Philosophy Now Forum

On the "transcendent," I think you'll find your personal definition is considerably different from that which philosophers generally understand. There's nothing wrong with you, as philosophers say, "stipulating" a definition different from the one they know, but you're likely to confuse onlookers with that. I still would suggest we revert to the conventional use of the word, just for clarity's sake. However, I do not insist.

On Marx we'll say no more on an ad hominem basis: but since you ask, Paul Johnson has noted, "so far as we know, Marx never set a foot in a mill, factory, mine or other industrial workplace in his whole life," quite an indictment of the self-appointed champion of the proletariat. He was famous for "violent rages," and his abused former friend Bakunin wrote, "Marx does not believe in God, but he believes mush in himself and makes everyone serve himself. His heart is not full of love but of bitterness, and he has very little sympathy for the human race."Philosopher Karl Jaspers has written, "[His] whole approach is one of vindication, not investigation, but it is a vindication of something proclaimed as the perfect truth with the conviction not of the scientist but of the believer." Is that enough?

Well, I wouldn't exactly characterize Norway as Communist. It's socialist, perhaps, but that's a far cry from real Communism or full-blown Marxism. A lot of people don't grasp the difference, but it's substantial. They're *towards* same direction economically, but a far cry apart philosophically and practically.

Of course you don't read everything everyone proposes. I understand: I wouldn't either. But Polanyi is worth your time, so consider it for the future, if not now. As for quoting him, he's expansive and profound, and you'll find you'll need to read his chapters and arguments in order to see the huge shift thinking about science that he requires. But I know he'd rock your world; he was huge for me, and he's universally esteemed in his field. Thomas Kuhn, for example, diid very little in his more famous book that Polanyi didn't do much, much better. But as you wish.

Did I criticize your youth anywhere? I do believe I'm treating you with dignity and respect; I'm answering your questions, and I'm corresponding with your as an equal..should I pull out my age card and say, "I'm over twice your age, so listen to me?" If not, why would you fall to criticizing me for being "a typical older person"? My observation was drawn from the fact that you have expressed no belief in the possibility of rational Theism. That would suggest you've met none so far. Was I wrong? Have you met some that you found rationally credible and yet rejected for some personal cause -- because that's the only alternative. I was being charitable, and assuming your judgment was based on limited evidence instead of irrational rejection. Was I wrong there?

I'm just suggesting that "Wikipedia" (which is your source for things theological) might not be a very good source. It's notoriously open to manipulation and bias, as it's open access for redactors with an agenda. Some entries are good, but you never can tell which parts are not. Why not choose some better sources, and get some more hard data before deciding what is true and not about Theism? And why be so contemptuous when, as you admit, your sources of information are so limited? I won't tell you what book to read: I just suggest that someone who is dedicated to reason and truth can do better than Wikipedia. That's not a controversial view: any professional researcher will tell you exactly the same advice.

Finally, my suggestion: let's keep good will on your side and mine. I promise not to assume you're an arrogant youth, and you give me a chance to prove I'm not a senile old codger. Let's keep personal attacks out of our exchanges. I don't find you unlikeable, and I see no reason for you to feel defensive about me. And ad hominems are fallacies on all sides.

Immanuel Can wrote:On the "transcendent," I think you'll find your personal definition is considerably different from that which philosophers generally understand.

Which philosopher? There's a range of different meanings of transcendent, mine is only the literal version, the "pure" version, not abducted and experimented upon by some mad philosopher.

Immanuel Can wrote:There's nothing wrong with you, as philosophers say, "stipulating" a definition different from the one they know, but you're likely to confuse onlookers with that. I still would suggest we revert to the conventional use of the word, just for clarity's sake. However, I do not insist.

There's no conventional use of the word, mine is as good as any. In fact, I think mine, although it's probably somebody else's thought I'm calling "mine", is better, because it's more direct and doesn't change the word to make it appear anything else than what it is at heart.

