Philosophy is the handmaiden to theology. Good philosophy is essential to good theology, and to the Good life. Every man may be a philosopher by nature, but not everyone actually knows anything about philosophy beyond Monty Python (not a bad start, actually) and an introductory course they attended infrequently as a college freshman. One of my philosophy professors once told us, “when you’re at a cocktail party and someone asks what you studied in college, don’t say philosophy…just tell them you paint houses. People say crazy things to philosophy majors.” It is comments like these that he may have had in mind.
1. “So here’s one for ya’…if a tree falls in the woods and there’s no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?”
You’re confusing epistemology with ontology. Not sure what those words mean? You should take a philosophy course from Holy Apostles and Seminary.
2. “I decided to get a degree in something useful”
Philosophy is not useful, nor is it practical. That’s why it’s so necessary. It doesn’t just equip one for this or that trade or some particular skill, but for the serious business of the human experience. Economics? Puh! Try human being!
3. “So when are you going back to school?”
The Good, True, and Beautiful are contemplated for their own sake. But yeah…I’m still in school. And loving it (!) at Holy Apostles College & Seminary.
4. “Like, ‘I think therefore I am’ and all that?”
Sure.
5. “Pretty sure I got an A in the philosophy class I slept through in college.”
No comment.
6. “I bet you regret that choice of degree in this economy, eh?”
Actually, no. Check it out. Philosophers know how to think, which tends to be, you know, handy. You can’t avoid philosophy…but you can do it badly. So it would be wise to study it properly. May I suggest Holy Apostles College and Seminary?
7. “Hey have you heard this one? You know who the last guy to get any use out of a philosophy degree was? Your philosophy professor!”
I have heard it, in fact. The guy that told it to me? My philosophy professor.
8. “You know what they say, ‘philosophy bakes no bread'”
Remember when Jesus said, “Man does not live by bread alone” (Matt 4:4) and “I AM the Bread of Life” (John 6:35)? Yeah, that was awesome.
9. “But how can we ever really know anything, anyway…you know?”
https://i.imgur.com/4Nh2NHC.gif
Are you sure about that? REALLY sure?
10. “Science eliminates the need for philosophy”
You do realize that when you say that YOU’RE DOING PHILOSOPHY!
11. “Let me tell you my philosophy…”
If you are interested in pursuing studies or a degree in philosophy or theology, we strongly recommend the distance programs at Holy Apostles College & Seminary. You’ll receive a fantastic education from outstanding and dedicated professors! Take a look…
https://youtu.be/p_Sd8XO3QS8
Ryan–
Reading your post and then looking at your Bio might I suggest you get out of your Catholic bubble as part of your study?
Because it seems your education, and therefore your perspective, is a little one-sided.
On the other hand:
cminca-Thanks for reading Epic Pew! Based on your Disqus commenting history it seems you’re not Catholic. Does that make you “biased” and “one-sided”? You might be surprised at the backgrounds of the contributors to this site…most of us are converts. But yes, I have a strong background in philosophy and Catholic theology and medical ethics, thanks for noticing. 😉
Ryan–my mistake–your background and outlook isn’t “a little one-sided.”
It is fully constipated.
Otherwise you wouldn’t automatically equate “non-Catholic” with uneducated and wrong.
over and out
See kids, we philosophy majors call this an “ad hominim”. Usually when someone is angry and doesn’t know quite what to say, they just attack the other person rather than offer anything constructive or interesting. We might also say it’s a variation on “poisoning the well” (“you’re Catholic and therefore “one-sided” so anything you say is irrational”). Are you taking notes? Cuz there’s a quiz next week. It’s unfortunate that some commenters spend so much time treating other people this way in com-boxes. We at Epic Pew find it especially sad, since we have so much Epic stuff to talk about.
Best response to troll…ever. You win one (1) internets for the day.
Ryan–
Correct–it is called “ad hominim”.
When you never addressed my remark that your education has been from NOTHING BUT CATHOLIC sources but decided to attack me (calling me biased and one-sided because I’m not Catholic) that is indeed an “ad hominim” attack.
Or, like “persecution”, is it only “ad hominim” when it is–allegedly–pointed at you?
I think you need to re-read that conversation…I didn’t call you “biased and one-sided”, I simply asked if you would also call yourself “biased and one-sided” since you’re not Catholic (I wouldn’t say that of you, since I don’t know you and since it would be irrelevant to the content of what you have to say). Yes, I have been so blessed to have the education I have, that has included a wide-range of topics in philosophy and theology. How about we have a conversation!
