Influence of Religious Beliefs when Doing Philosophy

[Eduk]

This does not mean of course that people who are members of a religion aren't moral and don't provide comfort and don't provide any answers. But they do this because they are human and in spite of their religious beliefs not because of their religious beliefs.


I am not sure what this means. I am not suggesting that religious answers come from a divine source, they are, in my opinion, human answers that cloak themselves in the garb of divinity.

The main point I'm trying to make is that the further divorced from reality you are the less likely you are to make good decisions. For example if you believe you can fly (unaided) then under some special circumstances this could save your life but more often it will cause you harm and lose of life. If you joined a group with this belief then that group might be of net benefit to you, they may offer more than they take away with the flying belief. But the good things they offered wouldn't be unique to that group, whereas the belief in flight would be quite unique. So while the group as a whole may indeed be good for you personally it is still the case that the beliefs of group which are unique are harmful.

By way of example:

I am the way the truth and the life (John 14:6)


It may not be true but it is an answer and millions follow, the faithful flock.

You can draw any conclusion you like from a sentence like that, it answers nothing.

[Fooloso4]

Ontical:

Spinoza, Keirkegaard and Descartes did okay as philosophers and men of faith, after all.

I do not think Descartes was a man of faith in God but in man’s “infinite perfectibility” through reason. His motto, after all, was: “He who lived well hid himself well”. By doubting everything he was able to doubt the authority and truth of the Church and religion while still being able to live well and not suffer the fate of Galileo. Some in his own time saw through him as some do today.

Spinoza was labeled a heretic and expelled from the Sephardic synagogue in Amsterdam. Spinoza’s faith too was a faith in reason, the ability of reason to know the whole.

[RuleOnu]

Being a religious philosopher is liberating.

You can, for instance, reconcile by faith what logic does not allow you to do.

For instance, the axioms of mathematics no longer apply. 3-1 = 0 is a true statement according to Christian thinkers.

Also, infinite good and infinite power can create evil. Go figure. This is a shoo-in for belief by the religious, while the poor, hapless atheist philosophers throw their hands in the air in giving up trying to fathom how that is possible.

Giving up your only begotten son -- a bastard -- via a horrible, painful death, to free mankind from sin, when the whole freeing of mankind from the original sin could have been done by God downing a tasty tonic or cola. The power is in Him to do so... or to do it in any one of a million other, more pleasant ways... yet He chose to kill his only besodden son. Whom was He trying to impress?

These are just some of myriads of the liberating features that religious philosophers enjoy over atheist ones... the liberation from the constraints of logic, of reason, of being able to make sense of the world.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that you make several questionable assertions.
I'd like to know what is it in "Christian thinking" which negates logical axioms for illogical axioms, for which there is no applicable conjecture? 3-1=2, in all world's, whether Christian or not. It seems that you imply that some kind of Christian thinking is irrational or lends itself to the absurd. At least, insofar as mathematics is comcerned.
The part of your comment having to do with Christ can hardly be called a logical argument since it is pure hyperbole and ad hominems.
I don't know if you're willing to entertain logical rationales for Christ's Crucifixion, but you're off to a bad start. I don't know how the term "besodden" is any way applicable to the account.
I'd be more than willing to debate theist and Christian philosophy versus atheist philosphy. Thanks.

[Eduk]

Atheism makes one negative claim. It's not what i would call a philosophy. Even the reason​ for that claim is different between atheists. There's no official atheist reason for example.

[-1-]

Saying "there is no official atheist reason for example" is similar to saying "there is no official democratic way of breathing with gills for Democrats", for instance.

There is no official reason anywhere that is different from anyone else's reason. Therefore you are right, there is no official reason for atheists, either, but there is no official reason for Sun Worshippers, either, or for Christians. Reason is universal, it has no official sanctions by different world views.

Maybe we use "reason" differently, in different senses?

You are maybe trying to say, "there is no atheist dogma"? Yes, you're right about that. And atheists revel in their lives and world views being free of the yoke of dogma. Incredible freedom, something a religious person can imagine, maybe covet, but never experience.