Immanuel Can wrote:On Marx we'll say no more on an ad hominem basis: but since you ask, Paul Johnson has noted, "so far as we know, Marx never set a foot in a mill, factory, mine or other industrial workplace in his whole life," quite an indictment of the self-appointed champion of the proletariat. He was famous for "violent rages," and his abused former friend Bakunin wrote, "Marx does not believe in God, but he believes mush in himself and makes everyone serve himself. His heart is not full of love but of bitterness, and he has very little sympathy for the human race."Philosopher Karl Jaspers has written, "[His] whole approach is one of vindication, not investigation, but it is a vindication of something proclaimed as the perfect truth with the conviction not of the scientist but of the believer." Is that enough?

Aye, I've read something along those lines before, and his violent rages I believe he had, but that doesn't really have much to do with being a man of reason or not. I am a man of reason, but I have a tendency to helplessly fall in love with women completely irrationally... does those moments qualify to call me irrational or emotionally driven on a whole? Or am I just being a human with human aspects of myself? We all reason throughout our lives and those reasoning end up giving us our philosophical beliefs. I have personal beliefs in my own philosophy, I've worked years on my philosophy, and I'm emotional about it when it suits me: but in general it's all about reason and its implications, and I think that was how Karl Marx felt about it as well, you start thinking in a fashion and then your accustoming to that fashion becomes emotion and the likes. Karl Marx was likely what you'd call an information addict, which is why he was so fond of the library. He took information and turned it into facts about this and about that, but of course if he ultimately was scientific he'd have first hand experiences to talk of, which is probably where Engels helped him most, as Engels was a field study person.

Immanuel Can wrote:Well, I wouldn't exactly characterize Norway as Communist. It's socialist, perhaps, but that's a far cry from real Communism or full-blown Marxism. A lot of people don't grasp the difference, but it's substantial. They're *towards* same direction economically, but a far cry apart philosophically and practically.

Yeah yeah, I was just making a point about Karl Marx and the present day. Karl Marx would probably had loved present day I think, and he would likely had been much less aggressive in his writings, as today you have the opportunity to make "socialistic progress" through effective democratic and economic systems. Karl Marx probably was more interested in the values we have created today than just getting things his way, but we'd never know, all I know is that his time was quite the different place from now. Factory-working today in wealthy European countries is luxurious jobs with luxurious societies surrounding those jobs compared to the poverty of those times.

Immanuel Can wrote:Of course you don't read everything everyone proposes. I understand: I wouldn't either. But Polanyi is worth your time, so consider it for the future, if not now. As for quoting him, he's expansive and profound, and you'll find you'll need to read his chapters and arguments in order to see the huge shift thinking about science that he requires. But I know he'd rock your world; he was huge for me, and he's universally esteemed in his field. Thomas Kuhn, for example, diid very little in his more famous book that Polanyi didn't do much, much better. But as you wish.

For some people the bible is a huge experience... I still have my doubts I'd like it, those times I've opened the book at random it has been unappealing and it stays quite unappealing.

Immanuel Can wrote:Did I criticize your youth anywhere? I do believe I'm treating you with dignity and respect; I'm answering your questions, and I'm corresponding with your as an equal..should I pull out my age card and say, "I'm over twice your age, so listen to me?" If not, why would you fall to criticizing me for being "a typical older person"?

Well I might have been a bit presumptive, but you wrote that text oddly and just like somebody who would use his own age would do.

Immanuel Can wrote:My observation was drawn from the fact that you have expressed no belief in the possibility of rational Theism.

I didn't even know it was a subject before you mentioned it now O.o Secularism I understand, rational Theism sounds just like another word for it. You can't blend religion with rationality, because then rationality either destroys religion or religions quickly shuts out rationality or send it off to special corners where it might work.

