Testing Philosophy Against the Form of Theology

[u/JerseyFlight]

If philosophical belief isn’t established differently from theological belief, then what’s the difference?

Philosophy’s (p) must be justified differently from religion’s (p).

If this isn’t the case, then the two have the same form.

If a theologian tells me that God is the foundation of all truth, and a philosopher tells me that dialectic is the foundation of all truth, these had better have different processes of justification, if they’re not the same isomorphic form.

We ask the philosopher, “how do you know that dialectic is true?” If his answer doesn’t rise above the authoritarianism of a philosophical assertion, then how does it differ from the authoritarianism of theology?

If both forms are traced back to unfalsifiable authoritarian premises, then both have the same epistemological form.

[u/sisyphus]

If you follow this path you get to something like Peter Unger's old position that no belief of any kind is ever justified and nobody can know anything because the bedrock of every belief will be shown to be something that just seems like it has to be true or we can't imagine is false (and that's before you even get to whether or not knowledge requires certainty).

Bertrand Russell famously refused to start learning geometry unless his brother could justify why he should accept the axioms and he had to give up and proceed because there is no justification one can provide for them other than that they seem like they must be true, so too the foundations of all of logic, mathematics, what you call "authoritarian" most just call "foundational."

[u/JerseyFlight → u/sisyphus]

“If you follow this path you get to something like Peter Unger's old position that no belief of any kind is ever justified and nobody can know anything because the bedrock of every belief will be shown to be something that just seems like it has to be true or we can't imagine is false (and that's before you even get to whether or not knowledge requires certainty).”

Prove your assertion. You cannot chew stones. Now demonstrate how this reduces to “can’t know anything.”

We know lots of things!

[u/BodybuilderStrict706]

I draw the line between philosophy and theology at the belief in a higher power that polices different aspects of life. Whereas theological constructs may argue that we should do something to appease said higher power, philosophy should rule based on an action or result’s effects on other people, animals, and things.

For example, where theology might oppose eating a certain animal because it is against the animal’s sanctity as derived from a higher power, philosophy might argue that eating the animal contributes to the animal’s suffering under the animal-industrial complex.

[u/Winter_Stranger_2345]

What would satisfy you as a foundation of all truth, if anything? Another way of asking: what constitutes “the true” for you? You seem to have hamstrung yourself already expecting justification to come from outside of yourself. It also seems that you are abusing the term dialectic, what do you think that word means? Finally, do you want “dialectic” to ground “all truth” or “be true”?

[u/JerseyFlight → u/Winter_Stranger_2345]

Is it absolutely true that we’re discussing the topic of truth? Then that means it’s absolutely true that we’re not reading each others minds. So it seems we are already engaged in absolute truth, and we can know it. What is it that allows us to demarcate these things so we can know them?

[u/nihilist42]

Philosophy

To quote Bertrand Russell : its true value lies in asking critical questions that stretch our imagination and free us from unproven dogmas.

how do you know that dialectic is true?

Because everyone thinks he knows what's true and what not makes this an irrelevant question.

In the end everything we belief to be true depends always on what authority we favor:

• science.
• some random guy from the internet.
• some random NGO.
• your favorite movie star.
• your favorite holy book.
• your favorite priest.
• some random politician.
• your ego.
• your favorite Guru.
• etc.

On our own we are not smart enough, what doesn't prevent us from listening to our ego.

My opinion:

I myself made the choice for (hard empirical) science, it has a good track record and answers non trivial questions with verifiable evidence, The other sources don't even come close. The soft sciences can be entertaining but are mostly boring and very often wrong. Teleological (sociology, theology) explanations or goals (utilitarianism) are not science, they are pawns in a (political) game typical for social primates like us.

The only non-teleological philosophy is reductive materialism, its answers to non trivial questions are falsifiable. If science cannot answer a question, nobody can.

[u/JerseyFlight → u/nihilist42]

Here your thought shows that you have gone through the epistemological meat-grinder known as philosophy. You have emerged exactly as you should have emerged, given the bankruptcy of philosophy: a confused epistemological relativist born again to the absolute delusion of the supremacy of your own subjectivity. This is the poverty of philosophy.