IAP Political Forum

What do you think is generally the best way at 1)approaching the world 2)solving problems in the world 3)elevating human kind. So I have given you three choices of philosophy, religion, and science. Now obviously it is most reasonable to approach and look at all three, but I want to know down to the core and without shying away from the subject, which way is the best way to look at the world and why. Explain why you think so and defend your position rigorously.

I shall begin.
Philosophy is by far the best way to approach the world because it doesn't limit itself like science does or restrict itself to tradition and ritual like religion does. Science limits itself by not allowing for anything other than quantitative data reached by qualitative means (a paradox in itself). Furthermore it assumes the position of physicalism and leaves no room for anything else requiring all data in the end to be quantifiable. Religion has bred much violence in the past and ignores the data at hand and solely relies upon faith.

In conclusion science is a good tool and religion has created many good traditions and stories however philosophy is by far the best and greatest way to advance ones knowledge about the world and to take into account all things.

Well, science is based off of a philosophy: the philosophy of science, so it's not entirely separate anyway. However, the modern scientific philosophy has been incredibly useful. It's able to create incredibly accurate information that models reality, is responsible for the core of most material progress, and has an excellent way of sifting through ideas. The Scientific Method is fantastic because it's so successful at what it does: acquiring reliable knowledge, distinguishing between explanations. A point in favour of science it's so more effective in producing valuable results compared to religion and philosophy. There's only so much you can do through reason alone.

Most knowledge we have comes through scientific means, not pure philosophy.

Of course, philosophy is useful for tweaking science, as it has done, and it's good for things science is not good for: ethics, etc. Philosophy originally produced the scientific method, so it has already contributed something valuable.

it seems that science is about discovery, especially (because of financial pressure) for applications.
philosophy allows us to tweak, true, but gives a mehodology on how to explain why are thought processes are valid (using philosophy to include Logic).

it seems, though, that science is finding out who, what, why, where, and how, we are and philosophy is a way to justify it.

religion is storytelling. mythmaking. it tries to find out about the universe like science, but has none of the rigor or methodology or testability. it just makes claims and simply supports them by saying that its claims are 'spiritually true' - whatever that means....

I'm not sure the three are comparable.  I suppose one could say that "science" is a common set of beliefs just as a religion is a common set of beliefs, but I think it is more useful to see "science" as the "scientific method" which is a process and so then becomes on par with philosophy also a process for understanding/discovering truth.  Religion is difficult to describe as a process so I am left to think that religion is the result of application of a particular investigative approach used to converge on a set of beliefs.  Some come to a religion by accepting what others say, and some come to it by other investigative techniques including inclusion of both philosophy and scientific study.  Furthermore many form common sets of beliefs on a variety of subjects including complementary scientific premises to the point that they can properly be considered religious as well. 

I find the scientific method and philosophy both very useful in the pursuit of truth.  I don't see one better than the other.  They are both useful when applied appropriately.

Religion may provide a goal...Philosophy may provide the way to get there...and Science may provide the way to gather and interpret the data to see if the goal was acheived.

So philosophy provides us with a way to reason our way to a preset goal mandated by religion? Truly that sickens me. Philosophy doesn't follow a pre-set plan and very rarely do philosophers come to religious ends through their philosophizing. I find much of your statement ambiguous and hope that you will clarify it.

I find your second definition of science much better then your first. Firstly you wrote "science is a common set of beliefs," which is just not true. Science may provide us with a way to get to a belief but it is not a belief in and of itself other then use of the scientific method which you pointed out later. Religion is a common set of beliefs but I find it hard to believe that through scientific or philosophic inquiry that we come to religious beliefs, surely their are a few examples but I think they are definitely in the minority.

Well you see philosophy has a tendency to just postulate questions but not answer them, science in many cases is able to give a near precise answer. With that said, nothing in science has ever been proven, the theorems in which succeeded simply haven't been disproved. Religion is just a feudal attempt to answer questions in which we weren't able to answer but we now are. Religion could also be looked at the angle of a control enforcer.

It was meant to be ambiguous....one possible explanation among others.


Don't pop an anuerysm.

Who said "mandated?"

How about a goal of ending pain and suffering? Can't that not come from religion? I understand it can come from those without faith, but I was speaking of "may" as in a possibility, if you read what I wrote.

