Jim Choate writes:
Patrick May writes:
Not all philosophies are religions.
If we are talking philosophies of the range to include 'natural philosophy' (ie physics) then you are correct. Fortunately, this attempt at shifting the topic of discussion away from personal or individual philosophies relating to the relationship between individuals, God, and the cosmos won't work.
Excuse my shorthand: Not all "personal" philosophies are religions. [ . . . ]
Asserting so is an attempt to make one or both of the terms meaningless.
And trying to change the subject of discourse is as well. A philosophy is a set of beliefs, period. In this particular case we are discussing personal or individual philosophies and from definition and practice they are identical. Religion after all is nothing more than a set of beliefs and therefore falls under 'personal philosophy'.
Personal philosophies are a superset of personal religious beliefs. Personal philosophies that include the concept of a god are clearly religious in nature. Personal philosophies that include the concept of "faith" are probably religious in nature. Personal philosophies that include the concepts of empirical evidence, sceptical inquiry, and willingness to reject previously held positions due to new evidence or argument are probably not religious in nature. The reason I challenged your assertion is that religious people often use such statements as a basis for further arguments that end up equivocating based on the term religion. They first broaden the definition, by fiat, to be almost meaningless and then later use a much narrower definition to support their ultimate point. I'm not suggesting that you were going to do this; I am simply pointing out why it is something of a sore point. [ . . . ]
There are two forms of atheism (visit alt.atheism.moderated for an unending discussion). "Strong" atheists state that they "believe that god does not exist." "Weak" atheists state that they "do not believe that god exists."
Changing the side on which the 'do not' resides doesn't change the meaning. These two sentences are identical in content and meaning.
No, they are not. The distinction is crucial to the main point I evidently failed to make in my previous message: Atheism is not a set of beliefs that constitutes a personal philosophy. There are Buddhist atheists, Universalist-Unitarian atheists, objectivist atheists, Wiccan atheists, etc. Atheism isn't even a belief, it is merely the statement of a lack of one particular belief. Getting back to the strong v. weak distinction, the weak atheist position that one "does not believe god(s) exist" does not constitute a belief, a set of beliefs, or a personal philosophy, let alone a religion. The strong atheist position that one "believes god(s) do not exist" is actually making a knowledge claim and so does constitute a belief. Recognizing that someone holds the strong atheist position may give some clues to their other beliefs and the remainder of their personal philosophy, but, again, that position alone does not constitute a personal philosophy or religion. [ . . . ]
Without reason and logic, how do you propose to prove these assertions?
I'm not trying to prove anything, you are. I'm just blowing holes in your reasoning.
I'm not trying to prove anything either. I'm simply pointing out some issues regarding atheism that are too often ignored or confused. [ . . . ]
All faith-based assertions are by definition irrational. Mystics frequently speak of transcendence as if the word denotes a concept with a particular meaning, but never provide a coherent definition. Perhaps you'll surprise me?
Transcendence is the belief that there is something more than the earthly veil. In other words, if you practice a transcendantal religion then by definition you believe in a ghost-in-the-machine of one form or another.
If you like you can think of it as one set of religions believes there is purpose and reason in existance whereas others believe that it is all random dice (and yes that is a broad brush I'm painting with).
Now this part of the discussion I entered to satisfy my own curiosity. Since it is so far off-topic for this list I'd be glad to take it to personal email if you wish. When you say "more than the earthly veil" do you mean that there exist phenomena that cannot, even in principle, be detected by our five senses or by any physical mechanism we can create? If so, how do you know and why would it matter? Regards, pjm