Immanuel Can wrote:That would suggest you've met none so far. Was I wrong? Have you met some that you found rationally credible and yet rejected for some personal cause -- because that's the only alternative. I was being charitable, and assuming your judgment was based on limited evidence instead of irrational rejection. Was I wrong there?

That's where you were wrong, there's no rational reason to believe I've never met a rational person who believes in God. In fact, I find it quite unthinkable, since I think personally there's quite an abundance of such people so the likelihood I would meet some would be very high and if not personally then on TV or elsewhere (and you were of course wrong), also you wrote "in your range of life" which is where I was like "yeah, he just pulled out the age card, he just insinuated that because I've not lived too many years, I must likely be insufficiently experienced". Now that you tell me that was not your intention, then I apologize, but I still myself puzzled as to why you would say "in your range of life"? Saying it conveys to me that you wanted to tell me something with it... and what did you want to tell me with those words? If they were "innocent" words then perhaps they shouldn't have been used so I wouldn't had misunderstood, there's few other things those words after all could mean, especially since "range" signifies numbers and your only previous information of me relating to this would be my age.

Immanuel Can wrote:I'm just suggesting that "Wikipedia" (which is your source for things theological) might not be a very good source.

Hah! Caught you in the act! I didn't say that before afterwards, in other words you are telling me here that you made a suggestion in the past based on something I would say first in the future! I have no idea what the Latin name of that is, but I'll go with just "inconsistency" and a possibility you are befriended with The Doctor and his TARDIS.

Immanuel Can wrote:It's notoriously open to manipulation and bias, as it's open access for redactors with an agenda. Some entries are good, but you never can tell which parts are not.

I don't think theology is a field I'll have to worry about whether references are true or not x) As actually, whether they are true not doesn't make a difference because they would be arguments that I could utilize nevertheless if I find them to be good enough... but this is nevertheless a biased point of view I think from your perspective, as Wikipedia is quite accurate and in fact has been found to be more accurate than professional encyclopaedias, and the best of all is that Wikipedia is constantly updated, sometimes on the same day. For instance, I sometimes read a newspaper with fresh news of today's events and then I can go to Wikipedia and see those same things displayed in freshly updated articles... on something which happened on the same day!

Immanuel Can wrote:Why not choose some better sources, and get some more hard data before deciding what is true and not about Theism?

Whaaaat? Have I anywhere said anything which should require from me to get "hard data" to figure out something about Theism? I don't really care about theism, so why should I want to make pointless investigations? If you refer to my original statement that there are lots of similarities, then what I know already is quite certain knowledge from various sources, Wikipedia playing a minor role.

Immanuel Can wrote:And why be so contemptuous when, as you admit, your sources of information are so limited? I won't tell you what book to read: I just suggest that someone who is dedicated to reason and truth can do better than Wikipedia. That's not a controversial view: any professional researcher will tell you exactly the same advice.

I've never said my sources of information are limited, you just said that right now, what I said about Wikipedia was directed to the theological quarrel about omnipotence, because it's not something you'd usually know about only if you take special interest, and I wanted to show I don't take special interest, I just happened to come across it on Wikipedia and it was short enough that I'd allow myself the time to read about it. So it was a re-affirming of my disinterest in religion despite knowing something here and something there and despite talking to you now about it. I'm not being contemptuous only straight-forward, the difference is in your mind. If I were contemptuous it would've been much clearer.

Immanuel Can wrote:Finally, my suggestion: let's keep good will on your side and mine. I promise not to assume you're an arrogant youth, and you give me a chance to prove I'm not a senile old codger. Let's keep personal attacks out of our exchanges. I don't find you unlikeable, and I see no reason for you to feel defensive about me. And ad hominems are fallacies on all sides.

This is why I said to raise your shield x) Philosophy discussions is not for the weak-hearted. Everyone experiences to be hit mentally in ways they're not used to. I come in peace, but I'll seize every opportunity to make criticism that I think make meaningful difference to the act of long-term discussion interaction, so be ready for that To discover potential ad hominems in you is one such valuable criticism, inspired of course by your own mention of it.

