When does philosophy become drivel and why?

I started reading this thread backwards but stopped here:

Quote:

---

The former is defined by having the capacity to have theistic belief but not while simultaneously making no claim that the statement “there is at least one God” is false.

---

There must have been a more concise way of putting this! Letting your statements tip-toe around their meaning like this is the best way to rob them of their authority.


Is it just me or are these lit-net forums particularly prone to excessive wordiness and overly academic posts?

Just a few of the philosophical assumptions made by science:

• The reliability of the senses
• The validity of induction
• The Copernican (mediocrity) principle
• The preferential valuation of parsimony & aesthetics in theory choice

Furthermore, science is simply incapable of tackling these questions:

• The existence of a spiritual reality
• The existence of an afterlife

To assert that science has answered them is incorrect; science cannot answer them because they simply fall beyond its purview. Science assumes methodological naturalism and something like an immaterial spiritual reality or afterlife would be, by definition, beyond material observation. To say that science has answered these question in the negative is to presuppose that the totality of existence is material -- a (non-scientific) philosophical position.

Nor can science comment on questions of value. Material descriptions of that which is are incapable of morphing into behavioral prescriptions. Yet acting to fulfill value-based prescriptions is the basis of rational action and guides our immediate choice-making in daily living. I would say that is more than relevant, especially when on the chief question of life -- "How ought I to live?" -- science can provide no imperative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Given that no two versions of the same religion actually agree with each other 100%, I think the few errors he makes are overstated.

---

Blake said, and I agree with, religions are just images of the truth. In other words they are sounder if taken figuratively instead of literally. For Milton taking a religion literally was to commit the sin of idolatry. I further believe religion is as integral to human nature as art and society. Voltaire said "if God didn't exist it would be necessary to invent him," I think the same of religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I can't imagine why it's going to be helpful. As I've already said, even David Icke is an atheist, and he's barking mad; divisions of atheism aren't all that relevant, so I'm not bothering to go down that track.

As long as we agree on what the word means I don't care what divisions you make or what you name them.



Sorry, but that is just word salad.

I have pointed out why the meaning I use is correct, and hiding it behind verbosity and assertions about truth will not change the fact that your position is outdated, irrelevant and incorrect.

You're still just arguing the same point.



No. You're trying to separate varieties of atheists that only you categorise as a means of re-stating that which has already been shown to be false.

---

I don’t know how apt your definition of atheism is. While I have to take your word that most atheists in these coteries you’ve referenced are rationalists and hence theoretical agnostics, I still think the more pedestrian atheist has beliefs in accord with the explicit atheist. And if this is not the case and >50% are in actuality implicit atheists, most theists understand the word atheism as meaning explicit atheism. On these grounds, if effective communication means much, it would be a convenience to define atheism as explicit/theoretical atheism. Of course one cannot change how a society defines a word at a whim, but since definitions are chosen democratically one can cast their vote, so to speak.
Gould preferred the sobriquet of agnostic even though he was a practical atheist, and I would the same. This was presumably partly for appearances and on the grounds that he thought science and religion should not attempt to inform each other. I think his choice rather wise, especially considering that most theists appeal to emotion instead of evidence, hence making appearances and impressions count a great deal towards affecting them and winning them to your point of view. Calling oneself an atheist generally makes the theist feel threatened, puts him off and closes his mind, even if one wouldn’t actually question the existence of God on theoretical grounds.
Furthermore the reasoning showing that the statement “all atheism is a lack of belief” is a categorical error is sound and, I fear, saying that I am making a “word salad” is not a legitimate method of objection and I fear that it reduces the debate to a quality of a youtube one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

If people are so soft as to worry about sharing a term with someone because their personal doctrines might differ, then they should either harden up or find another noun.

---

Reaching a consensus on a definition is important and useful; it facilitates communication and integration thereby promoting peace and tolerance. I would think that your intentions are pro peace and tolerance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Regarding Huxley, again it seems you chose to mis-read what I wrote. Huxley may well have coined the word but he certainly did not invent agnosticism. Not by a long way.

---

Of course there were the skeptics, et al before Huxley, but there is a difference between skepticism and agnosticism. You see, skepticism entails agnosticism but agnosticism does not entail skepticism. In other words, agnosticism is only skepticism regarding the theological or existence or nonexistence of God. I do not know enough about Huxley or the history of philosophic ideas before Huxley to say with much certainty if agnosticism existed unnamed and popularly before him or if he was the first to denote its tenets, gave it a name and popularized it; but the latter seems be what the author of the article is saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

That's an odd answer. See if you can find a dictionary that does not have that as a definition for "fallacy".

