Practice of Philosophy

[Risto]

I went to church today to participate in a course called Alpha Course. It's marketed as a course that teaches the truths of Christianity. It's every Sunday for three months. It consists of a one-hour lecture and one-hour conversation in small groups. I went to the first one mostly for the conversation, but got scammed as there was only a lecture that time. Today I went to the second one and this time there was also a conversation.

The lecture was very poor. The topic was "Who is Jesus?" It consisted of arguments like this. Jesus was self-centered (claiming things like "come to me, I'll heal you"), therefore he was God. I was thinking throughout the lecture that I'm wasting my time. My reason for going was mostly about curiosity for topics that Christianity addresses and discussing these in an environment where I probably disagree a lot and where others disagree with my perspective a lot.

Introduction out of the way, what are some of the ways you practice philosophy? My friends (programmer, engineer, and mechanic) ridiculed me for going there and said that they've already heard all the arguments from Youtube debates and whatnot. I still contemplate going there again since I enjoyed the conversation I had afterwards. I was lucky that there was an ex-physicist who wanted to have a conversation, most others just listened us argue.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.





Drop the Alpha course. Spend your time here at the PhilosophyNow Forums submitting thesis that you are really connected to.

Listen to related discussions from some of the best real-world philosophers on the planet.


You are fortunate your intuition lead you here to find us at the PhilosophyNow Forums.






.

[Risto]

.

Drop the Alpha course. Spend your time here at the PhilosophyNow Forums submitting thesis that you are really connected to.

Listen to related discussions from some of the best real-world philosophers on the planet.


You are fortunate your intuition lead you here to find us at the PhilosophyNow Forums.[/size]

.

I'm already here and already participating/reading/listening, etc. I have many other podcasts and information sources as well. However, there is something unique about verbal conversations that this all lacks.

I organize small group conversations as well as one vs one meetings from time to time and sometimes I get disagreements and opposing views, etc. However, there is nothing like being in an environment of completely different perspectives on life.

Why would you suggest me to drop this course considering what I've brought up as a benefit of it?

[Obvious Leo]

Risto. I presume you enrolled for this course because you're a theist and believe in god. What I don't understand is how you could believe in god and still be interested in philosophy. Philosophy covers a very broad range of subjects but the nature of the philosophical discourse is such that ideas are posited and arguments are put based on verifiable evidence. Naturally the interpretation of such evidence is the point of the whole story but in the absence of any evidence at all a topic cannot be correctly defined as a suitable one for philosophical enquiry. The nature of a belief in god is such a topic. Whilst the fact that such beliefs exist is undeniable they are only legitimate philosophical subjects in the sense that they are acknowledged psychological and sociological phenomena. Is this the context in which you raise your topic or do you have something else in mind?

[surreptitious57]

there is something unique about verbal conversations

That may or may not be true but it is in my opinion not the best way to learn. When you are talking you are engaging in dialogue which
is spontaneous and this can be an inhibitor to genuine understanding. So much prefer the written word to the spoken word since it takes
longer to formulate arguments so they are far more likely to be sound and logical. With text you can also refer back to what someone has
written in a way you cannot with dialogue as that is entirely dependent upon memory. And I prefer reading to talking as well for the same
reason. I do not engage with human beings face to face as a general rule but love engaging online as communication is by text not dialogue
Of course my experience is only anecdotal although I am not saying this approach works for everyone only me. It may be different for others

[Risto]

Risto. I presume you enrolled for this course because you're a theist and believe in god. What I don't understand is how you could believe in god and still be interested in philosophy. Philosophy covers a very broad range of subjects but the nature of the philosophical discourse is such that ideas are posited and arguments are put based on verifiable evidence. Naturally the interpretation of such evidence is the point of the whole story but in the absence of any evidence at all a topic cannot be correctly defined as a suitable one for philosophical enquiry. The nature of a belief in god is such a topic. Whilst the fact that such beliefs exist is undeniable they are only legitimate philosophical subjects in the sense that they are acknowledged psychological and sociological phenomena. Is this the context in which you raise your topic or do you have something else in mind?

Why do you presume that I'm a theist and believe in god? I think my original post could cause someone to actually presume that I'm not a theist and I don't believe in god because of a) I was critical of the lecture content, b) I said I put myself in an environment where I expected to have a lot of opposing viewpoints. Actually I don't consider myself religious at all.

