• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What do philosophers believe?

phiwum said:
That wouldn't follow, you know. You seem to presume that we are the only species God cares about, and that doesn't follow from Craig's argument (as presented by Fudbucker, at least -- I don't know the argument myself).
Of course, many Christians do believe that humans have a special importance to God and that perhaps this whole universe was created just for humans. But that doesn't seem to be a consequence of the stated argument.
Click to expand...

Possibly you might want to familiarize yourself with the argument before defending it.
 
phiwum said:
I apologize if I've contributed to a hostile atmosphere. It wasn't my intention, but sometimes things do get under my skin.
Click to expand...

I accept your apology and completely understand that philosophers can be overly sensitive because their discipline doesn't add to the gross national product of a country or have a natural career track for those that major in college on the topic. The fundamental nature of existence or reality is now more in the camp of physics majors than philosophy majors. Knowledge of the mind is more in the domain of neurology.

It may be a few more generations before philosophy classes go the way of black and white photo classes but the writing is on the wall and certainly that can be a concern for people invested in it.
 
tsig said:
Possibly you might want to familiarize yourself with the argument before defending it.
Click to expand...

Why don't you summarize it sufficiently to show how this argument would entail that God created the universe for this one species?

Give us some reasoning, will you?

(By the way, I did not defend the argument. I pointed out that your attempt at drawing a conclusion from it failed. I think I see the gist of the argument well enough to know that.)
 
Senex said:
I accept your apology and completely understand that philosophers can be overly sensitive because their discipline doesn't add to the gross national product of a country or have a natural career track for those that major in college on the topic. The fundamental nature of existence or reality is now more in the camp of physics majors than philosophy majors. Knowledge of the mind is more in the domain of neurology.

It may be a few more generations before philosophy classes go the way of black and white photo classes but the writing is on the wall and certainly that can be a concern for people invested in it.
Click to expand...

Despite the fact that Senex is dismissive here, let me reply to a substantive point he makes. That is that philosophical topics are often appropriated by science. He says this as if the philosopher would regard this as a great injury to his discipline. Nothing could be further from the truth.

To quote Russell (pardon the lengthy quote, but it really expresses a deep insight):

Philosophy, like all other studies, aims primarily at knowledge. The knowledge it aims at is the kind of knowledge which gives unity and system to the body of the sciences, and the kind which results from a critical examination of the grounds of our convictions, prejudices, and beliefs. But it cannot be maintained that philosophy has had any very great measure of success in its attempts to provide definite answers to its questions. If you ask a mathematician, a mineralogist, a historian, or any other man of learning, what definite body of truths has been ascertained by his science, his answer will last as long as you are willing to listen. But if you put the same question to a philosopher, he will, if he is candid, have to confess that his study has not achieved positive results such as have been achieved by other sciences. It is true that this is partly accounted for by the fact that, as soon as definite knowledge concerning any subject becomes possible, this subject ceases to be called philosophy, and becomes a separate science. The whole study of the heavens, which now belongs to astronomy, was once included in philosophy; Newton's great work was called 'the mathematical principles of natural philosophy'. Similarly, the study of the human mind, which was a part of philosophy, has now been separated from philosophy and has become the science of psychology. Thus, to a great extent, the uncertainty of philosophy is more apparent than real: those questions which are already capable of definite answers are placed in the sciences, while those only to which, at present, no definite answer can be given, remain to form the residue which is called philosophy.​

That a question is a part of philosophy indicates that we haven't developed a methodical approach that converges on the truth. We're still grappling with how to answer such questions. Once a clear method has been identified, the subject becomes a science. This is an undeniably good thing.

Now, Senex thinks that soon enough, everything will be a part of science. That's quite optimistic and almost certainly false (logic, for instance, will always have a philosophical as well as a mathematical component). But where he goes most wrong is in thinking that philosophers would rue the day this occurs. That is just not so.
 
Last edited:
phiwum said:
Despite the fact that Senex is dismissive here, let me reply to a substantive point he makes. That is that philosophical topics are often appropriated by science. He says this as if the philosopher would regard this as a great injury to his discipline. Nothing could be further from the truth.

To quote Russell (pardon the lengthy quote, but it really expresses a deep insight):.....

Now, Senex thinks that soon enough, everything will be a part of science. That's quite optimistic and almost certainly false (logic, for instance, will always have a philosophical as well as a mathematical component). But where he goes most wrong is in thinking that philosophers would rue the day this occurs. That is just not so.
Click to expand...

You just spoke for all philosophers which is contradictory to your previous statement that...

phiwum said:
Your "accusation" is uninformed nonsense. That said, of course I don't believe that all PhDs in any topic know the subject well. Sadly, some morons get through every program, but your reasoning that all philosophers ought to agree is simply a gross misunderstanding of the nature of the discipline.
Click to expand...
 
