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
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (08/05/85)
In article <1385@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >> 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. 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. >>>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. 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. Charley Wingate
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
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