tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) (07/30/85)
I would appreciate avoiding cross-posting to religious newgroups from net.philosophy . Insofar as those who have succumbed to the idiocy of religion are willing to employ the arguments from faith that are the essence of religion, the level of activity in this newsgroup will tend to rise and the quality of argument will degenerate. Insofar as they do not argue from faith, they are not being religious. Let those who are interested in philosophy get it other than from net.religion . Philosophy climbed back out of the religious abyss centuries ago. I'd hate to see it shoved back in, here or elsewhere. David Hudson
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (07/30/85)
In article <244@frog.UUCP> frog!tdh writes: >I would appreciate avoiding cross-posting to religious >newgroups from net.philosophy . Insofar as those who have >succumbed to the idiocy of religion are willing to employ >the arguments from faith that are the essence of religion, >the level of activity in this newsgroup will tend to rise >and the quality of argument will degenerate. Insofar as >they do not argue from faith, they are not being religious. >Let those who are interested in philosophy get it other than >from net.religion . This is a really silly argument, but I agree with the conclusion. Let's keep arguments and discussions about philosophy out of the religion groups, while we're at it (e.g. the current morality/survival argument). >Philosophy climbed back out of the religious abyss centuries >ago. I'd hate to see it shoved back in, here or elsewhere. It almost doesn't seem necessary to comment that the author of the above is evidently ignorant of anything that happened in theology since 1549. But I will anyway. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe "Do you know what this means? It means this damn thing doesn't work at all!"
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/02/85)
> This is a really silly argument, but I agree with the conclusion. Let's keep > arguments and discussions about philosophy out of the religion groups, while > we're at it (e.g. the current morality/survival argument). [WINGATE] Why? The morality/survival is PARAMOUNT to the issue of religion in society today, since we live in a time in which religious impositional morality is perhaps one of three or four of the most dangerous things facing our world today. Keep it where it should indeed be discussed, especially with those on the religious side who see such morality as no problem. >>Philosophy climbed back out of the religious abyss centuries >>ago. I'd hate to see it shoved back in, here or elsewhere. > It almost doesn't seem necessary to comment that the author of the above is > evidently ignorant of anything that happened in theology since 1549. But I > will anyway. When? Oh, was that the comment? Adds new meaning to the word "content-free", Charley. Can you say "assertion"? :-) -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
bjanz@watarts.UUCP (Bruce Janz) (08/02/85)
In article <244@frog.UUCP> frog!tdh writes: >I would appreciate avoiding cross-posting to religious >newgroups from net.philosophy . Insofar as those who have >succumbed to the idiocy of religion are willing to employ >the arguments from faith that are the essence of religion, >the level of activity in this newsgroup will tend to rise >and the quality of argument will degenerate. Insofar as >they do not argue from faith, they are not being religious. >Let those who are interested in philosophy get it other than >from net.religion . > >Philosophy climbed back out of the religious abyss centuries >ago. I'd hate to see it shoved back in, here or elsewhere. > > David Hudson Now there's an arrogant position. . . Even though there will be some crossover (there is, after all a recognized area of philosophy called philosophy of religion), I agree that cross-posting should be avoided. -- Reality is for those who have no imagination. . . watmath!watarts!bjanz OR watmath!watdcs!bbjanz
tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) (08/07/85)
> From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) > Message-ID: <1047@umcp-cs.UUCP> >> I would appreciate avoiding cross-posting to religious >> newgroups from net.philosophy . Insofar as those who have >> succumbed to the idiocy of religion are willing to employ >> the arguments from faith that are the essence of religion, >> the level of activity in this newsgroup will tend to rise >> and the quality of argument will degenerate. Insofar as >> they do not argue from faith, they are not being religious. >> Let those who are interested in philosophy get it other than >> from net.religion . > This is a really silly argument, but I agree with the > conclusion. Let's keep arguments and discussions about > philosophy out of the religion groups, while we're at it > (e.g. the current morality/survival argument). >> Philosophy climbed back out of the religious abyss centuries >> ago. I'd hate to see it shoved back in, here or elsewhere. > It almost doesn't seem necessary to comment that the author of the above is > evidently ignorant of anything that happened in theology since 1549. But I > will anyway. Nothing could have been sillier than the emptiness of Wingate's reply. I wouldn't have bothered further with it, but I am in need of recreation at the moment. His response boils down (ignoring the implicit) to asserting: 1) There was something erroneous in the argument I presented. 2) Something worthy of being considered philosophy has happened within (a practice called, in brazen self-contradiction,) theology. (How about theoalchemy? Theoclairvoyance? Theorabbitfootsies?) Evidently, even! 3) Some unspecified criterion dictates agreement with my main contention. (Holy conclusions, Batman!) My argument, put to cruder form, and with parenthetical explanation, said: 1) Religion is partly idiocy. 