philosophy of religion isn't possible

[henry quirk]

First, the concept of god would need to be defined in such a way as to be verifiable.

God is the creator of reality; the nature of reality (the universe) seems to indicate finiteness (it had a beginning) and order (there is structure & process)

there's your definition & verification


Then, the verification of the infinite must be within reach of us, the finite.

man is an ordered being...moreover he is a moral being...certain aspects of this moral feature (chiefly, the conscience or moral sense) exist universally (all men have a moral compass [many pay it no mind, but that -- in context -- is neither here or there])...another universal feature is man's ownness, the intuition he belongs to himself...this intuition of ownness and the moral sense or compass are, as I say, universal, cutting across all times and cultures...these features, then, root not in culture but exist innately, and because there is no organ or organic clump wherein the moral sense and ownness can be sourced, they -- along with other features -- are of mind, which is a mystery

there's your verification of the infinite


Finally, the verification must be done and the results must be positive.

see above

[Veritas Aequitas]

>As I had stated, the 'Philosophy of Religion' is a meta-study of the whole spectrum of religion not merely to argue whether religion [theistic] is true is true or not.

That's history or psychology or anthropology, not philosophy. Religions aren't Only dogma, but the inclusion of dogma requires they not be taken seriously in a philosophical sense.

Nah.. history or psychology or anthropology, are very specific subjects and 'closed' which cannot all the gaps of reality and thus not all encompassing.
Philosophy-proper [open-ended] is all encompassing and thus will cover whatever gaps there are within each specific topics.

For example Science is very specific and closed with its specific framework, processes, assumptions, limitations, etc. This is very necessary so that no one can intrude and conflate Science with anything else, e.g. religion, metaphysics, mathematics, etc.

This is why you will see the common phrase 'Philosophy of X[whatever]'

This is why we have the 'Philosophy of Religion' to study whatever religions is and to cover whatever gaps there are in religion within reality.

>Btw, there are theistic [God based] and non-theistic religions [Buddhism, etc.].
Theism is the usual culprit but not the only one.

It is critical we differentiate theistic religions from non-theistic religions.
Within non-theistic religions there are shams but there are empirically and philosophical justifiable religions like Buddhism, and the likes.

>You cannot accuse Buddhism-proper with having terrible ideas that are useless to humans.

But i have and i do! Buddhist concepts that are needed to follow Buddhist doctrine but unsupportable by logic or science: karma, samsara, nirvana

It is their claims of knowledge of the beyond which is intellectually bankrupt, whether it's god or simply the existence of a soul as in Buddhism.

I have already quoted the Dalai Lama who give Science over the Doctrines of Buddhism at its ultimate level. In contrast there is no such concessions with the Abrahamic and other theistic religions.

You need to brush up on the full range of what is Buddhism-proper and do not be too arrogant based on merely ignorance of what Buddhism is.

To cater for the natural different range of spiritual grade of people, Buddhism has a range from kindergarten to a PhD level of knowledge.
While at the lower level all sorts of stories, myths and fanciful stuffs are used to assist the common lay Buddhists, those at the PhD levels cover the highest grades of logic, epistemology, ethics, metaphysics [re being], empiricism, philosophy and advance spiritual exercise and practices.

Btw, Buddhism proper do not believe in a soul.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta
In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pali) or anātman (Sanskrit) refers to the doctrine of "non-self" — that there is no unchanging, permanent self, soul, or essence in phenomena.

You cannot be too arrogant with ignorance.

>While I believe theistic religions are relying on a God [illusory] that is impossible to be real, theistic religions at present [not future] are a net-positive "crutch" to theists since there are no effective alternative to deal with the inherent existential crisis - which is a very primal psychological problem to humans.

It's positive to them only in an immediate sense. It harms everyone in the larger sense, not least of which is by teaching people it's ok to believe lies for immediate gratification of life's inherent existential crises.

Your thinking is too shallow and narrow in this case.

I stated it is a net-positive crutch and optimal to the theists and also humanity at the present [not the future], given, there are no effective alternatives to deal with the inherent existential crisis.

For one thing, I believe the threat of hell and no eternal life by a God is a very efficient non-legal deterrence in modulating/preventing most of the 6+ billion theists from committing terrible evils [sins] relatively AT PRESENT only [not future].
Obviously there will a very minimum percentile of theists [say 1% = 60 millions ] who will not comply and they'll have to face the criminal laws if they commit evil acts.

Theism, other than inherently-evil-Islam is not harmful to everyone in the larger sense. Christianity has its negative which has not reached critical levels yet, e.g. hindering the progress of knowledge with its dogmatic belief in creationism and other resistances to progress.
What we need is Philosophy to be applied to 'religions' to eliminate whatever negatives within religions.

>In applying Philosophy to the study of religions, we will bring all the relevant knowledge and skills to expose the falsehoods of theistic religions and in addition search for the root causes of why people cling to theistic religions so fanatically.

Yeah, i'm still going to be calling that psychology and as far as i see, it's simple and obvious to any non-religious person with a basic understanding of psychology and/or human nature.why religious people cling to religion.

Note my point is where all fields of knowledge by default has to be 'closed' whereas philosophy is the only quest of never ending knowledge that is 'open-ended'.
Thus open-ended Philosophy has to be imposed upon 'religions' from a "meta" perspective.

>It is with Philosophy as the base, that humanity can find solutions to assist theists to give up their the irrational belief in God and find foolproof alternatives that enable them to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

Philosophy is a Substitute for religion and entirely incompatible with theology or apologetics of any kind, including the Buddhist apologetics you pulled out above. The dogma found in Every religion is an abduction of the search for Truth and philosophy is the search for Truth. They're diametrically opposed.

One last point about dogma; to the extent a belief system does Not require dogma, it's not a religion. This is a defining characteristic, not an optional one. There's no reason to give the benefit of the doubt to such things. Truth can only lose in compromise.

You are too ignorant in insisting "Philosophy is a Substitute for religion."
That is dogmatism itself that you are practicing.

We need to be empathic and compassionate that theists are suffering from a terrible existential crisis and existential pains. Theism is the only immediate effective balm [crutch] for theists to soothe their existential pains. Thus it would be very cruel of you in insisting we do away with theism, non-theistic religion right-away without providing a foolproof alternative.

My point is we need open-ended philosophy to study religions and other fields of knowledge which are closed.
In this we should focus on getting rid of the inherent evil religions like Islam since there are alternative of lesser evil, e.g. Christianity, and others pacifist religions for them to cling to.

In the meantime we need to dig deep into the open-ended philosophy to find effective foolproof alternatives to replace theism to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis.