or the mountains or the rain or the snow or feel the wind, WHATEVER, or read Dawkins, poetry, WHATEVER, okay enough already - they attribute a god with beautiful labels. Sure, so could I, if I wanted to. I have my senses. But, what all of that really does to me is to make me think, to ponder, and then to find it all so unbelievably awesome and then to intuit and to down-right know sometimes, that there IS so much more to the divine than any label/notion/concept/construct/belief could ever begin to show. This is where I live, at least for now. And i have to tell you, it’s a far far better place (Dickens) that I go to [now] than I did in the past.

And that is NOT kicking the same dead dog…or whatever. It is just seeing with different eyes.

Thanks, Uccisore

[Uccisore]

Arcturus

Lol. I wasn’t speaking ONLY of philosophy nor religion. Yes, there are a great many different subjects and avenues that someone might become interested in and dive into them. All I was saying is that life must be, well, at least ought to be questioned and examined. Just looking up at the stars, lol, or taking a walk in nature and observing dragonflies or a bug crawling around you on the bench can begin those questions if we want to question

Yeah, I guess that level of ‘examination’ just seems trivial to me, so I thought you were talking about something else. If all you meant was the kind of bullshitting about life everybody does when they’re inspired by a sunset, then…yeah, as far as I can tell everybody does that, and there’s no problem to solve. If your perspective is that there’s a select few that are doing something special when they look up at the stars that sets them apart from the common man, then I guess I just disagree.
If you mean the actual level of examination that involves things like reading books and debating seriously and becoming all scholarly, then I return to my previous argument- most people don’t have the time or ability.

No, we are not talking about thinking about all of them. We can focus on our main interests but also get a taste of some others. I am not here talking about our careers but, like you, on many things of interest and/or our hobbies basically.

Like I said, to the extent that this doesn’t take any real effort, most people do this and I’m not sure what you’re complaining about. To the extent that this takes real effort, theres other places to put our effort.
This began with the subject of questioning one’s religion, so let’s stick with that instead of letting this devolve into some ‘people should think about stuff’ conversation. If there is ANY Good at all to be had in religion, you aren’t going to get to some grand revelation about a major faith being right/wrong because you looked at a grasshopper and it ‘got you to thinking’. Every major faith (even the ones I don’t like) are far too nuanced and well-developed for some dipshit’s navel-gazing to rationally get them into or out of them. Now, that’s not to say that dipshit navel-gazing can’t make you question your faith. It’s just that in that particular case, a random act of foolishness pushed somebody in that particular direction. Random acts of foolishness don’t often push people towards devotion to a faith, because devotion to anything takes work, so obviously our random thoughts are going to trend away from that.

Why do you keep bringing religion into it?

Firstly, because I don’t like vague meandering bullshit conversations about nothing in particular. Secondly, the question of the RELIGIOUS person’s obligation to examine their beliefs is the whole reason why I said “I find this part of our conversation interesting, so I’m going to focus on it”. And thirdly, because it’s my damned thread.

[Arcturus_Descending]

Uccisore,

Secondly, the question of the RELIGIOUS person’s obligation to examine their beliefs is the whole reason why I said “I find this part of our conversation interesting, so I’m going to focus on it”.

Okay, so I’ve decided to cut through all of the above weeds and leave it at this; that is, if you care to respond.

So for some kind of a basis here, I think that we agree that it is a good thing if all religious people examine their beliefs.

What do you feel is the most important reason for doing this? For me, I would have to say that if someone actually professes that their religion/beliefs/relationship with their God is important to them, then it is logical to follow that with thinking that these things must enter into and permeate the very core of their life/existence and how they relate to the world and to the people around them. One’s religion and relationship with God, if these things are practical and meaningful, influence every aspect of their life.

The kind of relationship that we have with human beings mirrors our relationship with a God, I think, or ought to. If the two don’t appear to be compatible/harmonious, then I would have to say that that is one of the reasons to examine our beliefs. Beliefs can be responsible for creating a loving, peaceful world and they can also create a cruel tragic world. For example, to believe without thought and compassion, as it says in the Old Testament, that homosexuality is an abomination could and probably will lead those peoples to terrible acts of injustice against gay people.

When we don’t feel the necessity to examine our beliefs, then perhaps there is something there needing to be looked at. Even a couple at times needs to look at where they are at in order to strengthen the relationship.