---

For the sake of articulation I never liked how the pedestrian definition of fallacy was synonymous with erroneous, because the academic one is certainly not. And I sort of assumed you want to be articulate instead of muddying the waters. But it is no matter, I’m over it so let’s move on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

1 I have no need to be explicit when I've repeatedly pointed at a thread where all of the required information is already posted. I dislike repeating myself at the best of times. You had the option from the very start to write in that thread, but no doubt because it disagrees with your position you felt it necessary to inflict the argument on everyone.

2 The assertion of ad hominem is demonstrably untrue. I'm not going to get into an argument on the subject as both of our posts stand in evidence.

---

I have read some of the forum, yet I still find defining atheism as purely a lack of belief, or as solely implicit atheism, at best insensible. It is pretty clear it is used at least as a polysemic word.

Well, I commit to tolerance and believe it a fine ideal; when you give someone half a chance they are generally well intentioned (and even my first mention of you said I believe you are well intentioned, which I still do), and that matters for a lot to me. Yet in some of these instances of communication I have been reduced to a hypocrite, which I try to terminate by removing myself from the discussion; at that time I could not bear to suffer what I perceived as effrontery, intolerance and close-mindedness. If I have insulted you, I regret it and am sorry, and hope we can forgo the ad hominem henceforth.

Edit:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cat Square

I started reading this thread backwards but stopped here:



There must have been a more concise way of putting this! Letting your statements tip-toe around their meaning like this is the best way to rob them of their authority.


Is it just me or are these lit-net forums particularly prone to excessive wordiness and overly academic posts?

---

I thought I summed the distinction up all right, though my double negative still makes me laugh a bit. Here is a more expounded articulation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implici...plicit_atheism

Err.. yes :D lol, prolixity is all the rage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Showtime

Just a few of the philosophical assumptions made by science:

• The reliability of the senses
• The validity of induction
• The Copernican (mediocrity) principle
• The preferential valuation of parsimony & aesthetics in theory choice

---

I disagree here. Science doesn't make any assumptions at all. Science produces results which are then interpreted by humans.

Science is a method, not a doctrine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Showtime

Furthermore, science is simply incapable of tackling these questions:

• The existence of a spiritual reality
• The existence of an afterlife

---

I see no reason to accept this either.

If such things exist and are capable of physical action, then they're measurable.

The invisible kind, known only through faith, sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Showtime

"How ought I to live?" -- science can provide no imperative.

---

Unlike philosophy, eh?

;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vautrin

I'm all for getting my hands dirty in a philosophical discussion. Questioning everything and taking nothing at face value is how I try to live my life. However, when does philosophical reflection cross the border into the Republic of Rubbish? And Why?

From my own personal experience, I've noticed it gets people's eyes rolling when the situation is tense and they want direct, concrete answers to a problem or crisis. Is a truly philosophical view only tolerated when people have the luxury of time? Outside of the world of Academia, at what point does Philosophy become something far less helpful or desirable?

---

Dude, philosophy is not rubbish but it's not very helpful either. I say it's just food for thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vautrin

When does philosophy become drivel and why?

---

As soon as people with a Ph.D. in philosophy get involved. There has never been, to the best of my knowledge, a philosopher with a Ph.D. in philosophy, and all philosophy Ph.D.s I've ever met or read were total douchebags.

http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s...eist/funny.gif

I think it becomes bull**** when

a) it steps away from its original purpose, which is to solve problems. As I experienced it, a lot of philosophers tend to become way too pretentios sometimes.

b) philosophers sell their soul to the ruling elite, which is especially true within political philosophy and they only serve the agenda. At least in the early days it was a good exercise for your brain, even if their missed the point and didn't answered anything, but nowadays it's just a mixture of fancy words without any substance at all.

Long thread, read 5 or 6 pages, nice debate. Perhaps something is drivel if no one can understand or enjoy it. Otherwise it has some value to at least one person. Surely most philosophy has some value to some people.

Misue of philosophy,science and religion has caused an unspeakable amount of bloodshed in this world.
Its also true that some tremendous and extremely useful ideas have been aquired from humans thinking in the abstract.
But man does not live by bread or ideas alone,they are tools to achieve his goals.
Philosophy becomes dross and harmful when folks forget it is a means to and end,a tool.
What is the end?
That is a question each individual needs to answer for themself,but i think salvation is achieved in loving human relationships. Apart from this everything else is window dressing,detail or a means to an end.