Philosophy not theology
- Richardtod
- Posts: 9
- Joined: July 19th, 2013, 8:06 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Plato
Philosophy not theology
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3218
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Philosophy not theology
The issue which you raise is complicated because at certain times in history, especially in the Judaeo-Christian tradition philosophy and theology have been linked. This included Augustine and Aquinas, who integrated the ideas of Plato and Aristotle with the ideas of Christianity. It was with the growth of rationalism and humanism that the theology and philosophy became separated.Richardtod wrote: ↑June 1st, 2022, 10:11 am Every philosophy group I join will at some point, and far more regular than any other topic, bring up religion. Why? I despair at the constant battle over a mythical being. Why mythical? Because there has never been any proof of a God’s existence other than through faith or bad argument. There can be no argument that will pin God on a philosophy table as God is, according to my theological friends, unknowable. This is not philosophy, it is theology. I appreciate many do want to discuss religion, as can be demonstrated by the number of passionate posts. But surely these could and should be on a theology forum, not philosophy?
Within philosophy, and on this forum, there is the branch of the philosophy of religion. It is different from theology, which is it's own reference point and often does not look at the underlying issue beyond a specific framework of religious beliefs. Philosophy of religion, on the other hand, looks at the questions around the question of the existence of God in relation to the broader picture of philosophy. It can be approached from a theist, atheist or other perspective. While your point about the difficulty of proving God can be difficult the question of God's existence still remains a central one of philosophy, as an essential one of metaphysics.
So, for that reason, to simply say that the existence of God should be addressed on a theology forum wouldn't make sense. It would be almost requiring a rejection of any belief in God as a prerequisite for philosophy discussion. It would be prescriptive, almost outlawing any debate on the matter of God's existence.I struggle with the issue of God's existence, having been brought up in a religious(Roman Catholic) background but I have tried reading theology but found that most of which I tried was too narrow in focus. I do read on the philosophy of religion, and it doesn't necessarily make answering the question easier because it is hard to prove or disprove God, and most of the rational arguments on both sides are open to strong challenge. There again, so many aspects of philosophy are hard to answer, so the ones related to God's existence and religion remain central, especially as other aspects of philosophy may be answered differently according to the question of God's existence or lack of existence.
- Richardtod
- Posts: 9
- Joined: July 19th, 2013, 8:06 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Plato
Re: Philosophy not theology
My point is that any argument which requires the existence of God, never mind the shape and form of God depending on which religion or branch thereof you choose, is not a sound argument as it has not been proven that God exists. It is therefore a hypothetical and not a rational argument.Richardtod wrote: ↑June 1st, 2022, 10:11 am There again, so many aspects of philosophy are hard to answer, so the ones related to God's existence and religion remain central
I agree that looking at any argument from a hypothetical point of view can add to the richness of the debate like any thought experiment despite all the caveats and assumptions associated with it. I recently had a theologian ironically argue against the use of thought experiments for that very reason.
Christianity has adopted and adapted other ideas and beliefs ever since it became an organised political force. Bending the ideas and beliefs of the old religions to their purpose or to adapt their interpretation of God to adjust to the strong beliefs of those religions. (My local Church has the unique status of having two versions of the pagan Green Man.) It is not surprising that Aquinas et al have performed the same technique with the thoughts of Plato. His thoughts had to be subjugated to a Christian point of view, however tortuous that interpretation was, as they could, possibly, undermine the Christian religion.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3218
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Philosophy not theology
Rather than having done anything wrong with the quote in the box, which is mine but saying your name it is likely that you are struggling with the technical issues of the sight. I struggled with this and was only mentioning people. If you go into the lounge section you will find a thread on technical advice about quotes in boxes which helped me. It is probably best to follow it there rather than let the issue distract from the main argument of your thread.
Best wishes,
Jack
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3218
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Philosophy not theology
It is likely that you are thinking about the existence of God from the standpoint of empiricism in science as a basic starting point. This is bound up with a particular understanding of reality which is the dominant one in the twentieth first century. However, the arguments regarding the existence of God go back to a different way of reasoning, it is important to think about the ideas of science but it may be that looking at other arguments like the argument from design and Kant's ideas on a priori logic, or rational arguments are still worth looking at. Science may not have completely replaced metaphysics.Richardtod wrote: ↑June 2nd, 2022, 7:58 am I am sorry, but I am an inexperienced user of the forum. I am not the author of the following quote, It belongs to 'JackDaydream,' I have no idea what I have done wrong and have been unable to correct it.
