Postlude to Philosophy

What is Philosophy?

Is it “unintelligible answers to insoluble problems”? (Henry Adams)

Is a philosopher “a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn’t there”? (Lord Bowen)

Is philosophy “a route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing”? (Ambrose Bierce)

In a recent post a comment was made about how nice it was to have three trained philosophers engaged in making comments.

But is anyone else even paying attention? Does what these trained philosophers say even matter?

Isn’t it true that:

“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied on to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers.” (William James)

“one cannot conceive of anything so strange and so unbelievable that it has not been said by one philosopher or another.” (Rene Descartes)

“The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as to seem not worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it.” (Bertrand Russell)

Philosopher: “someone who doesn’t know what he is talking about but makes it sound like it’s your fault.”

Can any of our trained philosophers even offer a defense of philosophy beyond “it pays the bills”?

More specifically, what is the value of philosophy for an atheist?

[Changed Ambrose Pierce to Ambrose Bierce. HT: keiths]

625 thoughts on “Postlude to Philosophy

  1. Story as History – History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History

    The Reliability of the Gospel Tradition

    The historical reliability of the Gospels has been discussed from the Enlightenment onwards. At present, many scholars assume that the canonical Gospels as we have them are essentially fictions constructed near the end of the first century to meet the needs of the Christian movement of that time and that they give us very little reliable information regarding the life and teachings of Jesus. But have these scholars really understood the nature of the written Gospels? Birger Gerhardsson has devoted almost the whole of his academic career to the study of the oral tradition that is the basis of our canonical Gospels. His groundbreaking doctoral dissertation, Memory and Manuscript, drew a parallel between the way in which the rabbis taught their disciples and the way Jesus taught his disciples: both required memorization of the master’s teaching. Rabbinic disciples handed on their masters’ tradition with great care, and we can be sure that the disciples of Jesus would have been no less careful with what he taught them! The Reliability of the Gospel Tradition presents three studies that illuminate how the early Christians passed on tradition. “The Origins of the Gospel Tradition” gives an accessible review of the debate regarding the extent to which the New Testament evangelists enable us to hear the voice of Jesus. “The Path of the Gospel Tradition” contains a critical discussion of the approach of the formcritical school to the problem of the early Christian tradition, ending with an alternative sketch of the path of the tradition. “The Gospel Tradition” offers a rather detailed picture of various aspects of the content and method of early Christian tradition and assesses the reliability of the four oldest of the extant written records.

  2. That’s just moving the goalposts again, Patrick. Jesus is lord because Fifth treats him as an authority. AND you can just look at Webster’s Dictionary (or pick another one if you want to!) and see that that’s all it means to be a Lord. (Also see “landlord” which is kind of interesting.)

    You’re really starting to make everybody mad, Patrick. Leave the goddam goalposts alone!

    X>{

  3. Patrick:
    fifthmonarchyman,

    Forgeries are not evidence.

    Just as I thought in order to count as evidence it has to be accepted by people you agree with.

    So now I need to present objective empirical evidence that the ossuary inscription is not a fake

    quote:

    Ed Keall, the Senior Curator at the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM), Near Eastern & Asian Civilizations Department, continues to argue for the ossuary’s authenticity, saying “the ROM has always been open to questioning the ossuary’s authenticity, but so far no definitive proof of forgery has yet been presented, in spite of the current claims being made.”[20]

    and

    http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=43671#.Vb6MfPmrHeY

    next I suppose that you will ask that I provide objective empirical evidence that the evidence I just presented is objective and empirical

    Is that the game?

    give me a break.

    peace

  4. Honestly, Fifth. I don’t know why you bother with the guy. Next he’ll be wanting a PET scan or something.

  5. Patrick: Your assertion, for which you claimed to have objective, empirical evidence, was “Jesus is lord.” Not “your lord”, simply “lord”. If you meant to say “I treat my concept of Jesus as if he were an historical figure as described in the New Testament by acting as though he is my lord.”, that’s . . . uninteresting.

    This “uninteresting” meme is pretty common here.

    This whole conversation began when I suggested you might have rejected a strawman instead of my God. This site blew a collective fuse at the suggestion

    It’s obvious that Jesus is not your god that was the whole point of the comment in the first place.