You also say "the reason for [the take-away or negative claim that there is no god or gods] is different between atheists. What do you mean here by "reason"? The cause, the thing or things that effect atheism in people? They must be psychological. Or the reasoning that atheists propose why they believe there is no god? That is philosophical. Your statement is not clear as to which way you mean it.

At any rate, there are two ways a person can become an atheist, from what I've seen: via reason, that is, by figuring out that god is not a needed part of the universe for the explanation of the working of the things in the universe, including human morals and ethics; moreover, religious thought contradicts observed reality and what we can learn from it. Those people who arrive at atheism this way, do not have a particular hatred for or dismay with religion or the god image; they just mature enough in their thinking to see the inherent and replete incongruities in religious thinking and teachings.

The other way to arrive at atheism is via a growing, complete and utter disgust and hatred against a religion which tortured minds and lives of people and they had enough of it and they leave the restrictive, accusative, punitive religious communities behind.

[Eduk]

here is a non exhaustive list

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions ... ns_1.shtml

[Dark Matter]

Why must a religionist be constrained by anything?

-- Updated April 7th, 2017, 4:45 am to add the following --

here is a non exhaustive list

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions ... ns_1.shtml

It's a list of stupid reasons.

[Eduk]

It's a list of stupid reasons.

That's irrelevant. I merely asserted that Atheism has one negative belief and the reason for that belief varies from atheist to atheist (there are stupid atheists for example). It can hardly be described as a philosophy, that is my one and only point.

[Steve3007]

I agree with Eduk's simple point that a single, specific negative belief about an assertion by a group of other people can't really be called "a philosophy".

I also note that having "a philosophy" means something a bit different, in everyday discourse, from "doing philosophy". The OP seems to be about the latter and it says that "doing philosophy" means "using reason to find truth and evaluating arguments". I would say that is specifically analytical philosophy. Most people who enjoy analytical philosophy claim that it is actually the only meaningful form of philosophy that exists and that everything else is nonsense. Obviously others disagree with them. Some people would propose that the use of reason and the logical evaluation of arguments is not the only method available in the pursuit of wisdom. And I think it's this more general concept of "the pursuit of wisdom" that defines philosophy as a whole.

Anyway, having "a philosophy" is generally used to mean having a set of guiding principles to one's life, or to the resolution of a particular problem. As in the expression: "Well Brian, my philosophy on that is...".

-- Updated Fri Apr 07, 2017 10:21 am to add the following --

-1- (post #6):

I wrote the following poem about it some very long time ago, on the forum pages of a dating website, it's probably still there:

The Passion To Know...

followed by the poem.

I'd love to know, for personal reasons: Did you get any dates on the back of this technique?

[Dark Matter]

It's a list of stupid reasons.

That's irrelevant. I merely asserted that Atheism has one negative belief and the reason for that belief varies from atheist to atheist (there are stupid atheists for example). It can hardly be described as a philosophy, that is my one and only point.

Good point.

[-1-]

-- Updated Fri Apr 07, 2017 10:21 am to add the following --

-1- (post #6):

I wrote the following poem about it some very long time ago, on the forum pages of a dating website, it's probably still there:

The Passion To Know...

followed by the poem.

I'd love to know, for personal reasons: Did you get any dates on the back of this technique?

This was a rather involved dating site, paid one. Huge monies. And the forums of it, at the time, were more involved than shouting matches. Although it had its share of those too.

I never got any successful dates out of that dating site. Two dates, one hated me more than the other, after the date. I did get one of the dates due to my involvement on the forums; the other date was more exciting, with more cold-call approach, but it also lead to nowhere.

You must know that I am 5'4", which is a horribly strong deterrent, and at the time I was fat. I made no bones about it. So no matter how brilliant or interesting I may have sounded on the forums, I was a loser, being short, fat, and I almost forgot to say, poor, too. Three strikes against me... and I always was upfront about them right in the first paragraph of my personal description.