I think you should re-read.
1. My comment: “Because it seems your education, and therefore your perspective, is a little one-sided.” The subject of the comment was your education, not you personally.
2. Your comment: “…it seems you’re not Catholic. Does that make you “biased” and “one-sided”? ” The question is clearly rhetorical and your implication is that as a non Catholic I must be biased.
3. I stated: “Otherwise you wouldn’t automatically equate “non-Catholic” with uneducated and wrong.” Had you not meant to do so you would have sought to correct the misunderstanding instead of pontificating for your fawning public.
And you’re a teacher?
I think you’re assuming the worst in me, friend. I was simply asking if you would also consider yourself to be “biased” since you’re not Catholic, since you called my perspective “biased” for having been educated in Catholic institutions. Just asking why the “bias” seems to only go one way. I don’t assume that of you, though, since I don’t know you.
Ok…let’s move on. I’m afraid this is taking away from all the Epic stuff we could be talking about! Let me know what you’d like to have an honest dialogue about! I’d be more than happy to have a conversation with you! Peace!
“…since you called my perspective “biased” for having been educated in Catholic institutions.”
Actually–you might want to notice that I never called your perspective “biased”. If you’d actually read my original comment–you’d notice that I used the word “seems” (my comment was voiced as an opinion) “a little (this is known as as a “grammatical modifier”) one-sided”
My point–if you ever wanted to actually understand or address it–was that with all of your education you were studying theology and/or philosophy solely at Catholic universities.
You wouldn’t expect a scientist to get undergrad, graduate, and doctorate degrees in the same subject all at the same university. Why do you think it is appropriate to have all of your studies approach the subject from one non-objective and yes, biased, stand point? Remember—not only does the CC have a vested interest in maintaining their philosophical status but they have significant financial interest in maintaining their credibility as well. If you want to be an apologist, that is fine. But I don’t understand how you can claim to understand a subject as subjective as theology or philosophy if you’ve only ever been taught “this side is the right side”.
“You wouldn’t expect a scientist to get undergrad, graduate, and doctorate degrees in the same subject all at the same university.”
Why not? I see no problem with that.
“Why do you think it is appropriate to have all of your studies approach the subject from one non-objective and yes, biased, stand point?”
You’re assuming a lot about my background here. I clearly disagree that theology and philosophy are “subjective” and I know (as only I can) that my educational experience was not “one-sided” (I’m not sure how you would even claim to know that). I just don’t think any of what you’re saying is applicable or even relevant.
“Why not? I see no problem with that.”
’nuff said.
“I clearly disagree that theology and philosophy are “subjective”…”
“Subjective is a statement that has been colored by the character of the speaker or writer. It often has a basis in reality, but reflects the perspective through with the speaker views reality. It cannot be verified using concrete facts and figures.” https://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-objective-and-subjective/#ixzz3Oe727HsI
If you’d like to back up your theological or philosophical claims with concrete facts and figures please proceed to do so. You can start with the divinity of Christ.
“I just don’t think any of what you’re saying is applicable or even relevant.”
You’ve made it clear you can’t or won’t read for comprehension so all I can say is I’m not surprised.
You seem to want to say that I think it’s acceptable to have a narrow view of a topic, which of course I don’t. Theology and philosophy are not “subjective” because they both use reason to come to knowledge. They use facts in propositions to arrive at conclusions. I agree that when they don’t they’re being done poorly. I think we clearly disagree concerning the nature of philosophy and theology as subjects. I don’t merely mean that I’m interested in theology and you’re not…I mean that I don’t think you understand what the study of theology and philosophy actually entail, as evidenced by the last comment. The divinity of Christ…awesome question. Maybe one of us will write a post about it! Stay tuned!
“You seem to want to say that I think it’s acceptable to have a narrow view of a topic, which of course I don’t.” The evidence would suggest otherwise
“They use facts in propositions to arrive at conclusions.” That is not the same thing as “verifiable by concrete facts and figures.”
“I mean that I don’t think you understand what the study of theology and philosophy actually entail, as evidenced by the last comment.” And I’d say that, when it comes to religion, you don’t understand the difference between fact and faith. Wanting something to be true doesn’t make it so. Even when you have 2000 years of a global, vastly wealthy bureaucracy telling you it does.
Not all that is true are things “verifiable by concrete facts & figures.” Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but in any event it defies quantification. Empiricism is not really a philosophy, rather it is the systematic denial of all that cannot be reduced to the concrete, verifiable fact, to use your phrase. The flaw is that invariably it is selective; there are few empiricists willing to deny the existence of beauty, love, joy, just to name a few.