    Now it’s “uninteresting” that makes no sense to me

    peace

  6. If I may, I’d like to summarize Fifth’s (I.e., the winning) argument here.

    (1) A bunch of people he trusts say that somebody having many of the properties Jesus is supposed to have (e.g., son of Joseph and Mary, rabbi, had followers, was pissed at moneychangers, etc.) actually lived and was killed by some Jew-loving Romans because he was dangerous.

    (2) A bunch of people he trusts (some of them the same people, some maybe not) also say Jesus had supernatural powers (though perhaps not as good as Wolverine’s, but let’s leave that alone for the time being).

    (3) By “Lord” Fifth means somebody to whom he gives authority.

    (4) Fifth gives Jesus SUPREME AUTHORITY

    (5) Therefore it is well within reason for Fifth to claim that Jesus existed, had supernatural powers, and is Lord.

    Because that’s what pretty much everybody means by “Jesus” and “Lord”–and if you doubt it get a freaking dictionary.

    QED.

    Period. Exclamation mark. Victory lap. The rest of you can go screw. (And that includes pterodactyl worshipers as well as Marvel Comic nerds.)

  7. Patrick,

    If you are willing to concede that you were incorrect to claim that I did not have “any” objective empirical evidence for my beliefs I am willing to explore some of the other entailments of Jesus’ lordship.

    but I can’t very well move onto other more controversial things till we demonstrate the ability to come to an agreement on the minimum level of semantic understanding

    peace

    PS It’s Ok to admit that you overstated your case a little it does not mean you have to get baptized or anything

    PPSS This is exactly why I asked you to be very specific when you told me what kind of evidence you were looking for. You’ve obviously been provided with everything you asked and then some.

  8. walto,

    You’re really starting to make everybody mad, Patrick. Leave the goddam goalposts alone!

    Goalposts? I thought we were playing hockey!

  9. Patrick: Evidence for the dead walking as described in the New Testament would certainly make the other claims more worth researching, though.

    I like to see some objective empirical evidence that the NT makes claims about the dead walking,

    It must be in that famous lost gospel 1st imaginations

    😉

    peace

  10. fifthmonarchyman,

    If you are willing to concede that you were incorrect to claim that I did not have “any” objective empirical evidence for my beliefs I am willing to explore some of the other entailments of Jesus’ lordship.

    I have not seen you produce any objective, empirical evidence for your claim that “Jesus is lord.”

    If you are modifying your claim to “I treat my concept of Jesus as my lord.” then no evidence is necessary. By the rules of this site, I will accept that you are making that statement in good faith. I will politely try to hide my yawn behind my hand.

  11. fifthmonarchyman,

    This whole conversation began when I suggested you might have rejected a strawman instead of my God.

    This subthread started when you claimed to have objective, empirical evidence for your assertion that “Jesus is lord.”

    I will note that you have still failed to provide any explanation for how your concept of god differs materially from that of other Christians.

  12. Patrick:
    walto,

    Goalposts?I thought we were playing hockey!

    OT: I spent the entire weekend in Hyannis. That should have been nice, it being a beautiful weekend and Hyannis being on the Cape and everything. But I spent all of every day in the hot sun watching my daughter play in a field hockey tournament. Also, I lost my sunglasses and my Visa card, paid twice for the first night in the hotel (for reasons too stupid/embarrassing to discuss), and witnessed a vicious fistfight after dinner last night.

    So please don’t say “hockey” again for a few days, while I wonder if Fifth’s Lord has forsaken me because I make wisecracks here.

    (Actually, I recovered my Visa card, so maybe I’m not SUCH an evil person.)

  13. fifthmonarchyman,

    I like to see some objective empirical evidence that the NT makes claims about the dead walking,

    Will Matthew do?

    27:50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
    27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
    27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
    27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

  14. C’mon, Patrick. Where does it say thing one about WALKING? It says WENT. Do YOU always walk when you GO somewhere?

    Give it up, man.

  15. walto,

    C’mon, Patrick. Where does it say thing one about WALKING? It says WENT. Do YOU always walk when you GO somewhere?

    Damn levitating zombies. They clearly don’t know their Romero canon.

  16. Gregory: It’s a delicate topic when people sing things they don’t believe.

    No, it’s not a delicate topic whatsoever.

    It’s completely normal everywhere in western society, acceptable to church leaders, choir directors, and audience members (who are, after all, there for the musical experience, not for holier-than-thou games) and causes no stress to either the believers or non-believers doing it.