I could write more but you might just shoot it down. I will wait for your response.

[Uccisore]

@arcturus rising

So for some kind of a basis here, I think that we agree that it is a good thing if all religious people examine their beliefs.

Provided they do it enough and honestly, yeah. I think a tiny amount of self-interested examination can make a person worse off than before they started…but maybe you’d say that kind of thing doesn’t count as examination?

What do you feel is the most important reason for doing this? For me, I would have to say that if someone actually professes that their religion/beliefs/relationship with their God is important to them, then it is logical to follow that with thinking that these things must enter into and permeate the very core of their life/existence and how they relate to the world and to the people around them. One’s religion and relationship with God, if these things are practical and meaningful, influence every aspect of their life.

Yeah, I agree with that completely. I’d add, though, that ‘thinking’ isn’t always ‘thinking critically’. That is to say, you can meet monks and priests or whatever who obviously think a whole ton about their beliefs, what they mean, how to apply them to their lives, their consequences, and all sorts of really deep stuff, but they haven’t thought much about if those beliefs are defensible, or how they’d beat an atheist in an argument if it came up. And I think that’s fine.

Beliefs can be responsible for creating a loving, peaceful world and they can also create a cruel tragic world. For example, to believe without thought and compassion, as it says in the Old Testament, that homosexuality is an abomination could and probably will lead those peoples to terrible acts of injustice against gay people.

Here we might disagree a little bit.  I don't see 'that would cause a cruel and tragic world' as much of a reason to question my beliefs.  For example, belief in the Holocaust could cause cruelty and injustice between Germans and Jews, say.  But that's just too damn bad- I believe the Holocaust happened, and I'm not going to re-examine that just because it bothers Germans or incites the Jews. 
 I worry that what you're saying implies that religious beliefs don't work like our beliefs about the holocaust- that if my belief that bestiality is wrong offends people or causes them to be persecuted, I have an obligation to change my mind just on that.  In that sense, I would strongly disagree- if X is wrong, then it's wrong and people who do X are just stuck with shitty lives until they learn to behave.

[Arcturus_Descending]

Uccisore,

So for some kind of a basis here, I think that we agree that it is a good thing if all religious people examine their beliefs.

*Provided they do it enough and honestly, yeah. I think a tiny amount of self-interested examination can make a person worse off than before they started…but maybe you’d say that kind of thing doesn’t count as examination?

Yes, I agree with you – as long as it is done honestly and enough. As to your second sentence, you will have to explain what you mean by worse off? If, what you are saying, is that it might start a down-hill spiral into questioning and disbelief, then, at least to me, that is part of the honest journey into questioning one’s religious paradigms or any paradigms, for that matter. I think that at some point, every individual who is intelligent and reasonable, has to take that leap into the darkness so to speak – the darkness being not knowing where the questioning will take them.

I think if an individual really wants to keep him -herself honest about their relationship with their God/religion, it could become a struggle. I suppose the first question that an individual would have to ask is how committed they are to taking this journey. One’s religion/spirituality is not simply about sitting in church and praying, it is an entire journey into honest awareness, commitment and growth. It’s a struggle against laziness and inertia to always seek to know what one’s God and religion points to in us, and asks of us. I figure that those who are not prepared to take this journey might just sense that too. At the same time, thinking about the travesties that religious beliefs have caused, one has to think in terms of reason, logic and to do no harm - in other words, what protects/enhances life, rather than inhumanely destroys it.

…but maybe you’d say that kind of thing doesn’t count as examination?

I don’t quite get what you are saying here – unless I’ve answered the question above.

What do you feel is the most important reason for doing this? For me, I would have to say that if someone actually professes that their religion/beliefs/relationship with their God is important to them, then it is logical to follow that with thinking that these things must enter into and permeate the very core of their life/existence and how they relate to the world and to the people around them. One’s religion and relationship with God, if these things are practical and meaningful, influence every aspect of their life.

Yeah, I agree with that completely. I’d add, though, that ‘thinking’ isn’t always ‘thinking critically’.

