Each person walks their own path for their own reasons. Everyone adopts their 'original' worldview/belief system. This is true of each and every language user regardless of familial, cultural, and societal particulars. All belief systems evolve over time and influence. This is also true of everyone.

To tell someone who we barely know, or do not know at all, that their considerations regarding their own worldview are a waste of time is an expression stemming from combined ignorance, unjustified certainty, blatant inconsideration for others(immoral behaviour if there is such a thing),and spiteful arrogance.

Pathetic.

There's an interesting internet anecdote about a well-known atheist philosopher, now deceased, by the name of Antony Flew, who's convictions were changed towards the end of his life by this very observation. There are large numbers of respected scientists who share the conviction. It's not empirically demonstrable, but then, it's not an empirical question (although of course for positivism, if it's not an empirical question, then it's nonsensical.) — Quixodian

I'm not clear which observation you are referring to.

Personally, I am never impressed by the fact that many intelligent people are devout Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or anything else. I would never try to undermine anyone's personal convictions, but I don't believe anyone's personal convictions that something is the case, metaphysically speaking, can constitute good evidence for it being the case. I also don't believe that many people having a certain personal metaphysical conviction is good evidence for the truth of the conviction. To say it is evidence would be an argument from authority, and we all know such arguments are fallacious.

Anyway— I don’t care about whether people are Christian or not; I care about what they do. — Mikie

Jesus and you agree on the importance of "do".

"Everyone who hears my words and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.” Matthew 7:26-27

But in terms of philosophical questioning on a philosophy forum, especially if you’re otherwise secular — yeah, people should move on from that. Either study theology or treat god like any other god. No reason to give “god” special attention just because you happen to be raised in that faith. — Mikie

You are rejecting the specificity of people's experience and their development as persons. You have all sorts of features as a person that are a reflection of how, where, and when you were raised. Perhaps it would be a good idea to lose that fear of spiders you acquired as a child, but there's no reason to lose your language, preferred music, preference in vegetables, and so on. If you were raised in a secular family and have no religious experiences or interests, there's no reason for you to ditch that.

Most style books recommend capitalizing God, thus giving him special attention. If one is talking about various gods, then no special treatment is required. It's a feature of English and its history within Christendom.

I don’t think religion is a waste of time
— Mikie

It’s a waste of time.
— Mikie — BC

How about some nuance, some context? I think @Mikie means that talk about religion and Gods is a waste of time, not that practicing religion is, for the faithful, a waste of time. No doubt he will correct me if I have misrepresented his view.

There can be no evidence of such a thing
— Janus

From the theistic perspective, the Universe is the evidence. — Quixodian

The Universe cannot be evidence of anything other than what studying it reveals. Studying it has not revealed that there is a governing intelligence. Lawlike behavior is observed, but we don't know what the explanation for that is, or even if any explanation for it is possible.

The thing is, much of Western philosophy is based on esoteric or religious foundations. Even ancient Greek philosophy, often has esoteric metaphysics at its foundation. Even "revelation". You can say it is part and parcel of the Greek religious ideology. Look at Parmenides. He is one of the great pre-Socratic philosophers, and his philosophy is basically a poetic theological revelation on the idea of oneness. Even his logical proofs are basically religious. Same goes for Pythagoras, Plato himself, Plotinus, not to mention almost all the Medieval scholastics. In fact, it really isn't until Hume, and then again in the late 19th early 20th century that you have a thoroughly non-metaphysical philosophy that just focuses on logic, philosophy of language problems, philosophy of science, and more discrete disciplines meant to accompany science at the exclusion of any speculative thinking.

Here is a great little lecture on the esoteric nature of Parmenides.

Philosophy used to be under the aegis of religion, now it has become secular, which really just amounts to becoming concerned with this world rather than some imagined afterlife or higher realm.

This is in general how modern Western civilization has gone too, and the changes in philosophical approaches reflect that. We cannot project ourselves back into the philosophical shoes of the medievals and the ancients, to attempt that would be anachronistic.

