can you be religious and do philosophy?hmmmm...

wanderer

Probably get you a professorship too :wink:

Seriously, is such a notion such a big thing? It's pretty much bread and butter to me :s-smilie:

Reply 61

RawJoh1

14

Oddjob39A

Seriously, is such a notion such a big thing? It's pretty much bread and butter to me :s-smilie:

It's the proof that would be revolutionary, not the notion.

Reply 62

RawJoh1

It's the proof that would be revolutionary, not the notion.

Well, I'm not just goina post that here now am I. It's like a den of vipers in here, you would all just steal it............. :wink:

Reply 63

taylor.math

hi!!!
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Reply 64

d123

17

I'd say yes, my friend is going to uni next year to do German and philosophy, she's a Christian

Reply 65

Well yes but they are usually in the minority (at least from my experience)

And wanderer, do not forget some of the fantastic work that has come out of prize-winning fellowships: 'Good, is good.'

Reply 66

Oddjob39A

Seriously, is such a notion such a big thing? It's pretty much bread and butter to me :s-smilie:

Proving conclusively that some belief-forming method creates beliefs closer to the truth than another method? Yep. People have tried. It's a lot harder than it sounds.

And Nina, there's only one answer to that: 'Bah, ethics.' :p:

Reply 67

Depends on what you consider the correct version of truth to be surely?

Reply 68

RawJoh1

14

Nina

Well yes but they are usually in the minority (at least from my experience)

Aye, there are more than there used to be though. Quite often, a religious philosopher will write on non-religious areas of philosophy, so you simply won't know. I didn't find out that Van Inwegen is a Catholic, and that Harry Frankfurt is Jewish until pretty recently, for example.

Reply 69

Nina

Depends on what you consider the correct version of truth to be surely?

Hmm, not sure. I was thinking of classical/realist correspondence type stuff, but I can't imagine it's that much better for other types, although pragmatist-style stuff might get round it pretty much by definition (if truth is just what unhindered inquiry would result in, then unhindered inquiry will result in truth), though I'm not sure that actually works. For one thing there's a difference between 'the end of inquiry' and belief-forming in normal contexts.

Reply 70

Perhaps. I'm turning into quite the advocate for coherence.

Reply 71

Don't know much about it. I tend to confine myself to attacking correspondence or, preferably, deflationism.

Reply 72

wanderer

Proving conclusively that some belief-forming method creates beliefs closer to the truth than another method? Yep. People have tried. It's a lot harder than it sounds.

And Nina, there's only one answer to that: 'Bah, ethics.' :p:

I am quite unhinged, drunk and intrigued.....

Why is it NOT such a common-place acceptance that all beliefs/assumptions should be challenged? Surely the very nature of assumptions leads to the conclusive resolution that they are contingent and as such; should always be denied an irrefutable truth valuation, until proven otherwise? Why not deny all until verified otherwise? Surely that is common-sense rather than revolutionary epsitemology...... i.e. challenge every assumption and attempt to refute every proof/schema; is that not the scientific method? I appreciate that this is a stance similair to that adopted by Hume, but surely we can take it further?

I may be a little off track here but please forgive me; as I pointed out at the start of the post, I am quite incapicitated and quite literally 'thinking on my (drunk) feet'

I most assuredly guarantee that this post will make almost no sense upon reading it again in the morning (for myself at least).....

Reply 73

Its readable!

Wanderer isnt arguing that you should challenge assumptions, because you definitely should. But if I remember you were talking about giving proof, and giving proof for anything in philosophy is practically impossible.

Reply 74

Nina

Its readable!

Wanderer isnt arguing that you should challenge assumptions, because you definitely should. But if I remember you were talking about giving proof, and giving proof for anything in philosophy is practically impossible.

I'm sure it can be proven; somehow.

Reply 75

Its the proof that is the problem. I'd like to see someone try and prove anything at all in philosophy! Most of it just comes down to viewpoint in the end.

Reply 76

Hume of all people would be most likely to deny that you can demonstrate that a belief-forming method is conclusively effective. And the scientific method is not some clearly defined approach - some philosophers deny that there's any such thing, and others have vastly different views about what exactly it is.

My turn to be drunk.

Reply 77

wanderer

Hume of all people would be most likely to deny that you can demonstrate that a belief-forming method is conclusively effective. And the scientific method is not some clearly defined approach - some philosophers deny that there's any such thing, and others have vastly different views about what exactly it is.

My turn to be drunk.

Ah yes of course, I was having a blonde moment

Reply 78

jmj