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]
Response to the bold: I think one of the things that annoys people is the arrogance you show when you insist that “my god” is somehow so much more special and real and valid than all those other gods that belong to other people that are ok to reject. You’re actually proving the point that every believer believes in a different god, and by definition a “personal god” is personal to that believer. Everyone else already rejects that god. If they are themselves a believer they reject all other personal gods in favor of their own. If they are an atheist, they simply reject all gods.
Just because your god is “yours” doesn’t make it any more special, real, or believable than anyone else’s, and by rejecting all those other strawman gods, an atheist, or even another theist, is perfectly consistent in rejecting your special snowflake god too.
So do personal gods bug people? Not so much. But the presumption of the persons that claim to be in sole possession of the “right” god is pretty annoying.
Yeah, I noticed that, too.
Ya know, they really are amazing. Throwing their own fellow-believers under the bus for not being deep enough, for believing and teaching “shallow” lessons.
It would be funny if it weren’t so typically mean-spirited, which just makes me sad.
Do you mean to say that typically, Christians are mean-spirited?
Here’s what makes me sad.
I rejected a similar straw man when I was about 11 and yes I would hope that others including atheists would do the same,
The question is not what whether or not it is a good thing to reject straw-men. The question is whether it is good to conclude that since you discovered one man is made of straw that they all are.
I think it would be much better and more in keeping with the spirit of the web site called the skeptical zone to be agnostic and withhold final judgement about the matter.
I hope expressing this opinion is not seen as being rude. Apparently I really have a hard time understanding the local customs here.
peace
Yes and your unmoved mover has additional attributes as well. When it comes to the Cosmological Argument we are not discussing what is unique about our “Gods” but what they have in common.
We can say that both are the uncaused first cause of the universe and quibble about the other attributes that they possess another time.
peace
Eleven is just the age when I started thinking; not when I stopped. I look back all the time. As for anger and such, I’ve spent more time in church as an adult than I did as a kid. As a choir member. I just don’t believe.
It’s not a deep intellectual rejection or carefully reasoned philosophical position. I just stopped being afraid. Stopped being afraid of death. Stopped being afraid of punishment for doubting. Eventually I stopped being afraid of what other people say about nonbelievers.
I never said it was not OK to reject my God fill free to do as you please
I would only hope you would take some time to understand it before you did.
Don’t you think your belief in parents that give presents is more valid and real than than little Jimmy’s belief that it is Santa Clause that does it? Is that confidence arrogance?
peace
So your previous belief was simply a response to fear? Is it any wonder that I assume you rejected a strawman?
If you thought you would be punished for doubting I can say for sure what you rejected is not what I believe
peace
Reject is a positive act. I simply don’t believe. Apparently there are many church teachings that you have stopped believing.
There are lots of things about the world that I don’t know about. I don’t know much about structural engineering. Not much about composing symphonies. There are thousands of occupations I couldn’t do, languages I don’t speak.
When I stopped being afraid, religion joined the list of things I’m not interested in. It doesn’t have a special place on that list. I simply don’t see it as useful or interesting, except when believers start chopping off people’s heads or trying to have nonsense taught in school. Except when believers impose on me I simply don’t care.
You don’t do the whole ‘read for comprehension’ thing very well, do you, Fifth?
I said that the fact Believers can’t make up their minds what they Believe in was one of the reasons I’m an atheist. “One of”, meaning that there are other reasons (which I just didn’t happen to mention at that time).
I think I’m not interesting in playing along with you and the unspoken theistic presuppositions you want to slip in under the table.
This is “one of” the reasons I find religion uninteresting. The people who push it.
I can sympathize, however with theists who look at activist atheists and see a rival tribe. It all looks to me like the ape man scene in the movie 2001. That kind of discussion is interesting for about the span of time Kubrick allotted to it.
Do you still sing in church now, petrushka? If so or if not, what’s your favorite hymn song or ‘worship’ song to sing? Most people who sing have their favorites or preferences, so it’s likely you do too. And what makes/made you choose to sing in a church choir, since you are adamant that you aren’t ‘religious’, instead of in a different choir?
Also, petrushka, what’s your favorite flavor of ice cream, and why do yo get it at Ben and Jerry’s so much instead of just picking up a pint at Giant, bringing it home and eating it in front of the tv (maybe while you try to figure out why this season of ‘True Detectives’ is so awful).
I think your whole deal is suspicious, and if I were a wannabe food critic, I’d spend some time on you.
Someone cleverer than me said, I don’t believe the words, but I believe the music.
That was actually an easy question. I have a lot of third and fourth choices, but no second. This tune is it. I like the words too.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=JpPm1cxy2B0
Some of the most beautiful music ever written was written for churches.
