Recent Responses

While reading through some questions in the religious section, I came across Peter Smith saying [http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/2250/], "What is it with the obsession of (much) contemporary organized religions with matters of sexuality? It really is pretty bizarre. And for sure, if some of the energy wasted on pruriently fussing about who gets to do what with whom and where were spent campaigning on issues of social justice, say, then the world would be a better place. But I digress ...". Can any philosophers, including Peter Smith, tell me if my reasoning is valid regarding this (or come up with their own reasoning as to why an organized religion would have such rules): There are several reasons why organized religions could be "obsessed" about matters of sexuality, about "who gets to do what with whom and where" etc. 1. Disease: STD's are horrible, and the AIDs crisis in Africa is a good example as to why an organized religion might stress sexual relations with only one partner to whom you are married (you can also come at this by saying the Church should support the use of condoms, but note that it is largely only one church that is denying the use of condoms in Africa). 2. The imperative and teaching that you ought to stick with one partner in life, and not commit adultery or have multitudes of sexual partners helps one psychologically in relationships. For example, if one knows that one's wife/husband has slept with 100 other people in their life, one may experience some doubts about oneself and about one's partner, whether they are valid or not, they still occur. The constant harping of the church on staying loyal to one's spouse is hard to understand at times, but I'll leave that to the professionals to dissect, as clearly to be sexually free and unburdened by the "obsession" of the church is far better. 3. It promotes relational stability. A Jewish professor of mine said that his marriage was greatly helped by the great sex he and his wife shared, which was enhanced by their religious beliefs. Every sabbath they not only made time for God, prayer and family, but for each other romantically. If you are having your desires and needs fulfilled outside of the marriage or relationship, this only hurts it. So in these senses it seems religions have good reason to be involved or "obsessed" for the well-being of their people. I would agree with anyone who showed how some rules could be oppressive to a gender or sexual orientation, as I am writing this as a gay man. But on the whole, to be dismissive of such rules or teachings seems unthoughtful.

Peter Smith August 13, 2010 (changed August 13, 2010) Permalink Of course we might expect religions to take issues about sexual life and conduct seriously (though with some due sense of proportion, compared with other matters, like issues of social justice -- and it is the seemingly too prevalent lack of that sense of proportion that prompted my passing rem... Read more

Justice Religion

I am an atheist fully in favour of a secular society. However I have recently been alarmed by the burka ban recently put in place by the French government. This to me seems at best to be a draconian, knee jerk reaction to something that effects a very small number of people (apparently 1,900 women in France) and at worst thinly veiled racism. I am in no way in favour of the burka or any form of religious dress, but a carpet ban seems to me to be wrong. Surely it is better to live in a society in which such things are allowed, in the hope that one day the people wearing the burka feel they no longer need to. It is often cited as a reason for the ban that it stops oppression of muslim women, but it seems that taking away the option to wear something is a form of oppression also. As an atheist who wishes for as secular a society as possible, am I justified to be concerned about such a law and people lobbying for a similar ban in Britain?

Sean Greenberg August 13, 2010 (changed August 13, 2010) Permalink It should be noted, first, that there is considerable disagreement even in the French Parliament regarding the ban on the wearing of the burqa; it has been suggested that the ban is a political ploy on the part of French President Nicolas Sarkozy. (For more on the internal disagreement rega... Read more

Logic

What makes an argument "good"? Is there more to a good argument than raw persuasive power? Does a good argument have to support the right conclusion? For example, might the ontological argument be a good argument for theism even if theism is false?

Eric Silverman August 19, 2010 (changed August 19, 2010) Permalink The term 'good' is notoriously ambiguous. However, I often tell my students that a goal for their arguments should be that an intelligent, well-informed person with no strong pre-existing opinion on the matter would find it convincing. Thus, a 'good' argument could have a conclusion that is... Read more

Logic

What does the term primitive mean in logic? Is it something predicated to an item or concept to denote that this item cannot be any further explained or reduced to still more concepts?

Sean Greenberg August 13, 2010 (changed August 13, 2010) Permalink Primitive terms in logic are, indeed, those that cannot be defined further, they are basic starting points--like axioms in Euclid's geometry. It seems to me, however, that questions can and indeed are raised about the nature of these primitives. Are they necessary truths? Are they simply... Read more

Environment Value

Does nature have any meaning? I guess the scientists who like to study the stars and the physical chemists who like to study things at the quantum level find something meaningful in nature. But those people usually say that their isn't any kind of ultimate purpose found in nature.

