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]
Older or younger?
Sure I’ll give it a quick go
As the Logos of God Jesus is identified with the “law” of the universe I think a good case can be made that the unmoved mover can be thought of as physical law.
I haven’t thought about it much because like I said before I’m not a huge fan of the cosmological argument
Peace
I don’t know of any evidence that he had older siblings but there is quite a bit that he had younger ones
peace
I have another question, while you’re thinking about those? If you were to hear tomorrow that someone was carried off a cross after a crucifixion but reappeared a few days later, would you believe that the guy had died or would you consider both of these much more reasonable:
1. The guy did not die.
2. The guy did not actually reappear.
In case you’re interested in my own view, I am happy to tell you that knowing what we know about death, both 1 and 2 are way more reasonable then any claims of resurrection. In fact, I would fairly quickly accuse anyone who preferred the resurrection theory to both 1 or 2 as stupid, gullible, or crazy. Most educated adults would, especially if they’ve had any familiarity with or understanding of death.
I don’t know what you’re saying there. The guy we agree there is some historical evidence for was a person. Where’d this “Logos of God” biz come from? What’s the evidence for whatever that is (and that my friend is a moved goalpost) and what’s the connection between between this logos and the rebellious rabbi you call “Lord”?
ETA: Also, as you say you have a “good case” for something or other, I think you should make it, since I’m sensing that Patrick would be impressed by ANY case for anything nearby. I would too.
Depends on my background knowledge.
I know a little about roman crucifixion so I’m confident he died.
I know a little bit about old testament prophecy and the character of and number of witnesses so I’m confident he appeared
I can understand how folks that didn’t have this knowledge might be prone to skepticism. That sort of skepticism is a good thing as long as one is open to the evidence.
peace
That would take some explaining,
Are you at all familiar with the Greek/Hebrew concept of Logos? Philosophers have spent their entire careers exploring the implications of that one. I could not do it justice in short post on an internet blog
peace
Old Testament Prophecy?! Please. You’re making Patrick’s case for him.
I’ve gotten most of my information about this crucifixion from Butler’s The Fair Haven and FWIW, I think he studied the matter more closely than you have. But, that’s neither here nor there. It would take an awful lot to undermine everything everyone in the world has ever learned about what death is, no? More than the testimony of a few people, IMO. Much more. And certainly more than…prophecies(!) in a book with so many absurdities in it!
I’m assuming that this is the kind of thing Patrick was guessing you’d have. The testimony of other people in the same Bible(s) that you are claiming to have evidence for. Really not much there, fifth.
I don’t think you can do it at all, actually. But what’s its connection with Jesus? That’s what you’re (now) claiming you have evidence for.
I almost missed this one I’ll bet you dollars to doughnuts that first century Palestinians would have had a lot more experience with death than you or I have.
The folks knew what dead was and they knew that dead folks don’t get up and walk away.
Peace
PS I just want to remind every one how quickly we have moved from Patrick’s challenge
I also want to remind everyone that all of this was simply the result of my stating my opinion that many atheists did not reject the christian God but a straw man.
I think that claim has been pretty much demonstrated as evidenced by questions about Jesus’ siblings and the relevance of the Logos
peace
If you knew the story as well as you say you did, you’d know that Jesus didn’t “get up and walk away.” He was carried off by an interested bystander, and–if you believe the testimony of a few people you are a fan of, reappeared some days later. Hume thought those people who thought they saw him were hallucinating. That’s another possibility which is also much more reasonable than your theory. But I prefer Butler’s closely argued (and also funny) book.
Look, fifth, the truth is you don’t have anything that any non-believer is likely to agree with you are REASONS for your beliefs. You have some causes–upbringing, reading, etc. and, what’s more, you like what you get from this faith. It gives you comfort, it eases your fears. What’s wrong that that? I think it’s fine. Just don’t try to make your theism something it’s not. Religion isn’t science or philosophy. The arguments are no good and the empirical evidence is, as Patrick points out useless. But so what? Believe what you want. It’s your life!
Well you’ve made SOMETHINGS evident here, anyhow. You can’t really connect the historical Jesus with anything like the cosmological argument or anything else that would make this rabbi lord-like. If pressed, you’ll mention some Jesus connection with logos–something you can’t actually explain but philosophers have talked about for a long time.
Forget it. You like church. Go for it.
I don’t think you understand.
