http://forums.philosophyforums.com Active discussions in all fields of philosophy. en-us The philosophy of religion forum sees the same arguments over and over. That's a complaint on two levels. 1) On an entertainment level, the thousands of variations of a few arguments leave the forums looking tired and boring. Of course, not all of the discussions follow this trend, and some of the ones that do can still produce interesting corollaries. However, for the most part, I'm interested in a different take. So, 2) The debate between theism and atheism results from confusion regarding the nature of religion and religious truth. The theist/atheist debate is a conflict between two contradictory propositions - a: God literally and factually exists, and b: (a) is false. Both sides hold to what they believe is a literal fact regarding the truths of religion. However, religion doesn't, or at least shouldn't, convey literal truths. The claims of religion, and specifically the claims of a religion regarding it's "divine reality" - God, Allah, Tao, Nirvana, etc... are not claims that can be interpreted literally. The language we use to describe these 'divine', or 'Ultimate Realities' consists of terms that are used to describe things and events that happen in regular experience. They were adopted as necessary for describing the world that we experience with our senses. But these 'Ultimate Realities' are not held to be part of our regular experience, and they are held to be outside of sense perception as well. So, our terms cannot be used to apply directly to the Ultimate Reality of the various religions. Similarly, languages themselves develop in-tandem with their society. They influence one another, flowing an intricate culture-web that is incapable of being untangled. A language also develops in-tandem with how the religion of that language sees its Ultimate Reality. Thus the notion of the Ultimate Reality in any particular religion is inextricably tied to the culture and history of the society it belongs to. Therefore, our language regarding the Ultimate Realities of each religion can only be analogical and metaphorical. There are no literal truths to dispute. A term that we may use to describe a particular divinity must be analogous at best, and the more we stretch a word by making it an analogy, the more meaning the word loses. Similarly, the verbal conception that a particular religion has of its divinity is filtered through a lifetime of cultural conditioning. Thus, propositions regarding a religion's Ultimate Reality are not meant to convey literal truth. Instead, propositions about Ultimate Reality reflect how a particular culture sees the Ultimate Reality of its religion. Metaphorical and analogical language promotes poetry, myth, proverb, and fable. Instead of attempting to explain or describe the world we live in, religion seeks to entertain and inspire one to moral improvement. http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/atheism-theism-and-the-nature-of-religion-35800.html Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:48:10 GMT http://forums.philosophyforums.com/thread/35800/ I had an arguement with one friend over the words "being able to swim". I said I can't swim, and survive if I get dropped done in the sea, as I only manage 75 yards before my arms start to become weak. I said I wanted to take up swimming, but he stated I could indeed swim, and we got in to this meaningless arguement of the definition. Where do we draw the lines. Technically being able to swim, being able to swim? Having a bachelors in swimming. Anyway. The same could be said for other things, teenis, dancing, golf, being a philosopher. Like to hear opinions. Peace out. Johan http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/can-you-swim-dance-and-play-tennis-35799.html Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:33:13 GMT http://forums.philosophyforums.com/thread/35799/ I was certainly less than 4 years old, certainly. I remeber glance up on on our television in our living room at home, as my parents sit beside me on the right side. I stand right infront of the television, while I see this extremely abnormal scenario act out, and I have one throught from inside my head left today, as I thought "This is not normal" - And after this thought I try to evaluate on what are going on on the TV, but I can't grasp the context and work my mind around what is going on. It all ends right there. I believe, that dogs when they see things around them, they actually have a slight idea on something abnormal, but can't grasp any context on what's truly going on, and just lean their head to the sides, and most times loses intrest. I know this could not make sense to a few here, but it was my first memory in life. AS I have heard unpleasant memories can evoke our funcional systems to remember them. I am sure this is quite common, to have memories from inside our heads, as "what I was thinking" during seeing events from our earlier life. http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/remembering-childhood-unpleasent-memory-35797.html Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:45:43 GMT http://forums.philosophyforums.com/thread/35797/ I had an arguement with one friend over the words "being able to swim". I said I can't swim, and survive if I get dropped done in the sea, as I only manage 75 yards before my arms start to become weak. I said I wanted to take up swimming, but he stated I could indeed swim, and we got in to this meaningless arguement of the definition. Where do we draw the lines. Technically being able to swim, being able to swim? Having a bachelors in swimming. Anyway. The same could be said for other things, teenis, dancing, golf, being a philosopher. Like to hear opinions. Peace out. Johan http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/can-you-swim-dance-and-play-tennis-35795.html Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:14:39 GMT http://forums.philosophyforums.com/thread/35795/ I read the 'read this' thread so...i think this is kosher. My question is: how does a child think before he learns a language? The question's that simple. I know I think in english, because it's the first and only language I learned, but if grew up and never learned a language would I only know cause and effect? Do babies only know cause and effect? http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/babies-35792.html Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:04:30 GMT http://forums.philosophyforums.com/thread/35792/