Philosophy used to be under the aegis of religion, now it has become secular, which really just amounts to becoming concerned with this world rather than some imagined afterlife. This is in general how modern Western civilization has gone too, and the changes in philosopher approaches reflect that. We cannot project ourselves back into the philosophical shoes of the medieval and the ancients, to attempt that would be anachronistic. — Janus

In a history of philosophy way, if we want to be holistic about it, it is important to see how the ideas of a time period shaped the ideas of Western culture up to our very day.

But also, there is a philosophy of religion section in academia, and in this forum. Thus, fair game to discuss, dissect, and analyze. There are ideas that can come out of it that can be worth debating.

Unlike you to deliberately quote out of context. Kind of disappointing. The context:

To me, all this talk/questioning about God is as silly as watching people in India talking about the specific patterns of Vishnu’s tunic. It’s a waste of time. — Mikie

This does not mean religion is a waste of time. Giving special attention to the minutia of one myth is a waste of time— assuming you view it as a myth.

I agree. I rarely discuss "religions" or "God" or "theology" but instead focus on theism and other such purported 'conceptions of divinity' by investigating the claims which they entail as well as facts of the matter which they presuppose. The philosophical import of each 'conception of the divine' is metaphysical, that is, has implications for 'the concept of nature, or reality', and short of this, I think you're right, Mikie – the topic (re: god religion theology faith etc) is a waste of time. However, many could say the same about philosophy – that discussions about 'existing & being, good & truth, culture & nature' are also wastes of time – not much more than interminable circle-jerks of competing jargons. :smirk:

The thing is, much of Western philosophy is based on esoteric or religious foundations. — schopenhauer1

More arboreal roots than architectural "foundations" – but yes, for the most part the Pre-Socratics strove to suppliment and/or substitute rational conceptions (Logos) of reality for religious / esoteric verse-fairytales (Mythos)

What’s pathetic is your understanding.

that their considerations regarding their own worldview are a waste of time — creativesoul

Complete straw man. Not once did I say that. But keep fabricating all you want if it makes you feel virtuous.

You are rejecting the specificity of people's experience and their development as persons. — BC

I’m doing the exact opposite of this.

If you were raised in a secular family and have no religious experiences or interests, there's no reason for you to ditch that. — BC

I’m not advocating anyone ditch their culture or religion.

How about some nuance, some context? I think Mikie means that talk about religion and Gods is a waste of time, not that practicing religion is, for the faithful, a waste of time. No doubt he will correct me if I have misrepresented his view. — Janus

I appreciate the effort to give a least a small benefit of the doubt.

It’s not a waste of time for believers. That’s theology— which is fine by me. What’s a waste of time is engaging in philosophical questioning and discussion about various aspects of God when you already accept that Christian dogma is one of many and accept the anthropological point of view.

Which is also to acknowledge the culture and beliefs of the rest of the world, and thus that we shouldn’t give Christianity special treatment.

As an example: if one is a creationist, fine. But don’t pretend you’re doing science. If one is a Christian believer, do theology — but don’t pretend to be questioning philosophically. If one isn’t a Christian believer, but was raised in a Christian culture, then don’t waste time by dwelling on and privileging Christian stories simply on account of being raised in it.

That’s my point. I’m not saying religion is a waste of time — one is free to search my history on what I’ve written about religion for evidence.

he thing is, much of Western philosophy is based on esoteric or religious foundations. — schopenhauer1

That’s an interesting point. The similarities between religion and philosophy is worth discussing. I think we all have a religion, in a sense. But that’s not really what I’m getting at here. I’m making a much more narrow argument about objects of philosophical inquiry, what’s worthwhile and what isn’t.

I think you're right, Mikie – the topic (re: god religion theology faith etc) is a waste of time. — 180 Proof

I don’t really think that though— I’m saying it’s a waste of time to treat God or Christianity as special (here the thread name), assuming that you approach the matter from a philosophical (or historical or anthropological) point of view. If one doesn’t approach it that way, I have no personal gripe with them — I would only argue that they’re not doing philosophy or anthropology, they’re doing theology.