2) Faith (an idiotic part) is the essence of religion. (Faith is the practice of claiming truth without evidence. I am not concerned with other meanings of the word, like "trust".) 3) Arguments from faith are destructive of net.philosophy . 4) Therefore it is important to exclude religious arguments from net.philosophy . 5) Arguments not from faith are not religious. 6) Therefore there is no religious interest in net.philosophy (although some religious people might have an interest). 7) Therefore there is no excuse for cross-posting between net.philosophy and net.religion . 8) Religion used to dominate philosophy. That domination was disastrous. 9) Religion stopped dominating philosophy centuries ago. 10) It is still possible for philosophy to be crushed by the religious boot, if people don't take preventive care. So, Charley, pray tell me specificly what is silly about any of the above. Rosen raises an interesting point: Should philosophy be used to evangelize (sorry!) the religious? Good luck. May the force (or is it mass?) be with you. Benedictus qui exit in nomine domini. "Philosophy of religion" is not an oxymoron. It does not meet the ancient criterion of smartness. David Hudson
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/07/85)
>>Why? The morality/survival is PARAMOUNT to the issue of religion in >>society today, since we live in a time in which religious impositional >>morality is perhaps one of three or four of the most dangerous things facing >>our world today. Keep it where it should indeed be discussed, especially >>with those on the religious side who see such morality as no problem. [ROSEN] > But we are talking about morality in a way which precisely EXCLUDES talking > about religion (unless Rich is finally going to break down and admit that his > beliefs constitute a religion :-) . And besides, discussions of morality in > general are not discussions of religion, whether or not morality is important > to religion. And yet, as evidence by Charles' own participation in the discussion, despite his claims that he had abandoned Christian moral principles as assumptions for the duration of the discussion, he has persistently come back with question-answering questions that ask "What about god?" Thus it is clear that religion as a basis for morality, especially in the context of today's religio-political climate, is a crucial topic of discussion and relevant to both newsgroups. I strongly recommend that crossposting be continued. >>>>Philosophy climbed back out of the religious abyss centuries >>>>ago. I'd hate to see it shoved back in, here or elsewhere. >>>It almost doesn't seem necessary to comment that the author of the above is >>>evidently ignorant of anything that happened in theology since 1549. But I >>>will anyway. >>When? Oh, was that the comment? Adds new meaning to the word >>"content-free", Charley. Can you say "assertion"? :-) > Well, I could point out for starters that the whole consciousness of > existentialism originated within Christianity. And? ... > Theology and philosophy have been in dialogue continuously. RIch apparently > thinks that all you have to know about philosophy is logical positivism. > Apparently the editors of the _Journal of Metaphysics_ don't think so, since > their March issue had a lengthy article concerning God and the possible modes > of theology. I say apparently because I can't figure out just exactly what > name Rich is calling me here. Perhaps none at all. Unlike my detractors, I don't engage in namecalling. I do call a spade a spade and when I do I back it up. I've also discussed "possible implementations of god in a physical universe" from time to time in this very newsgroup. But, tell that to Charles, the man who WANTS me to call him names... Yes, you COULD have pointed all this out above in ">>>", but you didn't. Hence my remark. -- "to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
bjanz@watarts.UUCP (Bruce Janz) (08/12/85)
In article <258@frog.UUCP> frog!tdh writes: >My argument, put to cruder form, and with parenthetical >explanation, said: > > 1) Religion is partly idiocy. > 2) Faith (an idiotic part) is the essence of > religion. (Faith is the practice of claiming > truth without evidence. I am not concerned > with other meanings of the word, like "trust".) I would be interested in knowing just what counts as evidence. If you mean empirical evidence, then perhaps you're right (I won't even attempt to discuss miracles -- that, apparently, belongs in net.religion). However, I'm afraid that philosophy cannot claim empirical evidence as a basis, either. In fact, much of the time philosophy is trying to define just what counts as evidence for other fields (including religion). If the evidence that you require is a priori (as it seems it must be), then it is a little premature to dismiss religion without considering the evidence it claims as a basis for truth. No, this is not a disguised attempt at evangelism -- you can believe what you want about anything you want. It just seems to be somewhat severe to dismiss some of the great past and present philosophers just because they may have had, in the backs of their minds, the purpose of advancing religion. Most of the philosophers of today are nothing more than a reaction to or an furthering of these religious people. > 3) Arguments from faith are destructive of > net.philosophy . If this can be interpreted to say that arguments without evidence of any sort are not good arguments, then I can agree. To say that they are destructive is severe -- even bad arguments have the use of being something to react to. However, this presupposes