Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Spiro Agnew made a career out of anti-intellectual posturing (who can forger "effete intellectual snobs" or, even better, "the nattering nabobs of negativism"?).
Spiro Agnew made a career out of anti-intellectual posturing (who can forger "effete intellectual snobs" or, even better, "the nattering nabobs of negativism"?).
No, Julia Galef (female) is the writer. The philosophy prof is Keith Parsons (male)
Compared to more esoteric subfields like philosophy of language or metaphysics, philosophy of religion is much more likely to attract people with deep-seated, lifelong beliefs about the topic. Because viewpoints in philosophy of religion are so emotionally fraught and bound up with a person’s lifestyle, values, and relationships, changing one’s mind is a daunting prospect. The central point of contention—the existence of God—is most fraught of all, not to mention starkly binary. “In philosophy of religion you do have this gap—either God exists or not. There’s no middle ground,” Parsons says. However, even philosophers bent on keeping their core beliefs can help move discussions forward. As in other subfields, much of philosophy of religion consists in working out the logical implications of arguments, which is less a matter of finding the right path than mapping out which paths exist.
As many philosophy professors would probably like to point out, this article makes one rather large mistake: It assumes atheism equates to being irreligious.
The professor is quoted in saying that theism is not a valid topic for academic study, not religion (I would still say it's worth studying, if only to reinforce that it is false, like dualism and determinism). I'm a philosophy student, and I've never met a philosophy teacher who espoused theism, but I've met plenty that where religious (mostly Buddhists).
I know that it was studying Philosophy of Religion that made me decide to go from calling myself an agnostic to calling myself an atheist. Exploring the idea of god led to disbelief in god. For me though, being part of a religion where that isn't a problem, I had no inclination to stop being religious. Really it just meant that I could substantiate that part of my spiritual beliefs better.
Then you probably also forgot about the mess Nixon and Agnew inherited from Johnson - 520K men in Vietnam, riots in the cities, and an economy going downhill.
Did the American peeople like what Nixon and Agnew did to solve those problems? Well, in the 1972 election, they carried 49 out of 50 states.
We'll see haw Barack Hussien does in 2012, if he even gets nominated again.
Oh ye of falsely putting words into another person's mouth!
I merely said I liked that phrase. It has humorous alliteration and I find it amusing. I never said one thing about whether or not I liked Agnew or Nixon or Johnson, or the Vietnam war et cetera.
So I'll thank you very much to stop taking offhanded remarks and inferring massively wrong information from them. Grok?
"...in saying that I now consider the case for theism to be a fraud, I do not mean to charge that the people making that case are frauds who aim to fool us with claims they know to be empty. No, theistic philosophers and apologists are almost painfully earnest and honest… I just cannot take their arguments seriously any more,....
what we see happening as a response to intellectuals dismissing religion en masse is a movement to disdain intellectualism itself. We see this particularly in politics where education makes people ‘elitist’ in the minds of the religious,.."
This has been the name of the game for some time. The debate had been over long since and atheism is the only LOGICAL worldview. Theism only survives by not being logical, either through ignorance or misusing logic.
The misuse stems from FAITH - beginning with the illogical assumption of a 'god' of some kind and arguing from there.
Theism or religion is a red herring. They are both illogical. Theism (incoporating Deism) is a possibility, but believing in a possibility is illogical.
Religion is not a valid possibility but even here miracles and the mystical feelings that Goldenrule and Kramer refer to are real, but the illogic is assuming that the possibility that they represent something to do with 'god' is not logical. There are other possibilities.
The assumptions that unanswered questions about Life, the universe and everything are validly and logically answered by 'God' or that the unexplained events and feelings are also validly and logically answered by 'God' are logically unjustified.
So the choice that Julia Galef (yes, a fella) made is the choice that has had to be made for some time. Abandon religion and theism and god - belief and be logical or believe that abandoning all that is too too much to ask in exchange for what is, after all just human intellect.
So basically it's more that a basically non-theist academic with only a niche following is now tired of even discussing a field of philosophy. Still the excitement some feel for anything that validates them is apparently a story here.
So basically it's more that a basically non-theist academic with only a niche following is now tired of even discussing a field of philosophy. Still the excitement some feel for anything that validates them is apparently a story here.
Ah. Beg pardon. Parsons not Julia is the person who walked away. And, yes, I agree he seems to have been heading in that diection for some time. As surely must anyone prepared to debate rationally rather than from a faith basis.
I also take your point that holding up yet another who Crossed the Floor is more exciting for the atheists than significant in the debate.
The misuse stems from FAITH - beginning with the illogical assumption of a 'god' of some kind and arguing from there.
Theism or religion is a red herring. They are both illogical.
Faith need not involve god. Faith is, essentially, an assumption. Assumption is not illogical, as one must always do some degree of assuming, even in science and formal logic.
Similarly, logical is not the same thing as being rational or the same thing as being valid or generally correct. To be logical a given train of thought need only have internal consistency according to its claimed criteria. Plenty of religions adhere to those requirements.
Unless you are saying that religion inherently doesn't adhere to its own standards you need to be a little more specific Areuipa. Keep in mind I said inherently, because by setting these as a class you make specific examples inapplicable, and that's a hard position to argue from even if it were correct.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