    Unless you’re enough of a fool to think that merely singing a few words is somehow going to summon an angry god to wreak havoc on the church for their sin of allowing a heretic to sing amongst them.

    More fool you.

  17. Patrick:
    walto,

    Damn levitating zombies.They clearly don’t know their Romero canon.

    I know, right? (And they’re obv not going to learn anything about it from hotshoe.)

  18. Patrick: Will Matthew do?

    It would but it does not say anything about “the dead walking” it talks about folks who were raised fro the dead, That is sort of the opposite of dead is it not?

    As they say try reading for comprehension next time.

    The point of the story is to emphasize and illustrate that Jesus is the first fruits of the resurrection not the cause of a mini Zombie apocalypse.

    peace

  19. fifthmonarchyman: It would but it does not say anything about “the dead walking”

    Right. That’s just what I said! It’s not that they ARE dead. They WERE dead. And also where is the word ‘walk’ there???

    It’s not even just goalposts anymore. The whole field is like flying in the air above Minneapolis someplace.

  20. Plus which, hotshoe thinks Wolverine is a tv show.

    I might have to just cash in here…..

  21. fifthmonarchyman,

    It would but it does not say anything about “the dead walking” it talks about folks who were raised fro the dead, That is sort of the opposite of dead is it not?

    I’d normally be annoyed at your dishonest antics, but this is so over the top that I just want to award you the C. S. Lewis trophy for Apologetics Uber Alles.

    After you finish celebrating, you might want to consider that having a bunch of people that were buried show back up in town might warrant a written observation or two. The fact that it was never mentioned by non-Christians would give someone without your, um, flexible mind reason for pause.

  22. As we’re posting lots of links to things, here’s my own particular fave regarding miracles: Alisdair McKinnon’s “Miracle and Paradox”

    http://www.jstor.org/stable/20009256?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

    Maybe those without access to JSTOR can find the entire text elsewhere. It’s a classic paper that I really enjoy teaching about whether there could ever be any such thing as an event that would give evidence of the existence of something supernatural. Fun to think about.

    Might do an OP on it some day.

  23. walto:

    [Patrick said:]
    walto,
    Damn levitating zombies.They clearly don’t know their Romero canon.

    I know, right? (And they’re obv not going to learn anything about it from hotshoe.)

    Oh no, I saw The Night of the Living Dead when it came out, and had to walk home after dark through a foggy-dripping deserted forest. No, really, was not in a downtown theater with a convenient well-lit parking garage.

    Well, you can guess I’ve never watched another zombie movie since.

    Although I do read zombie fan fic.

    And I have seen episodes of BBC’s In The Flesh (online).

    So whaddya need to know about zombies? Just ask me!

  24. walto: Plus which, hotshoe thinks Wolverine is a tv show.

    I might have to just cash in here…..

    Wait, don’t go. I know stuff.

    Wolverine is a character in the comic book series who eventually ended up with the X-men as part of that mutant-superhero storyline, but Wolverine-and-X-men was also turned into a (cartoon) TV series for a year (which I never saw, of course). Then Wolverine became a movie series played by the drop-dead-gorgeous Hugh Jackman.

    I only mentioned the TV bit because I thought we were on the subject of TV lately …

    And all I really remembered were those amazing claws and HJ’s gorgeous face. I forgot all about the key aspect of regeneration. Don’t hate me. 🙂

  25. If you wanted to write a history of the holocaust, who would you talk to, disinterested “impartial observers” (like perhaps the people running the camps) or holocaust survivors?

    Came across this today:

    One of the most interesting developments in recent scholarship is the realization that the Gospels, notwithstanding their distinctive emphases, accord closely with the ideals of Greco-Roman history as exhibited in the work of Thucydides, Xenophon, Polybius, Josephus, and Tacitus, particularly in their preference for the testimony of involved eyewitnesses over written records.

    – Timothy McGrew and Lydia McGrew. The Argument From Miracles

    And which sources do they cite? Yes indeed, the very sources I’ve been linking to.

    As for Price, he is called “Jesus agnostic.” See:
    The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition

  26. Patrick: After you finish celebrating, you might want to consider that having a bunch of people that were buried show back up in town might warrant a written observation or two. The fact that it was never mentioned by non-Christians would give someone without your, um, flexible mind reason for pause.