But some of the most beautiful music ever written was not written for churches. And even some that was written for churches isn’t particularly Goddy. Brahms’ Requiem, e.g., was notorious for dropping the God bits.
FWIW, my favorite Xmas carol is Lo, How a Rose E’re Blooming, and I don’t have the foggiest idea what it means. Here’s a beautiful performance with Renee Fleming and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUGTzpntLs8 What I like about it most are the chord changes–wouldn’t matter if it were about motorcycle maintenance.
Do you know John Renbourn? Traveler’s Prayer is one of my all time favorite albums.
ETA:
Lots of melodies used in hymns were composed anonymously a long time before the lyrics.
I merely point out that I am not hostile to religion, merely indifferent to theology. I can be hostile toward believers when they initiate the hostility, or attempt to manipulate me.
Yes I know Renbourn–and I still mourn his buddy, the late Bert Jansch.
Mung,
My post made you sad?
When did I write anything like that? I said it’s not enough to be an uncaused cause to be worthy of worship, and that I think most theists agree with me about that. I didn’t the Bible actually, did I? There’s a ton of stuff in the Bible about God.
Some of it not terribly attractive too–but that’s neither here nor there. What’s relevant now is your blatant misrepresentation of my posts on this subject. Can you discuss without doing that please?
Not sure. I took a class from Phil Quinn (who ended up at Notre Dame) on that issue years ago, and I remember writing a paper for that class on whether Spinoza’s Substance was worthy of worship. I honestly don’t remember where I came out on the subject.
Worship is kind of weird to begin with. There’s different kinds–Praise, Petitionary Prayer, Mystical Intercourse, etc. So it might depend on what type of worship we’re talking about. E.g., The Incredible Hulk might be worthy of petitionary prayer if he generally can get us what we want and will only do so if we pray to him. But hymns of praise in that direction seem out of place.
OTOH, if we get some kind of psych benefit from St. Theresa type “praying” to the universe–why not?
I note finally that the Hindu tradition makes the sustainer, (Vishnu) a separate God from the Creator and the Destroyer. As I understand it, each is considered necessary to the world, and each may be worshiped.
fifthmonarchyman,
If you define “genuine faith” as “faith that cannot be lost” then by definition you can’t lose it. That’s no true Scotsman territory.
I do know a number of people who were believers and are no longer. So yes, faith is something you can lose.
Faith is belief without evidence or despite evidence. It’s not a virtue.
fifthmonarchyman,
Do you have objective, empirical evidence for that belief? If not, Hitchens had something to say about it.
Something to say, at length, and brilliantly, of course:
[transcript (with a few minor changes in wording and punctuation) here credited to rianaa, of this video: The True Core of the Jesus Myth ]
I would have quoted it all if I thought that were legitimate use. Thank you, rianaa, whoever you are. Thank you, Christopher Hitchens, you flawed and wonderful human being!
Cool, Do you think I would have a problem with that? If you are not interested we can move on to other things. I certainly would not want to force you to think about anything you don’t want to
I do find it interesting that you continue to post responses and questions related to a topic you are not interested in.
I would agree with you about that.
There are tons of Gods but only one is worthy of worship. I’m not sure what that has to do with the cosmological argument or anything we are talking about for that matter.
The cosmological argument makes no claims about the unmoved mover being worthy of worship
peace
The no true Scotsman fallacy requires that there be no true Scotsman. That is not the case here. There are lots of faiths you can’t loose
You can’t lose your faith that you exist
You can’t lose your faith in the laws of logic
You can’t lose your faith that there exists a world outside of your mind
My faith in Jesus is like my faith in those things
I would agree that such a thing is not a virtue. Believing something with out or in spite of evidence is reprehensible in my opinion
That is not what I or the Bible or Christians I know mean by faith.
Peace
Yes
peace
That’s not true. There are tons of gods and not one, including your special snowflake one, are worthy of worship.
Your god in particular is a murderous rapist who, if it existed, should be the object of every decent human being’s disgust and refusal.
No you don’t.
No peace.
fifthmonarchyman,
Thus far in my life I have been presented with an equal amount of evidence for every god claim that I have encountered.
Are you agnostic about the existence of faeries?
All knowledge is provisional, but at some point it does become more than reasonable to conclude that evidence is unlikely to be forthcoming. That point has long since been reached with respect to deities.
petrushka,
Like the old saw “You wouldn’t worry so much about what people think about you if you realized how infrequently they do.” It seems to me that many theists don’t understand that lack of belief isn’t on the minds of atheists very often.
Well, fifthmonarchyman might actually believe in fairies. Lots of christians do.
But we do that know he doesn’t believe in Allah or Krishna, despite the “evidence” which has convinced literally billions of his fellow theists that his Yahweh is NOT the true god, but that theirs is.
