Attention: New Statement of Purpose

[Hammster]

Philosophy now has a Statement of Purpose. Please familiarize yourself with it before posting further.

Thanks.

 

[Eudaimonist]

What is new about it?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Hammster]

What is new about it?


eudaimonia,

Mark

It's existence.

 

[AlephBet]

Philosophy now has a Statement of Purpose. Please familiarize yourself with it before posting further.

Thanks.

When Jesus said he was the Way (East), the Truth (West) and the Life (two made one), I think he was referring to this.

Way - Righteousness (See the Tao, Upanishads, Gita, Confucius and Dhammapada).

Truth - Highest truth in philosophy--how to have unity with multiplicity. Love as the ultimate goal of all wisdom. Wisdom as the toil to rightly use knowledge.

Life - Two made one. Conquering the world. Rising to new life from the waters below and above.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

There's something strange about this Statement of Purpose, though I can't quite put my finger on it. In it, philosophy is defined as, among other things, the "the rational, methodical, and systematic consideration of the topics that are of greatest concern to humanity." That's a very broad definition, which is good, since it reflects the broad terrain of philosophy itself. It implies that all ideas are up for consideration, for discussion and debate.

Yet the Statement makes an exception for Christianity, demanding that we show respect for the Christian faith. This is understandable, given that this is a Christian site after-all, but it seems antithetical to philosophy, wherein no idea is exempt from scrutiny and no system of ideas is given special privilege. In a way, what the Statement says is this: "This is the Philosophy forum, wherein you may critically examine various ideas that are of great importance to humanity. You may argue for or against any idea, but you cannot argue against Christianity, or the thread will be closed." In any other arena of philosophical contemplation (a university for example), this would not stand. A philosophy department that took this attitude would be ridiculed, yet this is exactly the attitude embodied in this Statement.

Once again, I fully understand that, this being a Christian site, there may be rules that privilege Christianity. But the result is that this forum, while being called a "philosophy" forum, is not fully living up to the name or even to the definition given in the Statement.

 

[Hammster]

I'm just the messenger.

Any questions should be directed to the Member Services Center.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'm just the messenger.

Any questions should be directed to the Member Services Center.

I'm not trying to shoot the messenger or anything. I just think there's somewhat of a conflict between the aspirations of philosophy and the stated goals of this forum, which it is named after.

 

[Gottservant]

I'm not trying to shoot the messenger or anything. I just think there's somewhat of a conflict between the aspirations of philosophy and the stated goals of this forum, which it is named after.

You would not find it as much of a problem, if your preferred trajectory of argument was not toward absolute negation of your opposition's position...

...I suspect.

(bear in mind I'm not quoting anything, so you needn't feel I am isolating you (entirely))

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You would not find it as much of a problem, if your preferred trajectory of argument was not toward absolute negation of your opposition's position...

...I suspect.

(bear in mind I'm not quoting anything, so you needn't feel I am isolating you (entirely))

Why would the trajectory of the argument matter? What matters is that we are allowed to argue the point to begin with.

 

[Gottservant]

Why would the trajectory of the argument matter? What matters is that we are allowed to argue the point to begin with.

I'm just saying that philosophically it is quite reasonable to argue that proceeding by absolute negation of a position is unnecessarily oppressive (and therefore dogmatically refutable).

You wouldn't talk like that with your wife now, would you?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'm just saying that philosophically it is quite reasonable to argue that proceeding by absolute negation of a position is unnecessarily oppressive (and therefore dogmatically refutable).

You wouldn't talk like that with your wife now, would you?

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying.

 

[Gottservant]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying.

The statement says "don't argue against Christianity"

that is a valid way of preventing people from attempting to negate the entire faith on the basis of an argument that does not address the depth of the faith that is well and truly established

which is a logical fallacy

its a bit like someone walking into a Nike shop and saying "Nike? No there shouldn't be Nike - I don't like the colour of the blue on one of their shoes"

Well, it happens all the time, basically the statement of faith says "don't do that"

I'm not even saying I don't understand your point, I'm saying there is a level of validity to the standard that you are not addressing.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The statement says "don't argue against Christianity"

that is a valid way of preventing people from attempting to negate the entire faith on the basis of an argument that does not address the depth of the faith that is well and truly established

It's also another way of saying "This is dogma. You shall not question it, ever."

which is a logical fallacy

Which logical fallacy in particular?

its a bit like someone walking into a Nike shop and saying "Nike? No there shouldn't be Nike - I don't like the colour of the blue on one of their shoes"

Well, it happens all the time, basically the statement of faith says "don't do that"

I'm not even saying I don't understand your point, I'm saying there is a level of validity to the standard that you are not addressing.