I would say those who were more normal as defined by normal standards of eligibility, got dates. I can't say whether they'd have been more successful if they employed my tactic of being active on the site's forums.

----------

Back to the actual discussion after this digression:

I also believe that atheism can be viewed or used either not as a philosophical trend, or school, but part of other philosophical schools or trends; or else it's a really simply put, simple, and non-complicated building block of philosophies, itself, by itself, being a very simple and straight-forward, one-statement philosophy.

Debating whether atheism is a philosophy or not, is like debating whether viruses are live or dead matter. Atheism shows features of philosophical trends, and viruses show life-form type behaviour, but both are much less complex than actual full-blown philosophies or life-forms, and by themselves neither could survive in the wild, although they could be preserved in an intact form, to be revived at a much later time.

-- Updated 2017 April 7th, 5:21 pm to add the following --

why people reject religions? Or why are people atheists?

here is a non exhaustive list

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions ... ns_1.shtml

This is a brilliant list. It gave me no fresh ideas; however, it described my internalized ideas in very succinct, easy-to-understand, simple ways.

[Steve3007]

-1-:

You must know that I am 5'4", which is a horribly strong deterrent, and at the time I was fat. I made no bones about it. So no matter how brilliant or interesting I may have sounded on the forums, I was a loser, being short, fat, and I almost forgot to say, poor, too. Three strikes against me... and I always was upfront about them right in the first paragraph of my personal description.

You'd think there'd be quite a few women who are 5 feet tall or smaller who might be daunted by anyone too tall? And I guess the weight thing is solvable in theory. I'd guess the poverty one is probably the most difficult problem to solve. No matter how we'd like to think otherwise, we (as a species) do tend to value financial success. Alpha males and all that.

Anyway, thanks for that honest insight.

-- Updated Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:14 pm to add the following --

Incidentally, on the subject of being "a loser":

I recently listened to a short talk by the pop philosopher Alain de Botton on that expression. He observed that it's a relatively recent concept - being "a loser". In Victorian times, for example, people didn't talk about "losers". They used words like "poor unfortunates". I think nowadays we might think it patronising to call somebody "an unfortunate". But de Botton speculated that the change of language represents a negative change in the way we view failure.

To call somebody "an unfortunate" is to imply that it is beyond their control. It's not their fault. It's their lot in life. Nowadays we like to think we live in a meritocracy in which we're all responsible for our own destinies and are classless and free. The downside of that culture is that we then have to entirely own our failures, even if they shouldn't really be regarded as failures at all.

[Togo1]

Atheism makes one negative claim. It's not what i would call a philosophy. Even the reason​ for that claim is different between atheists. There's no official atheist reason for example.

Indeed so. Rather than being a philosophy, or a school of thought, it may be more accurate to class it as a religion.

[Eduk]

Some atheists are brought up in atheist families and are atheists because that is what they were told when they were young. Their parents are atheists and disapprove or religion, their friends are atheists and disapprove of religion. They think religions are uncool, the girls they are interested in think atheism is cool. They haven't really given the topic much, if any, thought beyond these kinds of human interactions. They are unconsciously atheist, so in this example then yes it is basically what I would call a religious belief. One not based on reason.

[Fooloso4]

EduK:

Some atheists are brought up in atheist families and are atheists because that is what they were told when they were young. Their parents are atheists and disapprove or religion, their friends are atheists and disapprove of religion. They think religions are uncool, the girls they are interested in think atheism is cool. They haven't really given the topic much, if any, thought beyond these kinds of human interactions. They are unconsciously atheist, so in this example then yes it is basically what I would call a religious belief. One not based on reason.

Atheism can occur as a matter of generational drift - grandparents who are strict adherents, parents who are more relaxed, and children for which it is irrelevant except perhaps as a cultural practice, such as the celebration of holidays. Since the younger generation never took seriously belief in God, their atheism is not a matter of opposition. They are aware that their ancestors were religious believers and do not necessarily disapprove, it is just not something they believe. God is as remote from their worldview as Zeus is to monotheistic believers. I would call that the absence of religious belief.