Conversation

I came across this conversation in a philosophy forum:

"Tor: Theology presupposes a God, philosophy doesn't. Theology is
reasoned belief, philosophy is a belief in reason. This is the
essential difference between the two; it is the difference of de-
pendence and independence; the difference of water and fire.
Philosophy was once the handmaiden of theology; it caused
the pot to boil. Theology as such could never be the hand-
maiden of philosophy, it would only put out the fire.
The question 'what is the nature of God?' is no longer a
philosophical concern. Philosophy can exist and does quite
well without such questions. Theology itself is even learning
to get along without them. Of course theologians are over-
ridden by the more crucial, life threatening question 'does
God exist?'. There is a great deal of a-theology in the air.
Voltaire has come of age and God must be invented --- all
over again. Only this time he has to be constructed out
of reason and not belief, but philosophy won't lend a hand.
Thus, despite the contradiction in terms, theologians are
trying hard to become 'philosophical', while employing every
means available to waylag the journey of actual philosophers,
to catch them, if not to turn them completely about.
Today there are many theologians who, although unable to
convince the atheists in their own midst of God's existence,
nevertheless don a cloak of objectivity and appeal to the
learned world at large to adopt agnosticism. This is Pascal's
wager all over again, only much watered down. In effect,
they want every free-thinking and independent soul to remain
waiting in their churches, synagogues, and monastaries with
hands clapsed in prayer...until all the 'evidence' comes in.
There are several reasons for such an appeal, the most
obvious of which are to gain time, to limit the amount of ill
spoken of religion as a whole, and, if possible, to engender
a new doubt in the hearts of those who are already doubters.
If they wait out the feelings of secularism to change, then
perhaps they can pounce upon the scene again, usurping
control of society and proclaiming the priest as ruler. In
effect, the whole plan is but an ill-disguised attempt to gain
power; or if you will, from another perspective, an expression
of powerlessness and seclusion --- since such an appeal
has no hope of winning adherents.

cognito: Religion originally came about to satisfy man's questions about the world around him. Then it was used by certain powers to control. Now... It is simply there to spread fevered belief. That also brings about somehing I was thinking about earlier. Is there any state higher than existence? Woldn't existence be the highest state, and threfore perfection? That would mean that if God existed, God was perfect, and we're all pefect. Therefore we are equal to God or we all are God. But then if something didn't exist would have a state of non-perfection, and could a non-existent thing have a state, even a state of non-existence? But, in all respect to those who practice a particular faith, I would like to say that nowdays religion is sometimes used to instill morality in people.

Tor: Whether inadvertantly or not, you have given an interesting,
and may I say 'excellent', spin to the whole St.Anslem/Fool
argument. Now I want to read this old argument again --- from
a fresh perspective."

Questions, comments? I have to admit I found it interesting.

 

Maybe, but philosophy can change quickly and can adpat to new ideas. Philosophy sometimes poses questions that religion cannot answer, or won't answer. Philosphy allows thinking. Theology does too, but sometimes it does not allow enough new ideas.

 

Of couse I am. I am a Baptist like any of you, except I like to argue differernt sides. This is an interesting view, even if I don't agree with it.

 

Do you rely on the dictionary to define everything for you? Becasue I sure don't.

Even as a practicing Baptist, I still can see you are wrong. How can theology

Isn't most of philosphy and theology personal opinion? But, this is simply circular reasoning.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "trolling", but I found Tor's perspective of philosophy vs. theology interesting.

Even as a practicing Baptist, I still can see you are wrong. Maybe theology isn't considering that question, but how can it help philosophy with that if theology only exists with the assumption that there is a god? It can give proof to philosphy about this, because it's very existence relies upon the fact.

Isn't most of philosphy and theology personal opinion? But, this is simply circular reasoning.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "trolling", but I found Tor's perspective of philosophy vs. theology interesting.

 

No, if that's how you would like to define philosophy, fine. BUT, you're probably not going to get alot of people who agree. And yes, religons do happen to have their own philosophy.
Oh, and that conversation I posted, it wasn't mine. I found it in a forum. Hey, this is a lively discussion! B-D

 

I think what Tor was implying, was that philosophy was no longer being "used" by theology to determine the nature of God, that it ws no longer consumed by questions like that. But it can still ask them. Then again, theology is not exactly consumed by questions like that either, I think.

 

Touche. Si. You ARE good.

 

Sure, does God exist? Religion can try to answer that, but they can't. Because even though God does exist, it's kind of hard to prove it.

Ummm... I'm not sure what you mean by that. The statement above said: "Touche. You are good. "

 

It was a forum post, response, response kind of conversation, but ok. Copyright: Tor and Cognito @killdevilhill.com