I’m a Calvinist I know an unbeliever will not agree with me, I have absolutely no expectation to the contrary.
In fact it’s a core tenant of my faith that you will if left to your own devices continue to reject this stuff. That is not a statement about the weakness of the evidence but of the strength of your (our) resistance to it.
peace
He’s probably getting that from John 1:1
quote:
In the beginning was the Word (LOGOS), and the Word (LOGOS) was with God, and the Word(LOGOS) was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made………. And the Word (LOGOS) became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
(Joh 1:1-14)
check it out
http://www.britannica.com/topic/logos
peace
I know, Neil. I’ve heard it all. I’m old, and I’ve actually even studied some of that philosophy that fifth mentioned. I’ve even heard his Calvinist spiel before. One problem with the theory that people are resistant to the truth (besides its self-service) is that a ton of people here HAVE BEEN believers. So they weren’t naturally resistant: they BELIEVED. The thought that maybe these folks LEARNED that they had been mislead just doesn’t compute.
I note that this “coming to reject” is one of the things that makes Gregory so annoyed with Elizabeth and KN. It would be nicer for him if one could only LEARN to accept.
I realize, of course, how easy it is to claim that nothing that doesn’t agree with one could have been LEARNED–it must have been the result of a lapse, or the devil, or a new strengthening of resistance.
So you have these two worldviews that agree on nothing. But what do we know? We know that one is based on a couple of old books that, on their own, aren’t at all compelling, and compete with like old books all over the world. We also know that the old-books-view can only be made consistent with with what has brought us the internal combustion engine and microwave ovens by the most pretzelish contortions–stretches that themselves don’t seem to care about the foundations of the microwave-supplying sciences.
OTOH, the old-books-view gives some comfort that the microwave-giving worldview can’t provide. It tells us we’re not snuffed out after a few precious years, that we’ll see our loved ones again. That’s big. It just isn’t a reason.
As I said, whatever floats one’s boat.
One interesting thing from fifth’s remark about his Calvinism is the apparent claim that it’s non-belief that’s natural, i.e., there’s a natural resistance to the truths set forth for all by Calvin.
There you go, Patrick. You ask for a shred of evidence, and what do you get? Proof positive!
When I click on the link it doesn’t take me to any post you made. So no.
1) The quote was in response to your question. The Cosmological argument was in response to Patrick’s request for “ANY” evidence for the existence of a deity.
2) Surely you know evidence is not proof. Surely you know there is no such thing as objective empirical proof.
Peace
Well, if you define faith as belief without evidence or despite evidence then that is true by definition! Are you a true Scotsman then?
WOW
That is right,
Are you actually telling me you did not know this is what Christians believe??
quote:
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
(1Co 2:14)
end quote:
How could there be any doubt that some here have rejected a straw-man version of Christianity?
The “Proof” is right here in black and white pixels
peace
geez
quote:
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.
(1Jn 2:19)
end quote:
it’s becoming pretty plain 😉
peace
Where does Hitchens establish that this is the central doctrine of Jesus of Nazareth.
Perhaps more relevant, where does Hitchens establish that this is the central doctrine of Christianity.
I’m betting he doesn’t.
Also, why do you, hotshoe_, post this as if you agree with it, when clearly you don’t?
Further, about 40 years later the Romans came along and destroyed Jerusalem. Jesus prepared his disciples for that event. Historical context is important if you want to be serious about making arguments from Bible verses.
This is just your opinion Neil?. I take it that once again you don’t actually have an argument.
Just so we are clear. In your view, something doesn’t actually exist in the absence of a decent operational definition?
Would you not agree that you regularly accept the reality of things for which you lack a decent operational definition? Is it also your position then that you don’t have any empirical evidence for such entities? Ah, the childlike faith of an atheist. Must be comforting.
I’m sorry, but if you reject the existence of Jesus you just ought not be taken seriously.
So you must think Patrick’s a complete blithering idiot. Either that or you just believe by faith, what with lacking any real empirical evidence. Or maybe Patrick believes Jesus really existed and is just playing the part of a fool.
Wow walto. You appear to believe that not only was Jesus an actual historical figure but also that he was actually crucified. Has Patrick ever asked you why you believe such nonsense without a shred of empirical evidence to support your beliefs?
Yeah, I know. I’m taking a poll.
