A critique of the misconceptions of eternality and God

[Zetetic11235]

Originally Posted by Master Pangloss

Zetetic - I don't know about you, but I believe it is our responsibility as thinkers to combat ignorance. I don't buy the idea that we should simply let it go by unargued. To not concern myself would be an injustice in my view. In reference to your comments about my own posts in these "God proof" threads, my posts have all been precisely to the point that such a line of dialog is ultimately fruitless. So there is no inconsistency on my part here.

The resposibility is a mutual one, and those who persist in posting without looking for themselfs at the results of similar arguments, especially since every single member of this forum has access to the internet, hold to their position willfuly. I cannot see why they could not simply glance over the already extant threads and find the answers they are looking for when used in conjunction with all the other resources at their finger tips.

This forum is not the best place for authoritative views or information, it is a forum. It is not the duty of the thinker to correct those who make no effort or have no desire to be corrected. If I make explicit my point of view, I have perhaps a duty to elaborate upon it lest my ivews be dismissed, however, if one does not understand or accept a fact out of stubborness or gross ignorance in the end, it is not my duty to spoon feed them information.

This forum, as all forums are, is explicitly to the ends of discussing old ideas and shareing new ones, not teaching old ideas and educating those who will not educate themselfs. If they are too lazy to read/browse through the old threads on the same topic, too bad. If they have a specific question, they can google it. Once they get some ideas that they percieve as new, they can discuss them.

In conclusion, while I respect your epicurian morals, and indeed I empathize with you for I too often find myself feeling the same way; simply spoon feeding the same argument to people who will not educate themselfs. You are bearing the load which is not ment for you to bear in this action. My recommendation would be to simply not reply and allow the thread poster to find through use of the search function the answers he/she seeks. Or to simply disallow repeatitive threads if it bothers you so much.

[Master Pangloss]

Zetetic - I don't think that only two posts on my part equals a spoon feeding. And I hardly think I've croosed a line here. But I understand completely what you mean, and you have no disagreement from me that people can go too far. Let's leave it that shall we?

[Zetetic11235]

Alright. I wasn't accusing of any such action, I was simply issuing a caveat to the point of view you were promoting, and I think that you understand this quite well enough. So we will leave that matter. But what of the matter of classification and use of terms from earlier in the thread?

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Yes, doctrine comes from theology. So theology cannot be philosophy within doctrinal limits as theology establishes those doctrinal limits, and breaks them to establish new doctrine.

It can be both within doctrinal limits and it can reevaluate and alter these limits. Just as the government operates within its laws, but can also change laws.

[Didymos Thomas]

I'm having trouble with that comparison, though. Theologians have the option, like philosophers, of completely breaking from tradition and established doctrine. They can do more than elaborate on doctrine; they can reject doctrine and invent new doctrine. I guess just like governments have the option of operating outside of their own laws.

[Aedes]

The difference is that philosophy is not bound by rules, and it need not have any reference to prior philosophy.

[Didymos Thomas]

The difference is that philosophy is not bound by rules, and it need not have any reference to prior philosophy.

Theology doesn't seem to be any more restrained by rules than philosophy. Perhaps bending the rules, and breaking the rules outright, is a little less common to theology, but I don't see how the shifts in theology are any less drastic than the shifts in philosophy.

As for reference to prior philosophy/theology, I think this will become an issue of semantics. No one thinks in a vacuum.

[Aedes]

No one thinks in a vacuum, but a philosopher can start a new philosophical project without ANY specific reference to something that's been previously discussed in philosophy, let alone reference to specific philosophies/ers.

If you decide to do such a thing with, say, Christian theology, i.e. make no reference to anything scriptural or any previous theological points of view, then you're not really engaging in Christian theology -- you're philosophizing about Christianity, but that's not theology. Seems to me that it ceases to be theology when it's grossly heretical

[iconoclast]

MP,

You won't get the faithful to enagage honestly on the topic of the pro's and cons of religion in the world - it amazes me how blind they are to the role of religion in most of the worst episodes of man's inhumanity to man. But that's because religion is fundamentally dishoenst.

I agree that the question of the existence/or not of God is a dead horse, but flogging it is not unproductive. Truth is equally unachievable - being always open to sceptical doubt, should we then give up the search to dwell in absolute relativism? I wouldn't claim to have disproved the notion of God because one cannot demonstrate non-existence, but flogging is good exercise and my faith undermining muslcles have become quite well developed.

Dishonest and unsound reason should be challenged whatever the subject matter - and so, while generally in favour of your proposal, I will continue to lash the equine corpse with all my might.

[Didymos Thomas]

You won't get the faithful to enagage honestly on the topic of the pro's and cons of religion in the world - it amazes me how blind they are to the role of religion in most of the worst episodes of man's inhumanity to man.

There are many, faithful and faithless alike, who will not engage honestly on the topic of religion, and the way in which religion influences history. Richard Dawkins, the super-star atheist, is more than happy to misrepresent religion with sweeping generalizations. I think everyone is familiar with theists who misrepresent religion.

But to that no one of faith will honestly discuss religion is silly. There has to be at least one among us who strives to maintain their intellectual integrity. Being wrong is one thing, being dishonest is another.

But that's because religion is fundamentally dishoenst.

Fundamentally dishonest? No one will contest the claim that some religious leaders are dishonest. No one will contest the claim that some particular traditions are fundamentally dishonest (Scientology, anyone?). But to broadly categorize all religion as fundamentally dishonest is simply ludicrous - at least that I can tell.

I agree that the question of the existence/or not of God is a dead horse, but flogging it is not unproductive. Truth is equally unachievable - being always open to sceptical doubt, should we then give up the search to dwell in absolute relativism? I wouldn't claim to have disproved the notion of God because one cannot demonstrate non-existence, but flogging is good exercise and my faith undermining muslcles have become quite well developed.

Here we agree - at least to some extent. The question of God's existence has been pretty well explored from a logical perspective. New developments would be interesting to see, but the field is basically an archaic study in philosophy. More in the realm of the historian of philosophy than in the realm of study of a modern philosopher.

I'm in favor of carrying on these discussions, discussions about the existence of God, for many reasons. First, it's a useful conversation for someone honing their rhetorical and logical skills. Second, the conversation is a sharp blade against flimsy and silly spiritual dogmas. But more than anything else, the discussion helps foster personal reflection.

I cut my teeth, so to speak, shredding pseudo-philosophical arguments regarding God. I began this whole journey through philosophy as a militant atheist.

I also share Master Pangloss' feeling on the matter. We keep repeating the God discussion on these forums in thread after thread. This shouldn't be surprising; anyone interested in religion is likely to be interested in the question of God's existence. But covering some other ground would be good for us, too.