My point is that any argument which requires the existence of God, never mind the shape and form of God depending on which religion or branch thereof you choose, is not a sound argument as it has not been proven that God exists. It is therefore a hypothetical and not a rational argument.Richardtod wrote: ↑June 1st, 2022, 10:11 am There again, so many aspects of philosophy are hard to answer, so the ones related to God's existence and religion remain central
I agree that looking at any argument from a hypothetical point of view can add to the richness of the debate like any thought experiment despite all the caveats and assumptions associated with it. I recently had a theologian ironically argue against the use of thought experiments for that very reason.
Christianity has adopted and adapted other ideas and beliefs ever since it became an organised political force. Bending the ideas and beliefs of the old religions to their purpose or to adapt their interpretation of God to adjust to the strong beliefs of those religions. (My local Church has the unique status of having two versions of the pagan Green Man.) It is not surprising that Aquinas et al have performed the same technique with the thoughts of Plato. His thoughts had to be subjugated to a Christian point of view, however tortuous that interpretation was, as they could, possibly, undermine the Christian religion.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8265
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Philosophy not theology
Consider Apparent Reality - the (impressions/images of) 'reality' that our senses and perception deliver to our conscious minds. There is a near-universal supposition that Apparent Reality is exactly identical to Objective Reality. And yet, to use your words, 'there has never been any proof of Apparent Reality’s existence other than through faith or bad argument'. Some things that we believe are not associated with evidence, or other attributes that might enable a 'scientific' consideration of the matter, resulting/concluding in 'proof'. And yet we believe them, and discuss them at great length, on philosophy forums if nowhere else.Richardtod wrote: ↑June 1st, 2022, 10:11 am Every philosophy group I join will at some point, and far more regular than any other topic, bring up religion. Why? I despair at the constant battle over a mythical being. Why mythical? Because there has never been any proof of a God’s existence other than through faith or bad argument.
I see no reason to divorce theology from philosophy. Theology is just one of the many and varied things to which we give serious mental consideration. Philosophy is the general term we use to describe our study of these 'many and varied things', I think. So I am quite happy that theology is considered part of philosophy.Richardtod wrote: ↑June 1st, 2022, 10:11 am There can be no argument that will pin God on a philosophy table as God is, according to my theological friends, unknowable. This is not philosophy, it is theology. I appreciate many do want to discuss religion, as can be demonstrated by the number of passionate posts. But surely these could and should be on a theology forum, not philosophy?
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 65
- Joined: March 18th, 2020, 4:10 pm
Re: Philosophy not theology
How can we predict that a premise is sound, until we enlist the help of others, or use rational enquiry, or build upon the premise?
I suspect that one of the problems in debates about God, is that the evidence tends to be circular. The premise is that God exists, and therefore it always comes back to that assertion.
But really, I think that paradoxes are similar. There is no set method to solving paradoxes, because all paradoxes are different, and there will always be a new paradox for us to discover.
Therefore, if discussions about God are both circular and paradoxical, then maybe that leads us to discoveries that force out a certain uniqueness in our thought processes and allow us to build upon the premise meaningfully?
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8265
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Philosophy not theology
I am a believer, but not a Christian. But even I can see and accept that you are wrong here: the evidence is not circular because - talking in terms of scientific investigation, and scientific standards of evidence - there is no evidence at all. None.
There is no evidence that can verify the existence of God, nor can there ever be. But also, let's not forget that there is no evidence that can refute the existence of God, nor can there ever be. There is no evidence.
The 'existence' of God uses the same words as, for example, the existence of Stonehenge, but it doesn't refer to the same thing. Even believers recognise that God does not exist in the way that Stonehenge does. God's existence is a spiritual matter that cannot be decided by scientific or logical means, if only because there is no evidence.
"Who cares, wins"
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3218
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Philosophy not theology
You introduced the Chinese business magnate Jack Ma's idea of not being able to predict 99.9 % of the time but rational arguments are very different from predictions. Of course, it is possible to go round in circles about the existence of God, but that may be because it is an extremely difficult philosophy problem, for some people at least.mrdim wrote: ↑June 2nd, 2022, 11:20 am As Jack ma says, 99.9% of predictions are wrong.
How can we predict that a premise is sound, until we enlist the help of others, or use rational enquiry, or build upon the premise?
I suspect that one of the problems in debates about God, is that the evidence tends to be circular. The premise is that God exists, and therefore it always comes back to that assertion.
But really, I think that paradoxes are similar. There is no set method to solving paradoxes, because all paradoxes are different, and there will always be a new paradox for us to discover.
Therefore, if discussions about God are both circular and paradoxical, then maybe that leads us to discoveries that force out a certain uniqueness in our thought processes and allow us to build upon the premise meaningfully?
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 65
- Joined: March 18th, 2020, 4:10 pm
Re: Philosophy not theology
Pattern-chaser wrote:the evidence is not circular because - talking in terms of scientific investigation, and scientific standards of evidence - there is no evidence at all. None.