“This learned study may claim to be the most comprehensive and detailed survey ever to have been published of the evidence of the use of crucifixion in the Graeco-Roman world and the way in which it was regarded by the people of the time. Beginning from the use of crucifixion as a form of execution practised among barbarian peoples, Dr Hengel shows how it was employed in the Roman empire, in the Greek-speaking world and among the Jews. He also investigates how far ‘crucifixion’ was a term used metaphorically or in philosophical discussion. His conclusions bring out more starkly than ever the scandal presented by the Christian message of the crucified Son of God and show that Jesus was seen to have died, not just a cruel death, but one of the worst forms of death devised by man for man. Martin Hengel was Professor of New Testament and Early Judaism in the University of Tubingen.”
ETA: Just in case Patrick next denies there is any empirical evidence that Romans actually crucified anyone or demands the “clear operational definition.”
That seems like the right avenue to pursue, and I’d encourage you to pursue it.
Wittgenstein, in On Certainty, articulates what might be called an analysis of the pragmatics of epistemic vocabulary — that is, what we are doing when we use epistemic terms like “knowledge”.
Central to his analysis is a distinction between “knowledge” and “certainty”. Like Peirce and other pragmatists, Wittgenstein claims that it only makes sense to talk about what we know in contexts when doubt is also intelligible. (It has recently been suggested that a good bit of pragmatism was transmitted to Wittgenstein via Frank Ramsey.) By contrast, we are certain only in contexts where doubt is unintelligible.
In the German, Wittgenstein uses two words to convey what he is talking about when he talks about certainty — Gewissheit and Sicherheit. The former indicates a kind of epistemic attitude, whereas the latter has its origins in “sicher,” “safe.” Sicherheit is what can be trusted, relied upon. Daniele Moyal-Sharrock calls this Wittgenstein’s “pragmatic foundationalism” — the “foundation” of our knowledge is not an assertion, or any set of assertions, but rather a specific way of being-in-the-world. It is only in the context of this unquestionable background that any assertions have any significance.
That seems like a very promising way of understanding what faith is like to those who have it.
Well, I’m not sure at what age KN “rejected” his faith, if ever. But so far Elizabeth sort of stands out in that hers didn’t come at age 11 and that she still seems to want to hang on to some sort of “god-woo,” to borrow a term
So when someone rejects their former beliefs after a near lifetime of belief [Anthony Flew] one is, I think, reasonably justified in asking what their reasons were.
I think of the 11 year old rejecters sort of like my nephew who put a pizza in the oven still in the box. I didn’t bother asking what his reasons were. Duh.
Further, this clearly is the atheist zone, but atheists here are not therefore immune to being asked to justify their beliefs.
boy, I speak the guy’s name and there he is! God works in mysterious ways. 😉
Actually I very much agree.
The problem is that sort of thing is difficult to articulate when one is being berated for believing in fairies and advocating genocide while at the same time being called rude for daring to express an honest opinion in response to a direct question.
Prediction: next I’ll be called a crybaby for mentioning it at all.
This is why it is I find it absolutely crucial to distinguish between discursive acts, which are moves within the game of giving and asking for reasons, and disclosive activity, which are expressions of one’s existential orientation (though often mediated through collective symbolism in art, music, prayer, ritual, feasting and fasting, etc.).
This is similar to Carnap’s distinction between statements and expressions, except that it is much more liberal than Carnap on both sides — being non-empiricist in the conception of statements, and also less individualistic in the conception of expressions. In both regards I know I am moving away from Carnap (and Heidegger) towards Cassirer.
Carnap prioritized the assertoric dimension of language at the expense of all other dimensions, and Heidegger prioritizes existential comportment in practical coping (and also our encounter with our own finitude, being-towards-death) at the expense of theoretical and scientific understanding. Cassirer was the last major philosopher to have a healthy grasp on the equal importance of both the discursive and the disclosive. He is one of those philosophers I have avoided studying too carefully for fear of devoting the rest of my career to nothing but exegesis of his thought. (But as I type this, it just now occurs to me that there might be a fruitful comparison to be made between Cassirer and Rorty — I’ll tuck that thought away for future reference.)
It’s problematic to call Reform Judaism a “faith”. It is, and it isn’t. The concept of “faith” was developed in the context of Protestant Christianity and it doesn’t really fit when used in other contexts. Reform Judaism is as much a culture and civilization and ethnicity as it is a religion; it’s partly like being Italian-American, both of the Old World and the New. It’s just a sociological fact that one can be an atheist and still be a participating member of a Reform Jewish congregation. (There is even an atheist synagogue, Beth Adam.)
