The Deity Dillemma

We've been discussing a lot lately, (in class and on the blogs) about the aspect of philosophers who incorporate a deity to answer questions which seem to lead to no logical answer.  Obviously, for those who rigorously and logically analyze theories, this can be problematic.  My question is this; what should be done? I would like to think that some of the greatest philosophers that used God, or some kind of metaphysical mystery to convey an idea (Kant, or Aristotle's unmoved mover, etc) could not possibly conceive a better way in which to explain their theory.

Should theories that reach this point be thrown out?  Published for further criticism and advancement?  Or can their be a silver lining of truth in a theory that takes this form?

Kant on Perspective

As we discussed in class this week, Kant took the classic view of the world around us- namely, that we perceive what is around us- and posed the converse idea, that what we perceive is what the world is entirely.  
How does this seemingly subjective claim (everyone's mind is different) fit in with his objective theory of morality?

Response to Deven's Post, "A Question On Social Darwinism."

I would like to tentatively say that one of your main points was this:  The fact that Social Darwinism in the political sphere perpetuates the more vicious qualities of a society, (and it could be said that it has an overall negative affect on society) does not change the fact that Darwin's theory itself has not been scientifically proven.  

If I am correct in this assertion, I would like to concur with your statement, and add that, to (loosely) quote Hume, and 'is does not make an ought.'  Just because numerous facets of Darwin's theory have been scientifically proven over centuries of research does not necessarily entail that this theory projects a normative 'ought' on other systems that exist within our world- political systems especially.

Darwin's Wife

I noticed in the chapter on Darwin, that he refused to discuss his theories with his wife, out of respect for the amount of religious faith she incorporated into her life- moreover, as Pojman recalls, Darwin hesitated to publish his Origin of Species for the same reason; the effect it may have one other religiously minded people.

This post is not focused on the metaphysical comparisons between evolution and religion, nor is it concerned with the ethics of the usage (or lack thereof) of information   What I am really getting at here, is the reason for Darwin's hesitation to publish his theory.

While it is very reasonable to suspect fear of persecution as the primary motive (and I am not aware that Darwin himself was or was not persecuted after publishing) I would pose the question; did Darwin feel that his theory detracted from the presence of morality in a given society?

Is assigning a subjective purpose to one’s life still a ‘condemnation’ of free will?

Sartre claims that we are 'condemned to free will.'  Namely, because humans have no purpose in their lives, beginning with accidental origin, and ending with, presumably, a series of freely selected actions, void of purpose, which lead to death.

I would like to think that humans are capable of assigning themselves their own purpose.  In Sartre's view, God does not exist, nor does an objective autonomous good exist.  Does this not mean that a subjective worldview of what is good cannot intrinsically allocate purpose to the life of an individual?  Or would Sartre merely say that subjective purpose would give anyone purpose for doing anything, and therefore, when every action is purposeful, no action is?

Response to Deven's post (of my post on his original post).

I agree, this is an interesting conversation to have.  I'm not sure if I worded my prior response to your first post poorly, but I'm pretty sure we agree- that religious texts should be treated as literary fiction- which was what I asserted in my last post.

I apologize if it was interpreted the other way- I was trying to say that looking at, for example, the Bible, in a historical context would be logically poor decision, because, it cannot and should not be treated as such, for obvious reasons.  I've never compared the Bible to a Dickens' novel, but I guess the level of analysis and the extent to which the aforementioned efforts would or would not be attributed to either book by a particular individual for a given purpose would definitely vary on the difficulty.

Like you said, and I agree, that since there is no hard evidence that Jesus existed, treating the Bible as literary fiction does not infringe upon the lessons one can take from a story.  Speaking from personal experience, religion is much more enjoyable and much less polarizing when one concentrates on how to live personally, rather than worry about the overarching metaphysical claims that are also associated with it, the beliefs of others, or of course, claims involving the historical accuracy of anything at all in religious texts.

Response to Deven's post: "Freud vs. Marx - Religion"

I would agree in your assessment of Freud and Marx's thoughts on religion.  I think you're looking at religious dogma from a very direct, logical standpoint.  I think, in this day and age especially, contemporary theologians in many prominent monotheistic religions, (Christianity and Islam, especially) have begun to look at ideological dogma from a different standpoint.

In other words, if you look at the Bible, or the Qur'an, as an historical account (and therefore, a logical analysis of a sequence of events) of what events lead up to and constituted that particular religion, of course you are going to be dissatisfied, and foolish even, to entertain the idea of that particular religion.  Its very obvious, in the Bible especially, that many events that happen are historically inaccurate.  And I'm not even referencing the metaphysical miracles- I'm simply talking about certain events in certain cities with certain people that we now know, probably didn't happen.  My suggestion would be this:

Treat religious texts like literary fiction- the importance is the lesson, the values, that emerge from the stories; not the historical accuracy of the stories themselves.  In this way, the individual can interpret the novel, and be their own literary critic.  Just because major monotheistic religions project universal dogma upon their followers does not mean that many people reject certain dogma, and critically analyze their own religion for themselves, as it is important to remember, from a theological standpoint, that religion is about God, and not the other way around.