Philosophy is detrimental to the analysis of religion

[chatpilot]

I am of the opinion that in certain matters of a religious nature that philosophy is an inappropriate discipline to discuss those matters.Now before anyone gets thier panties in a bunch,hear me out.I will use an example from one of the very threads on this web site.The topic at hand was the existence of an historical Christ.

I was told by some of my fellow debaters that I could not definitively prove that Christ did not exist because of lack of evidence.They say that this is called trying to prove a negative.But from my way of thinking I feel that if the evidence far outweighs the lack of evidence then I would think it logical to take up the former position instead of the latter.

My problem with philosophy is that it is my opinion that philosophy tends to over think the matters it seeks to explain or discredit.They introduce alot of ideas which at times are irrelevant and not to mention the circular thinking that leads to nowhere.And they introduce other elements which in my view are way beyond the subject at hand.When it comes to the subject of the existence of Jesus I believe that the lack of evidence and the similarities of prior existing myths are sufficient to discount the veracity of the existence of an historical Christ.

I would love to hear what all of you have to say about this and what you think about the matter.Remember we are not discussing the existence of Christ per say,but intstead the use of philosophy and its effectiveness in discussing things of a religious and supernatural nature.

[dagda]

Philosophy was the forerunenr of science and, in my opinion, can still touch on things science can not e.g. the nature of abstracts such as courage, beuty etc.

[lilphil1989]

My problem with philosophy is that it is my opinion that philosophy tends to over think the matters it seeks to explain or discredit.They introduce alot of ideas which at times are irrelevant and not to mention the circular thinking that leads to nowhere.And they introduce other elements which in my view are way beyond the subject at hand.

You just summed up my view of most of modern philosophy :p

[Kyuuketsuki]

Philosophy was the forerunenr of science and, in my opinion, can still touch on things science can not e.g. the nature of abstracts such as courage, beuty etc.

Actually, as I recently said to Frodo:

Obviously I need to explain this a little more.

I pretty much despise standard "philosophy" and am contemptuous of most philosophical style arguments. Why? Because philosophy, alone, can prove nothing (ZERO, NADA, ZIP), Yes philosophy is a useful tool that feeds into the real world but alone it is nothing.

Philosophy seems to have (as is often the case within the English language) a correct meaning and a number of common usage meanings but, thanks to Isaac Asimov (who was one of those dratted scientists as you probably know) and his "New Guide to Science", it appears that it derives from the ancient Greeks. The late, great Isaac Asimov, in his wonderful "New Guide To Science" devotes some space to philosophy where he referred to the Greek investigations of the universe, that they called (and I quote) 'their new manner of studying the universe philosophia meaning "love of knowledge" or, in free translation, "the desire to know"'(page 8). So a true philosopher is a seeker after knowledge and these seekers are not, I believe, those that like to blow philosophical sunshine up each other's arses but scientists and other real world investigators who attempt to provide real knowledge that is of real use to the human race. Science qualifications even reflect this ... whilst it is not absolutely necessary a typical scientist will have a doctorate and a doctorate is what? A PhD, a Doctor of Philosophy.

I would argue that it is because current day philosophers seem to provide little or no direct value to the real world that much of the philosophy bandied about today is little more than academic psychobabble. I'm not saying that philosophy has no value but it is clear to me that the true philosophers of this world are scientists like Richard Dawkins.

Kyu

[LukeMC]

The theistic side of the debate will cry themselves to sleep when neuroscience begins to have its say in abstract concepts and science suddenly CAN account for beauty, love and art. God of the gaps will have to lose some weight, cause he's finding himself with less and less space to hide in all the time. Soon, I doubt philosophical arguments will hold any weight next to newly acquired scientific knowledge.

[Edwardo Piet]

I enjoy personally philosophy. That's the main reason I think that way and perhaps am a bit pedantic at times. I like being specific and I just can't help but analyse (and arguably over analyse at times) sometimes.

Now saying you are certain (or even absolutely certain) that Jesus or whatever does not exist is one thing...I can take it lightly and easily see that you simply mean that Jesus for example is PRACTICALLY disproved in the sense he - as a supernatural figure at the very least - is so extremely improbable he perhaps might as well be considered to definitely not exist.
But to say he is definitely DISPROVED or even absolutely disproved I think is simply stating a falsehood. Because he isn't. You can't prove a negative in the sense you cannot absolutely disprove something...