    If it had really happened, if “many” graves suddenly opened and the walking/levitating dead/risen whoevers started appearing around town like Matthew said, there would have been panic in the streets. The families and friends of the undead/previously-dead-now-miraculously-alive bodies would have been screaming, fainting and causing all kinds of uproar (even if they were mostly happy to see them back). In that era when Jerusalem was beset with rabble rousers, they would have used it as an opportunity to proclaim a sign from god that the Roman occupation was meant to be ended. The civil authorities would have called in the troops in fear that it was going to kick off a rebellion. There would have been mention of the incidents in reports to the local governor.

    Yeah, maybe all that happened, and the Roman report was simply lost to history. Reports get lost all the time, so their absence isn’t evidence one way or the other.

    But maybe, just maybe, Matthew was mistaken or lying about the graves opening and the dead rising. Since as far as we know, dead people have never been brought to life ever in human history except in bible tales, what’s the likelihood that Matthew’s tale is true? What’s the likelihood that it’s both true and that it left no evidence whatsoever in civil history? That “many” dead returned to life without a ripple? And, presumably, in due time died again and were buried again without a trace?

    Why do christians believe such patently ridiculous and unnecessary things? It’s never been necessary to believe in the zombie saints/the “many” risen in order to believe in Jesus. If anything, it rather spoils the uniqueness of Jesus rising a day or two later. They should be willing to chalk it up to “bible says some silly things that we don’t have to take literally”, and move on happy in their own faith.

  27. hotshoe_: But maybe, just maybe, Matthew was mistaken or lying about the graves opening and the dead rising.

    Or, maybe he was indulging in what we (those of us who are not literalists) would call “fantasy”, as a way of painting an emotional picture.

  28. Why do Christians believe in the resurrection of the dead?

    1 Corinthians 15:12-19

    It’s sort of central to what it means to be a Christian. 😉

  29. Patrick,

    The fact that it was never mentioned by non-Christians would give someone without your, um, flexible mind reason for pause.

    It wasn’t even mentioned by the other gospel writers, much less by non-Christians.

    So either:

    1. A mass of zombies descended on Jerusalem, but the authors of Mark, Luke, and John didn’t think it was worth even a one-sentence mention; or

    2. the author of Matthew embellished the story.

    Any thinking person would recognize #2 as far more likely, but fifth has swallowed the inerrantist Kristian Kool-Aid and opts for #1.

  30. Neil Rickert: Or, maybe he was indulging in what we (those of us who are not literalists) would call “fantasy”, as a way of painting an emotional picture.

    Sure, that’s fine. I have no objection to the bible as fantasy literature.

    Although, I prefer China Miéville for “painting emotional pictures”.

    In either case, not to be taken as literal truth.

  31. Hotshoe might’ve seen one of those Bible non-zombies on that dark and stormy Romero night she wrote about. If so, that would make her a pretty good witness, if you ask me.

    (As you see, I’ve relented since she has redeemed herself among the Hoary Hosts of (Marvel’s) Hoggoth by knowing something about the X-Men.)

    Oh, and Fifth, I would NEVER confuse Jesus with Wolverine! Please! There are so many reasons; here are just a few:

    1. No way those bastards could’ve gotten Wolverine up on that cross.

    2. Even if they HAD somehow managed to get him up there, there’s NO WAY Wolverine would have died or needed help from somebody else to rejuvenate.

    3. Fifth doesn’t give Wolverine anything like the authority necessary to make Wolverine a Lord. Jesus has that IN SPADES.

    4. While Willem Dafoe played Jesus in a movie and also portrayed the Green Goblin in a Marvel-related film, Hugh Jackman has not, to my knowledge played Jesus, only (the more regenerative) Wolverine.

    So c’mon, Fifth. You’re starting to sound like Patrick! Jeez, give a guy credit for not confusing those two!!

    I mean their powers are way different, too, Fifth. FWIW, I think Magneto would be a closer match–if you added in some Prof. X powers plus maybe Galactus, but that argument should probably wait for another thread.)

  32. keiths: It wasn’t even mentioned by the other gospel writers, much less by non-Christians.

    So either:

    1. A mass of zombies descended on Jerusalem, but the authors of Mark, Luke, and John didn’t think it was worth even a one-sentence mention; or

    2. the author of Matthew embellished the story.

    Any thinking person would recognize #2 as far more likely, but fifth has swallowed the inerrantist Kristian Kool-Aid and opts for #1.

