5 ms·

Thanks for the links! On religious apologetics, that fundamentalists use philosophical arguments to justify their positions doesn't mean philosophy is largely

Thanks for the links! On religious apologetics, that fundamentalists use philosophical arguments to justify their positions doesn't mean philosophy is largely transparent cover for religious apologetics, does it? I imagine fundamentalists are only using a small sliver of philosophical arguments. Most philosophers today don't think they're providing cover for apologetics, anyway.

lisper 2y ago
> that fundamentalists use philosophical arguments to justify their positions doesn't mean philosophy is largely transparent cover for religious apologetics, does it? Not in and of itself. But I don't see many other applications. Do you?
- knightoffaith 2y ago
  Literally every philosophical stance compatible with atheism, no? Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying.
  - lisper 2y ago
    Philosophy finds application as cover for religious apologetics to make it seem more intellectually respectable than it otherwise might. I don't see many other areas where philosophy has an impact outside academia.
    - knightoffaith 2y ago
      It finds application for atheists making arguments against religion as well. It finds application in defenses of free will. Scientists seem to subscribe to a Popperian falsifiability. Logic, part of philosophy, has found widespread use, as I'm sure you know.
      - lisper 2y ago
        I would argue that logic is more math than philosophy. I'll grant you Popper. But he's the exception (along with Dennett and Maudlin) not the rule.
        knightoffaith 2y ago
        I mean, I think philosophers defending religious fundamentalism are also exceptions rather than the rule.
        lisper 2y ago
        Yes, I agree. I think most philosophers are just gazing at their navels.
        knightoffaith 2y ago
        What are you expecting exactly? Most people aren't going to have a massive effect on the world, whether in philosophy or not. Philosophy is far from the only academic discipline in which most practitioners don't have a significant impact on the world.
        lisper 2y ago
        > What are you expecting exactly? I don't know -- something. And it's not about the individuals, it's about the field as a whole. Classical music is not something I particularly enjoy, but I get that some people do, and so the efforts of all the composers and conductors and musicians who produce it have value for that audience. I can appreciate that even if I don't particularly care for the music myself. Likewise for Domino's pizza. Nascar. Cricket. Truck pulls. Rodeos. I don't get it, but I get that some people do. Philosophy seems to have no audience beyond its own practitioners. That puts it on a par with things like yoga and homeopathy, and does not justify having entire departments at universities studying it. God help us, it turns out that you can actually get a Ph.D. in both fields: https://bellarmine.lmu.edu/yoga/ https://bellarmine.lmu.edu/yoga/ https://www.bircham.edu/doctor-phd-degree-homeopathy.html https://www.bircham.edu/doctor-phd-degree-homeopathy.html

lisper 2y ago

> that fundamentalists use philosophical arguments to justify their positions doesn't mean philosophy is largely transparent cover for religious apologetics, does it? Not in and of itself. But I don't see many other applications. Do you?

knightoffaith 2y ago
Literally every philosophical stance compatible with atheism, no? Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying.
- lisper 2y ago
  Philosophy finds application as cover for religious apologetics to make it seem more intellectually respectable than it otherwise might. I don't see many other areas where philosophy has an impact outside academia.
  - knightoffaith 2y ago
    It finds application for atheists making arguments against religion as well. It finds application in defenses of free will. Scientists seem to subscribe to a Popperian falsifiability. Logic, part of philosophy, has found widespread use, as I'm sure you know.
    - lisper 2y ago
      I would argue that logic is more math than philosophy. I'll grant you Popper. But he's the exception (along with Dennett and Maudlin) not the rule.
      - knightoffaith 2y ago
        I mean, I think philosophers defending religious fundamentalism are also exceptions rather than the rule.
        lisper 2y ago
        Yes, I agree. I think most philosophers are just gazing at their navels.
        knightoffaith 2y ago
        What are you expecting exactly? Most people aren't going to have a massive effect on the world, whether in philosophy or not. Philosophy is far from the only academic discipline in which most practitioners don't have a significant impact on the world.
        lisper 2y ago
        > What are you expecting exactly? I don't know -- something. And it's not about the individuals, it's about the field as a whole. Classical music is not something I particularly enjoy, but I get that some people do, and so the efforts of all the composers and conductors and musicians who produce it have value for that audience. I can appreciate that even if I don't particularly care for the music myself. Likewise for Domino's pizza. Nascar. Cricket. Truck pulls. Rodeos. I don't get it, but I get that some people do. Philosophy seems to have no audience beyond its own practitioners. That puts it on a par with things like yoga and homeopathy, and does not justify having entire departments at universities studying it. God help us, it turns out that you can actually get a Ph.D. in both fields: https://bellarmine.lmu.edu/yoga/ https://bellarmine.lmu.edu/yoga/ https://www.bircham.edu/doctor-phd-degree-homeopathy.html https://www.bircham.edu/doctor-phd-degree-homeopathy.html