On a philosophy forum, I take the liberty of assuming most people approach it in the philosophical sense. That is, they’re not devout or literal believers, but were likely raised with it (as I myself was and I imagine many people in the West were too). Of these people, my argument is that to privilege the stories of youth and take seriously those questions — but not, say, the questions of Vishnu — is a waste of time and, in a way, ethnocentric.

So you're just objecting to a dogmatic (or proselytizing) mindset?

To me, all this talk/questioning about God is as silly as watching people in India talking about the specific patterns of Vishnu’s tunic. It’s a waste of time. — Mikie

Christian beliefs, myths and stories are no different from Hindu beliefs or animistic beliefs of tribal people. From a psychological, anthropological, and historical point of view, it’s just one more worldview. — Mikie

The argument is simple: because one happens to be raised in a Christian culture doesn’t afford special attention to one’s “questions” about God. Very easy to see if you replace “God” with “Wodin.” — Mikie

I'm currently thinking you present us with two premises: a) Christianity is no less invalid as a factual worldview that all of the many other religious world-views (discredited through the lens of Christianity); Christian votaries, given the truth of this, should either resort to study of (mythical) religious texts or entirely repent of their involvement thereof; b) total repentance of religion entails Christian votaries abandoning the false belief that Christianity is the "last man standing" with credibility within the realm of religious world-views.

Also, regarding the question of your purpose, you're not attacking religion. Instead, you're advising religious votaries with regard to what you understand to be a classification error. Religion requires a different classification than that applied to science and philosophy.

I’m objecting to otherwise non-religious people who want it to engage in philosophical inquiry spending inordinate amount of time wallowing in — giving special attention to — mythical stories, just because they were raised with them.

It’d be like discussing the philosophical aspects of Santa Claus when you’ve long recognized him as a myth. Do why the endless theses about him? Santa Claus isn’t anything special.

I’m objecting to otherwise non-religious people who want it to engage in philosophical inquiry spending inordinate amount of time wallowing in — giving special attention to — mythical stories, just because they were raised with them. — Mikie

Care to post a link to a thread or post as an example to clarify what you mean?

No, because the one that catalyzed me to write this is actually someone who I like and who is a good contributor. But there are usually dozens of discussions a month with “God” in the title. I’m all for theology if that’s what people want to discuss.

But in the narrow case I mean, I think it’s treating Christianity as special and is a waste of time.

Some explicit demarcation is needed, as a guide to newbies and as a tool for mods.

...there are three things that identify a move from a philosophical enquiry to mere theology: — Banno

• claiming that god is the answer to a philosophical question
• using scripture, revelation or other religious authority in an argument
• entering into a philosophical argument in bad faith.

These merit deletion or banning.

But that itself is tendentious. You're asking others to question their beliefs, but taking your own for granted. — Quixodian

I don’t take them for granted. I’m happy to question them. It’s more of a definition, really — I don’t consider creationists to be doing science, while they would disagree. Likewise, I don’t see those explaining the miracles of Jesus to be doing philosophy — that’s more Biblical studies or theology.

If I’m asking anything, I’m asking for less privileging of “God” amongst philosophers simply because they were raised in the Christian faith or in a Christian culture.

:up:

The issue I’m raising isn’t really a mod one. I’m not suggesting censoring anyone or deleting anything. I’m merely giving a personal view on a fairly narrow issue.

But statements like this

Santa Claus isn’t anything special. — Mikie

comparing God to Santa Claus only conveys lack of insight as far as I'm concerned. Sure, God may mean nothing to you, but trivialising belief in God doesn't recognise the formative role that Christianity has had in the history of Western culture.

using scripture, revelation or other religious authority in an argument — Banno

I agree that citing scripture in support of a philosophical argument is generally bad form. But conversely, the tendency to take the whole content of religion in the history of ideas off the table is also a pretty dogmatic attitude, and it's often on display here. There's a kind of implicit or unstated taboo on certain lines of argument based on this prohibition.

