Ok, yes I have said the same many times. Ironic and truthful. Nicely put.

And who are those "others"? Toddlers? Senile old men? Teenagers? Bored housewives? Poles? Argentinians? Jews? Stamp collectors? Chemistry teachers? Who?

Who is your epistemic community?

The whole of the human race? Probably not. — baker

Good question, though not meant for me.

The 'rational community' is something like educated, rational humanists. Sure, one can cling to cultural Christianity or whatever, but keep it out of politics, keep it in the private sphere. The true and the good are determined socially, through science and democracy, etc.

In theory this Nobody could identify with the species and its rare, heroic specimens (Einstein and Tolstoy and Lincoln, etc.) — hanaH

A subcategory I am very amused by is the person who has read a great philosopher and assumes that they are now a philosopher too, with all the abundant creative powers of that famous writer.

A subcategory I am very amused by is the person who has read a great philosopher and assumes that they are now a philosopher too, with all the abundant creative powers of that famous writer. — Tom Storm

And in any Discourse whatsoever, if the defect of Discretion be apparent, how extravagant soever the Fancy be, the whole discourse will be taken for a signe of want of wit; and so will it never when the Discretion is manifest, though the Fancy be never so ordinary.

The secret thoughts of a man run over all things, holy, prophane, clean, obscene, grave, and light, without shame, or blame; which verball discourse cannot do, farther than the Judgement shall approve of the Time, Place, and Persons.

religion/spirituality is supposed to be fair game, for everyone. Now that's strange! — baker

Actually that brings up something I wanted to discuss. The Christian faith says salvation is open to all who believe. Christianity is said to be a 'universal religion', open to all, without regard to social status or past sins, for which all is forgiven by believing in the Atonement.

I've been reading an essay on Schopenhauer's philosophy of religion, which makes this observation:

Schopenhauer argues that philosophy and religion have the same fundamental aim: to satisfy “man’s need for metaphysics,” which is a “strong and ineradicable” instinct to seek explanations for existence that arises from “the knowledge of death, and therewith the consideration of the suffering and misery of life” (WWR I 161). Every system of metaphysics is a response to this realization of one’s finitude, and the function of those systems is to respond to that realization by letting individuals know their place in the universe, the purpose of their existence, and how they ought to act. All other philosophical principles (most importantly, ethics) follow from one’s metaphysical system.

Both philosophers and theologians claim the authority to evaluate metaphysical principles, but the standards by which they conduct those evaluations are very different. Schopenhauer concludes that philosophers are ultimately in the position to critique principles that are advanced by theologians, not vice versa. He nonetheless recognizes that the metaphysical need of most people is satisfied by their religion. This is unsurprising because, he contends, the vast majority of people find existence “less puzzling and mysterious” than philosophers do, so they merely require a plausible explanation of their role in the universe that can be adopted “as a matter of course” (WWR II 162). In other words, most people require a metaphysical framework around which to orient their lives that is merely apparently true. Therefore, the theologian has no functional reason to determine what is actually true. By contrast, the philosopher is someone whose metaphysical need is not satisfied by merely apparent truths – he is intrinsically driven to seek out actual truths about the nature of the world.

Due to the Christian heritage of the West the distinction between faith and philosophical analysis has become blurred. On the one hand, 'faith' says 'simply believe!' On the other, humans have an ineradicable desire to know, to understand, to seek reasons. But at the same time, Western science and philosophy, insofar as it is naturalist, walls itself off from anything deemed 'supernatural'. So a religious solution to man's existential angst is out-of-bounds, because it's religious. That is something that comes up time and time again in these discussions.

Just to be clear, I'm saying that he argues for scientism. Or, knowing the term is used pejoratively, he defends a data-driven, scientific approach to answering big questions. — hanaH

There seem to be many other ways of thinking about the "big questions", but no other way but science that seems to have any chance of delivering any definitive answers. I agree with Popper that sometimes those other metaphysical ways of thinking, apart from their poetic rewards, may also be inspirational to the abductive thought processes of scientists.

On the one hand, 'faith' says 'simply believe! — Wayfarer

I think you're working with an impoverished notion of faith. Faith can consist in an elaborate metaphysics as much as it can consist in simply accepting Jesus into your heart.

Faith can consist in an elaborate metaphysics — Janus

Don't you constantly say that metaphysics is 'like poetry'? Moving but not a sufficient basis for knowledge?

I think you're working with an impoverished notion of faith. Faith can consist in an elaborate metaphysics as much as it can consist in simply accepting Jesus into your heart. — Janus

I think we often use the word faith in various imprecise ways. Normally it refers to the process by which people believe, not the content of the belief. As in Hebrews 11 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. At its most charitable, faith is understood as an intuitive or personal understanding (if not certainty) of a god.