I agree that philosophy can over analyse over complicate and confuse things at times...but sometimes a statement just stand out as obviously flawed to me...

I personally enjoy philosophy so it's hard not to be pedantic sometimes I think (for me and others who enjoy philosophical thinking like me)..

If you say you are absolutely certain that Jesus does not exist that's one thing (but I would still be interested to ask if you really do believe he is 100% disproved).
If, however; you all out claim that he is absolutely disproved then I'd have to say "No he's not.. How is he?".

So I think it's a matter of degree. Sometimes it's pedantic but sometimes the logic is just flawed and I can't help pointing out the negative proof fallacy if I think that that really IS what is being claimed.

EvF

[chatpilot]

It's common knowledge that alot of philosophers end up going insane.Alot of the mental gymnastics involved in philosophy is enough in my view to drive anyone insane.When it comes to religion I dont think that philosophy is the right discipline or venue to argue the issues at hand.There are some things that we just cant explain and I am comfortable with that.I know that in the future those things will come to light or they may forever remain a mystery.I am also aware that when it comes to the paranormal or the metaphysical there has to be something to it but philosophy falls short when it comes to trying to explain it.It's all nothing more than mere speculation.

FvsE my friend I will not get into the Jesus argument now since this forum is not meant for that I just used it as an example.But when it comes to proving a negative I am not so sure that that is a valid argument for anything.The way I see it if the evidence for an argument far out weighs the arguments against then I consider the the former the most valid argument.In the case of Jesus I feel that the evidence for the non existence of Christ far out weighs the evidence against it.

Man in his quest to understand things that are at times beyond his understanding tends to over think and over speculate.That is the result of philosophy I tend to read alot of classical philosophy and am amazed at how many times a writer can tell you for example that the sky is blue.With all the mental gymnastics included he or she can write a 500 page book on the subject and end up where he or she started from.Nowhere.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

It's common knowledge that a lot of philosophers end up going insane.

Really? Wow! Really? I didn't know that.

Name "a lot". Won't set a figure.I'll leave it to you to decide how many constitutes "a lot." A few sources for your claim would be nice too.

I WILL concede that some of my philosophy professors were a a little odd,and rather up themselves,but not insane.I will also concede that some philosophers bore me rigid, some are beyond me, and I think some are wankers. But there are some philosophers I like a lot for their lucid thinking: EG Plato and Bertrand Russell. If that makes me ignorant and a bit dim,too bad.

Does that mean I agree with your proposition? Depends; If your argument is,as it seems to me, an attempt to discredit philosophy as a discipline,no,I don't agree. If you are making a broad observation that some philosophers are nutjobs and incompetents,well of course.That's not secret.
There are few more boring human beings on earth than an honours philosophy student who has discovered the sophists.


"There is a simple explanation for everything and it's wrong" (H L Mencken)



PS saying;"it's common knowledge" is the same as saying "every schoolboy knows" or "a lot of people think". It's a logical fallacy,called "argumentum ad populum"

" Argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so." (wiki)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_...m#Examples

[athoughtfulman]

The way I see it if the evidence for an argument far out weighs the arguments against then I consider the the former the most valid argument.In the case of Jesus I feel that the evidence for the non existence of Christ far out weighs the evidence against it.

Granted, the evidence for the nonexistence of christ far outweighs the evidence against it. But that is not a 100% absolute statement, which is what EvF is trying to say. Whether we use science or philosophy we still come to the same point - that something is simply not 100% proven or unproven. Whenever the evidence is more in favour of something not existing, then we assume it doesn't exist, at least for all practical purposes. However, we cannot say that it is 100% not existing.

This comes back to atheism - I don't believe in god because I can 100% disprove him, I don't believe in god because as far as the evidence is concerned, god is very unlikely to exist. But I lack a watertight, 100%, conclusion.

Philosophy can be helpful, but too often it's distorted and overreaching. It clearly can't provide proof of anything, just another perspective of something. And on occasion science ends up in the same place, for example in the case of jesus, science is incapable (at this point) of 100% disproving the existence of jesus.

[Kyuuketsuki]

And on occasion science ends up in the same place, for example in the case of jesus, science is incapable (at this point) of 100% disproving the existence of jesus.

It's worth pointing out that NOTHING in science is held as absolute (there is never a 100% case of anything).

Kyu