    And Mung has opted to equivocate the incidental rising of the dead in Jerusalem — which could have been left out of the bible altogether without affecting anyone’s faith — with the central dogma of christianity about Jesus’ resurrection and the promise of resurrection for the faithful at the end.

    The mini-end-time rising of “many” dead people at the moment Jesus died is just a stupid distraction from the christian message. Mung surely is smart enough to recognize that, not to smirk that “it’s sort of central to what it means to be a christian” No, that’s equivocation: Jesus’ resurrection is central, but Jerusalem-zombie resurrection is NOT central.

    And they wonder why I say rude things about christians.

  33. I’m not buying this central/non-central distinction. At least not yet. Sometimes it’s the apparently small things that end up being a really big deal.

    Hotshoe would know this if someone in her house watched ‘Pretty Little Liars.’

  34. hotshoe_: And they wonder why I say rude things about christians.

    Near as I can tell you never lacked any excuse. I could have gone through your post and shown how silly it was but frankly it was too lame to interest me. So that’s why you got the response you did.

    Keep trying though. Every once in a while you actually manage to say something worth taking seriously. FYI, if it’s encased in one of your [numerous] anti-Christian rants [you know, the ones that only attack the Pope and other public figures] it might get overlooked.

  35. “I am gratified that my friends and colleagues Paul Eddy and Greg Boyd have taken my work as seriously as they have in this comprehensively researched book. Bravo for their repudiation of any bias of philosophical naturalism! Amen to their urging that the burden of proof is on whomever would reject any bit of gospel tradition as unhistorical. Other than this, I would dispute almost every one of their assertions–but that is why I recommend the book! What can you learn if you only reinforce your own viewpoint? I urge any reader of my books to read this one alongside them!

    Robert M. Price, professor of biblical criticism, Center for Inquiry Institute, and fellow of the Jesus Seminar


    The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition

  36. Note to Patrick.

    Your requirement for objective empirical independent evidence from impartial observers is absurd.

  37. Mung,

    Your requirement for objective empirical independent evidence from impartial observers is absurd.

    This is NewMung subtly pointing out the flaws in theistic epistemology, right?

  38. Patrick: I have not seen you produce any objective, empirical evidence for your claim that “Jesus is lord.”

    If you are modifying your claim to “I treat my concept of Jesus as my lord.” then no evidence is necessary.

    how about we look at this from another angle

    Ive made no modification to my original claim.

    Jesus is Lord, his Lordship is universal however it is not acknowledged universally as of yet, That is a major theme of the NT and it is believed by all Christians I know.

    I have already demonstrated that Jesus has lordship over me and you have granted this point. I think it’s not controversial to go the next step and say that he has lordship over all genuine Christians. I can provide empirical evidence for this if you like. But I think you have already acknowledged that you don’t need any for this sort of claim.

    That means that Jesus has the sworn loyalty of a good chunk of the humans that have ever existed on this planet. That lordship is nothing to sneeze at. I can’t think of another human who ever existed could make that claim. Can you?

    Before you object that Muhammad has nearly as many followers as Jesus you need to remember that unlike Jesus Muhammad did not claim that kind of sovereignty or demand that sort of loyalty.

    for example

    quote:

    Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 55, Number 654:

    Narrated ‘Umar:

    I heard the Prophet saying, “Do not exaggerate in praising me as the Christians praised the son of Mary, for I am only a Slave. So, call me the Slave of Allah and His Apostle.”

    end quote:

    So before we have even gotten to anything controversial (you might say interesting) Jesus has more power than any man or deity that ever existed with the exception of the unmoved mover that we have been discussing,

    I would argue that Jesus already meets the criteria of a little (g) god and we haven’t even gotten to the good stuff yet.

    So the only question left is
    Is Jesus the unmoved mover? If he is then we can uncontroversially say that he is Lord universally. If not he is second only to that being as far as lordship goes .

    Perhaps we will get to that question some day but for now I really need to work on some HTML

    peace

  39. That ‘slave’ remark brings to mind The Silver Surfer. Both could be too humble.

  40. Mung, to hotshoe:

    FYI, if it’s encased in one of your [numerous] anti-Christian rants [you know, the ones that only attack the Pope and other public figures]…

    To be fair, it was KN who made that (obviously false) claim on behalf of hotshoe — not hotshoe herself.

Leave a Reply