No where did i say or imply it was the ONLY way.


I don't think that is what I said.

Go ahead and disagree.

My bad.

It is pretty obvious that much of what goes on in this forum concerns the relationship between Religion (one in particular) and Science (one in particular).  To major approaches  to certain aspects of the world find themselves in conflict as they try to abrogate to themselves an exclusive claim to ‘truth’.  What this truth may consist in is of course not considered – but might I suggest that it concerns the relationship between words and what they describe.  Do such things actually exist and are they as the words describe them?  We can consider just what words actually are and what there meaning is all about…  this will bring us into close investigation of some of our mental characteristics, or even into how we use them to argue, persuade or even delight.  Not to overlook the fact that we also produce non-linguistic artefacts to perform those functions, especially delight.  And educate… how do we help form and develop young minds?  What grand purposes do we have as we suit our children for ‘useful’ lives contributing to society?  I suppose it depends what you mean (that word again) by useful or even society.  If we assume that society implies some sort of organisation and co-existence, then how it organises and how we act towards each other and the collective is a topic.  As is making and enforcing ‘rules’ (what makes a rule a rule?).  Etc

Religion, science, logic, semantics linguistics, mind, art, politics, sociology, education, ethics, law, jurisprudence….There is much to the wonderful complex extent of our world.  Trying identify what is there and to make sense of what there is…  that is what philosophy is.   This thread is misconceived from the start by putting a narrow, limited, constrained view of Philosophy on an equal footing with two of the subjects that fall under its span.

That is precisely correct.

Good, now we are getting somewhere. So truly then it is admitted by you that philosophy is the overarching category by which we should analyze everything? (Not to put words in your mouth so correct me if I am wrong.)

If this is true, then why do people who are searching for answers instead turn to religion and science far more then they do to to philosophy? My point here is that religion and science are truly self-contained while philosophy is not and this is I think why people have foolish beliefs and are basically ignorant though they may be quite educated. This is why I am a proponent of philosophy, because it encompasses all things whereas science may contain a valid investigation of physical phenomena, it will ultimately be incomplete, while religion is allready decided upon the topic, it is a ritualized philosophy and its power stems not from its reason but from its tradition and authority.

The conclusion should then be made that all men should become philosophers, though I would think it rare to find 1 in a hundred.

Maybe there is a certain "abstractness" to philosophical thinking that make it difficult for some to undertake.....

Not so much wrong as taking my views to an extreme I wouldn't accept.


We all have different mental orientations, capacities and interests.  Some are happy with abstract thought, some with solid practical effort.  There are many more dimensions to human intellection.  We all are mixtures, though some are more 'purely' one thing than another.

The only important thing is that we should not attempt to prevent other people's pursuit of satisfaction of their desire for knowledge.  (Debate, discussion and persuasion are different matters).

Here is a philosophical question.  When you say "all men should become philosophers", in what sense are you using "should"?

It is a good question.

Should in the sense that it would be beneficial for themselves and others to do so. I wouldn't say its a moral obligation because that would be extreme, however I think it is virtuous to pursue the truth.

As to the other comments, certainly pastors, scientists and others are in that pursuit for the truth but if it as you have said earlier and they realize this, then what is keeping them from being philosophers? (Mind you the conversation has sort of shifted from which is the ultimate way of looking at things, to people. I am not saying everyone should rigorously study philosophy but it astonishes me how many accept things at face value and don't explore deeper.)

Debate is what happens when guns aren't available.  Or so it seems to many on this forum.



In other words there is no commonality and therefore knowledge and opinions are balkanized forms of mental warfare?  How darwinian.

I disagree, I think humanity has within it a common theme that we can all engage in, a commonality that allows us to exist without reverting to the darwinina approach advocated by so many posers.  If no such commonality exists, then any exercize in dialogue is futile.  and we simply spin around asking each other what every word means so that we can waste a mountain of time with small talk and overlook the grander much more important aspects.

Minutia is what we see, when we lose sight of the objectives.

As a general rule those who are genuinely in the pursuit of truth make use of all avenues and so very much pursue philosophical approaches to questions they have.  I am glad to see that you are settling in on the reality that both science and philosophy have something to offer.  To claim one is supperior to the other I think misses the fact that they have different strengths for different situations. 