I apologize for giving the wrong impression: by "range of life" I only mean "however far you may have travelled, and however many people you have met," implying that even though (perhaps) you had not met a rational Theist personally, they might still exist beyond such a range. I wasn't even thinking of age.

there's no rational reason to believe I've never met a rational person who believes in God.

Actually, there would be. You claim to have a disdain for all things Theistic. In fact, you reiterate your belief that reason and faith are mutually exclusive zones (see your last message), and I can only take you seriously by assuming that means you have not run into any rational Theists. If you had, I assume that you, as a reasonable person, would have a different view. Why would a rational person say, "I've met Theists I consider rational, but I refused to believe them"? That would make you call yourself "irrational." I most certainly did not do that.

As for your Wikipedia "aha," I'm mystified as to what you mean. I simply read what you said about trusting Wikipedia on matters of theology, and said I didn't think that was wise. I have no tardis, nor have I claimed to have any.

I don't think theology is a field I'll have to worry about whether references are true or not x)

That's a strange thing to say about any field of inquiry, VOT. I wonder, would you find me reasonable if I said, "I don't read any science or maths books, because I already believe they're irrational'? Would you praise me for such an attitude? Or would you assume I was being prejudiced and deliberately resisting any information I might find that could undermine my rejection of science or maths?

Well, you're wrong about the supposed ad hominem. I was thinking no such thing. And as for the "hits" and "arrows" of philosophy, they're no problem: bring them on. Rather, the biggest hazard of posting on a board like this is that there are a few folks (not you) who suppose that insulting is a form of arguing, and contradicting is reasoning. They tend to get nasty, at times, but their behavior is not a hazard of philosophy per se but a by-product of deficiencies in human nature.

I have found this axiomatic:

"The person who's abusing
Is almost always losing."

A tidy rhyme to be sure. But it also makes sense, because insults are used like squid's ink: they're something squirted out emotionally by a creature in hasty retreat, in fear, or else in irrational aggression. As I saw one poster put it:

"When reason fails, we must resort to cream pies."

Still, I hope you and I will continue not to fall to such measures, since they interfere with clear thought. Yet fear of insults have I none. If I don't spend much time on those who float them, it's not fear but boredom that compels me elsewhere. I have never yet seen the cause of reason advanced through insults.

Now, if we're done with the preliminaries, how about the question that drives this particular thread: what do you think of it?

Immanuel Can wrote:Actually, there would be. You claim to have a disdain for all things Theistic. In fact, you reiterate your belief that reason and faith are mutually exclusive zones (see your last message), and I can only take you seriously by assuming that means you have not run into any rational Theists. If you had, I assume that you, as a reasonable person, would have a different view. Why would a rational person say, "I've met Theists I consider rational, but I refused to believe them"? That would make you call yourself "irrational." I most certainly did not do that.

In the same paragraph I also said I did not understand how there could be such a thing as rational theism. I have met people who believe in God but are rational, because they separate the concerns such that they have times they pay heed to their religion and times when they act on rational thoughts, instincts and habits. You write in your text there as if you have to be absolute to both, so what doesn't work between our understandings there is that I presume relative thinking and can't comprehend this absolutism... no either or but both sufficiently to be character traits but not sufficient to be all-encompassing personality traits.. like my dominative pragmatic systematically thinking genetic mother who was also a leading person in the works of the church community and a close friend of the priest and desirable for the lead position in the local Christian people's party.

Immanuel Can wrote:As for your Wikipedia "aha," I'm mystified as to what you mean. I simply read what you said about trusting Wikipedia on matters of theology, and said I didn't think that was wise. I have no tardis, nor have I claimed to have any.

