Philosophy of Religions?

oneshot012 · Oct 5, 2008

Hi, this is my first time here posting. :wave:

Would anyone be interested in talking about the philosophy of our various religions (i.e. our cosmological views, epistemological views, ontological views, ethical views, anthropological views)...I would be very interested in developing some of my skills in this area. So a friendly discussion. Make us think on different levels that perhaps we may not have thought of before.

Let me know.

If so state your faith and what you would like to talk about. I will let you frame the conversation. Thanks.

NegativeCool · Oct 5, 2008

There is a quote that has stuck with me for a long time, "Philosophy is questions that may never be answerd. Religion is answers that may never be questioned".

Arthra · Oct 5, 2008

Hello Oneshot..

I'm a Baha'i and I see you're a Pentacostal pentelectual? Nice to see you here.. I'm unsure what to ask you. Being a pentalectual must be interesting?

- Art

Eudaimonist · Oct 6, 2008

That's a very open-ended question, oneshot. What would you like to talk about?

BTW, I have a nontheistic philosophical path, not a religion as such. It's called Eudaimonism.

eudaimonia,

Mark

RebYosef · Oct 6, 2008

How do you deal with the Problem of Evil? I think that is the most challengeing questions, Philosophers of Religion have to deal with.

oneshot012 · Oct 6, 2008

NegativeCool said:
There is a quote that has stuck with me for a long time, "Philosophy is questions that may never be answerd. Religion is answers that may never be questioned".

I think philosophy gives us categories to think through religion. Religion is essentially a worldview. I am by no means an expert in philosophy but rather I am looking for places to start from (i.e. Cosmology). I have always heard it said in discussion if we don't start in the same place we will never end up in the same place. I think on of the fundamental things that we have to do is start somewhere. I believe me as a Christian starting with the "Bible" can be a fundamental stumbling block. People don't think the Bible is the inspired word of God and Christians presuppose many times that we must start form the from the Bible. So I don't start with the Bible and say, here is verse xyz now lets chat. I think we should start with an issue and out of that we will present out worldviews (I don't think we are going to change our worldviews but I think this is good practice to sharpen my mind). I believe this would is a more fulfilling way to frame the conversation.

oneshot012 · Oct 6, 2008

Arthra said:
Hello Oneshot..

I'm a Baha'i and I see you're a Pentacostal pentelectual? Nice to see you here.. I'm unsure what to ask you. Being a pentalectual must be interesting?

- Art

Thanks.

Most of the time people think of Pentecostals as being touchy, feely, and not grounded in anything. I have never been that way. I have always been someone who likes to dig through and get into the serious problems. So being a Pentellectual was just the natural outflow of who I am. I found out about the word to describe myself about a year ago. It was such a blessing. I felt like such a displaced soul believing in this existential way of life but yet having a desire to be wholly grounded in the scriptures original language, philosophy, and the teachings of the church. Have I arrived yet in those understandings by no means. However, I am in the process.

This is just an opportunity for you to frame the conversation. It is not about asking me anything it is about saying this is what we are going to talk about. I just think that philosophical categories would be easiest to move in, however we don't have to.

NegativeCool · Oct 6, 2008

oneshot012 said:
I am by no means an expert in philosophy but rather I am looking for places to start from (i.e. Cosmology). I have always heard it said in discussion if we don't start in the same place we will never end up in the same place. I think on of the fundamental things that we have to do is start somewhere. I believe me as a Christian starting with the "Bible" can be a fundamental stumbling block. People don't think the Bible is the inspired word of God and Christians presuppose many times that we must start form the from the Bible. So I don't start with the Bible and say, here is verse xyz now lets chat. I think we should start with an issue and out of that we will present out worldviews (I don't think we are going to change our worldviews but I think this is good practice to sharpen my mind). I believe this would is a more fulfilling way to frame the conversation.

Excellent post oneshot. Mine was a bit of a throw-away I'm embarrassed to admit, I guess I've seen too many of these types of questions that are really just thrown out there as bait. Please accept my apologies.

If there is a particular issue you'd like to discuss, please put it out there, I'd enjoy seeing where it goes, especially since Eudaimonist is interested, I'm an admirer of his posting style and I think we share a similar philosophy though I'm a little more Epicurean perhaps.

Eudaimonist · Oct 6, 2008

NegativeCool said:
I'd enjoy seeing where it goes, especially since Eudaimonist is interested, I'm an admirer of his posting style and I think we share a similar philosophy though I'm a little more Epicurean perhaps.