I remain concerned over the bias against religion indicated by some.  Since religion is not like the scientific process which employs empirisism or philosophy which uses logic and reason, rather it is set of common beliefs and not any process it seems misplaced with the other two.  Truth and accuracy of a set of beliefs should be based on the same factors that are in play for any potential explanation and generally without regard for the motivations behind formation of the premise.  The tools for evaluating any premise are derived from science and philosophy.  In this regard, Patton seemed to be on the right track.

Indeed, most serious thnkers on any subject are 'philosophers' in that they are "trying identify what is there and to make sense of what there is", within their particular field.  What is common to us all, our interactions with our fellow humans and with the world, should also of course be subject to a meditative attitude.  But there are so many conventions and received wisdoms in our behaviour tht it is not an easy task to identify those actions that should be examined.  And when we come down to examining the 'what is there' question it is immensely difficult for all of us to make the mental revolutions involved in redefining a fundamental term.  Which is why revolutionary changes are so often resisted, sometimes violently.


Neither of these opinions accurately reflect what I said.


Your use of labels is both incorrect and confuses your issues.  It is precisely because of this all-too-human leaning to talk in 'big issues' that are inadequately defined and understood that misunderstanding is spread.  For example, the 'common theme'.  What is this? How do we find it, appeal to it?  This isn't 'whining', or focusing on minutia.  This is asking what on earth do you mean.  Or do you just want to sweep everyone along in some vague emotional career into whatever actions you fancy?


On the contrary, precision is what we need, to define and achieve those objectives.



Inter-area conflict arises when attempts are made to impose the reasoning, standards or conventions of one area on another.  This is reflected in the idea of magisteria.  Historically, western religions have claimed virtually all subjects of study to themselves.  We can all see the reasons for this, since the religious were the 'keepers' of knowledge  (for example, copying manuscripts through the dark ages).  But naturally, as fields of study become more developed, they break away from the old empire and strive to establish themselves independently.  The friction this causes between old and new is what works up those in each field who find the secession to be an emotional issue.  (I guess this is because they have trouble, understndably, restructuring their world models.  It is hard!).  One can see a nice metaphor in the topic about Tom Paine - with the conflict of views over the relationship between state and religion.



 

Any group of people who believe they are correct about something attempt to use and some to misuse the tools that could support their beliefs.  This seems to be a characteristic of societies and shouldn't be blamed on the belief.  Religion is not in error over this it is the people who exemplify the behavior.

We have spoken of science being an empirical pursuit of truth or explanation, philosophy being the search for truth/knowlege via reason and logic, but there is also truth through revelation.  Someone can reveal or testify about the truth also.  Clearly this is a common way to gain knowledge.

I think we can all agree that the people/credo distinction holds in most fields - not just attitudes to religion.


I think you are here giving a fine example of the sort of overlap I was considering.  It is not that revelation is an invalid tool within the field of religion: it is tht it is not seen as a valid tool outside it.  For  example, I would not want a pharmacist to mix my cold remedy on 'revealed' knowledge, I would prefer him to be trained.  And of course the other item of overlap her is the use of the word 'truth'.  For example, while I am perfectly happy for you to have the 'truth' revealed to you that your god is three-in-one attended by nine degrees of angels, I do not accept your revealed 'truth' that the sun can be stopped in the sky.

In both cases the conflict arises from the two fields using the same words to describe different things.  Religious truth and knowledge are one thing, chemical and physical truths and knowledge are another.

Is truth through revelation a common way to gain knowledge?

What sort of revelation do you speak of? (Revelation by God, revelation through experience, revelation in what sense exactly?)

Thank you.  I was hoping to discuss your comments further.


Revealed knowledge is not limited to religion.  In the broader sense, it seems to me to be the most common way to acquire knowledge.  I am attempting to answer Philosofear's question here as well.  Your training example is most directly a case of revelation.  The pharmacist had knowledge revealed by teaching.  I suspect that most of what we know has been revealed to us.  Court testimony of eyewitnesses is generally revelation.  Firsthand knowledge gained by our own senses (perception) is a form of related knowledge.

Now I realize one could counter by going to the ultimate source of these revelations.  In the case of the pharmacist, one would likely find empirical studies to be the source, but even then it is ultimately revealed through perception by observation of the trials and adjustments.  The point is I don't think it is wise to throw out revelation so quickly.