Hehehe The Doctor and TARDIS was a reference to the world's longest running (and ridiculously coolest) sci-fi show, the British "Doctor Who". I hope you got it TARDIS is a time-travel machine with a few extra functions. My meaning was that you talked as if you'd said something with regards to something I had said when I first said that thing after you'd said your first thing.

Immanuel Can wrote:That's a strange thing to say about any field of inquiry, VOT. I wonder, would you find me reasonable if I said, "I don't read any science or maths books, because I already believe they're irrational'? Would you praise me for such an attitude? Or would you assume I was being prejudiced and deliberately resisting any information I might find that could undermine my rejection of science or maths?

Well I would find it unreasonable that you would have that impression because everything about our modern society points to that it's the case that science and maths books are products of rationality, I wouldn't find it unreasonable that you had the impression that theology writings was irrational however, because from beginning to end of all experience you'll have throughout life there's no notable indication it is rational. No reason to think that way. The biggest reason I shouldn't have to worry is because theology doesn't deal with facts about real things, so the arguments would be universal and timeless, in other words, they would be completely separated from any person who delivered them (though perchance the language used might make a difference, as that changes with time). In that way I don't have to worry if any person said anything, the arguments would stand by themselves defending themselves and I could utilize them without worry of implications...

Immanuel Can wrote:Now, if we're done with the preliminaries, how about the question that drives this particular thread: what do you think of it?

I think it's narrow and incorrect, but my disinterest leaves me at loss how I should tackle the claim.

The biggest reason I shouldn't have to worry is because theology doesn't deal with facts about real things,

But this you admit you "learned" while knowing very little or nothing about rational Theism! In what field would you admire someone for failing to look at any data and still advancing a categorical conclusion like this? Science? Auto mechanics? History? Art? Basket Weaving? I can see nowhere where it is a good epistemological strategy. Can you?

As a matter of fact, I would assert that reason and Theism are quite in harmony...and it is Atheism that is inevitably irrational and arbitrary. But I happen to know a great deal about Atheism as well as the contrary arguments, so I'm not dodging the data when I say that. But why would anyone insist on looking at one side only? Give it a try; you'll be surprised at what you'll find out.

Yes, I know Doctor Who: I just didn't get the reason for the implication that I was time-jumping.


But on to the philosophy of religion:

There are a few ways of looking at it:

1) Philosophy of Religion is like the Philosophy of Unicorns...an imaginary, irrelevant study.

2)Philosophy of Religion is about sociological phenomena -- whether the beliefs themselves are real is treated as less important than the issue that people do actually believe in them, so they need study. Of course, this makes their whole existence merely contingent, but no doubt they are a real issue today.

3) Philosophy of Religion is about views of ontological and moral truth -- in which case, their particular claims come into focus and can be compared, contrasted and examined using data of various kinds, as well as formal reasoning to judge their operation as truth claims.

4) Any other candidates? I don't believe I've exhausted the alternatives.

Only #1 makes the PoR a waste of time.

Immanuel Can wrote:...
As a matter of fact, I would assert that reason and Theism are quite in harmony...and it is Atheism that is inevitably irrational and arbitrary.

And your justification for such an assertion is?

Immanuel Can wrote:But this you admit you "learned" while knowing very little or nothing about rational Theism!

I'm still at loss what rational theism is, yes. But subject-matter of theology is per definition not about real facts, so unless the definition is wrong I would be right. However, for all I know, the art of fishing is really a way to smoke drugs, that however doesn't stop me from presuming that fishermen actually do catch fish and are not smoking drugs as their primary activity of work. I have no reason to suspect that the primary activity of fishing is smoking drugs however, so I would not pursue that course... am I wrong to do so? I don't think any reasonable person would say that, as it's quite silly despite it being a random thought that is not stopped from being possibly true. So anything is possible, but we don't make reasonable judgements based upon first-hand evidence for everything, but by pursuing leads of evidence that give us "raw data" which we process into assumptions which become quite powerful and accurate as their idea matures. And I would say my idea of theology is quite mature.

