posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
mmoa_writes at 12:55am on 27/11/2006 under more rantage...
mmoa_writes at 12:55am on 27/11/2006 under more rantage...Oh yeah, and the philosophy students at our school really get to me. It's like, how can you know so much, and yet nothing! Fuck it, I'm only talking about stuff I had to teach myself. You're taking exams in this thing, and you don't know squat.
Example. Talking to one such student and she mentioned one of the moral issues was why would God perform certain miracles at one time, but never any time later to help people in every day life. Fair enough, I thought, but then I replied, "true, but then there's the idea espoused by one theological viewpoint that miracles were never actually meant to help people (and let's be fair, healing a few beggars and raising one man - a relative, btw - from the dead, does not constitute to almighty saving the world action) but to point to Jesus' identity as the Messiah (which brings up a new debate on why certain Christians believe in a more interventionistic God and so on and so forth...)."
She's like, "oh, I never heard of that."
WTF?
Then on life after death, I bring up how some cults and religious '-isms' don't technically have an afterlife - certain offshoots of Judaism came to mind - and again, she was all 'well, I don't know about that' in a really dismissive sort of way like, 'if it's not in my textbooks...'
Dude, why the hell would you make an argument about something without knowing as much about it as possible? It's so bollocks! I was like, 'Well, what the hell do you do during those goddamn philosophy lessons of yours?'
Not the first time either. During last years course, one of them got really excited about the idea that we would never be able to prove that we weren't a computer programme or hibernating beings with our brains hardwired or something similar. I was like, "so?" I mean, come on! That's the big news? I was debating that shit in year seven with philosophy grads online, for goodness' sake. Six years later and some retard comes allong like it's the hidden gospel of reality or something. Bullshit. God, I hate being an auto-dictat.
Example. Talking to one such student and she mentioned one of the moral issues was why would God perform certain miracles at one time, but never any time later to help people in every day life. Fair enough, I thought, but then I replied, "true, but then there's the idea espoused by one theological viewpoint that miracles were never actually meant to help people (and let's be fair, healing a few beggars and raising one man - a relative, btw - from the dead, does not constitute to almighty saving the world action) but to point to Jesus' identity as the Messiah (which brings up a new debate on why certain Christians believe in a more interventionistic God and so on and so forth...)."
She's like, "oh, I never heard of that."
WTF?
Then on life after death, I bring up how some cults and religious '-isms' don't technically have an afterlife - certain offshoots of Judaism came to mind - and again, she was all 'well, I don't know about that' in a really dismissive sort of way like, 'if it's not in my textbooks...'
Dude, why the hell would you make an argument about something without knowing as much about it as possible? It's so bollocks! I was like, 'Well, what the hell do you do during those goddamn philosophy lessons of yours?'
Not the first time either. During last years course, one of them got really excited about the idea that we would never be able to prove that we weren't a computer programme or hibernating beings with our brains hardwired or something similar. I was like, "so?" I mean, come on! That's the big news? I was debating that shit in year seven with philosophy grads online, for goodness' sake. Six years later and some retard comes allong like it's the hidden gospel of reality or something. Bullshit. God, I hate being an auto-dictat.
(no subject)
i am first to admit how little i know. seems with philosophy the more 'i know'(in terms of the syllabus) the less i do really. and then theres the whole thing of it being confined by the christian belief as its 'philosophy of religion'. as in, i spend forever having to be contented with relative answers of 'its in the bible' which is so unsatisfactory to someone who does't believe in god 'because thats how god made it.'
plus, i swear the brain in the vat theory is something everyone thinks they thought up but then is like 'o' when they realise they didn't. (i blame the matrix for this)anyway. hopefully my general awareness of unawareness is something that will let me off.
phoebe
(no subject)
I always think that what we learn about the world around us should influence our religious beliefs and philosophies. However, as far as I can see, most people are stuck somewhere in the 18th century (I'm sorry, but it really gets to me when fellow atheists bring up the whole 'pain' problem as to why there isn't an all loving God. I'm like, dude, we now know the Universe contains hundreds of billions of galaxies and is 12-15 billion years old. What sort of a being who created all that is going to conform to our sense of love? Just because I don't completely agree with it, doesn't mean that I can't understand why the Christian version of reason is informed by God's love and how that is the ultimate explanation from that particular viewpoint. According to Christian theology after all, God's love is not the doting, instinctual 'love' between mother and child, or the passion between two lovers, but the more mysterious bonding between two friends, or an elder watching over a protegee. I can get that, even if I don't happen to believe (at that point in time, anyway!) in that God). Science is making such amazing discoveries about our world today, and the best we can come up to go hand in hand witht his philosophically speaking with is... well, bollocks (another reason why it annoys me when people get all like, 'ooh, Dawkins/Hawking/ etc aren't proper philosophers...' but when you read what they're saying, they're more clued up than most philosophers are as to how to relate the old ideas of human existence and scientific discovery. Daniel Dennett is one of the few modern philosophers who really seems to appreciate this).
Yeah, I'm a little puzzled why philosophy of religion is confined within Christianity alone. Considering the background of the Christian religion, I would have thought that some serious time would be spent on Jewish and Hellenistic theology based philosophy. *shrugs* At least they leave the Eastern religions well alone (but then, I'm biased as I've had it up to here with pseudo zen-crap being spouted by wannabe philosophy graduates. Feel like slapping them, sometimes...)
But I'm curious what you mean by how you have to be contented with relative answers of 'it's in the bible', esp. seeing as you're referring to your philosophy classes...
(no subject)
(no subject)
let me be clear, i believe in a god, just not one that is in a sense, repressed by any sort of regular religion. more my own inane mumblings in early hours when something makes sense. i like carnaps idea about the word 'god' - that we only label him as 'god' because it makes a distinction as to us never really knowing anything other than this label.as in, god is and always will be beyond our comprehension.
in terms of the study of 'philosophy of religion', like in year eleven or whatever, we had to study marks gospel. now its the same, but with christianity rather than buddhism or judaism, even when the foundations of said religion are a little blurred in distinction.
and what i meant by the whole 'its in the bible' is simply, when you go too far down one tangent of thought, either you get some of the other christian studiers pipe up and get hot around the collar, or we are swiftly drawn back to the topic at hand. that or at the time of the questioning, i can't think of the correct question to warrant a satisfiable responce. you only need to know stuff accordingly as to what it is in the christian teaching, i guess is what i mean. I think maybe i was a little unfair with this sort of generalistic statement, but its just a feature of not really needing to know after a certain point (as to the syllabus) which can be frustrating. i think prehaps i was a little niave thinking i could get more answers from a class where your taught to think.
anyway
phoebe
(no subject)