Perhaps it would be wiser to substitute "evidence" for "point of reference" , and from that point of reference, predictions can be made that lead to rational arguments.JackDaydream wrote: Rational arguments are very different from predictions
Searching for an example: Leonardo Da Vinci thought that the moon consisted of water, and that is why it reflected light. Unlike many others of his time, he did not believe that the moon itself gave off its own light. He was correct in one aspect of the problem.
His point of reference was oceans and their ability to reflect light, but only half of his answer was correct.
Substituting evidence for a reference point, or even vice versa, means that in the sciences, many of our efforts will bring about incorrect answers and our predictions will be false. However, some predictions may also be true.
If we assume that we are unable to predict most of what exists in the future, then we accept that most of what we rely on is some point of reference that becomes useful to us.
In the case of belief in God or multiple gods, we start with the reference point that the answer will reveal itself to us eventually through evidence; and often the evidence is based on certain coincidences or circumstances where unusual events unfold.
Like how Leonardo Da Vinci had some understanding of light sources and perspectives, we often verify our experiences, objectively or non- objectively, based on our perspectives and how things appear to us. That is the underlying reference point that things seem to relate to, and builds up a conscience of evidence.
I've found your comments on my post most useful, glad to be part of this discussion.
(If there is another reply, I'm in the middle of editing so would have missed it).
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8265
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Philosophy not theology
How do our discussions here impact on those questions, I wonder?
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 65
- Joined: March 18th, 2020, 4:10 pm
Re: Philosophy not theology
So the question is, does science arise out of the connections we make in any area, not excluding any area of human reasoning, or is it based on a set of scientific rules which determine the purposefulness of the science, ignoring the fact that observable scientific phenomena arise fro. different circumstances?
My line of thinking earlier looked at the connections, but not the rules governing those connections/perceptions.
For a science to be purposeful, it must, I think, aim for the betterment of society, but also, as Sabine Hossenfelder suggests, we must accept that scientific fact doesn't always fit into a neat little reality that is ideal to us or our imaginations.
Reality can be like a barren wasteland, and not pretty. Therefore, we can better ourselves, but we can also accept the limitations of our process of betterment.
If scientific fact does present a definite limit to the betterment of society (based on science), then how does that explain that we can develop new sciences and new categories of thinking based in old categories of thought such as theology?
If for example a new artistic technique exists in the future, and it was inspired by theology, then the science behind the technique, though potentially arrivable by other means, actually arose out of other conscious efforts.
I think that without exhausting the number of new categories of thought, we cannot extinguish the old categories.
- Richardtod
- Posts: 9
- Joined: July 19th, 2013, 8:06 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Plato
Re: Philosophy not theology
JackDaydream
‘It would be almost requiring a rejection of any belief in God as a prerequisite for philosophy discussion.’
This is not what I perceive as the issue. Many philosophers and scientists have faith in the existence of God and can work quite well with that background. What I am saying is that any argument which requires the existence of God will eventually be reduced to that one point to prove the argument. Why go through the process if we know that, in the end, it is that point at which the argument will fail. Assuming of course the God question is not answered.
‘…aspects of philosophy may be answered differently according to the question of God's existence or lack of existence.’
Of course, but the answer reached without the need for God’s existence to be proven stands a better chance of answering the question without trying to prove God’s existence. If the argument depending on God's existence does prove to be correct, then it will be the empirical evidence that finally proves it to be true.
Pattern-chaser
‘Some things that we believe are not associated with evidence, or other attributes that might enable a 'scientific' consideration of the matter, resulting/concluding in 'proof'. And yet we believe them, and discuss them at great length, on philosophy forums if nowhere else.’
If I remember my reading of Carl Popper on science, it does not normally move forward with wild assumptions on unknowns but builds on what is known or there is sufficient evidence for it to be accepted as highly probable.
mrdim [I love this name, but it does not reflect the owner]
‘I suspect that one of the problems in debates about God, is that the evidence tends to be circular. The premise is that God exists, and therefore it always comes back to that assertion.’
As I have stated above. If this is true, why go to the bother of laying out an argument which will ultimately revolve around the base question of God’s existence?
Pattern-chaser
‘There is no evidence that can verify the existence of God, nor can there ever be.
God's existence is a spiritual matter that cannot be decided by scientific or logical means,…’
This point, I believe, makes my argument. To JackDaydream and mrdim above.
JackDaydream
‘Of course, it is possible to go round in circles about the existence of God, but that may be because it is an extremely difficult philosophy problem, for some people at least.’
I am confused by ‘..some people at least.’ It assumes that the question of God’s existence has been proven and open to just a few.’ I suspect you are talking about ‘faith,’ an admirable state of mind I do not doubt, but hardly an argument that is an ‘open and shut’ case.
mrdim
‘Perhaps it would be wiser to substitute "evidence" for "point of reference”, and from that point of reference, predictions can be made that lead to rational arguments.’
