Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watarts.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!dual!qantel!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!watarts!bjanz From: bjanz@watarts.UUCP (Bruce Janz) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: a cross-posting request Message-ID: <8523@watarts.UUCP> Date: Sun, 11-Aug-85 22:11:12 EDT Article-I.D.: watarts.8523 Posted: Sun Aug 11 22:11:12 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 17-Aug-85 06:24:22 EDT References: <258@frog.UUCP> Reply-To: bjanz@watarts.UUCP (Bruce Janz) Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 94 In article <258@frog.UUCP> frog!tdh writes: >My argument, put to cruder form, and with parenthetical >explanation, said: > > 1) Religion is partly idiocy. > 2) Faith (an idiotic part) is the essence of > religion. (Faith is the practice of claiming > truth without evidence. I am not concerned > with other meanings of the word, like "trust".) I would be interested in knowing just what counts as evidence. If you mean empirical evidence, then perhaps you're right (I won't even attempt to discuss miracles -- that, apparently, belongs in net.religion). However, I'm afraid that philosophy cannot claim empirical evidence as a basis, either. In fact, much of the time philosophy is trying to define just what counts as evidence for other fields (including religion). If the evidence that you require is a priori (as it seems it must be), then it is a little premature to dismiss religion without considering the evidence it claims as a basis for truth. No, this is not a disguised attempt at evangelism -- you can believe what you want about anything you want. It just seems to be somewhat severe to dismiss some of the great past and present philosophers just because they may have had, in the backs of their minds, the purpose of advancing religion. Most of the philosophers of today are nothing more than a reaction to or an furthering of these religious people. > 3) Arguments from faith are destructive of > net.philosophy . If this can be interpreted to say that arguments without evidence of any sort are not good arguments, then I can agree. To say that they are destructive is severe -- even bad arguments have the use of being something to react to. However, this presupposes that all arguments from faith are bad ones. Again, the question of the nature of evidence is relevent. By your restriction, much of existentialist philosophy would have no place in this group, for it is only verifiable on a personal level. Yet, I would hardly think that we would want to dismiss it as not being good philosophy. It is just a different way of doing philosophy. > 4) Therefore it is important to exclude religious > arguments from net.philosophy . > 5) Arguments not from faith are not religious. > 6) Therefore there is no religious interest in > net.philosophy (although some religious people > might have an interest). > 7) Therefore there is no excuse for cross-posting > between net.philosophy and net.religion . > 8) Religion used to dominate philosophy. That > domination was disastrous. > 9) Religion stopped dominating philosophy centuries > ago. Could you tell me at what point this domination stopped? Was it with Hume? But Kant still thought that he was giving a rational basis for religion. The nineteenth century has German idealists who thought they were contributing to religion. The existentialist camp (whatever that is) has people like Nietschze and Sartre, true, but it also has Kierkegaard, Marcel and Buber. Maybe this is only influence, instead of domination. Is influence from religious people pursuing religious goals inadmissable as well? It seems a bit presumptuous to say that religion has never had a positive effect on philosophy, or that people pursuing religious goals have never made any contributions to philosophy worth remembering. > 10) It is still possible for philosophy to be > crushed by the religious boot, if people don't > take preventive care. >Rosen raises an interesting point: Should philosophy be >used to evangelize (sorry!) the religious? Good luck. So, I see you've met the Objectivists, too. :-) >"Philosophy of religion" is not an oxymoron. It does not >meet the ancient criterion of smartness. I'm not sure what you mean by the "ancient criterion of smartness" Please enlighten. . . I'm glad you don't dismiss phil. of religion along with religious philosophy. That would really be distressing. > > David Hudson b.janz -- Reality is for those who have no imagination. . . b janz watmath!watarts!bjanz OR watmath!watdcs!bbjanz