Saying "Don't critically examine this one specific idea," in a forum that is dedicated to critically examining ideas, is demanding a special privilege. It's more like walking into a sports bar that welcomes any sort of friendly sports banter but bans any criticism of a particular football team.

 

[Inkfingers]

Saying "Don't critically examine this one specific idea," in a forum that is dedicated to critically examining ideas, is demanding a special privilege. It's more like walking into a sports bar that welcomes any sort of friendly sports banter but bans any criticism of a particular football team.

Are you refering to this?

"The CF Philosophy forum is not intended for general apologetics of Christianity, i.e., the defense of the Christian faith against arguments, objections or attacks from non-Christians. Nor is this forum intended as a means for Christian evangelism (persuasion) of unbelievers. We ask that you would show respect for the Christian faith and not make posts which insult or mock Christianity or any part of the Trinity-Father (God), Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit. Threads which staff determines are intended for the sole purpose of attacking or arguing against Christianity will be closed."

If so, is it opposed to the discussing of Christianity or is it simply a guard against this becoming Anti-Christian corner? Mockery and philosophical discussion are not the same thing (although granted some appear to struggle to understand that ).

As long as the trinity can be discussed critically here (without mockery or insult) what is the problem? Or is that unallowed as well, in which case I would join you in your general state of "Hmmmm....." as the church have themselves long discussed this issue, and such a limit could potentially rule out discussion of Christadelphian, Jehova's Witness, LDS, or Christian Science theologies.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Are you refering to this?

"The CF Philosophy forum is not intended for general apologetics of Christianity, i.e., the defense of the Christian faith against arguments, objections or attacks from non-Christians. Nor is this forum intended as a means for Christian evangelism (persuasion) of unbelievers. We ask that you would show respect for the Christian faith and not make posts which insult or mock Christianity or any part of the Trinity-Father (God), Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit. Threads which staff determines are intended for the sole purpose of attacking or arguing against Christianity will be closed."

If so, is it opposed to the discussing of Christianity or is it simply a guard against this becoming Anti-Christian corner? Mockery and philosophical discussion are not the same thing (although granted some appear to struggle to understand that ).

I think there is a legitimate place for ridicule in philosophical discourse. They are not the same thing, but they are not necessarily mutually exclusive either. We ought to be careful though, because ridicule can be like fire, and we wouldn't want to spark a flame war.

As long as the trinity can be discussed critically here (without mockery or insult) what is the problem? Or is that unallowed as well, in which case I would join you in your general state of "Hmmmm....." as the church have themselves long discussed this issue, and such a limit could potentially rule out discussion of Christadelphian, Jehova's Witness, LDS, or Christian Science theologies.

I'm not sure about that. The Statement seems vague on that point. That is another problem: what is likely to be construed as an "attack" against Christianity? What about Christians who scrutinise the theological beliefs of other Christians?

 

[Gottservant]

If so, is it opposed to the discussing of Christianity or is it simply a guard against this becoming Anti-Christian corner? Mockery and philosophical discussion are not the same thing

Archaeopteryx take note, this is exactly exactly what I am talking about.

The point at which you say "what about Christians critiquing other Christians?" is where you come to your strongest argument against the limitation (and it is to your credit that you considered this, in principle though one would hope there was a difference (for Christians) that was not simply argument for argument on topic's sake, which you could still easily imply).

The point is, to just negate something as if all related beliefs are one belief is a fallacy of monofocalism - narrowing of the perspective to paint all expressions of the faith in the same light, which is disingenuous, since Christ in His life never did this to anyone.

The dream is to say "you may be critical of a specific part of Christianity, if you can create a picture of the context in which the criticism is specifically valid for that specific part" but I doubt the maturity of this would be as easy to police as the board desires it to be.

Meanwhile, I object to the suggestion that ideas cannot evangalize, but I digress (from your point).

 

[God's Child]

Bumping this. Please read the Philosophy forum's new Statement of Purpose.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7864312/

 

[variant]

Ah more censorship eh?

What do you suppose the forum is afraid of?

Do you suppose that Christianity can be discussed or the philosophy of religion can be discussed without the ability to challenge religious assertions?

There is no such thing as a philosophy discussion without the ability to explore and challenge all assertions.

You should change the name of the forum to something else.

 

[Eudaimonist]

There is no such thing as a philosophy discussion without the ability to explore and challenge all assertions.

I'm just surprised that they are still maintaining the old anti-apologetics policy. Why? Tradition?

I can't think of any good reason. Apologetics discussion happens naturally, is usually civil, and makes the boards a much more interesting place to be.


eudaimonia,

Mark