For ‘point of reference’ I would use normative which is generally evidence-based. It brings the argument back full cycle to the question; can we use God’s existence as normative or an agreed point of reference? I suggest that this is not the case and is the basis of my argument.
mrdim
‘If for example a new artistic technique exists in the future, and it was inspired by theology, then the science behind the technique, though potentially arrivable by other means, actually arose out of other conscious efforts.’
To be inspired by God is arguable, but if indeed the artist is inspired by God, it does not mean that the technique used needs to have God’s hand every time an artist holds the brush. It just means that the technique has been transferred to other, possibly atheist artists.
-
- Posts: 110
- Joined: June 2nd, 2022, 4:43 am
Re: Philosophy not theology
A new movement in the scientific establishment is seriously re-considering the God hypothesis.Richardtod wrote: ↑June 1st, 2022, 10:11 am Every philosophy group I join will at some point, and far more regular than any other topic, bring up religion. Why? I despair at the constant battle over a mythical being. Why mythical? Because there has never been any proof of a God’s existence other than through faith or bad argument. There can be no argument that will pin God on a philosophy table as God is, according to my theological friends, unknowable. This is not philosophy, it is theology. I appreciate many do want to discuss religion, as can be demonstrated by the number of passionate posts. But surely these could and should be on a theology forum, not philosophy?
A recent book on the topic by philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer provides information:
Return of the God Hypothesis
https://returnofthegodhypothesis.com/
Perhaps it can be said that your perspective on the nature of God is presumptuous, with your reference as God being a 'mythical being'. A first critique of such a perspective would be that being itself would need to originate from the concept God, so God could not be a being.
I am personally not religious.
When it concerns the origin of the cosmos, I consider that simple logic indicates that meaning is fundamental, which implies that a factor is at play that could be referenced 'without it being able to be named' (to cite Chinese philosopher Laozi (Lao Tzu) in book Tao Te Ching).
"The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal Name"
Rejection of the idea of God based on principled denial seems fallacious to me. While I am not intending to argue that anything of the nature of God is the case, in my opinion the current available information would demand an open mind for what is the case, and a special careful eye with regard meaning or the foundation of morality which might be impossible to grasp yet of vital importance to secure the future of humanity.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8265
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Philosophy not theology
Despite Popper, we humans and philosophers continue to discuss matters outside of what Popper thinks is acceptable. We can say or think whatever we like, but the empirical evidence confirms our fondness for many issues that do not meet Popper's standards. Therefore, in the name of serious and successful thought, we need to consider these matters as best we may. And our best is not at all bad...?Richardtod wrote: ↑June 3rd, 2022, 4:52 pm Pattern-chaser
‘Some things that we believe are not associated with evidence, or other attributes that might enable a 'scientific' consideration of the matter, resulting/concluding in 'proof'. And yet we believe them, and discuss them at great length, on philosophy forums if nowhere else.’
If I remember my reading of Carl Popper on science, it does not normally move forward with wild assumptions on unknowns but builds on what is known or there is sufficient evidence for it to be accepted as highly probable.
I don't see how:Richardtod wrote: ↑June 3rd, 2022, 4:52 pm Pattern-chaser
‘There is no evidence that can verify the existence of God, nor can there ever be.
God's existence is a spiritual matter that cannot be decided by scientific or logical means,…’
This point, I believe, makes my argument.
No, it isn't theology, nor is it philosophy. What you are saying here, if I understand correctly, is that God and theology cannot be investigated by science, using its standards and techniques, therefore these matters cannot be discussed. And yet, they can be discussed, within philosophy, using the techniques of serious thought, most of which have been in use long before science was invented, and continue to be so.Richardtod wrote: ↑June 1st, 2022, 10:11 am There has never been any proof of a God’s existence other than through faith or bad argument. There can be no argument that will pin God on a philosophy table as God is, according to my theological friends, unknowable. This is not philosophy, it is theology.
I suggest that it is the case, just not in the way you mean. God's existence is not a scientific claim; such claims cannot be scientifically investigated because there is no evidence, so there is nothing to analyse, and therefore no conclusion is possible. To make a scientific claim that God exists is to make a claim that we know, in advance, cannot be properly considered. Pointless. Everything about God is spiritual, and can only be sensibly considered on that basis. This is no loss to science or religion; it is as it should be. To investigate X, we need a tool capable of considering X; horses for courses, as they say.Richardtod wrote: ↑June 3rd, 2022, 4:52 pm It brings the argument back full cycle to the question; can we use God’s existence as normative or an agreed point of reference? I suggest that this is not the case and is the basis of my argument.
"Who cares, wins"
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023