psilocyberin said:

what is the difference between a person fully believing christianity after bible study, and someone being an existentialist after Philo 101?

---

The difference is that Christianity isn't a critical thinking excercise.  Christianity is a listen, store, repeat excercise.  Philosophers at least read religious texts, so they know religious and secular writings. I don't know that many Christians who would be willing to study science and philosophy.  The ones I've debated with had no knowledge of evolution or physical sciences or philosophy.  If they choose not to learn about anything that may contradict their faith they shouldn't have to, it's their life. 

Chrisitianity is just too easy an answer to unanswerable questions.  God lives in Heaven and we'll get to live there in a mansion if he thinks we are good enough.  Its like Christians stopped at algebra and existentialists moved on to calculus.  Christians stopped asking questions when the Gods were the answer while philosophers weren't so easily convinced.

For me, I was never satisfied with the answers they gave me in Catholic school so I sought calculus while classmates perfected algebra...its a matter of personal choice and when it comes down to it, neither view is right or wrong.  Maybe people are more happy with religion than with a pointless and temporary existence, if so, be happy I say to them.

To sum this up, the difference between the philosopher and the cleric is the philosopher knows both sides and chooses one.  The cleric knows one side and chooses not to know the other.

Don't get me wrong, I find alot of value in Christianity...there's no greater way to ensure that Mr. Joe Christian will pay his taxes and do what he's told by his boss than by convincing him that he will be rewarded when he dies if submits instead of living freely while he is alive.

psilocyberin said:

Basically, I am just saying that there is no more proof to existentialism, solipsism etc than there is God. While at your college they teach you philosophy to defeat debates of God, at Seminary colleges, they teach you God to defeat debates of philosophy.... and the whole time the split comes from one fabricated story, and which side of the story you choose to believe.

---

Quote:

Therefore existentialism is as valid/invalid as Christianity.

---

TODAY said:

I just finished my intensive 4 week philosophy 101 class. Dammit, I wish they taught me this stuff instead of Catholic religion when I was in grade school.

Anyways, the course of study began with Pre-Socratics, moving on to Socrates and Plato, then Aristotle. We moved on to rationalism through Descartes and empiricism through Locke. I chose to stop going to class around this time to focus on writing my final paper (3 hrs a day per class can be a drag) so I only studied the existentialists on my own, but gained alot of insight. These last three philosophers were Dostoyevsky(The Grand Inquisitor), Sartre, and Nietzsche.

I really enjoyed watching philosophy grow up and appreciated being guided through the process by a knowledgeable and organized teacher. I also enjoyed criticizing philosophers while I read and finding validations of my own thought processes in other philosophers' work. It was a great class and helped put me on the level needed to understand argument and criticism when discussing philosophy with others.

I know my views will not always be the same forever (at least not all of them) but I really feel like I'm getting a better grip on who I am and what is important, relative to my understanding of the world and life and death.

If you don't want to take a class, you could show up and take the syllabus then browse some of the reading if the school library has a lender copy of the book. There really are some great thinkers and great works out there for the person who seeks knowledge. But remember, knowledge isn't for everyone.

My question to you:

Did you take an intro philosophy class?
Who are some ideas (and people) that affected you?
How has your life changed?

---

psilocyberin said:

science is to spiritual belief what science is to philosophy.

With exceptions of raining toads and other byproducts of religious zeal, the focus and philosophy behind the religion is not something which is testable, or in the scientific realm. Same goes with concepts like existentialism.

but yes

Quote:

Therefore existentialism is as valid/invalid as Christianity.

---

is the point I was trying to get across.

---

Quote:

To sum this up, the difference between the philosopher and the cleric is the philosopher knows both sides and chooses one. The cleric knows one side and chooses not to know the other.

---

Don't be too quick to judge the cleric. Until a few years ago I was at a catholic seminary working toward a philosophy degree. Two of my best teachers were priests. Candidates for priesthood have been required to study philosophy before moving onto theology since the middle ages. Today priesthood candidates are either required to earn a BA in philosophy or to supplement another bachelors degree with at least 30 credit hours of philosophy before being admitted to a Master of Divinities or Master of Theology program.

The intensive philosophical background is required because nothing in catholic doctrine is contrary to reason, so one must be capable of critical thinking in order to understand the rationale behind the doctrines. Catholic theology is basically western philosophy applied to divine revelation. Certain first premises are revealed by God, and a rational structure of reality is constructed by deducing from those premises.

Catholic Christianity meshes well with most philosophical schools from presocratic times up through the middle ages, and is even compatible with most of the moderns including Emanuel Kant (though some priests would disagree with me about Kant). 

The real conflict begins with the post Hegelians epitomized by Karl Marx who called Christianity an "opiate for the masses", and by Nietzsche who through the mouth of a madman declared "God is dead". The forlorn existentialists followed, vainly attempting to impose meaning on a meaningless existence.

It seems from one of your earlier posts that you implied existentialism is grown up philosophy. I see existentialism more as a wrong turn that has hit a dead end. It begins with a premise that ultimate reality cannot be known and that life is meaningless. Many philosophical historians see existentialism as merely reflecting the despair so many felt in Europe due to WWI and WWII. These historians see existentialism as an interesting period piece, to be noted but ultimately dismissed by future generations of philosophers. A small leap of faith, whether it be in God, in logic, in the senses, in science, or in one's gut feelings is all that is required to escape the first premise and consequent forlornness of existentialism.

For an alternative grown up philosophy (one with a happier outlook), I would suggest looking toward the 20th century American philosophers, especially John Dewey. Dewy begins with experience as all moderns must, and quickly and logically builds to a meaningful system of reality, without relying on a God hypothesis as did Descartes.


In short...
Clerics (catholic priests) are required to study philosophy before studying theology. There is no conflict between Catholic doctrine and reason, and existentialism sucks.   

Schwammel said:

Post deleted by Schwammel<p>Reason for deletion: rolling is not allowed so I deleted it

---