Senex said:
You just spoke for all philosophers which is contradictory to your previous statement that...
Click to expand...

There is a difference between the claim, "Philosophers agree on this statement," and the claim, "Philosophers ought to agree on every philosophical statement." Your gotcha just doesn't work.

That said, of course I was generalizing, but I certainly believe that what Russell said is the common opinion among philosophers.
 
phiwum said:
...
To quote Russell (pardon the lengthy quote, but it really expresses a deep insight):

Philosophy, like all other studies, aims primarily at knowledge. The knowledge it aims at is the kind of knowledge which gives unity and system to the body of the sciences, and the kind which results from a critical examination of the grounds of our convictions, prejudices, and beliefs. But it cannot be maintained that philosophy has had any very great measure of success in its attempts to provide definite answers to its questions. If you ask a mathematician, a mineralogist, a historian, or any other man of learning, what definite body of truths has been ascertained by his science, his answer will last as long as you are willing to listen. But if you put the same question to a philosopher, he will, if he is candid, have to confess that his study has not achieved positive results such as have been achieved by other sciences. It is true that this is partly accounted for by the fact that, as soon as definite knowledge concerning any subject becomes possible, this subject ceases to be called philosophy, and becomes a separate science. The whole study of the heavens, which now belongs to astronomy, was once included in philosophy; Newton's great work was called 'the mathematical principles of natural philosophy'. Similarly, the study of the human mind, which was a part of philosophy, has now been separated from philosophy and has become the science of psychology. Thus, to a great extent, the uncertainty of philosophy is more apparent than real: those questions which are already capable of definite answers are placed in the sciences, while those only to which, at present, no definite answer can be given, remain to form the residue which is called philosophy.​

That a question is a part of philosophy indicates that we haven't developed a methodical approach that converges on the truth. We're still grappling with how to answer such questions. Once a clear method has been identified, the subject becomes a science. This is an undeniably good thing.

...
Click to expand...


So now you agree that "science and knowledge are synonymous"?

Did you not say that it is "rash" to say so???

phiwum said:
... Leumas rashly claimed that knowledge and science are synonyms, from which it follows either that history is not a part of knowledge, or it is a part of science....
Click to expand...


I am glad that you now realize that I was as equally "rash" as the likes of Bertrand Russell... not a bad rash to have I'd say!!!

Also from the above one can see then that if any knowledge gleaned on the philosophy side becomes science if it is of any practical and useful value, then it is obviously understood that, of what remains on the philosophy side
  • 10% may possibly eventually become science and thus is no longer even philosophy.
  • 90% totally useless rubbish rejected and refused by any "body of definite knowledge concerning any subject".

I am glad you have finally agreed to what was said way early in this thread.

QED!!!

Leumas said:
abaddon said:
Philosophers are the Schroedinger's Cat of human thought. They simultaneously believe everything and nothing all the while teetering on the brink of the abyss that is solipsism.

IMHO, 90% of modern philosophy is functionally as useful as navel fluff serving no useful purpose whatsoever.
Click to expand...


I wish I could find it again... a long time ago I had an MSDOS program that every time you ran it, it generated a sentence that sounded utterly amazing and seemed deeply profound. However, if you actually inspected what exactly it was saying you would realize that it was total gibberish.

I think, like you said, 90% of philosophy/philodeusy, whether modern or classic, is really nothing more than circular reasoning disguised in sentences that are much like the ones generated by the above mentioned program.

Compare this
The hermitically derived synopsis of the pseudonymous tautology is fundamentally pedagogical to the aim of aspiring erudites.​

To this
For creation is not a change, but that dependence of the created existence on the principle from which it is instituted, and thus is of the genus of relation; whence nothing prohibits it being in the created as in the subject.​
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
phiwum said:
There is a difference between the claim, "Philosophers agree on this statement," and the claim, "Philosophers ought to agree on every philosophical statement." Your gotcha just doesn't work.

That said, of course I was generalizing, but I certainly believe that what Russell said is the common opinion among philosophers.
Click to expand...

I believe it is an educational "gotcha" moment. Philosophers generalize apparently.
 
Senex said:
I believe it is an educational "gotcha" moment. Philosophers generalize apparently.
Click to expand...
I never claimed that philosophers disagree on everything. I take it that philosophers agree that 0=0, for instance.

You said that they should disagree on nothing, at least nothing in philosophy. That is a very silly claim. You have failed to support this claim.

ETA: you've also failed to support your accusation that philosophers jealously guard their domain from science. Have you anything to say about that Russell quote?
 
