There seems to me to be a persistent bias against the religious within the philosophical community. The religious are treated as though, by virtue of their religion, they are automatically bad philosophers. Granted, religion can act as a mental barrier if one chooses to allow it, but such a case doesn’t arise from necessity. If one can provide philosophical arguments for their religious position, which falls squarely within the realm of metaphysics, why ought they to be ostracized? One might say that a thorough philosopher MUST begin in metaphysics seeking an answer to the question of whether or not “God” exists. This is assuming that one doesn’t fall into the trap of solipsism which is unanswerable.
If one emerges from their metaphysical pursuits satisfied that they have their answer, and so long as they are willing to defend that answer, why ought they to be regarded as any lesser?
In point of fact, it strikes me as intellectually dishonest to malign the religious on the basis that their metaphysics (which is what the foundation of religion is) has an affect on the rest of their philosophical beliefs. Whose foundational beliefs do not affect the rest of their stances? Ones beliefs shape ones values and ones values shape ones philosophy. If you do not believe in God, and by extension in future accountability for ones earthly actions, is it not reasonable to believe that your ethics will differ from one who does believe in “God” and/or future accountability? Take the secular humanist for example, who believes that man is the “measure of all things” and who in many cases also believes that ethical/moral standards are relative; do their metaphysics (or lack thereof) not affect their values and philosophy?
it’s a question of historical perspective… there are far more religious philosophers than not… it just that the “progressives” have the microphone at the moment…
the progressives just want to rule the world but they believe that they can convince you through science and theory that you are wrong and that you should enslave yourself to their ideas of secular socialist totalitarian utopia or communism or whatever other perfect society.
what they fail to realize is that it takes far more than rhetoric to convince people.
they have no evidence for their metaphysics (e.g. cause and effect, uniform laws of nature, belief that humanity can be peacefully taught or persuaded to be benevolent et.al.) either…
until the left wingers is ready to conduct an inquisition of their own, much like the khmer rouge or the stalinists or the leninists, they will be wailing and gnashing their teeth.
winning an argument with yourself is problematic enough sometimes…
The world isn’t black and white. Not everyone opposed to religion is necessarily liberal, for example. I would see the bias against religious thinkers as a bias against irrationality. A tight thinker espousing irrational thoughts is likely to not be taken as seriously as a tight thinker who does not.
I am biased against any philosophy or religion that tells me it has the absolute, ultimate take on human reality. Nothing here is finished and done. Therefore, I choose beliefs that are inclusive of differing perspectives. Religion does not allow this.
I feel that religion is irrational because its proponents believe in an unknowable being, who’s actions are unexplainable without invoking unknowable “mysterious ways”, who uses a logic different and incomprehensible to us, who’s opinions are always correct, by definition, and who never makes any concrete claims for other philosophers to refute. Its hard to debate with someone who never states clearly his position.
So, if God exists, is whatever he says to be true, true? If so, then you believe it without questioning and you’re irrational.
No, I specifically said what I said. There are plenty of rational religious types. It’s not black and white. Im suggesting you have got it wrong- there is no bias against religious types, only against irrationality. We could discuss if religious types are more likely to be irrational about faith, sure, but that’s not something I am saying here.
I don’t think that there’s a bias against religion/the religious in philosophy. As Imp points out, huge swathes of the philosophical canon were religious in some or other way, and it just so happens that we live in a time when ‘freedom of thought’ and secularity are widely accepted to be synonymous.
So be it. Let the secular humanists have their time. By the end of the 21st century we’ll either be a dying species or we’ll have artificial posthumans to deal with, and humanism will become a religion (if it is not already).
What we should bear in mind is that if you have no respect for someone’s beliefs then you can’t expect them to have any respect for yours. Either that, or it just doesn’t fucking matter…
Key word being either. So who’s to say the religious should have more power than the scientific?
I think religious dogmatism prevents you from asking certain questions and forces you take so many important questions for granted. A good philosopher questions everything and takes nothing for granted.
I’d like to further the bias issue with another question.
Saying that you share a certain system of beliefs, which you regard as rational and whatever, and the other chappie adheres to a system of beliefs diametrically opposed to yours, would you look at him a priori as a foe, an adversary not worthy of any compassion, entirely incompatible with your scheme of the world ?
Your question itself cuts to the heart of my point. Why would I consider someone who beliefs are other than mine a “foe” or an “adversary”, let alone as one “not worthy of any compassion”? In point of fact what I would do with such a person is compare notes so to speak. Why do they believe what they believe? What evidences or testimony can they cite to support their beliefs? At the end of the day I (particularly a Christian) am a witness, not a salesperson. If someone comes to the same system of belief as myself on the basis of my testimony or any other evidence, Hallelujah, welcome to the family, but if not, I kick the dust off my feet and move on down the proverbial road. If you have a belief that you can mount a reasonable defense of, you are entitled to it. In fact, even if you can’t mount a reasonable defense of it, you’re still entitled to it, but I’m not obligated to buy it.
Some people use their religion as a crutch, others use it as a ladder; I use mine as a ladder. I have a God given rational mind that I am entitled to use to dismatle sophistries, rhetoric, and bad reasoning like anyone else, irrespective of religion.
Actually, the debate would surround God saying “I AM”, which is to say, he exists. God says, “I AM” (I exist) and persons x, y, and z say “No you don’t”, and the debate begins.
P.S. The emoticon was to denote the jesting disposition of the post.