I
My family attended a couple of different UU churches for awhile. One of them had a student minister who ended up with a church in California. It was a difficult move for him though: when he interviewed for his job there, prior to delivering a couple of guest sermons, a committee of elders (or something) told him that he shouldn’t ever use the “G” word there. All agnostics and atheists at that church, apparently.
Hey, it’s all the same to me whether this or that view is “natural.” I have the distinct sense, however, that it was wildly important to some theists here that religious views be considered the natural ones. I have no idea why they should think this is important; as I said, I personally couldn’t care less.
Anyhow, I’m quite happy to accept your claim that the accepted Christian view is that religious faith is unnatural. I’ll write it down somewhere, so I’ll be ready for the next maniacal Christian who insists that his or her views on this matter are natural and everybody having other views has befuddled/besmirched the natural way of looking at the world provided to each of us by God the Father.
I absolutely disagree with the claim that the concept of faith was developed in the context of Protestant Christianity. Before Protestant Christianity there existed Western and Eastern Christianity, and before that, let’s just call it Early Christianity for lack of a better term, and before that, Second Temple Judaism, and before that, First Temple Judaism, and before that…
So when you say “faith” you put it in quotes for what reason, other than to affirm that there’s no good reason to put it in quotes?
Maimonides’ 13 Foundations of Judaism
Right. And the evidence would indicate that neither have you.
This much I have to agree with you on, and disagree with Hitchens. It’s not that Jesus didn’t make those kinds of statements, because he did, but he also made contradictory remarks — for instance, the parable of the talents.
http://www.theologyofwork.org.
Jesus spoke several lessons on the value of long-term investing. And then he contradicted them in other lessons. So the central doctrine of Christianity still remains pretty much whatever you want it to be.
There is even a Church of Atheism, but in what convoluted sense are those people atheists? I think it’s dubious to call Buddhists atheists either. Buddhism clearly bears all the marks of religion, except for denying the doctrine about the fullness of ultimate Being, and instead worships Void and Path. Worship is inversely proportional to atheism.
Oh, Erik, you are so clearly incapable of understanding anything of the English language. What a shame that you continue to open your mouth and prove it.
I suspect that a secondary part of your problem is your total failure to understand the (special) legal status of churches in the USA, and that at least is curable.
First Church of Atheism F A Q
If it weren’t for the illegitimate preferences shown to religion and church enterprises in the USA (and some other barely civilized nations) there would be no reason for an atheists to wish to call themselves ministers or to incorporate into a entity known as a “church”.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Erik goes on to claim that atheist ordained ministers cannot possibly perform a marriage ceremony without reference to god. But that would be a truly stupid claim, so I do hope that’s not what follows from Erik. We all know that marriages can be solemnized without any witness from god whatsoever.
Buddhist priests do it all the time.
Which actually supports Hitchens general claim about CS Lewis’ “Trilemma”in reference to Jesus — usually given as Lunatic, Liar, or Lord — that is, unless we do actually believe Jesus was divine, we rationally have to agree with Lewis that Jesus was either crazy or wicked. We base this on his actions and commands as reported in the various gospels. The repeated insistence that his followers abandon their families and take no thought for the future suggests wicked. The bizarre cursing of the fig tree, the even more bizarre ideation about snake handling, and all the contradictory lessons suggest crazy (eg schizophrenic).
Of course, there is one more possibility: Legend. In which case it’s not surprising that the legendary central figure would turn out full of contradictions as he accrued the different characteristics which various groups of fans wished to endow him with.
Thank Maude you got something right for a change. I was worried about you.
Though I notice you still don’t correct or retract your stupidity about the people of the Church of Atheism.
I go with Legend.
Oh I believe that religious beliefs are very natural. Humans are born with an innate tendency to infer design and an innate tendency to worship. I don’t think there can be any doubt about that.
There is however a universe of difference between these innate natural responses and the Christian faith.
peace
This contention that Jesus is a legend is rejected by all serious historical scholarship even the most skeptical kind and yet we see at least three votes for the view that the Jesus was a legendary figure.
This is on a web site that prides itself on rejecting beliefs that are not supported by evidence.
Is that a stench of hypocrisy in the air?
peace