Don't you constantly say that metaphysics is 'like poetry'? Moving but not a sufficient basis for knowledge? — Wayfarer

That's right, an elaborate metaphysics may be a faith, but it is not knowledge.

There seem to be many other ways of thinking about the "big questions", but no other way but science that seems to have any chance of delivering any definitive answers. I agree with Popper that sometimes those other metaphysical ways of thinking, apart from their poetic rewards, may also be inspirational to the abductive thought processes of scientists. — Janus

I agree. For most part the answers of science are definitive in the form of technical solutions. A vaccine can be tested, and the essence of such a test is refined common sense.

I think we often use the word faith in various imprecise ways. Normally it refers to the process by which people believe, not the content of the belief. As in Hebrews 11 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. At its most charitable, faith is understood as an intuitive or personal understanding (if not certainty) of a god. — Tom Storm

Perhaps I should have said that an elaborate metaphysics can be an article of faith? I think your reference to intuition is appropriate; it seems natural enough to have faith in our intuitions, in our gut feelings, to what seems right,

. The true and the good are determined socially, through science and democracy, etc. — hanaH

Through science? Then you ignore non-scientific cultures. Science is just one culture amidst of many and should as such not be intertwined with democratic politics. Just as Christianity should be excluded from politics (as you suggest), so should science, unless all those involved agree to make it part of politics. There simply is not one reality that constitutes truth. Scientific reality is just one amongst many. Objective as it may sound.

Why should religious/spiritual people hold the philosophical community as authoritative over the religious/spiritual community? — baker

I was talking about something philosophical, understanding the existence of a cause which is unobservable, through observation of its effects, with the application of logic. You came and tried to change the subject, by describing the unobservable cause as something spiritual, implying that it could not be understood through the means that I presented.

Now you are trying to equate "religious" with "spiritual" in an attempt to exclude the philosophical aspects of religion, from religion, and claim that philosophy has no place in religion. Obviously you are wrong though and I have no need to present an argument for that, because it's so obvious to anyone who knows anything about religion. Your writing just appears as absurd, and undeserving of a response.

Do you feel the need to demonstrate to the religious/spiritual people that you are right? — baker

No, you changed the subject on me because you were unhappy with what I was talking about. I suppose you felt threatened by the truth. I would like to get back to the subject I was discussing, but since you refuse to go there, I'm content to simply point out where you are wrong.

I am not your "massa", nor anybody else's, nor would I want to be. I don't have sufficient energy to continue; you're too "high maintenance". — Janus

No, you're lazy.

Unless 'God'(or whatever) just is the text itself, merely reading about God would not typically be understood as a direct experience thereof. — hanaH

Why not?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:1

The 'rational community' is something like educated, rational humanists. Sure, one can cling to cultural Christianity or whatever, but keep it out of politics, keep it in the private sphere.


The true and the good are determined socially, through science and democracy, etc. — hanaH

Then whatever happened to the Theory of Evolution, the evolutionary struggle for survival, the survival of the fittest, and so on?

religion/spirituality is supposed to be fair game, for everyone. Now that's strange!
— baker

Actually that brings up something I wanted to discuss. The Christian faith says salvation is open to all who believe. Christianity is said to be a 'universal religion', open to all, without regard to social status or past sins, for which all is forgiven by believing in the Atonement. — Wayfarer

Indeed, it's open to all who believe. This is the epistemic and ethical requirement. It's safe to say that most people in secular academia, or at this forum don't meet this requirement.

It's all too easy to overlook the criteria that religions set for what it takes to know their truths.

I've been reading an essay on Schopenhauer's philosophy of religion, which makes this observation:

Schopenhauer argues that philosophy and religion have the same fundamental aim: to satisfy “man’s need for metaphysics,” which is a “strong and ineradicable” instinct to seek explanations for existence that arises from “the knowledge of death, and therewith the consideration of the suffering and misery of life” (WWR I 161). Every system of metaphysics is a response to this realization of one’s finitude, and the function of those systems is to respond to that realization by letting individuals know their place in the universe, the purpose of their existence, and how they ought to act. All other philosophical principles (most importantly, ethics) follow from one’s metaphysical system.