Last edited:
phiwum said:
I never claimed that philosophers disagree on everything. I take it that philosophers agree that 0=0, for instance.

You said that they should disagree on nothing, at least nothing in philosophy. That is a very silly claim. You have failed to support this claim.

ETA: you've also failed to support your accusation that philosophers jealously guard their domain from science. Have you anything to say about that Russell quote?
Click to expand...

Aha! trying obfuscate the issue. 0=0 but should all philosophers agree about a Russell quote.

I love to be underestimated ;)
 
Senex said:
Aha! trying obfuscate the issue. 0=0 but should all philosophers agree about a Russell quote.

I love to be underestimated ;)
Click to expand...
I don't understand your point.

Yes, I generalized, but I doubt that any analytic philosopher would dispute Russell's quote.

What has this allegation of generalization to do with anything? Russell's quote indicates that you were wrong when you suggested philosophers are anxious about the success of science. It's just not how it is, and if some odd minority of philosophers feel otherwise, so much the worse for them.

Go ahead, find some well-regarded philosophy fretting over the encroachment of science. It doesn't happen, despite your armchair psychoanalysis of philosophical neuroses.
 
Last edited:
phiwum said:
I don't understand your point.

Yes, I generalized, but I doubt that any analytic philosopher would dispute Russell's quote.

What has this allegation of generalization to do with anything? Russell's quote indicates that you were wrong when you suggested philosophers are anxious about the success of science. It's just not how it is, and if some odd minority of philosophers feel otherwise, so much the worse for them.

Go ahead, find some well-regarded philosophy fretting over the encroachment of science. It doesn't happen, despite your armchair psychoanalysis of philosophical neuroses.
Click to expand...


I think William Lane Craig is a well-regarded philosopher who definitely is quite fretful about science encroaching over his philodeusy.


”The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit.

— William Lane Craig, professional philosopher​

Have a look here
As I explained in my exposition of the Doctrine of Creation, when it comes to questions of the origin of life and biological complexity, biblical Christians enjoy the advantage over the naturalist of being truly open to follow the evidence where it leads.....

My honest, layman’s assessment of the evidence makes me sceptical of the neo-Darwinian account and leaves me with a probing agnosticism about the theory.

... Such failures make very pressing the question: how do we know that the extrapolation from local instances of evolutionary development to the grand story of evolution is a valid one?

....​
 
Last edited:
Leumas said:
I think William Lane Craig is a well-regarded philosopher who definitely is quite fretful about science encroaching over his philodeusy.


”The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit.

— William Lane Craig, professional philosopher​

Have a look here
As I explained in my exposition of the Doctrine of Creation, when it comes to questions of the origin of life and biological complexity, biblical Christians enjoy the advantage over the naturalist of being truly open to follow the evidence where it leads.....

My honest, layman’s assessment of the evidence makes me sceptical of the neo-Darwinian account and leaves me with a probing agnosticism about the theory.

... Such failures make very pressing the question: how do we know that the extrapolation from local instances of evolutionary development to the grand story of evolution is a valid one?

....​
Click to expand...

Okay, I'll give you that one. I don't know how well-regarded Craig is. His philosophical writings aim at supporting belief in God, and given that most analytic philosophers are self-described atheists, it's evident that few think his arguments succeed. But he's published, and has an audience.

And the first quote you give is an explicit rejection of scientific reasoning in favor of his faith and revelation by the Holy Spirit.

And he's also an analytic philosopher.

So, I'll give you that one. He's hardly representative of analytic philosophy, but I certainly hadn't been thinking of evangelical philosophers of religion when I made my statement.

That said, I think that even Craig generally speaking would regard the move of a topic from philosophy to science a good thing, a great success, but he clearly draws a line when the topic is religious in nature.

ETA: Your second quote, by the way, does not illustrate anything relevant. He's claiming in that quote that the evidence for evolution is lacking. He's wrong, of course, but he is not rejecting science on the grounds that philosophy should take precedence. Rather, he's rejecting a particular scientific theory on grounds that the evidence for that theory is weak.

I'll say it again so that Leumas does not take my last sentence the wrong way: Craig is wrong about the evidence for evolution.
 
Last edited:
Sideroxylon said:
Don't feel embarrassed if you've never heard of William Lane Craig. He parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name either. Perhaps he is a "theologian"
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig
Click to expand...

He certainly is a theologian, employed at a theological school. That said, perhaps he is well-regarded in certain philosophical circles. I wouldn't know.

Leumas has a fairly skewed view of contemporary analytic philosophy in part because this seems to be the only living philosopher he can name.

ETA: William Lane Craig's name features fairly prominently at the SEP page on the Cosmological Argument, so he does seem to get some attention in philosophy of religion.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom