many philosofical debates are concerned with problems like religion (god), life after death and the like.
people debate about religion and the existence of god, but - whatever the result or the beliefs they may hold dear - there is no way to prove them. science does not offer an answer to the question “does god exist”. it may seem more logical - given what we know so far - that he does not. however, this is a matter of belief and there is no point in arguing about it. believieing that god exists is as valid as believing thet he doesn’t. no matter how much ink (or black pixels) is devoted to the cause, the answer won’t receive an answer.
and the same goes about life after death. the little that science has to offer in the matter, hardly offers any answers. it only raises more questions. i do not know if science will be able to give an answer to the question. i believe it will, but that remains to be seen.
when defending one point or another in such “undecidable” issues we use as evidence - in most cases - common sense. we use arguments from our experience or things that we agree on, but these are not decisive proof. That does not make up for what we do when we choose a side and - to my humble opinion - that is guessing.
Nobody knows if god exists or not, however some BELIEVE he does, some BELIEVE he doesn’t. No one knows if there is life after death, but some BELIEVE it exists, some that it doesn’t. We don’t know if there is another intelligent race in this universe (or other life), but we do have an oppinion on this (a belief, or a guess, to be more precise).
How is it possible for a christian and an atheist to talk about god? how can an atheist talk about something that he does not believe that exists? why do atheists find contradictions in god, if they don’t believe in his existence? or maybe they are saying “given these contradictions such a supranatural force cannot exist?”. but teologists can explain each and every of these apparent contradictions given the fact that you accept one simple thing - that god exists.
so, why do people debate about such “undecidable” problems? is there more than just trying to change ones opinion on the issue?
There are such things as true beliefs. Science speaks only for truths in things physical and discernible physically. Philosophy attempts to cover all truths, including discerning true beliefs from false ones. So religious beliefs, or beliefs derived from dogmas or purported other-worldly revelations, are valid subject of philosophical debates, namely to discern its truth contents.
However whatever the philosophical conclusions are, and even if a truth is derived from science, you still believe what you believe - which can include nonsense, which you may believe just because you feel happy about it - and not necessarily believe that which is true. Such beliefs will not be subjects of frutiful philosophical debate; not unless you imposed upon yourself the discipline, honesty and integrity to believe only that which is true, in whatever ways it is arrived at.
Philosophy does not try to uncover truth. Philosophy already realizes that there are no truths. What Philosophy does try to attempt is to provide more [arguable] questions. Arguments for beliefs are propositioned by the very nature of the subject of Philosophy. We argue to discover the truths that are not there; we argue to discover more questions that uncover more questions. If Philosophy ever did answer certain truths, then there would really be no need for Philosophy today because those questions would have been answered a good many years ago.
There was another thread that asked whether or not I existed before… I existed. The answer to that is yes, I did exist before I existed as I am now: There is no damn way my penis could have ever have grown so big if it weren’t an accumulation of other existences. Silly me, but it brings up a serious issue: contention. Every claim made in the name of Philosophy, Science, Religion is contentious. Contention is a breeding ground for the necessity of argument.
Yes. There are things that are best understood only within the private realm, i.e. within ourselves. Anytime we expose one of these beliefs and try to prove to others that what we believe is true, reasonable, and so must be right for others as well, we run into problems. Yet, this does not stop us from trying. I think it stems from our own idea of self. What we take to be good for us, what we take to be true in our mind, we project towards the outside other than ourselves. The outside, in this regard, happens to be the others. This is the very thing we cannot avoid doing—a window with a view to the outside.
The arguments start with people who don’t realize the truth of what you’ve said and believe naively that they do, in fact, know the answer. (I have noticed that scientists are especially guilty of this but normally get a pass because they’re, well, scientists).
This is probably a reason why religion and god, etc. is/are such a popular topic for disccussion & debating. It is very “open” to being talked about.
In my humble opinion, a debate over God’s existence is most exciting when it is between a Christisn (or anyone else who believe’s in god’s existance) and an atheist. These two types of people have to directly opposite views of God. This makes for a good debate (usually). Two people who agree on the same thing don’t make debates all that exciting, if you catch my drift.
Aristotle once said, “All men, by their very nature, desire to know”. I think he was right. By all of us convening on ILP to do little more than waste our time to talk about issues that are often unresolvable, we are demostrating our innate thirst for knowledge.