Well, this may be true. I suppose we will think within the capacity to which we are able to. At the same time, we are still capable of asking ourselves leading questions – and diving into that abyss – “Do I really believe everything I feel I believe? It’s possible that even before that question is asked, there could be/have been some nagging doubts in the back of one’s mind about their beliefs. Sometimes things are left on the back burners until one sees/feels/intuits its that time - the time of no return and then the work begins, the uphill struggle, the downhill spiraling until there is sometimes nothing left to stand on and that is the point at which true belief and maturity can take place. Okay, I seem to have gotten carried away here. LOL.

That is to say, you can meet monks and priests or whatever who obviously think a whole ton about their beliefs, what they mean, how to apply them to their lives, their consequences, and all sorts of really deep stuff,……

Yes, I would say possibly – in some cases, probably, most men would think of these things before entering their vocation. I think EVERYONE whose religious beliefs are important to them, it doesn’t matter who they are – lay people and religious alike, would do the same.

but they haven’t thought much about if those beliefs are defensible, or how they’d beat an atheist in an argument if it came up. And I think that’s fine.

Well, we really can’t make such a statement, can we? How can we know? I would daresay that most, if not all, priests and monks would have some kind of rebuke and defensive argument to give you if you challenged them, especially perhaps a Jesuit and a Dominican and/or one who is highly intellectual. I’ve known at least a few who would probably love nothing more than to take on the likes of you. LOL.

Beliefs can be responsible for creating a loving, peaceful world and they can also create a cruel tragic world. For example, to believe without thought and compassion, as it says in the Old Testament, that *homosexuality is an abomination.

Here we might disagree a little bit. I don’t see ‘that would cause a cruel and tragic world’ as much of a reason to question my beliefs.

Okay, looking at my sentence here… [i]could and probably will lead those peoples to terrible acts of injustice against gay people[/i] - it was a little too broad and presumptuous a statement to make. I could have left it at could or possibly could. The tragic acts of injustice against gay people that I was referring to are those that you sometimes hear about – for instance, being beaten up – and why – all because of something that we believe and because we have not taken the time to do our own thinking, to come to realize that what was written in the O.T. was thought for that time albeit sadly it is still thought for this time, by many. Many people do not realize that for the most part, being gay cannot be helped, no more than being diabetic. Homophobia actually just might have its roots in the O.T. but maybe not. But I don’t think that it is so farfetched to have that thought. . Anyway…

For example, belief in the Holocaust could cause cruelty and injustice between Germans and Jews, say.

But that’s just too damn bad- I believe the Holocaust happened, and I’m not going to re-examine that just because it bothers Germans or incites the Jews.

Well, I wouldn’t actually use the term belief insofar as the holocaust is concerned. The Holocaust actually happened. It’s part of history – like the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Would one say that those bombings didn’t happen either? I think, for the most part, that for those who do not as you put it believe that the holocaust happened, or question it’s having happened, it might just be because they cannot believe or conceive of the fact that human beings can treat one another in such a barbaric, inhumane way. And for those perhaps who are anti-semites, it is an apathetic way of dismissing what happened. I’ve seen movies about the holocaust and I’ve seen the pictures of bodies strewn over bodies and just thrown into big holes or not even bothering to do that. I’ve seen the pictures of little children. I’ve seen the pictures of men, women and children and how terribly emaciated their bodies are. Who could possibly want to destroy such an innocent little life or any life, simply because he/she is Jewish? That is not just barbaric and tragic, it is utter stupidity itself. And yes I am judging here, at least the act itself.

I worry that what you’re saying implies that religious beliefs don’t work like our beliefs about the holocaust-

You’re worried? Ah, don’t worry about me. Anyway, I suppose it doesn’t really matter in what direction we are taking our beliefs or disbeliefs. I think they would have to operate within the same dynamics, don’t you? There are always hidden motives and intentions for our beliefs, what serves us well, makes us comfortable. Our beliefs can sometimes keep us from seeing something we don’t want to see, or believe otherwise about, as in not wanting to see the holocaust as having happened because it would take us so very far out of our comfort zone (what examining any belief may do) insofar as what we, as human beings, human animals, are capable of doing. But that alone, knowing that the holocaust happened, can and will hopefully teach us just how terrible a thing any bias and racism is – just how our beliefs can transform the world into such a holocaust and just how capable we ALL are of doing just about anything - and we are, and that is the thing we need to remember.

that if my belief that bestiality is wrong offends people or causes them to be persecuted, I have an obligation to change my mind just on that.