that all arguments from faith are bad ones. Again, the question of the nature of evidence is relevent. By your restriction, much of existentialist philosophy would have no place in this group, for it is only verifiable on a personal level. Yet, I would hardly think that we would want to dismiss it as not being good philosophy. It is just a different way of doing philosophy. > 4) Therefore it is important to exclude religious > arguments from net.philosophy . > 5) Arguments not from faith are not religious. > 6) Therefore there is no religious interest in > net.philosophy (although some religious people > might have an interest). > 7) Therefore there is no excuse for cross-posting > between net.philosophy and net.religion . > 8) Religion used to dominate philosophy. That > domination was disastrous. > 9) Religion stopped dominating philosophy centuries > ago. Could you tell me at what point this domination stopped? Was it with Hume? But Kant still thought that he was giving a rational basis for religion. The nineteenth century has German idealists who thought they were contributing to religion. The existentialist camp (whatever that is) has people like Nietschze and Sartre, true, but it also has Kierkegaard, Marcel and Buber. Maybe this is only influence, instead of domination. Is influence from religious people pursuing religious goals inadmissable as well? It seems a bit presumptuous to say that religion has never had a positive effect on philosophy, or that people pursuing religious goals have never made any contributions to philosophy worth remembering. > 10) It is still possible for philosophy to be > crushed by the religious boot, if people don't > take preventive care. >Rosen raises an interesting point: Should philosophy be >used to evangelize (sorry!) the religious? Good luck. So, I see you've met the Objectivists, too. :-) >"Philosophy of religion" is not an oxymoron. It does not >meet the ancient criterion of smartness. I'm not sure what you mean by the "ancient criterion of smartness" Please enlighten. . . I'm glad you don't dismiss phil. of religion along with religious philosophy. That would really be distressing. > > David Hudson b.janz -- Reality is for those who have no imagination. . . b janz watmath!watarts!bjanz OR watmath!watdcs!bbjanz
jeand@ihlpg.UUCP (AMBAR) (08/12/85)
> >> I would appreciate avoiding cross-posting to religious > >> newgroups from net.philosophy . Insofar as those who have > >> succumbed to the idiocy of religion are willing to employ > >> the arguments from faith that are the essence of religion, > >> the level of activity in this newsgroup will tend to rise > >> and the quality of argument will degenerate. Insofar as > >> they do not argue from faith, they are not being religious. > >> Let those who are interested in philosophy get it other than > >> from net.religion. [DAVID HUDSON] > > > This is a really silly argument, but I agree with the > > conclusion. Let's keep arguments and discussions about > > philosophy out of the religion groups, while we're at it > > (e.g. the current morality/survival argument). [CHARLEY WINGATE] > > Nothing could have been sillier than the emptiness > of Wingate's reply. I wouldn't have bothered further with > it, but I am in need of recreation at the moment. His > response boils down (ignoring the implicit) to asserting: > > 1) There was something erroneous in the argument I > presented. > ... > My argument, put to cruder form, and with parenthetical > explanation, said: > > 1) Religion is partly idiocy. Assertion. > 2) Faith (an idiotic part) is the essence of > religion. (Faith is the practice of claiming > truth without evidence. I am not concerned > with other meanings of the word, like "trust".) By your definition, then, Christianity is not a religion. (I'm using Christianity for the sake of sticking to what I know.) Evidence for my assertion internal to the system: in I Corinthians, Paul talks about the resurrection of Jesus, because some people were going into the church and claiming that there was no resurrection of the dead, and not even Jesus rose from the dead. Paul didn't say, believe because I said so. He didn't say, it's written on the sky, and if you can't read it, it's because you don't have enough of this mythical 'faith'. He gave what, in your definition, is a completely NON-religious answer: "There are nearly 500 living witnesses to the public death and equally public post-resurrection appearances of Jesus; go and ask *them* what *they* saw!" > 5) Arguments not from faith are not religious. Invalid, for reasons given above. > 6) Therefore there is no religious interest in > net.philosophy (although some religious people > might have an interest). Here I disagree, with yet another reason. I see philosophy and religion as having much the same goals--explanations of the "big questions" of life--why are we here? who are we? what is the meaning of all this? I see their effects as being similar as well--they develop in the person who holds them, a particular worldview, the philosophic base that they filter their perceptions through. So why do we have a difference at all? I dunno. net.philosophy has pretensions of intellectuality? :-) I think it's good to try to keep the cross-posting down, if only for reasons of net-neatness. I'm not sure that we will ever completely succeed. Look at this post. ;-] > 8) Religion used to dominate philosophy. That > domination was disastrous. Also assertion. (Or do I mean opinion?) > So, Charley, pray tell me specificly what is silly about any > of the above. Hope you don't mind me sticking my nose in, then. ;-} AMBAR {ANYTHING|ihnp4!ihlpg!jeand}<--only until Aug. 16 In the old days, only poet, prophets, and mystics heard voices in the air.......now everybody's got a Walkman!