But conversely, the tendency to take the whole content of religion in the history of ideas is also a pretty dogmatic attitude, and it's often on display here. — Quixodian

Hu?

God may mean nothing to you, — Quixodian

And to the person I’m directing my advice to. It’s not that it means nothing — it has sentimental value perhaps, for example — but there’s no reason to privilege it. It’s simply not special, any more than Santa Claus.

Again, this ASSUMES we’re facing this philosophically, in the same way we’re facing the fossil record scientifically rather than through creationism.

Again, this ASSUMES we’re facing this philosophically, in the same way we’re facing the fossil record scientifically rather than through creationism. — Mikie

Right. So what I said earlier - a brief analytical statement of what is important about the religious idea. That essentially the human being is not only or simply a physical phenomenon. That the human embodies or is directly related to the governing intelligence of the Cosmos (whether concieved of in personalistic terms as God or as an impersonal principle such as Dharma or Tao).

Would you consider that idea as philosophically significant?

Would you consider that idea as philosophically significant? — Quixodian

Absolutely.

:up:

I would never try to undermine anyone's personal convictions, but I don't believe anyone's personal convictions that something is the case, metaphysically speaking, can constitute good evidence for it being the case. I also don't believe that many people having a certain personal metaphysical conviction is good evidence for the truth of the conviction. — Janus

How does this not then apply to the metaphysical conviction that anything which some might deem “spiritual” – such as the belief that death to this world does not equate to an absolute cessation of personal being – can only be baloney?

After all: materialism, too, is but only a metaphysical conviction.

It’s not a waste of time for believers. That’s theology— which is fine by me. What’s a waste of time is engaging in philosophical questioning and discussion about various aspects of God when you already accept that Christian dogma is one of many and accept the anthropological point of view. — Mikie

One can approach the subject via the view that all the world’s major religions hold some aspect of the perennial philosophy in common – with each such religion applying it differently.

As to the philosophical importance of Christianity, and Santa Claus/Christmas, and the like for those who accept the anthropological point of view: these cultural traditions have vast impacts upon the lives of all westerners – regardless of their/our beliefs – and western culture is as of today the predominant culture worldwide.

As one example, one would be benefited in understanding today’s international politics by gaining greater insight into what some Christians fervently believe to be Christ’s second coming (and some Jews fervently believe to be Christs first coming) upon the fulfillment of X, Y, and Z conditions. But no such benefit can obtain if one disallows philosophical discussions of Christianity, or of religions in general.

As another, our western economies would be relatively devastated in the absence of Christmas and, hence, of the continued mythos of Santa Claus (whose intended deeper truth is basically that good outcomes result from good deeds).

As Stephen Crane put it:

Tradition, thou art for suckling children,
Thou art the enlivening milk for babes;
But no meat for men is in thee.
Then —
But, alas, we all are babes.

If one is a Christian believer, do theology — but don’t pretend to be questioning philosophically. — Mikie

By and large I think I agree with your sentiment in the thread, but this quote here betrays a misunderstanding on your part, I think. As a former Evangelical Christian, I can tell you that when I used to "do theology" it was the same thing to me as "doing philosophy"; I considered them to be identical. Theology was philosophy was theology. Of course, from an outside perspective we can see the mistake here, but the Christian believer you're theoretically speaking to cannot see the forest for the trees here, so your complaint is simply that to them; an annoying complaint that they probably don't understand and will dismiss. So the thread amounts to another vapid complaint about religion that is based on yet another misunderstanding, as far as I can tell.

But conversely, the tendency to take the whole content of religion in the history of ideas is also a pretty dogmatic attitude, and it's often on display here.
— Quixodian
Hu? — Banno

I think what he means is that all human endeavor comes to nothing, it helps nothing, and it ultimately means nothing.

Therefore snarl at your neighbor for some whatever nonsense about Jesus and the Devil, or just be in awe at what some primates come up with as the earth turns toward nowhere, for no reason, before the lights go out.

hu?

Exactly.