Maybe fifthmonarchyman doesn’t understand the meaning of “agnostic” or maybe he’s just asking for special status for his favorite deity: we should be “atheists” about all those other deities but we should never flat-out reject his special snowflake.
So? That is sort of what you’d expect if there was only one true God claim and you had not encountered it yet
We would need to define exactly what we mean by faeries. from here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy
quote:
One common theme found among the Celtic nations describes a race of diminutive people who had been driven into hiding by invading humans.
end quote:
In light of Homo floresiensis I’m agnostic as to whether that these sorts of fairies might have existed on an island somewhere.
We haven’t even explored the tiny solar system we inhabit and you are ready to make a sweeping claim about the entire multiverse? That seems a bit premature and un skeptical if you ask me.
peace
Don’t act like more of a fool than you have to.
You’re the one who claims that your special god is not hiding out there somewhere unobservable by Earthly humans. You’re the one who specifically claims that you have evidence that your Jesus is “lord”. Did you have to leave our tiny solar system to get that evidence, hmm?
What difference will it make to rational human beings when we get past our tiny solar system? Is that where your god hangs out when it is not busy answering christian prayers here on Earth? Will we suddenly see your god? Any other god worthy of the name? Will you suddenly begin worshipping that other god when we find it “out there”? No, why not?
Don’t be dumb.
Called it. 🙂
fifthmonarchyman,
You’d be the first, then. Present it.
Really? I can’t believe you have never heard any evidence at all. Not even evidence that you don’t find convincing but no evidence at all.
A belief that Jesus is Lord is very multifaceted and all encompassing.
Off the top of my head, I can think of entailments concerning everything from the comprehensibility and universality of phyiscal law and the vital role observation plays in the collapse of the universal wavefunction to data derived from the Sensus divinitatis as well as certain historic events.
What part of would you like to see evidence for? Please be specific. If you are not we could chase rabbits from now till the cows come home with this one.
peace
If that’s your evidence, then you have nothing.
fifthmonarchyman,
No objective, empirical evidence for anything that might reasonably be called a god, no. Not even a decent operational definition of such an entity.
Really? It sounds like standard parroting of dogma that was drummed into your head starting at an age before you were capable of applying skeptical consideration.
That’s quite a lot to get from a story of blood sacrifice in a 2000 year old book.
We can start with a definition of what you mean by “lord”.
With that in hand, the objective, empirical evidence that an individual matching the description of Jesus in the New Testament actually existed.
Following that, the objective, empirical evidence that that person did and said any of the things ascribed to him.
Oh, and if your definition of “lord” includes divinity, the objective, empirical evidence that any god or gods actually exist.
It’s not my evidence it’s just a pointer to a few entailments of the belief that Jesus is Lord that can be verified with evidence.
I’m sure there are many many others as well. That is why I asked for what specific evidence Patrick wanted to see.
peace
I love the Von Neumann interpretation of QM as evidence for Jesus Christ.
Talk about a stretch. The interpretation is cuckoo, but even if it weren’t, you can get the Virgin Birth from it?! Holy Magoly!!
Lord is a word that has a range of meaning beginning with something like boss or Sir and extending all the way to the self existent “I am”.
Jesus is all those things
No serious historical scholar doubts the existence of Jesus. This includes even very skeptical ones as well
check it out
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/03/did-jesus-exist-bart-ehrman_n_1400465.html
Any of the things ascribed to him, ANY
really??
check it out
http://www.livescience.com/3482-jesus-man.html
See the cosmological argument in this very thread where it has been established that God as in the unmoved mover exists objectively and empirically.
quote:
Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
end quote:
That was astoundingly easy
I can’t believe that is all you wanted.
prediction: the goal posts will now be moved
peace
If you want a “god of the gaps” then the quantum gap is a good place to put it.
OK, fifth, I’ll play. What’s the evidence that the historical Jesus has anything whatever to do with the first cause in the conclusion of the cosmological argument (assuming, as I do not, that that argument is sound).
Also, fifth, what do you make of the historical evidence that Jesus (like Jimmy Carter) had a brother?
I know, right? Talk about grasping at straws!
Oh so now we are moving beyond “any evidence” to certain specific evidence about a claim that I have not even made.
Did anyone else feel the earth move when the goal posts whizzed by?
peace
They weren’t my goalposts: I just started playing (and pushed Patrick aside). Can you answer my questions or not?
Is that a question? I think the evidence that Jesus had siblings is pretty conclusive. Not as conclusive as the facts I linked to but pretty conclusive none the less.
Why do you ask?
And of course you made that claim. You said you had historical evidence for Jesus (which I admit) and for the claim that there is a “Lord” (whom you say Jesus is) you gave the cosmological argument. So I asked what possible connection there could be between some rebellious rabbi and the first cause in Aquinas’s argument.
Can everyone hear the rabbit rushing away?