Both philosophers and theologians claim the authority to evaluate metaphysical principles, but the standards by which they conduct those evaluations are very different. Schopenhauer concludes that philosophers are ultimately in the position to critique principles that are advanced by theologians, not vice versa. He nonetheless recognizes that the metaphysical need of most people is satisfied by their religion. This is unsurprising because, he contends, the vast majority of people find existence “less puzzling and mysterious” than philosophers do, so they merely require a plausible explanation of their role in the universe that can be adopted “as a matter of course” (WWR II 162). In other words, most people require a metaphysical framework around which to orient their lives that is merely apparently true. Therefore, the theologian has no functional reason to determine what is actually true. By contrast, the philosopher is someone whose metaphysical need is not satisfied by merely apparent truths – he is intrinsically driven to seek out actual truths about the nature of the world.

By this, Schopenhauer doesn't seem to account for the fact that most religious people have been born and raised into their religion. Being born and raised that way makes religiosity one's default, not a matter of choice. So I think his analysis of religious people does not apply.

Schopenhauer concludes that philosophers are ultimately in the position to critique principles that are advanced by theologians, not vice versa.

And theologians think that theologians are ultimately in the position to critique principles that are advanced by philosophers. So now what?

Due to the Christian heritage of the West the distinction between faith and philosophical analysis has become blurred.

This has not been my impression at all. It has been my experience that religious people tend to criticize philosophers for being stuck in theorizing or doing nothing but theorizing. They look down on philosophical analysis (to the point of considering it a perverse waste of time).

On the one hand, 'faith' says 'simply believe!'

Again, this has not been my experience. Sure, an outsider is likely to experience religion this way, ie. as a matter of willing oneself to believe this or that, as a matter of taking things on faith. But not an insider, esp. not those born and raised into a religion. These people don't take the religious claims "on faith"; on the contrary, for them, they are facts (an epistemically trivial at that; ie. requiring no cognitive effort in order to be known).

In religions, faith seems to mean 'faithfulness', 'loyalty', and not a particular epistemic/ethical activity where one would hold something as potentially or tentatively true.

On the other, humans have an ineradicable desire to know, to understand, to seek reasons. But at the same time, Western science and philosophy, insofar as it is naturalist, walls itself off from anything deemed 'supernatural'. So a religious solution to man's existential angst is out-of-bounds, because it's religious. That is something that comes up time and time again in these discussions.

Sure. But this is a problem only for the non-religious.

I was talking about something philosophical, understanding the existence of a cause which is unobservable, through observation of its effects, with the application of logic. You came and tried to change the subject, by describing the unobservable cause as something spiritual, implying that it could not be understood through the means that I presented. — Metaphysician Undercover

You are the one who brought in God in the first place.

Now you are trying to equate "religious" with "spiritual"

I always do that.

in an attempt to exclude the philosophical aspects of religion, from religion, and claim that philosophy has no place in religion. Obviously you are wrong though and I have no need to present an argument for that, because it's so obvious to anyone who knows anything about religion. Your writing just appears as absurd, and undeserving of a response.

If a hundred philosophers jump off a bridge, then we must do so too ...

By this, Schopenhauer doesn't seem to account for the fact that most religious people have been born and raised into their religion. Being born and raised that way makes religiosity one's default, not a matter of choice. So I think his analysis of religious people does not apply. — baker

To be fair, he says:

"It is indeed a ticklish business to force on man through early impression weak and untenable notions in this important respect, and thus to render him for ever incapable of adopting more correct and stable views... Thus if with a mature mind and with the appearance of reflection the untenable nature of such doctrines forces itself on him, he has nothing better to put in their place; in fact, he is no longer capable of understanding anything better, and in this way is deprived of the consolation that nature had provided for him as compensation for the certainty of death."

So I think he considers the point you are making here.

Reading baker reminds me of offensive thinkers like Kierkegaard. — hanaH

That's the kind of point a Western philosopher might make, though, is it not? Yet you write as if the Western philosophy was a simple beast with clearly demarcated territory.

It's as if you deny the legitimacy of critically thinking about spiritual matters. It's a classic position. — hanaH

Where I and several other posters disagree is that I put forward the view that religion/spirituality is something far stricter, less open, less democratic, less accessible, far better delineated than they present it as.

I think he considers the point you are making here. — Manuel

:up: It's quite an interesting essay, very perceptive, in my opinion. I've read it right through a couple of times. (Here's the link again). What interests me, is that Schopenhauer is generally assumed to be a vociferous and militant atheist, and yet he's totally open to 'the transcendent'. Sure, he's bitterly critical of mainstream religiosity, but he reads religion allegorically, and also acknowledges that they exist for a real purpose, that there's a genuine need there. So, I don't think that Schopenhauer could be accomodated at all by the 'new atheists', they would probably regard him as ideologically suspect.