Each of us here at ILP represents a different part of mankind as a whole. We each individually come here with a different amount of knowledge; each of us knowing different things. When we debate and discuss, argue and present, rant and disagree, agree and consent,…
…we end up (hopefully) sharing what knowledge we know with others here who did not know. And for those who come here already knowing much — these people should be able to find that ILP helps clarify and refine their knowledge.
…errr…pardon me, but I thought it’s the other way around. The topic of creatioism, for instance, is kept being connected with the scientific theory, or at least the creationists want recognition of their “theory” having the same standing as evolution. Okay, don’t yell.
Some do it simply because it’s fun, and to “win” arguments. Humans have a strong desire to assert mastery over other humans. Whether in physical contests or intellectual ones, it’s one of our strongest drives/impulses.
Well I wouldn’t defend that either. Not that I could, anyway, because I don’t really speak for the fundamentalists/creationists. I might guess, though, that their position is one that was taken in response to years and years of assault on religion from science. Kind of a fight fire with fire sort of thing.
One person believes they are right because that’s what they’ve been brought up to believe e.g.sunday school.
The other doesn’t take too kindly to being told they must live a life of slavery and servitude because of the common belief that they belong to god.
And i quite understand them!
To be specific, an atheist does not have a view on God, they merely have an absence of belief in any god.
Now, if the theist understands what that means (and no it does not mean the athiest is amoral and/or desires to kill God), it can be an interesting debate, though one the theist has no hope of winning, as the foundation of their theistic belief requires the suspension of reason.
They can want and want, it’s good to want things.
Their ‘theory’ can’t be given the same standing as any of the evolutionary theories (and there are more than one, but generally they are differences in specifics), as creation, intelligent design and theistic design cannot be falsified.
A theory that cannot be falsified is worthless, scientifically.
As for why people debate over such matters, those that are not afraid of confrontation feel the need to illuminate their peers, and/or enjoy a good brainwrestle.
Thinktank,
There are really two questions here: Why can people debate the existence of god/ life after death and why do they. The first question has to do with the medium that is being used, which is words. Briefly, it is our experiential history that is the background for the words that we choose to use. Since, we all have differing histories, we all choose slightly different words. Debate is the attempt to uncover and communicate this history to another. The many series of miscommunications that happen along the way is what allows for endless debate. As you and I begin to talk about god and religion, no time is usually taken to define terms. Thus, as the conversation continues we run into statements like. “Oh, that’s what you meant by god.”, and “No, no I don’t consider that a religion, I meant organized religion.” Unfortunately, these little corrections go on and on and often tangential arguments develop and then dominate the conversation. However all of this is due to the murky terms used. These beliefs cannot be proved because they cannot be communicated well enough to be proved. This is why science cannot prove the existence or non-existence of god. God cannot be defined in scientific terms. God is feelings and beliefs and emotion. None of these subjective expressions fit into a test tube. A scientist must leave god alone. God is for poets and songwriters. As for philosophers, well they can talk about god all they want because they are poets without iambic pentameter. This is why it dominates philosophical discourse.
Then there is the question of why do people spend so much time discussing god and life after death. You should know thinktank that life is a very scary and often times unpleasant place. A very important question to most people is whether or not there is a man in the sky looking out for them. So, people review events in their life and what they have been told and make a decision. Now if this were a firm decision than there would be no debate at all. However, most people aren’t really sure. In fact one of the ways that people feel better about the beliefs that they have formed is by corroborating them with others. Enter the debate. So the christian heatedly debates with the non-believer why god exists. But he does so not because of how sure he is, but because of how scared he is that he might be wrong. So the christian must squash all ideas that violate his dogmas because to accept even the possibility would shake the core of his belief system. And while the non-believer seems to be the more assured one, the indefinite stance is a stance nonetheless. So the atheist must argue just as intensely because it is just as uncomfortable for them to accept that the christian is right.
People can discuss these things forever for the same reason there can be neverending discussions in this forum. People do discuss these things because you can only talk about survivor and clothes for so long.
Well, I don’t think there is anything in this world that is “undecidable.” Therefore, people argue, debate, discuss and decide, revoke their decision and yet decide again and again.
Arguing and debating helps put things in perspective, it may not bring forth a solution immediately but for the future it opens up possibilities. For example look at this - some people will say we can disprove God’s existence. And I say that the sentence is illogical because to disprove God’s existence it would be already proven that He exists and that being so, how can we disprove His existence. Therefore, we can only either prove that God exists or prove that He does not exist.