tmoody@sjuvax.UUCP (T. Moody) (08/12/85)
> > From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) > > Message-ID: <1047@umcp-cs.UUCP> > > >> I would appreciate avoiding cross-posting to religious > >> newgroups from net.philosophy . Insofar as those who have > >> succumbed to the idiocy of religion are willing to employ > >> the arguments from faith that are the essence of religion, > >> the level of activity in this newsgroup will tend to rise > >> and the quality of argument will degenerate. Insofar as > >> they do not argue from faith, they are not being religious. > >> Let those who are interested in philosophy get it other than > >> from net.religion . > > My argument, put to cruder form, and with parenthetical > explanation, said: > > 1) Religion is partly idiocy. > 2) Faith (an idiotic part) is the essence of > religion. (Faith is the practice of claiming > truth without evidence. I am not concerned > with other meanings of the word, like "trust".) > 3) Arguments from faith are destructive of > net.philosophy . > 4) Therefore it is important to exclude religious > arguments from net.philosophy . > 5) Arguments not from faith are not religious. > 6) Therefore there is no religious interest in > net.philosophy (although some religious people > might have an interest). > 7) Therefore there is no excuse for cross-posting > between net.philosophy and net.religion . > 8) Religion used to dominate philosophy. That > domination was disastrous. > 9) Religion stopped dominating philosophy centuries > ago. > 10) It is still possible for philosophy to be > crushed by the religious boot, if people don't > take preventive care. > > So, Charley, pray tell me specificly what is silly about any > of the above. [] I'm not Charley, but it seems to me that proposition (5) is wrong, if not silly. It all depends upon what you mean by "religious." If you mean "pertaining to religion," then you are certainly wrong. If you mean "supportive of religion," then you are certainly wrong. Perhaps you mean that there are no valid arguments that support "religious" conclusions that do not depend crucially upon faith. Perhaps. But that is itself a philosophical thesis that pertains to religion. At any rate, if you are claiming that all arguments for, say, the existence of God are based on faith, then you are simply wrong. If, as I suspect, you want to say that all non-fideistic arguments were long ago demonstrated to be invalid, then you should have said that, and not something else. Todd Moody {allegra|astrovax|bpa|burdvax}!sjuvax!tmoody Philosophy Department St. Joseph's U. Philadelphia, PA 19131
williams@sunybcs.UUCP (Carl Williams) (08/15/85)
It is intellectually myopic to assert that a rationalist philosphy does not have faith (i.e., a belief system) at its base. As the 19th-century Presbyterian theologian R. L. Dabney so succinctly put it: "The pretended warfare between reason and faith is waged by all those who wish to make a pretext for believing unreasonably and wickedly." Let all philosophers own up to their beliefs or else admit that knowledge (and philosophy) is impossible.
walker@oberon.UUCP (Mike Walker) (10/02/85)
> It is intellectually myopic to assert that a rationalist philosphy does > not have faith (i.e., a belief system) at its base. > > As the 19th-century Presbyterian theologian R. L. Dabney so succinctly put it: > > "The pretended warfare between reason and faith is waged by all those who > wish to make a pretext for believing unreasonably and wickedly." > > Let all philosophers own up to their beliefs or else admit that knowledge > (and philosophy) is impossible. Pardon a late follow up: Faith/belief can be based on reason and fact. I beleive (have faith) that if I pick something up and let go of it, it will fall. Whether religions have any basis in fact and reason is another question. A philsophical system can be based on many things but if it is to be rational shouldn't it have a basis in observable fact? -- Michael D. Walker (Mike) Arpa: walker@oberon.ARPA Uucp: {the (mostly unknown) world}!ihnp4!sdcrdcf!oberon!walker {several select chunks}!sdcrdcf!oberon!walker
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (10/08/85)
>> Let all philosophers own up to their beliefs or else admit that knowledge >> (and philosophy) is impossible. > >Pardon a late follow up: > >Faith/belief can be based on reason and fact. I beleive (have faith) that if >I pick something up and let go of it, it will fall. Whether religions have >any basis in fact and reason is another question. A philsophical system can >be based on many things but if it is to be rational shouldn't it have a basis >in observable fact? -- Michael D. Walker (Mike) On the contrary, purely rational systems are true independently of any observation whatsoever. Why is 1+1=2? Why does A&~B <=> ~(~A|B)? Why is the sum of the angles in any Euclidean triangle invariably 180 degrees? Not because they are observable facts, although the utility of such totally certain facts derives from their applicability to physical laws. Sure, 1 rock plus 1 rock equals two rocks. But 1 cloud plus 1 cloud often equals 1 cloud. And 1 rabbit plus 1 rabbit may equal thousands of rabbits. Nonetheless, we do not consider that such observable facts contradict mathematics. In fact, we usually assert that math and logic are true in any conceivable universe. Science, whose central axiom is empirical induction, IS a religion from the purely rational viewpoint, for which mathematics and logic represent the highest level of certainty. -michael