When it comes to evaluation of the premises contained in a set of beliefs like religion, once again I suggest that the premises can be taken at face value and evaluated with these other tools to determine the relative merit of the premise.  Certainly this process is useful to separate the wheat from the chaff.  What remains are belief systems that are plausible.  This method I think works well with for example Christianity and materialism and in both cases leaves them as worthy of further consideration.


One of the limitations of revelation is the difficulty the consumer has with full understanding.  When one has the luxury of interrogating the source it becomes easier.  When the writer has been absent for 3500 years, it gets much more difficult.  I'm not sure what to make of Joshua's account of the sun stopping.  I don't regard him a liar so I accept that he described what he perceived.  I figure that I simply do not understand what happened during this historical event.  I accept that because I realize that there is much in history that I don't understand.


I don't agree.  Truth very clearly is absolute and external to ourselves.  When you begin to differentiate it and introduce uncertainty one should stop using the word truth.  Perhaps opinion, premise, and beliefs are better words.  We can recognize truth by comparing it to available evidence regardless of the source of that evidence.  Perception/revelation and empirical studies provides evidence, philosophy can help us make sense of it.  I don't understand the value in separating it in the sense you have proposed.

I think I am very clear, I don't cut and paste the latest fad and I pretty much take a pragmatic approach.

The trouble is that you don't understand the significance of your own words, so you carelessly fling the latest words around without any real understanding of implication.  You enjoy using 75 cent words, unfortunately its a 25 cent intellect that simply parrots the latest dogma.  This is made abundantly evident when you state:


Without the simplest explanation.  I was precise in my statement with the correct context.  The casual way in which you state


Reflects accurately the definition of intellectual balkanization.  You certianly haven't countered it by anything other than "denial".  For someone who really enjoys pulling on the "How to impress people with your vocabulary" dictionary.  You seem somewhat silent on that point.

Quote
I disagree, I think humanity has within it a common theme that we can all engage in, a commonality that allows us to exist without reverting to the darwinina approach advocated by so many posers.  If no such commonality exists, then any exercize in dialogue is futile.  and we simply spin around asking each other what every word means so that we can waste a mountain of time with small talk and overlook the grander much more important aspects.


Chuckle.... I use the correct labels, you haven't shown otherwise than another "denial".  One supposes you believe humanity has no common theme and really should be balkanized, something you denied you implied earlier.  And yes it is whining and focusing on minutia.  I think common themes in general are the desire of mankind to learn and that to cooperate.

Yes, I am sure that many great projects were not begun until every last grain of sand was accounted for, every ounce of cement was needed, and the endless committees would get together and talk ad nauseum about being "precise".  The perfect excuse for doing nothing.

I am sure that when you finally get to the point where every small bit of lint in your navel is both precisely counted and precisely accounted for you shall have achieved your own personal nirvana.

Now maybe you can ask me what I mean by lint?

I didn’t address this question in my previous response however it is really at the heart of our differences isn’t it?  I spoke of revelation in general so I will address the one of particular interest, namely the possibility of revelation by God.

If there truly is a God and God does not lie and a particular revelation is from God then we can be sure it is true.  However we can’t be certain of God or the source of such revelation.  Given that such uncertainty exists (I think we can agree it does) this revelation, like others should be tested before it is accepted.  We are encouraged to test the statements of our instructors and our politicians and even seek second opinions from doctors.  Likewise given the uncertainty supposed revelation from God should be tested.  We should know what we believe, why we believe it and we should be ready to give an account for it. 

As for testing revelation, we test it, all of it, by comparing it to the evidence.  If it comports with and explains the evidence well, we can have a degree of confidence in it, but if it does not we may want to consider alternatives.

Now, some might protest, “What about faith? Aren’t you missing the role of faith in accepting a set of beliefs?”   I answer by noting that faith covers for uncertainty.   It bridges the gap between what is certain (generally based on evidence and reason) and what is uncertain.  In the end, anything that includes uncertainty including existence of God or belief in materialism requires the choice to have faith in order to come to a conclusion one way or the other.   

THose are good points.

Once more that isn't what I said. 

One can easily set an objective in grand terms - here's one.  I will eliminate world poverty.  But to achieve it you need a little more than an adolescent's vaulting ambition. 