Isn't the topic of god and religion actually one of many that philosophers are interested in? Also isn't the thought experiment brain in a vat very similar to some concepts of god? Isn't it called philosophy of religion? I recently finished a course where we had an entire block about the hypothesis of god. It was a very methodological analysis of the problem of evil and many other arguments.

[Risto]

That may or may not be true but it is in my opinion not the best way to learn. When you are talking you are engaging in dialogue which
is spontaneous and this can be an inhibitor to genuine understanding. So much prefer the written word to the spoken word since it takes
longer to formulate arguments so they are far more likely to be sound and logical. With text you can also refer back to what someone has
written in a way you cannot with dialogue as that is entirely dependent upon memory. And I prefer reading to talking as well for the same
reason. I do not engage with human beings face to face as a general rule but love engaging online as communication is by text not dialogue
Of course my experience is only anecdotal although I am not saying this approach works for everyone only me. It may be different for others

I agree and I follow the same idea to an extent. I think reading and writing are most valuable communication methods because of the same reasons you brought up. I make a living writing (one part of my work). However, I also admit that verbal communication is a very large part of life including a large aspect of my work. I also get lots of invitations to speaking events some of which have been debates. And I also enjoy verbal communications. They are enjoyable in their own way probably very much due to the spontaneity aspect.

[Obvious Leo]

Isn't the topic of god and religion actually one of many that philosophers are interested in?

Religion yes, god no. The only interest that any philosopher could have in god is that many people believe in such a thing.

[Dubious]

Isn't the topic of god and religion actually one of many that philosophers are interested in? Also isn't the thought experiment brain in a vat very similar to some concepts of god? Isn't it called philosophy of religion?

Both god and religion remain valid in reference to philosophy and psychology. A conscious exclusion of God or religion due to philosophy or science does not negate their continued existence at the lower levels of the human psyche its contents being far more difficult to eradicate. Almost all of human existence has been permeated by conceptions of Deity and ritual. Is it reasonable to think that such beliefs are going to disappear just because science or philosophy delivered a pink slip to what was inherent in our history for so long? It seems absurd if that were the case. There is an alchemy in effect which dethrones God from the center of the Numinous seeking other paths toward it, in effect, dividing God into a multiplicity...ideas not immune to both science and philosophy.

[Impenitent]

Rene is smiling

-Imp

[Jaded Sage]

You are definitely moving in the right direction. Try not to think of it as a few different arguements held by many different people. Think of it as several different people with their own unique reasons for believing.

Eventually, the rarity of a man of science being religious wears off. Many are no more or less developed in their understanding, only smarter, being scientists. But I suppose such people are more likely to have unique views.

Nowadays I use it to pass the time, refine myself and sometimes to answer questions on the internet.

[Hobbes' Choice]

You are definitely moving in the right direction. Try not to think of it as a few different arguements held by many different people. Think of it as several different people with their own unique reasons for believing.

Eventually, the rarity of a man of science being religious wears off. Many are no more or less developed in their understanding, only smarter, being scientists. But I suppose such people are more likely to have unique views.

Nowadays I use it to pass the time, refine myself and sometimes to answer questions on the internet.

You are confusing religion with philosophy.

The best philosophies are those that begin with inductively and objectively true statements, and from them build interpretations about the nature of reality, and the way to best live.

That is why philosophy is more than religion which starts with unfounded and unverifiable statements about the universe and then deductively forms a series of false moral inferences from that.
In this scheme any collection of crapola is as good as any other.

[HexHammer]

Church are filled with demagouges who dispence their circular logic, their nonsense and babble that utterly stupid and naive people will believe in.

It's good that you have some critical sense to reject their demagougery.

Only as a very yong kid I was interested in philosophy, lost interest when I got a computer, then read some philosophy when I was a grown man, saw that most was nonsense and babble.

I do situational analysis, critical thinking, etc, I've read a lot of science, therefore can make actual useful conclusions contrary 99.999% of all other so called "philosophers" whom I call "cozy chatters".

[Hobbes' Choice]

Church are filled with demagouges who dispence their circular logic, their nonsense and babble that utterly stupid and naive people will believe in.

It's good that you have some critical sense to reject their demagougery.

Only as a very yong kid I was interested in philosophy, lost interest when I got a computer, then read some philosophy when I was a grown man, saw that most was nonsense and babble.

I do situational analysis, critical thinking, etc, I've read a lot of science, therefore can make actual useful conclusions contrary 99.999% of all other so called "philosophers" whom I call "cozy chatters".

Why do you bother to post on PN?

[Risto]

"cozy chatters".

A good point about the difference between good and bad philosophy!