If God could be examined under a microscope, He wouldn’t be God, by definition. I experienced this as a young man when in a conversation with a priest who loved to teach I allowed that, “I just don’t understand the Trinity,” to which he replied kindly, “David, in order to comprehend God, you would have to BE God.”
St. Thomas, whose work is still in print 740 years after his death, was able to show by reason the necessity for God, which we refer to as his five “proofs”, although they are not empirical.
In all seriousness, we love talking about the Catholic faith here. So if you’re interested in doing so, let’s! But “hit and run” comments aren’t constructive. Let’s talk!
“In all seriousness” I’m sure you do love talking about the Catholic faith. As long as no one ever questions it.
You could try, just for the fun of it. Just to see what he’d say.
I do! I’m a teacher and my favorite days in class are when someone asks a question at the beginning of class that leads to a great discussion! Ask away!
Fine–
In the run up to the Iraq war Cheney’s office leaked fake “proof” of WMD to the New York Times. He then went on the Sunday talk shows and reiterated the fake information. As backup to his lies he quoted the NYT.
How is that any different that a modern philosopher or Catholic claiming that the CC has proven Gods existence (due to arguments developed by Aquinas) and then use, as proof, Aquinas?
Butting in, but . . . you do know that Aquinas based his writings on the writings of others, right? His Contra Gentiles, for example, is full of references to both scripture, and the philosophers who he studied.
The argument still holds.
Someone is supposedly “proving” a point about a particular opinion by quoting people who agree with the opinion. Doesn’t make it real. It is still an opinion.
I’m not sure what you mean…I said the Church teaches that God’s existence can be known by reason and so do I. Who is the person we’re pointing to here?
Every proposition someone holds in their mind is an opinion. The question is, is it true?
Let me clarify this for you.
The church has a history of circular “logic” which fails to be logic at all. It’s supporters believe opinion to be fact, and when asked for proof of the “fact” spout opinion and claim it to be fact because one of the “big thinkers” of the church said so.
Aquinas is considered a “big thinker”. Why? Because for hundreds of years the Catholic Church has been telling us so.
The Catholic Church for hundreds of years has been telling us Aquinas is a big thinker. Why? Because they based their theology on his thinking.
And around and around and around and around……
“The church has a history of circular “logic”.”
No, it doesn’t.
I stated that baldly to give you an example of what you are doing: stating your opinions as if they were fact. I’d be happy to see you provide a reasoned argument to support your assertion, but simply saying that the Church has a history of circular logic does not, in fact, prove your assertion, and is not an argument or apologia we can discuss.
The most basic facts of Christianity are found in the Bible: the existence of the characters, and the acts and life of Jesus, including his death and resurrection, raising the dead, and his other miracles.
I. personally, am a fan of the “Miracle of the Relocation Expenses.” 🙂
” I’d be happy to see you provide a reasoned argument to support your assertion, but simply saying that the Church has a history of circular logic does not, in fact, prove your assertion, and is not an argument or apologia we can discuss.”
You seem to have failed to notice that I’ve already given you one.
If you want to talk about the “facts” of a talking snake and a big boat with all the world’s animals on it and living in the stomach of a whale then I’m afraid you are play alone.
(And the “acts and life of Jesus”, who I will admit probably existed, have been subject to a LOT of translation, editing and PR spin along the way. I try and read for context rather than as historical fact.)
“You seem to have failed to notice that I’ve already given you one.”
That was my point . . . you didn’t. Simply claiming something is true, is not the same as providing a reasoned argument.
“If you want to talk about the “facts” of a talking snake and a big boat with all the world’s animals on it and living in the stomach of a whale then I’m afraid you are play alone.”
It appears that the basics of proper Biblical exegesis would also be a pre-requisite for such a conversation, and possibly some discussion of the basics of formal linguistics.
That said, if we cannot agree on the facts, there seems to be no basis for discussion at all.
First of all–I gave you the example of Aquinas. Catholics spout his theology then claim it is proven true by….Aquinas. Circular logic. A is true because B is true. B is true because A is true. Try and keep up.
Oh yes–“biblical exegesis” which, like “sola scriptura”, is used by Catholics to claim that anything they say is supportable and anyone who points out the contradictions, the cherry picking, or the down right stupidity of the position is somehow ignorant of a greater understanding of theology.