Bestiality? LOL. I don’t know if you are referring to the way in which we humans are capable of sometimes acting like animals (which is an insult to the animals) towards other humans…or are you actually speaking of bestiality…having sex with animals? LOL. Anyway, personally speaking, I figure we all have our own rights to our beliefs, though yes, they ought to be examined, BUT, insofar as your belief offending people – why would we have to change our beliefs because others are offended by them? I don’t think so. At the same time, that doesn’t mean that we have to shove our beliefs down their throat either.

BUT if your belief is causing others to be persecuted, it isn’t so much the belief, in itself, that is doing that, it is because of the actions of those beliefs. We may believe but at the same time we can look at it this way – live and let live. I may disagree with bestiality and perhaps give someone who practices it a book by Freud, LOL, but I am not going to persecute that person. I may not quite understand but I am not going to do something to harm that person.

But I know, from personal experience, how our beliefs can and do influence our actions and can cause harm to ourselves and to others and this is why it is so important to examine what we believe and why – to go against the grain to pull that belief apart, turn it upside down on its head, turn it inside out, look at it through a telescope, and then if we see it doesn’t work, stomp it out. Lol.

In that sense, I would strongly disagree- if X is wrong, then it’s wrong and people who do X are just stuck with shitty lives until they learn to behave.

Well, this is getting into the realm of ethics and morality, I would say. What is wrong to some is right to others until they’ve examined their own beliefs and way of living. X being wrong is subjective but we just need to learn to live and let live. That is not to say that we cannot, at first, guide and try to show people what we think and feel about what they are doing, out of a sense of love and compassion. Anything other than that, is just controlling and trying to exercise power over them. As far as man’s inhumanity to man and cruelty, we do what we can - we fight it to erase it, in our own ways.

[Mad_Man_P]

@Uccisore

they haven’t thought much about if those beliefs are defensible, or how they’d beat an atheist in an argument if it came up. And I think that’s fine.

If no one ever wondered if there was a god or not and simply took the “hardcore” atheist’s word for it that it was all bullshit… That’s fine too, right?

Or Is there an actual authority on the subject?

[Uccisore]

@Mad Man P

@Uccisore

they haven’t thought much about if those beliefs are defensible, or how they’d beat an atheist in an argument if it came up. And I think that’s fine.

If no one ever wondered if there was a god or not and simply took the “hardcore” atheist’s word for it that it was all bullshit… That’s fine too, right?

Or Is there an actual authority on the subject?

 There's a bunch of authorities on the subject, who disagree with each other. There's atheists, believers, and other sorts of folks that all count as authorities as far as I'm concerned - insofar as, if you listen to them, you're going to be better off than if you piddled around on your own. 
 But no, the situation you described wouldn't be alright with me, because you're replaced 'some people' with 'no one', which makes a big difference to me. My point isn't so much that it doesn't matter if anybody does philosophy or not, my point is that those of us who do philosophy do it in part so that [i]someone else doesn't have to[/i].  So, if NO Christian/atheist/whatever thought critically about opposing views, that would be a problem.  But if some do, those that rely on them aren't neglecting some duty.

[Mad_Man_P]

@Uccisore

There’s a bunch of authorities on the subject, who disagree with each other. There’s atheists, believers, and other sorts of folks that all count as authorities as far as I’m concerned - insofar as, if you listen to them, you’re going to be better off than if you piddled around on your own.

What follows from your premis, is that there are those that you would be better off NOT listening to… So how is anyone supposed to know these people from the ones who should be listened to?

My point isn’t so much that it doesn’t matter if anybody does philosophy or not, my point is that those of us who do philosophy do it in part so that someone else doesn’t have to.

I get that… but I don’t see how that’s supposed to “work out”.

So, if NO Christian/atheist/whatever thought critically about opposing views, that would be a problem. But if some do, those that rely on them aren’t neglecting some duty.

Yeah… this cuts to the heart of it.
What exactly is there to be gained by studying philosophy, critical thinking skills aside (those ought to be taught to everyone and without exception), such that we could gain it equally by listening to someone who is well read on the topic?

It just seems to me that yielding to someone else’s authority when it comes to getting a perticular job done and how to view and live life, are two very very different things.

I don’t mind someone telling me how best to build a house… but I do mind it if I should need someone else telling me how to live my life and what to value.
Since, ultimatly, philosophy is about the love of WISDOM and not just factual and practical knowledge, it seems to me that there can be no authority on the matter… or that if there was we would all be better off becoming our own authority, lest we give someone total control over our lives and thoughts.