Thanks. Not to derail the thread, but in what ways do you feel that you Epicurean?

eudaimonia,

Mark

NegativeCool · Oct 6, 2008

Eudaimonist said:
Thanks. Not to derail the thread, but in what ways do you feel that you Epicurean?

eudaimonia,

Mark

While I don't consider myself purely Epicurean, I do find myself drawn to some of his ideas. I'll present a few ideas that I believe have been influenced by Epicurian teachings. I'll try to be brief, though it isn't necessarily a brief topic, please feel free to question me on specific points if I fail to adequately explain.

I believe in the pursuit of happiness and using pleasure and pain as an empirical standard. Pleasure and pain are understood by almost everyone in the world regardless of social, ethnic, religious or economic background and form a universal standard or language to which everyone can relate.

Actions which bring pleasure can be seen as good while those that cause pain can be seen as bad, however one must consider the implications of any activity that brings either pleasure or pain and its impact on long term happiness or suffering to both self and others.

I believe that the absence of pain and fear bring the greatest tranquility and happiness when combined with moderate pleasures.

I believe that fear is one of the greatest obstacles to happiness and that one of the biggest contributers to fear is ignorance. Thus, one of the greatest weapons against fear is knowledge.

Eudaimonist · Oct 6, 2008

NegativeCool said:
Actions which bring pleasure can be seen as good while those that cause pain can be seen as bad, however one must consider the implications of any activity that brings either pleasure or pain and its impact on long term happiness or suffering to both self and others.

Can be seen as? Or are? What makes something good in your view? (Don't worry about ease of measurability.)

I'll just note at this point that I see pleasure as a good, but not the good, if you know what I mean. But I suppose that pleasure and pain are reasonably effective indicators of what is good or bad for one, taken with a grain of salt.

I believe that the absence of pain and fear bring the greatest tranquility and happiness when combined with moderate pleasures.

You are probably right about this.

I'd add only that I think it matters what sort of "moderate pleasures" one means. Some pleasurable activities strike me as more likely to induce tranquility and happiness than others, even if they are about equal in pleasurability.

I believe that fear is one of the greatest obstacles to happiness and that one of the biggest contributers to fear is ignorance. Thus, one of the greatest weapons against fear is knowledge.

I agree 100% with this.

eudaimonia,

Mark

NegativeCool · Oct 6, 2008

Eudaimonist said:
Can be seen as? Or are? What makes something good in your view? (Don't worry about ease of measurability.)

Pleasure is good, I guess I tend to use the "can be seen as" to soften the statement a little and avoid a charge of hedonism. I can't stress the importance of seeking pleasure within the context of its implications. Many short term pleasures can bring long term suffering to ones self or others and thus should be avoided.

Eudaimonist said:
I'll just note at this point that I see pleasure as a good, but not the good, if you know what I mean. But I suppose that pleasure and pain are reasonably effective indicators of what is good or bad for one, taken with a grain of salt.

I think I understand your meaning. I believe that the greatest good is happiness. Pleasure is good, in that it is like a fundamental particle of happiness. Pleasure does not only have to be physical, there are many forms of satisfaction in life that are at their hearts pleasures. Seeing ones children grow up brings pleasure, doing well at work brings pleasure, winning a game of chess brings pleasure, watching the sun set brings pleasure. We pursue these pleasures with the ultimate aim of happiness. It is like happiness is made up of "pleasure particles".

Eudaimonist said:
I'd add only that I think it matters what sort of "moderate pleasures" one means. Some pleasurable activities strike me as more likely to induce tranquility and happiness than others, even if they are about equal in pleasurability.

I agree completely. In pursuing pleasure we must always keep in mind the implications for ourselves and others.

oneshot012 · Oct 6, 2008

Eudaimonist said:
That's a very open-ended question, oneshot. What would you like to talk about?

BTW, I have a nontheistic philosophical path, not a religion as such. It's called Eudaimonism.

eudaimonia,

Mark

I know that was very open ended. I hate open ended questions. They always feel like a trap. Do forgive me. I am not trying to bait anyone. I just didn't want to take the initative in framing the conversation. I want to be able to sharpen my philosophical/research/debate skills not on my terms. Therefore, allowing someone else to frame the conversation enables me to do that. But since your request is fair I will sharpen my request. Would you like to talk about ethics (ie. the problem of evil, etc.), cosmology (ie. after life, heaven, this gets into arguements of the resurrection of the dead for Christians, etc.), anthropology (who are we as humans, etc.).

Look forward to it.

oneshot012 · Oct 6, 2008

RebYosef said:
How do you deal with the Problem of Evil? I think that is the most challengeing questions, Philosophers of Religion have to deal with.

The Problem of Evil. That is probably the most classic question. However, forgive me for seeming like dodging the question as the could and is the content on many books. In order to get specifically what you are looking for what area of the problem of evil: The Source of Evil, The Solution to Evil, etc? I don't want to miss address the question that you are asking. I am a not a philosopher of Religion. I just like inter religious/philosophy dialogue. It sharpens my understanding of the world.

