Search the Community

The purpose of this topic is to discuss why some philosophical people feel the need to extend an olive branch to religious people. For religion rests on faith, superstition, and a metaphysical position that is anti-reality. To go against reality is to go against life, logic, and reason, and as such, religion is antithetical to philosophy. Ask yourself, would you tolerate someones opinion who wanted to make an argument to you about science and told you that his proof rested on faith? Would you tell someone that they had no place in science? What would you tell someone who’s response to you was that you shouldn’t berate or alienate people who believe that faith is part of the scientific method? To me faith has no place in philosophy, or any conversation around philosophy, just like it has in science or any of its theorems, hypothesis, or proofs. We should not make these ideas feel welcome, for this is not an aesthetic preference. This is a fundamental way on how you view reality, and therefore affects all of the branches of philosophy. People who promote philosophy are enemies of religion. We should be shaming religious ideas wherever they arise, not patting them on the back for agreeing with us on other ideas and just acting like it’s a difference of opinion on this certain issue. What are your thoughts? Should we be pragmatic and hold out olive branches and try to pull people out of a deep sticky pool of nonsense, or should we shame and isolate, hoping our leadership and non-wavering support of reason shock people out of their faith?