[Uccisore]

@Mad Man P

What follows from your premis, is that there are those that you would be better off NOT listening to… So how is anyone supposed to know these people from the ones who should be listened to?

The same way we know it in any other field, I suppose?  How do you know a hack scientist from a good one, without already being a scientist yourself? How do you know which philosophers are doing it right (regardless of position) and which are poseurs?  I don't know an answer that doesn't rely on tradition, authority, word-of-mouth, and intuition. And whatever the answer is, it's not perfectly applied- the hacks and poseurs DO wind up having their influence. 

I get that… but I don’t see how that’s supposed to “work out”.

Well, look around. It doesn’t, all the time.

What exactly is there to be gained by studying philosophy, critical thinking skills aside (those ought to be taught to everyone and without exception), such that we could gain it equally by listening to someone who is well read on the topic?

I think the only real reason to pursue it yourself instead of listening to others is if you want to be on the 'cutting edge' of the field, and be influential. If you love the field (whatever it is) enough, then it seems natural to me that you'd have a desire to BECOME one of those authorities, instead of just following them. It's similar to the question "What's to be gained by learning  how to bake when I can buy perfectly good breads and pies at the store?"  Either you think learning how to bake is a good in itself that you want to pursue, or you don't, right?
Also, I dunno that you can learn philosophy or religion 'equally well' by listening to authority vs. training to become an authority.  Following may get you a 'serviceable' or 'adequate' understanding. 

It just seems to me that yielding to someone else’s authority when it comes to getting a perticular job done and how to view and live life, are two very very different things.

Yeah, you and me both- that’s why I study philosophy, and let somebody else fix my car. But it still remains a fact that not everybody can/wants to spend the time studying these things, and the world is better off for it, provided they’re putting that time to other effective use.

I don’t mind someone telling me how best to build a house… but I do mind it if I should need someone else telling me how to live my life and what to value.

Not everybody feels that way.  All I can say is it's a good thing [i]somebody[/i] learns to build houses instead of studying philosophy.   EDIT:  One point I should make, is you seem to be arguing from the above to the conclusion that everybody should [i]study[/i] philosophy. If everybody had time and the capability to do so, I wouldn't disagree...but note that you're arguing for the [i]study[/i].  If you were stupid, or lazy, or just plain disinclined to do the work, you'd probably STILL not want somebody else telling you how to live your life, because we both come from pretty independently minded-cultures. 
 So my question to you is, should a person buck authority based on the "I don't want someone telling me how to live" impulse, if they aren't going to do the work to find their own rational path? Seems to me a person like that (and there are many) is better off learning a little discipline and sticking with authority. 

Since, ultimatly, philosophy is about the love of WISDOM and not just factual and practical knowledge, it seems to me that there can be no authority on the matter…

Mm. I respect the sentiment, I really do, hence the reason for my own studies. But if my studies have any real value, and I grant that I’ve gained knowledge that I didn’t have before I began, I can’t help but conclude there are authorities in this field as much as in any other. My Theories of Justice professor is obviously a good authority on Marxism, especially as compared to me.

or that if there was we would all be better off becoming our own authority, lest we give someone total control over our lives and thoughts.

We would all be better off becoming our own authority on all conceivable matters. There just isn’t time.

[Mad_Man_P]

Uccisore

Well you seem to be assuming that questions about how best to view and live life are of equal importance to people as those about how best to fix a car.

You might not have time to learn EVERYTHING… but figuring out how best to view and live life should ALWAYS be one of the things you spend your time doing, and then you can learn some other practical skill as well.

I don’t know about you… but I would have serious trouble respecting a person who simply yields to someone elses authority when asked to justify his own actions and/or views.
If I asked you “why did you do x last night, why would you even want to do something like that?” and you answered “because Mark told me to, and he said I ought to want stuff like that” I’d lose all respect for you.

I’m not arguing that you shouldn’t let someone smarter than yourself or more experienced give you advice or even be resistent to taking good advice… but that you should retain personal responsibility for your views and actions, and as such make damned sure you agree with the reasons given by the person whom you are deciding to listen to.

You might not have the time to learn EVERYTHING… but I think we can fit this in.