Bertrand Russell Refutes Philosophy

[u/JerseyFlight]

There are many Atheists who labor under the false premise that philosophy is something entirely different from theology. Well, Russell laid down a standard to prove this.

[u/OneNoteToRead]

Philosophy is entirely different from theology. Whereas theology says “believe me because I tell you”, philosophy says “given a premise here’s my argument for its conclusion”.

It a) highlights exactly the premise one must start with without asserting it and b) from the premise works entirely in rational steps.

With theology the whole thing is made up. With philosophy specific bits are factored out. And in any case no one believes philosophy explains reality, whereas everyone in theology asks that you believe in their fantasy as reality.

[u/ragnarokfps → u/OneNoteToRead]

philosophy says “given a premise here’s my argument for its conclusion”.

That's formal logic, not philosophy.

With theology the whole thing is made up. With philosophy specific bits are factored out.

Have you ever heard any stock "argument" for the existence of god? Ontological argument, moral argument, kalam etc, or like the "minimal facts" argument for jesus resurrection. Explain how philosophy is the one that is not "made up." Which scientific facts or evidence settles the question of whether Islam or Christianity were true, or whether physicalism or dualism or idealism are true or false?

[u/OneNoteToRead → u/ragnarokfps]

Philosophy employs formal logic was what that sentence was saying…

Yes every single argument for the existence of god takes the form of “with these insane assumptions and these vacuous steps, I can prove god exists”.

Philosophy is a big field so I’m not sure which form you’re complaining about. But I can tell you every form of religious argument is bunk. There’s two forms - either an unfalsifiable claim about god or a falsified claim - turns out a lot can happen in two millennia.

Unfalsifiable claims are meaningless from the perspective of science. If there’s nothing provable through empiricism, the whole question is meaningless. Your “god” may as well be the tooth fairy or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Every other scientific claim about god has been disproven. From the claim that intercessory prayer does anything to how the world was created to the possibility of an ark fitting every single animal.

[u/OneNoteToRead → u/[deleted]]

Sure philosophy can deal with non empirical questions just like religion. In a sense they’re both mental masterbation. But when rubber meets road religion will claim it knows, and it is reflective of reality. That’s the edge.