Immanuel Can wrote:In what field would you admire someone for failing to look at any data and still advancing a categorical conclusion like this? Science? Auto mechanics? History? Art? Basket Weaving? I can see nowhere where it is a good epistemological strategy. Can you?

The question is whether a good epistemological strategy is even necessary. Some things are just obvious.

Immanuel Can wrote:As a matter of fact, I would assert that reason and Theism are quite in harmony...and it is Atheism that is inevitably irrational and arbitrary. But I happen to know a great deal about Atheism as well as the contrary arguments, so I'm not dodging the data when I say that.

What data are you talking about? There's no "data" to be spoken of, exemplify an instance of "data" or don't use the word "data".

Immanuel Can wrote:But why would anyone insist on looking at one side only? Give it a try; you'll be surprised at what you'll find out.

I would insist not wasting time, as time is precious and we only have a handful of things we can work at a time in our lives and in the moment, and we should choose with care those that matter, and let be those that don't.

Immanuel Can wrote:Yes, I know Doctor Who: I just didn't get the reason for the implication that I was time-jumping.

Well it doesn't matter x)

Immanuel Can wrote:But on to the philosophy of religion:

There are a few ways of looking at it:

1) Philosophy of Religion is like the Philosophy of Unicorns...an imaginary, irrelevant study.

2)Philosophy of Religion is about sociological phenomena -- whether the beliefs themselves are real is treated as less important than the issue that people do actually believe in them, so they need study. Of course, this makes their whole existence merely contingent, but no doubt they are a real issue today.

3) Philosophy of Religion is about views of ontological and moral truth -- in which case, their particular claims come into focus and can be compared, contrasted and examined using data of various kinds, as well as formal reasoning to judge their operation as truth claims.

4) Any other candidates? I don't believe I've exhausted the alternatives.

Only #1 makes the PoR a waste of time.

Hmm... you can apply any field of philosophy you want unto any aspect of religion that you want. That's really all that has to be said: if you want you can do it. Ethics, logic, epistemology, ontology, even natural philosophy (what are the origins of religion?) and so forth...

A-UK:

Oh don't worry...justification is coming. Just not here, and just not quite yet. Somewhere much more obvious.

"What has it got in its pocketses?"

Patience...

VOT: Don't they ever sleep in Norway? You must have been up for a whole day.

Immanuel Can wrote:VOT: Don't they ever sleep in Norway? You must have been up for a whole day.

x) No, but I spent a large portion of my day writing lengthy answers to you

I've known myself to spend more than 6 hours writing an answer on this forum. Usually with lots of breaks and distractions in-between of course. But I do sleep and quite a lot, usually around 12 hours a day, but sometimes as little as 7-8 hours.

tbieter wrote: Some are incapable of engaging in the detached philosophical investigation of an aspect of human experience. They start and end with a dogmatic assertion.

Absolutely. The entire Applied Ethics section of this forum is a demonstration of this fact. We cannot assume any base level of education in the people who come to this forum and post. We can't even assume they are familiar with Sociology and how that "investigation" proceeds. A sociologist measures the number of homosexuals in a population and reports the findings with a detached, scientific mind. The sociologist reports the average age of people who first start having sex, and reports the statistic in a detached, scientific manner. The rednecks chime in with their conventions and obnoxious opinions, which they defend using emotional outbursts, threats, and nothing more. The world to them is simple as a 4-point list, and their uninformed opinions will not be questioned in their presence. Been there. Done that.

But since we are on this topic, I would suggest to that your post actually describes a form of investigation that is more properly named: Comparative Religion. This is sometimes written, "Comparative Religious Studies" (or even "Comparative Studies" ). Reading off the beliefs of mainstream buddhists (as if reading off the ingredients label of a box of cereal), shouldn't be elevated to a so-called "investigation of an aspect of human experience" -- and furthermore, should not carry the modifier of a form of philosophy.

