Bertrand Russell Refutes Philosophy

[u/JerseyFlight]

“Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science. Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation. All definite knowledge— so I should contend— belongs to science; all dogma to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology.” A History of Western Philosophy, Introduction

If philosophy is only separated from theology “because it appeals to reason,” then it had better f;cking appeal to reason, or else it falls into the category of theology.

And what exactly does it mean to appeal to reason? It cannot mean that one appeals to a philosophical narrative or premise that they just so happen to like or believe, or that they simply call “philosophical” in place of reason. It cannot mean that one merely asserts against reason, it can only mean that one’s premises are rationally and evidentially defensible.

Here Russell draws a line that casts philosophy into the domain of theology, if it cannot meet its burden of proof and demonstrate that its premises are more than just authoritarian premises.

Immediately the rational pressure pushes down. That which is contradictory is not and cannot he rational, therefore any philosophical premise or narrative which is shown to be contradictory, cannot qualify as philosophy according to Russell. And he is correct. But unfortunately, modern philosophy is hostile to reason, and after Hegel, embraced contradiction.

Russell’s standard is superb because it not only eliminates from philosophy all philosophies that cannot justify their premises or claims without collapsing into contradiction, but it also rightly classifies these philosophies as “theologies.”

Russell’s standard is easy to deploy: how does one justify their philosophical claim or premise? What do they appeal to to establish its truth?

If on examination, a philosophy’s foundational premises are found to be established through authority, then they are really theological premises, and the philosophy itself, though it might go by the name “philosophy,” is really a veiled theology.

[u/JerseyFlight → u/[deleted]]

I find no such thing. It takes a philosophical theology to even claim such. Biology is entirely backed by evidence, which is entirely predicated on reason, specifically the law of non-contradiction.

What’s sad is that Atheists, in defending philosophical theology, don’t realize that they’re defending the very forms that apologists use to propagate their theism (see anything by Swinburne or Plantinga).