I wait for the day, John, when a conversation with a Catholic “intellect” sounds anything like the Christianity they espouse. Until then, I’ll quote Gandhi– ‘I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
“First of all–I gave you the example of Aquinas. Catholics spout his theology then claim it is proven true by….Aquinas. Circular logic. A is true because B is true. B is true because A is true. Try and keep up.”
Except, that isn’t what Catholics do. That’s why I said that that was simply an unsupported assertion, and that I would be happy to have you expand on this by providing some kind of reasoned argument in support of it. I may be in error, and I’d be happy to read your reasoning.
Some Catholics do read St. Thomas (not all, and I’d be prepared to say that not even most do), but they don’t then say “St. Thomas is true because of St. Thomas”, they say “St. Thomas provided well reasoned arguments for his conclusions, arguments that I myself am unable to falsify.”
St. Thomas himself bases his arguments in the work of Aristotle (St. Thomas considered Aristotle to be THE master philosopher, though I would reserve that title for Jesus, myself) and Scripture, so even St. Thomas’ own writings are not circular.
“Oh yes–“biblical exegesis” which, like “sola scriptura”, is used by Catholics to claim that anything they say is supportable and anyone who points out the contradictions, the cherry picking, or the down right stupidity of the position is somehow ignorant of a greater understanding of theology.”
I’m sorry if you have had a bad experience with some Catholic in the past. That said, Biblical exegesis is simply a specific form of exegesis. It is often times used in religious discourse, but is a required activity in all textual interpretation, not something specific to theological discourse.
(That said, “Sola Scriptura” is not at all like “exegesis”, and in fact, Sola Scriptura is falsifiable . . . as I am about to do as a side product . . .)
That’s where the formal linguistics comes into the picture: signs (words are a kind of sign) have no meaning. Meaning is what we bring to signs, not what we take from them. This means that the process of reading a text is inseparable from interpreting that text. It also means it is possible to bring the wrong meaning to a text. This is the benefice of the Magisterium and Apostolic Tradition: they, together, help us to bring the proper meaning to the text of the Bible.
There are many examples of this throughout human cultures and societies. The SCOTUS, for example, exists (in part) for exactly this reason: to be the authoritative interpreter of “scripture” (of the US Constitution).
The Bible, like any other text, has to have the proper meanings brought to the words within it.
“I wait for the day, John, when a conversation with a Catholic “intellect” sounds anything like the Christianity they espouse.”
My apologies, but I have no idea of what this means.
John–
You said–“Except, that isn’t what Catholics do.”
To be found on Epic Pew:
“The simplest way of explaining and proving this is to say, “St. Thomas Aquinas said it, and you cannot argue with Aquinas.””
https://epicpewsite.wpengine.com/10-facts-angels-will-blow-mind/
Q.E.D.
bye bye.
This is meant to be a joke. We like to have fun here at Epic Pew!
“First of all–I gave you the example of Aquinas. Catholics spout his theology then claim it is proven true by….Aquinas. Circular logic. A is true because B is true. B is true because A is true. Try and keep up.”
That would indeed be circular…as John said, that’s not at all the approach.
“Oh yes–“biblical exegesis” which, like “sola scriptura”, is used by Catholics to claim that anything they say is supportable and anyone who points out the contradictions, the cherry picking, or the down right stupidity of the position is somehow ignorant of a greater understanding of theology.”
I’m just gonna have to say again that you don’t seem to understand how the method of theology works, which is fine. But if this is your understanding, then all I can say is that you’ve been given misinformation.
“I wait for the day, John, when a conversation with a Catholic “intellect” sounds anything like the Christianity they espouse. Until then, I’ll quote Gandhi– ‘I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.””
What’s the saying…something about pots and kettles…cminca, we have been charitible with you and tried to clarify that a lot of what you have stated here as Christian belief or method in theology is simply mistaken. I’m sorry if you’ve encountered Christians who have not treated you with respect. I get the sense from your tone that you bear a lot of anger. But you have been quite rude in your interaction with us here and based on your Disquis comment history, it seems to be a theme in the way you interact with Christians. If you’re sincerely interested in clearing up your misconceptions about what Christians believe about the role of reason, philosophy, etc…then stay tuned to EpicPew. But frankly it seems like you come online to abuse people you disagree with. Peace. and God bless.
I came on this website and voiced an opinion about a one-sided education, for which I was called biased.
I was then (incorrectly I might add) accused of an ad-hominim attack. (As a teacher you might want to check your understanding of the term. You used it correctly. I targeted both my statements at your education. I never claimed you were a bad person. You did that to me.)