I entirely share your antipathy to the pseudo-academic (and now out-of-fashion) discipline known as "Comparative Religion." It is marked by a predilection for shallow anthropological similarities and an astonishing indifference to profound difference. Recently, the field has shifted somewhat, and some departments are now "Religion and Culture" departments, or something like that. They've given up flogging that dead horse, and are now starting to look at uniqueness as more important than mere superficial resemblance: this can only be good.

At the same time, "Comparative Religion" is not "Philosophy of Religion." They are two very distinct approaches that share only an interest in the concept "religion," and do not partake of the same methodology or assumptions. I wouldn't give a fig for the former, but I think there's considerable vitality and usefulness in the latter.

As for Applied Ethics, I would suggest it's not a bad study *if* it's positioned as the third wave of philosophy, and done only once both theoretical and normative issues have been settled. Then it's mostly just practical applications of a grounded theory and set of ethical precepts, which is fine; after all, we all need to be practical sometimes. But by itself, it can become an out-of-reason set of madcap rules advanced for purely pragmatic or preferential reasons. At the third level, it's fine; at the first, it's crazy.

Kuznetzova:
Anyone, convince me that the "philosophy of Religion" is anything more than systematically listing the logical fallacies of creationists and spiritualists.

My input:
I have followed the discussion on this topic with interest (I am not a philosopher by trade but an armchair philosopher, as a hobby, like most in this magazine, I suspect). Thus, I do not mind that points made can be a bit ad hominem on occasion as long as things remain civil. And based on the way topics were presented here, I have to say that my preference is more along a pragmatic and concrete sequential type of discussion. (My wife thinks she knows I am concrete sequential by the way I stack a dishwasher).

Concrete to me means factual as much as possible and factual means that it has been, or could be, proven with reasonable experimental, statistical, or experiential certainty (probability). I also use a tool from philosophy 101, namely, that one cannot use an unproven or unprovable to make a point and prove something else with it, a mistake which I see is very prevalent in these fora. If that is being done, the discussion is merely speculative and should be identifiable as such.

To me the experiential part is also very important since I feel it is frequently not given its due in the scientific and philosophical argument. Experience when passed on counts because it is the basis of all knowledge. Reality is that 99.9...%, of any individual's knowledge is derived from outside sources and not from personal experience. Thus, critical thinking implies that during one's life one has maximized one's ability to discern the veracity of the information passed on, and of the source of information itself. A problem arises when there are what I would call near "professional" skeptics by avocation who will absolutely deny that others have the powers of observation and credentials as the skeptic has him/herself. (E.g., see the Skeptic column in the Scientific American magazine). This is based on a strongly formed notion or a need to be viewed as scientifically unbiased and procedurally correct as possible. In that case, only the skeptic is capable of forming a valid judgment about reported experiential events, even from a distance, totally removed from the actual event and the person who has done the experiencing.

Now to the challenge by Kuznetzova.

Answer:
As a pragmatist, it is unprovable that "philosophy of Religion" is merely a "listing the logical fallacies of creationists and spiritualists." Hence by the PH 101 ground rule, the suggested argument is null and void. If it's only meant as a hyperbolic argument (leading to pure speculation), then, as a pragmatist, let me make it more concrete.

I will therefore claim that "philosophy of Religion" is not merely an exercise in speculation but is an experiential insight acquired by people during a lifetime. In other words, we all acquire a philosophy of life, and especially with regard to religion and the realities flowing from that. (Philosophy would be useless if it were confined to idle speculation). So, here is a pragmatic concrete example of someone acquiring a genuine, non-speculative "philosophy of Religion" in their life. The case of Dr. Mary Neal, MD.

http://www.drmaryneal.com/about-to-heaven-and-back.html

Please go to "Interviews" and then browse down to the video interview of Dr
Neal. A powerful testimonial concerning her philosophy of Religion.