Thanks.

oneshot012 · Oct 6, 2008

NegativeCool said:
Excellent post oneshot. Mine was a bit of a throw-away I'm embarrassed to admit, I guess I've seen too many of these types of questions that are really just thrown out there as bait. Please accept my apologies.

If there is a particular issue you'd like to discuss, please put it out there, I'd enjoy seeing where it goes, especially since Eudaimonist is interested, I'm an admirer of his posting style and I think we share a similar philosophy though I'm a little more Epicurean perhaps.

Apology accepted.

No, not really. Like I have stated before, shaping the conversation for me while not help me. I am willing to allow the other person to do that. That will take me out of my comfort zone and allow me to reseach and think out side of the normal boundaries that I think in.

This is really an intellectual exercise more than anything. I am looking for friendly debate/dialogue through the vehicle of philosophy which will ultiamtely entail me talking from a biblical perspective it is just the nature of my worldview.

Thanks.

Eudaimonist · Oct 6, 2008

NegativeCool said:
I believe that the greatest good is happiness. Pleasure is good, in that it is like a fundamental particle of happiness. Pleasure does not only have to be physical, there are many forms of satisfaction in life that are at their hearts pleasures. Seeing ones children grow up brings pleasure, doing well at work brings pleasure, winning a game of chess brings pleasure, watching the sun set brings pleasure. We pursue these pleasures with the ultimate aim of happiness. It is like happiness is made up of "pleasure particles".

I see. Our views are different, and yet not really so different.

Certainly, the idea of happiness as one's ultimate aim and motivator is so appealing, I sometimes call the ultimate aim of Eudaimonism "happiness". But more precisely it is personal flourishing (roughly, the health and growth of a rational psyche across a lifetime), although happiness is entailed by one's flourishing as a pleasant and motivating consequence, even in spite of difficult learning experiences. I don't blame anyone for considering happiness as their ultimate goal, and pursuing happiness may lead to flourishing anyway.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Eudaimonist · Oct 6, 2008

oneshot012 said:
I know that was very open ended. I hate open ended questions. They always feel like a trap.

Nah, nah. I didn't detect a trap. The problem is mine. I find it difficult to respond to open-ended questions. I never quite know what to say. I find it much easier to respond to closed questions. But I will try my best below.

But since your request is fair I will sharpen my request. Would you like to talk about ethics (ie. the problem of evil, etc.)

I will arbitrarily choose your first suggestion.

IMV, evil is a natural consequence of the fact that we inherit (from our evolutionary past) a jumble of possible behaviors based on feelings and urges, and yet we don't directly inherit wisdom or rational fortitude. We need to learn not only what is good, but also how to develop our moral character so that we consistently pursue what is good. Character is a set of skills that we must learn, practice, and perfect as best as we are able.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Arthra · Oct 6, 2008

Evil in Baha'i terms is a relative concept... Can't really stand on it's own outside context.

Somehow the phrase

"The evil that men do"

resonates

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/i/iron+maiden/the+evil+that+men+do_20068054.html

- Art

oneshot012 · Oct 6, 2008

Eudaimonist said:
I will arbitrarily choose your first suggestion.

IMV, evil is a natural consequence of the fact that we inherit (from our evolutionary past) a jumble of possible behaviors based on feelings and urges, and yet we don't directly inherit wisdom or rational fortitude. We need to learn not only what is good, but also how to develop our moral character so that we consistently pursue what is good. Character is a set of skills that we must learn, practice, and perfect as best as we are able.

eudaimonia,

Mark

I will first describe my worldview and perhaps raise a few questions of yours indirectly in the process but I will leave the first engagement primarily to you.

Evil in my worldview is understood in light of an objective moral good. Good and evil stand at opposite ends of the spectrum. Ultimately in an applied ethic this is not so easily worked out. Good is to be understood in light of a moral law giver, namely YHWH, in the Christian tradition. He sets the boundaries between good and evil and even if no one obeyed this moral law it would still exist inspite of human choices.

Humanity was originally created good and still maintains much of that goodness inspite of the fall where it is believed in the Christian tradition that humanity chose self over God. At the fall as one writer puts it we became like broken mirrors in reflecting the image of God. Evil essentially is a choice a choice to follow the the natural law placed in your heart or the the ways of self.

The problem with following self is that self can lead one astray. Even when one thinks of the good of others, does that really work? What if it is only the good for the 51%? What about the other 49%? The best good for humanity must be understood in light of something objective rather than some pragmatic feeling. That ultimate way objectivity is the moral law that God has placed in the heart of all humanity.