I’m told I have misconceptions about what Christians believe about the role of reason, philosophy, etc.–but the problem is that none of you believe the same thing. And when you are cornered you shift the argument. (You have never, once, acknowledged that you were wrong or rude in your original remarks.)
Pots and kettles? I’m not the one claiming to be a Christian.
I just don’t think you’ve portrayed any of that accurately. I believe it is a fact that God exists and that we can have knowledge of this through reason. You say we “spout opinion”. How is providing a logical argument “spouting an opinion”?
Ah, I see the problem. A proof by reason is not an opinion.
One may not simply dismiss such a proof, it is incumbent upon you to falsify it in some fashion.
You are claiming there is such a thing as “proof by reason”. I disagree.
In a debate the pro side has the burden of proof.
If we disagree on what reason can and cannot do, then on what basis do you propose we discuss this, or any other topic?
How are we to seek truth, if not by reason?
Based on your remark below it seems you aren’t really interested in a discussion you are trying for an “ah ha” moment.
Over and out
Good bye, and good luck. May God smile upon you.
I think that in a debate both “sides” ought to provide reasons and evidence for why they believe the one position to be stronger or more reasonable. We have proposed that there are arguments for God’s existence from reason. Are you familiar with any of these, to name a few?
Argument from Conscience
Argument from Motion
Argument from First Cause
Argument from Desire
Kalam Cosmological Argument
Are you familiar with the difference between evolution and “survival of the fittest”?
Evolution is a fact. Species evolve over time. It can be predicted, it can be tested, and scientist running the same test can expect similar results.
Survival of the fittest is a theory. It cannot be predicted, it cannot be tested, it is subject to debate.
You say that in a debate both “sides” “ought to provide reasons and evidence for why they believe the one position to be stronger or more reasonable.” You may feel that, but that is not the laws of debate. I’m sorry, but just because you are arguing for God’s existence doesn’t mean the rules don’t apply to you.
I’ve seen many Catholics use the argument of “what words mean”. Proof implies evidence. Reason does not supply evidence.
You can have all the faith you want. You cannot use the word “proof” if you don’t have the evidence. Once again, I’m sorry, but just because you are arguing for God’s existence doesn’t mean the definition doesn’t apply to you.
I’m not sure I totally understand the analogy here…but the Church doesn’t teach that God’s existence can be demonstrated “because Aquinas!”, but because it teaches that it can through reason. Aquinas was one theologian who explained some of these ways in a way that was historically and philosophically important. But the Church taught that even before Aquinas and so did other, non-Christian philosophers, such as Aristotle. I wouldn’t say “the Church has proven” God’s existence, I would say (and even the Church says this), that anyone can come to knowledge of God’s existence through reason alone, apart from the teaching of the Church.
Aquinas’ authority is not the grounding for the validity of Aquinas’ reasoning. To think otherwise shows no actual acquaintance with his thought (esp., for instance, with regard to the rational basis of theism).
One great reason for a revival of philosophy is to avoid the horrible fate of being practical and thinking that efficiency and pragmatism are suitable replacements for correct thought. Chesterton expands the idea with a wit possible only to someone who knows how to think:
https://www.chesterton.org/the-revival-of-philosophy-why/
Great list (as usual) and even greater animations! What movie is the Alan Rickman table clearing from?
I think it’s from a commercial?
A customs agent at an airport going through my luggage spotted a book and asked what it was about. I told him it was Philosophy. He was annoyed and said “What kind of a job you gonna get with that!”
HA! You should have said, “customs law”.
Pingback: The Worst Religious Violence Is a Family Affair - BigPulpit.com
Ryan, a lot of my world involves linear people like engineers. It is so refreshing to see someone who can challenge them to think, not just measure and add.
Course, it’s also fun to be the one who can read a menu in a foreign language because I didn’t spend my whole academic career studying calculus.
Here’s a final thought about majoring in Philosophy and Theology Ryan–
Why don’t you go out and try to make an honest living?
Just how much of your employer’s time did you use in posting your rants over the past few days?
It is called a salary. It happens when your boss knows you will work the hours necessary to get the work completed. You don’t work set hours. You don’t punch a clock.
Sorry if this is a foreign concept.
Last time I checked, many companies have policies about private use of the company’s Internet resources. Given your “concern” over how others here earn their living, I hope that you are following your employer’s policies to a T. After all, you wouldn’t want to be accused of hypocrisy…
I work for a very small firm that doesn’t have internet policies as long as they don’t break the law–but thanks for your concerns.
is philosophy dishonest? i mean just because they turned their daydreaming into a profession, no need to be bitter about it.
I am therefore I think.