Relationship between Philosophy and Theology

[Adrift]

I edited the post after you responded with a meaningful reference.

Source: https://bahai-library.com/uhj_infallibility_abdulbaha

The Guardian states that his (the Guardian's) infallibility applies only to statements related strictly to the Cause and interpretation of the teachings. He says that he is not an infallible authority on other subjects, such as economics, science, etc.

© Copyright Original Source

No you didn't. See above. Like I said, you don't actually know what the Baha'i Faith teaches. I honestly cannot comprehend how someone can have as much yolk on their face as often as you do, and not just abandon the forum in shame.

[seer]

No you didn't. See above. Like I said, you don't actually know what the Baha'i Faith teaches. I honestly cannot comprehend how someone can have as much yolk on their face as often as you do, and not just abandon the forum in shame.

Sometimes I can't tell if he is just deeply dishonest or is losing his grip on reality...

[Adrift]

Sometimes I can't tell if he is just deeply dishonest or is losing his grip on reality...

I think he's so prideful and just so desperate for attention that he's fine with looking foolish on a routine basis if it means people will continue to pay attention to him. But I suspect deep dishonesty and losing grip on reality also has something to do with it. Part of me actually feels a bit sorry for him that he's like this.

[seer]

Part of me actually feels a bit sorry for him that he's like this.

Yes I toggle between anger and pity when comes to him.

[firstfloor]

Really? So philosophy does not have thoughts about God (theology)? Even the concept of "atheism" that there is no God or gods touches on theology.

Philosophy and Theology are quite different. An axiom of theology is that a god exists. That is not the case in any philosophy. Even the philosophy of religion does not assume that God exists.

[Adrift]

Philosophy and Theology are quite different. An axiom of theology is that a god exists. That is not the case in any philosophy. Even the philosophy of religion does not assume that God exists.

Nah, not so different. At times, indistinguishable (see Aquinas, Anselm, Bacon, etc.). And of course, there's philosophical theology.

[seer]

Philosophy and Theology are quite different. An axiom of theology is that a god exists. That is not the case in any philosophy. Even the philosophy of religion does not assume that God exists.

No the axiom of philosophy is that the external world exists... An unprovable assumption.

[firstfloor]

Nonsense, demonstrate (logically or empirically) that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality. Descartes proved that that very foundational assumption is without question disputable.

If your outlook is so impoverished that you doubt your own nature or existence then you are hardly in a position to be arguing philosophy.

[seer]

If your outlook is so impoverished that you doubt your own nature or existence then you are hardly in a position to be arguing philosophy.

FF, that does not follow, my personal feelings do not bear on the subject. The point is you can not demonstrate (logically or empirically) that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality (without begging the question). Descartes proved that point centuries ago. It is an unprovable assumption.

[shunyadragon]

When I said this:



Why did you say this:

Easy reread again. I was descriptive of the existence of the moral wrongful death in the different cultures and societies over time, and the utilitarian purpose of the morals and ethics for the survival of the species.

Why didn't you just agree with me in that thread?

. . . because we do not agree that morals and ethics can possibly have natural non-theist origins, as described in NMN and Utilitarian Teleology.

Shuny, I gave you the definition of Moral Realism, that moral truths exist objectively and independently of us. It was not my definition. You do not understand what NMN is claiming, nor can you defend it. And I'm not arguing against the idea that morality could come about through the evolutionary process, but that is mere biology - I'm arguing against the idea that moral truths are objective and can exist independently of us.

. . . and you apparently are clueless as to Moral Realism claims.

I understand fully what NMN. Moral Realism, Utilitarian Teleology, and science describe they describe the non-theist origins of morals and ethics and not whether they are right nor wrong. The disagreement is whether it is possible that morals and ethics have a non-theist origin. Do you or do you now agree that morals and ethics can possibly have natural non-theist origins, as described in NMN and Utilitarian Teleology?

That is the bottom line of the argument.

[seer]

Easy reread again. I was descriptive of the existence of the moral wrongful death in the different cultures and societies over time, and the utilitarian purpose of the morals and ethics for the survival of the species.

Again Shuny then why did you not just agree with me when I said that science does not tell us what is moral or not? Why did you launch into what you did?

. . . because we do not agree that morals and ethics can possibly have natural non-theist origins, as described in NMN and Utilitarian Teleology.

Again Shuny, I have no argument with the idea that morals and ethics could be grounded in biology. And again there is no Teleology, in nature, for humankind. If you think otherwise can you please tell us what it is?

. . . and you apparently are clueless as to Moral Realism claims.

I linked you a definition, and you rejected it. So please define Moral Realism.

I understand fully what NMN. Moral Realism, Utilitarian Teleology, and science describe they describe the non-theist origins of morals and ethics and not whether they are right nor wrong. The disagreement is whether it is possible that morals and ethics have a non-theist origin. Do you or do you now agree that morals and ethics can possibly have natural non-theist origins, as described in NMN and Utilitarian Teleology?

That is the bottom line of the argument.

I said that a while back Shuny, ethics could be grounded in biology but that would make them completely subjective (not objective) and there would be no teleology for humans. These are invented theories that are not confirmed by science.

[shunyadragon]

Again Shuny then why did you not just agree with me when I said that science does not tell us what is moral or not? Why did you launch into what you did?

. . . because that was not the point of disagreement in our dialogue.

Again Shuny, I have no argument with the idea that morals and ethics could be grounded in biology. And again there is no Teleology, in nature, for humankind. If you think otherwise can you please tell us what it is?

Utilitarian Teleology.

I linked you a definition, and you rejected it. So please define Moral Realism.

Your definition is too simplistic and misleading. I linked a more comprehensive description and discussion of Moral Realism in the last post here: http://www.iep.utm.edu/moralrea/

I said that a while back Shuny, ethics could be grounded in biology but that would make them completely subjective (not objective) and there would be no teleology for humans. These are invented theories that are not confirmed by science.

There is Utilitarian Teleology, and if you are correct, your views are just as likely invented with no basis in anything but your imagination, and assertions of Theism, which are not supported by objective evidence.

I believe the theories and philosophies grounded in good science, and supported by objective verifiable evidence.

[seer]

. . . because that was not the point of disagreement in our dialogue.

No, it was because you just did not want to agree with me.

Utilitarian Teleology.

Stop parroting and answer the question - what is the Teleology for humankind. Don't you know?

Your definition is too simplistic and misleading. I linked a more comprehensive description and discussion of Moral Realism in the last post here: http://www.iep.utm.edu/moralrea/

See the other thread.

[Jaxb]

No philosopher would start at revelation. There is no connection between philosophy and theology.

What about philosophers who are Christians? Don't they have the motivation to not contradict God's revelation?

[Carrikature]

No the axiom of philosophy is that the external world exists...

No it's not. It doesn't do me any good to talk to you if I don't think you exist, but that doesn't stop me from practicing philosophy.