For some reason I don't think humanity has to teach people the sancitity of life. I believe even the evolutionary arguement would agree with that. However, how does it explain love? How does the evolutionary element account for selfless acts of love? In my understanding, and correct me if I am wrong, the evolutionary agruement accounts for development based on survival. We developed out of survival so what is the need of love and when I speak of love I am not talking of a feeling but the act that puts one before another.

My last point in discussion for now is that evil is ultimately an invasion of the good that we desire to do. Evil is not inherently a part of us nor does it belong here. I believe that almost every worldview would say that. I don't think evil ultimately has a purpose if it did why would many people not want death, destruction or violence.

RebYosef · Oct 6, 2008

Shalom Oneshot,

oneshot012 said:
The Problem of Evil. That is probably the most classic question. However, forgive me for seeming like dodging the question as the could and is the content on many books. In order to get specifically what you are looking for what area of the problem of evil: The Source of Evil, The Solution to Evil, etc? I don't want to miss address the question that you are asking.

Here is a great resource on ToE. It does a good job of compileing the best arguments into one place (dealing with Rowe, Plantinga, etc). I guess the best place to start is the Deontological/Inductive argument.

The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy said:
The basic idea behind a direct inductive formulation of the argument from evil is that the argument involves a crucial inductive step that takes the form of an inductive projection or generalization in which one moves from a premise concerning the known moral properties of some state of affairs to a conclusion about the likely overall moral worth of that state of affairs, given all its moral properties, both known and unknown.
Such a direct inductive argument might, for example, take the following form:

Both the property of intentionally allowing an animal to die an agonizing death in a forest fire, and the property of allowing a child to undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer, are wrongmaking characteristics of an action, and very serious ones.

Our world contains animals that die agonizing deaths in forest fires, and children who undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer.

An omnipotent being could prevent such events, if he knew that those events were about to occur.

An omniscient being would know that such events were about to occur.

If a being allows something to take place that he knows is about to happen, and which he knows he could prevent, then that being intentionally allows the event in question to occur.

Therefore:

If there is an omnipotent and omniscient being, then there are cases where he intentionally allows animals to die agonizing deaths in forest fires, and children to undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer.

In many such cases, no rightmaking characteristics that we are aware of both apply to the case in question, and also are sufficiently serious to counterbalance the relevant wrongmaking characteristic.

Therefore:

If there is an omnipotent and omniscient being, then there are specific cases of such a being's intentionally allowing animals to die agonizing deaths in forest fires, and children to undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer, that have wrongmaking properties such that there are no rightmaking characteristics that we are aware of that both apply to the cases in question, and that are also sufficiently serious to counterbalance the relevant wrongmaking characteristics.

Therefore it is likely that:

If there is an omnipotent and omniscient being, then there are specific cases of such a being's intentionally allowing animals to die agonizing deaths in forest fires, and children to undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer, that have wrongmaking properties such that there are no rightmaking characteristics including ones that we are not aware of that both apply to the cases in question, and that are also sufficiently serious to counterbalance the relevant wrongmaking characteristics.

An action is morally wrong, all things considered, if it has a wrongmaking characteristic that is not counterbalanced by any rightmaking characteristics.

Therefore:

If there is an omnipotent and omniscient being, then there are specific cases of such a being's intentionally allowing animals to die agonizing deaths in forest fires, and children to undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer, that are morally wrong, all things considered.

Therefore:

If there is an omnipotent and omniscient being, then that being both intentionally refrains from performing certain actions in situations where it is morally wrong to do so, all things considered, and knows that he is doing so.

A being who intentionally refrains from performing certain actions in situations where it is morally wrong to do so, all things considered, and knows that he is doing so, is not morally perfect.

Therefore:

If there is an omnipotent and omniscient being, then that being is not morally perfect.

Therefore:

There is no omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect being.

If G-d exists, then he is, by definition, an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect being.

Therefore:

G-d does not exist.

I'd be interested in hear theistic arguments against this, outside the Jewish/Christian realm. More specifically, Baha'i and Pagans.

I am a not a philosopher of Religion. I just like inter religious/philosophy dialogue. It sharpens my understanding of the world.

You are just a young man, but you have an excellent head on your shoulders

I think it is one of our duties as human beings to be well read in as many areas of knowledge as possible. I've never met a "Pentellectual" before, but anyone who wants to read their scriptures in the language they have been preserved in, shows a very good quality.

Philosophy of Religions?

Regular Member

Newbie

Baha'i

I believe in life before death!

Newbie

Regular Member

Regular Member

Newbie

I believe in life before death!

Newbie

I believe in life before death!

Newbie

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

I believe in life before death!

I believe in life before death!

Baha'i

Regular Member

Newbie

Similar threads