I put forward the view that religion/spirituality is something far stricter, less open, less democratic, less accessible — baker

...as if that is a good thing! 'Close your eyes and swallow the medicine! Everything will be fine, trust me!'

You are the one who brought in God in the first place. — baker

Yes, and "God" is a subject of philosophy and religion. But "God" is not the subject of the spiritual experience, so the mistake is yours.

I always do that. — baker

Some people never learn.

He's often misinterpreted, which is quite strange given that he was a very clear and fantastic writer. I mean sure, you can interpret him a few ways, but not nearly as many ways as, say, Kant.

You know already about his affinities with the Upanishads, he reached similar conclusions in a different manner, which is always fascinating. But yes, he was very much interested in and tried to clarify the mystical aspects of life.

Through science? Then you ignore non-scientific cultures. Science is just one culture amidst of many and should as such not be intertwined with democratic politics. Just as Christianity should be excluded from politics (as you suggest), so should science, unless all those involved agree to make it part of politics. There simply is not one reality that constitutes truth. Scientific reality is just one amongst many. Objective as it may sound. — GraveItty

Personally it doesn't make sense to me to treat science as a religion. One way to look at science is as distilled irreligion, as something like refined common sense, where that refinement is the stripping away the biased, the confused, and the irrelevant. It's a tradition that tries to see around our congenital tendencies toward deceiving ourselves (embraced perhaps because of its undeniable success at making the impossible possible.)

Materialism is as old as philosophy, but not older.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/

To me that means something like: it was a radical step to try to look at the world without or around religion as a lens.

Where I and several other posters disagree is that I put forward the view that religion/spirituality is something far stricter, less open, less democratic, less accessible, far better delineated than they present it as. — baker

Which is 'foolishness' to the humanist-without-thinking-about-it 'Greeks.' There is something appealing (because dangerous?) about a religion that's willing to abandon the game of pretending to be rational, scientific, democratic, etc. But does K need H as a foil? Perhaps you'd defend a continuing attachment to rationality and stress the elitism?

One way to look at science is as distilled irreligion, as something like refined common sense, where that refinement is the stripping away the biased, the confused, and the irrelevant — hanaH

It's more a matter of only including what can be quantified, prefereably in line with the paradigmatic model provided by physics.

Personally it doesn't make sense to me to treat science as a religion. — hanaH

Where do I say science is a religion? It can be compared to it, sure. Labs taking the place of churches, scientists as the whole bunch of people from priest to pope, imam, and people shouting from minarets, all scientific literature as the holy books (or oral traditions in non-western cultures which in general have more respect for Nature than western-, science-based culture which tends to place itself separate from Nature by it's very nature), Nature as the gods, Einstein Dawkins (the man of the selfish gene doctrine) being like Mozes hearing God speak, evolution (wrongly interpreted by that same Dawkins guy, giving rise to the false central dogma in biology) taking the place of the creation of man, cosmology of the creation of the heavens, schools (to which you are forced to go) and universities as the seminaries, etc. etc.

Science is not a religion though (so obviously it's irreligion which isn't to say it can combine with it). Gods do not enter in the scientific culture. It's more like an *art* expressing a worldview. In that respect it's no different from non-science-based cultures.

As such it can't be given ruling power. Which it clearly has in the modern world! And look at the consequences... The world has never been in a more deplorable state! Speaking of an analysis of the shadows....

You say religion is irrelevant, confusing, self-deceiving, and biased, and science is a refind common sense stripped away of all this. But that's your personal opinion. And that's indeed all it is. An opinion. So not a common sense. What would this common sense be? How do you know the gods don't exist? Science can't explain why the universe is there!

Where I and several other posters disagree is that I put forward the view that religion/spirituality is something far stricter, less open, less democratic, less accessible, far better delineated than they present it as.
— baker

Which is 'foolishness' to the humanist-without-thinking-about-it 'Greeks.' There is something appealing (because dangerous?) about a religion that's willing to abandon the game of pretending to be rational, scientific, democratic, etc. But does K need H as a foil? Perhaps you'd defend a continuing attachment to rationality and stress the elitism? — hanaH

I can't stress the elitism enough. What I've been trying to show is how impenetrable religious tenets are for the outsider. I've been trying to show that just because religious tenets are verbalized in a language one grammatically and lexically understands, this doesn't yet mean that one is qualified to understand them as intended. I emphasize the emic-etic distinction.

There is something appealing (because dangerous?) about a religion that's willing to abandon the game of pretending to be rational, scientific, democratic, etc.

No, that kind of extravaganza was Kierkegaard's thing, not mine.