Precision, by the way, does not mean bean-counting. It means being clear about what you mean.   Which is why I wouldnt bother to ask you what you mean by 'lint' - you are incapable of giving precise accounts or answers.

Maybe you aren't sure what you are saying then?

Go ahead, count those lint hairs.

What does lint really mean anyway.  :sleepy:

Oh and by the way, enjoy using the extremes, they make my point. 

Reasoned
I am glad philosofear asked you about what you mean by revelation, since in your rsponse to me you seemed to be conflating testimony and revelation, and erecting a justification for equivocation - 'everything we learn is a revelation therefore it is the same as a religious-style revelation'.  (OK I know I'm distorting by paraphrase.  I'm happy wityh your precisification to philosofear, so I'll let it drop)


Truth is an interesting concept.  For example, is it true that Harry Potter went to Hogwaerts?  and is the answer talking about the same idea as 'it is true that an atom is the smallest division of an element'.   Maybe we can start a new topic about this, since it is quite a broad thing?   Maybe Jesting Pilate can kick it off....   ;D

Truth, as in objective truth either does or does not exist.  It is a simple concept.  Dancing around the truth is a difficult concept.  Finding the truth is a difficult concept.

It is demeaning to bring in fictional characters as an offront to truth.  Unless of course you believe all truth to be subjective, which basically means that regardless of what the other person states you have your own subjective rules and so reject what you don't like.  Intellectual balkanization.

Excuse me for butting into this debate with such a cliche comment but given that all subjects encompass the question "Why?" Philosophy is the one subject that instead asks "Why not?" 

To me that sounds dangerous but is essential if anyone is to make any type of decision for themselves.  It is easy to do something that religion and science has suggested you do however it takes a true hero of the dialectic to take the initiative to ask "Why not?." 

Previous comments throughout this debate have hit the question about the challenge of different frontiers of thought.  Throughout all subjects like religion and science there has always been a conflict of the current commonly accepted principles with a new revolutionary theory of thought.  The break from the new and the old is done thanks to the philosophic tool of asking the opposite that all other theories try to enable and to me this is philosophy's purpose.     

I see science as the "how" things are made and happen.

Belief systems are why they should or should not happen.

An atomic bomb, science is the how.

Dropping it.  Belief systems as the why or why not.  And when I say belief systems I see religion as being as much a philosophy of life as any other (and more so than most  other philosophies).

Religion as a philosophy of life... Well in a figurative way of course, but in the true philosophic sense I would beg to differ.

The reason I would say that religion is not a philosophy of life is because it doesn't chiefly employ reason and rational methods, it relies mostly on revelation, authority, and tradition.

A "Philosophy of Life" generally is taken to mean a set of values, principles and beliefs under which someone lives and it generally does not necessarily require the direct application of what you regard as the traditional philosophical approach.

However I generally find that many who hold to a worldview do know what they believe as well as why they believe it.  To a large extent many do apply a degree of reason and logic in supporting their worldview.  I am surprised you feel people like you are in the minority and somehow stand out.

It seems to me that you are using 'phiosophy of life' in a very quotidian way.  Its almost like a metaphor or very specific useof language - also found in the simpler use 'my philosophy is....'.  This really means that ones guiding beliefs are something.  Philosophy isn't this sort of thing when we consider it as a field of study.  No more than when someone says that 'football is my religion'. Or 'there was an electricity between them'.

You are of course right that we all have our 'wordview' and most will be able to rationalise it in some way.  Whether that will lead to generalised views of what comprises the world and how the entities therein are related is a good question.  Perhaps you know many people who can get to the roots of reality and give good demonstrable repeatable examples of how the world ticks - just from their 'worldview'.  I have no doubt quite few can open our eyes to the vagaries of 'human nature'.  But even sensible formulations of some of the big questions? Uh-uh.  Certainly none of us on this forum stand out for that: pilosofear does stand out for trying. 

I'm not so sure he does.  He is quite open to the idea that others join his way of thinking but he seems very closed and often hostile to consideration of alternatives.  He sees virtue in his approach to questions and sees others as having an inferior model, to the point that he presumes that they arrived at their conclusions without much of a process at all. Are you sure this constitutes trying?

I think he probably tries as much as you do.

Then we now have two people on this forum who stand out.

:lol:   Touche.