Sean Greenberg August 13, 2010 (changed August 13, 2010) Permalink In "Brains in a Vat," the first essay of his book, Reason, Truth, and History, the philosopher Hilary Putnam considers a thought experiment, according to which an ant crawling along the sand produces what would appear to be an image of Winston Churchill. He asks whether this image would cou... Read more

Religion Science

I really don't understand what the big deal is with the apparent 'fine tuning' of the constants of the universe, or even if 'fine tuning' is even apparent! The conditions have to be just right for life to emerge, sure, but so what? Conditions have to be just right for many things in the universe to occur, but we don't always suspect an outside agent as responsible for setting them up that way just so they'll happen. Is this the final refuge of the 'god of the gaps' habit the humans tend to fall in to? I also don't get the need for a multiverse theory either. To me it's a bit like saying, because I rolled a six on a die there must be five others each rolling the other possible numbers in order to explain it. Okay, much bigger die....

Andrew Pessin August 12, 2010 (changed August 12, 2010) Permalink let me add a bit more in favor of the argument here ... we do tend to believe that certain very improbable things do not occur by chance -- poker/slot machine analogies common -- if your friend gets five royal flushes in a row you'd almost certainly be pulling your piece on him -- the fine tu... Read more

Justice Religion

I am an atheist fully in favour of a secular society. However I have recently been alarmed by the burka ban recently put in place by the French government. This to me seems at best to be a draconian, knee jerk reaction to something that effects a very small number of people (apparently 1,900 women in France) and at worst thinly veiled racism. I am in no way in favour of the burka or any form of religious dress, but a carpet ban seems to me to be wrong. Surely it is better to live in a society in which such things are allowed, in the hope that one day the people wearing the burka feel they no longer need to. It is often cited as a reason for the ban that it stops oppression of muslim women, but it seems that taking away the option to wear something is a form of oppression also. As an atheist who wishes for as secular a society as possible, am I justified to be concerned about such a law and people lobbying for a similar ban in Britain?

Knowledge Perception

Hi my question is about what we know about things we know because they are what they are or we know because they are what we perceive them to be. I came to thinking about this when I was thinking of spinning a cube fast enough to appear to be a sphere. The problem I had was that if what we know about things is gathered by how we perceive them, i.e. through empirical investigation, then the sphere/cube problem would lead to a contradiction in conclusions as one group of people (those that see the cube in motion) would say that it is a sphere whilst another group of people (those that see the stationary cube) would say that it is a cube. So our knowledge of things cannot have come from how we perceive them as our perceptions are obviously misleading and can lead to contradictions. This leads me to think that what is is separate to what our minds perceive or what our minds think is but then I come across the problem of the gap between reality and our minds. How do our minds detect what actually is in reality without some sort of perception and therefore not coming across my first problem? If everything that is is not actually some sort of perception, how do we know anything? And if everything we know is actually some sort of perception, how do we know that anything we know is actually knowledge and now just a certain perception?

Andrew Pessin August 12, 2010 (changed August 12, 2010) Permalink Wow, fantastic email -- getting at the heart of some major philosophical ideas and movements. Empiricists tend to stress the role of perception/experience in producing knowledge, while rationalists tend to promoe the role of reason, often arguing on the basis of such considerations as those... Read more

Religion Science

I really don't understand what the big deal is with the apparent 'fine tuning' of the constants of the universe, or even if 'fine tuning' is even apparent! The conditions have to be just right for life to emerge, sure, but so what? Conditions have to be just right for many things in the universe to occur, but we don't always suspect an outside agent as responsible for setting them up that way just so they'll happen. Is this the final refuge of the 'god of the gaps' habit the humans tend to fall in to? I also don't get the need for a multiverse theory either. To me it's a bit like saying, because I rolled a six on a die there must be five others each rolling the other possible numbers in order to explain it. Okay, much bigger die....

Ethics

I'm not specifically sure how to word this question, so please pardon my lack of eloquence. What, if any, moral responsibility do we have to those who had hurt us deeply, say, someone who has cheated on their spouse? Should we forgive and forget? Just forgive but never forget? Ought we treat them normally, or is it ethical to hold a grudge? How does one ethically/morally handle the rest of the relationship, whatever it may be, when one has been significantly betrayed?

Sean Greenberg August 16, 2010 (changed August 16, 2010) Permalink I wanted to add some remarks on this deep and subtle question, to which Charles has very interestingly responded. What's at stake here is when, on what grounds, and if, one should grant forgiveness. This is a thorny issue that, I think, goes to the very heart of human relations."Forgive th... Read more

Recent Responses

Pages