USA Goes to War Against Iran

There can only be one true religion guys thats just math! which one is it?

It's quickly going to become semantic but yes philosophy of religion is about logic and truth with much of it very interesting. But there is no logical path form logic/truth to 'better'. Maybe a religion with lots of false beliefs and internal logical contradictions is 'better'. It's even possible for a religion that contains false internal logical inconsistencies to be the true religion (in the sense that there is a god and this what he want us to believe and do our best to follow even if we must fail because of the inconsistencies) . There is an argument that believing the most ridiculous things is important because it demonstrates faith - made for comic purposes but there's no logic that's going to prove or disprove it as being 'better'. There's also the logical possibility that different religions are better for different people - again independently of the logic/truth of each religion

These points are themselves philosophical and about religion but it's maybe a fun bit of a tutorial and more likely for down the pub.

Apologetics HAS been basically banished from mainstream academia and religious people complain constantly about prestigious universities treat their religion.

Open, closed, open closed......

I haven’t followed this thread in a while, saw this, saw 23/100 posts were made by people I don’t have on ignore and was excited to see if the other 77 lived up to the hype

Oh boy did it ever

Fantastic work by everyone involved. Truly the worst page of posting 2+2 has ever seen

If I have done nothing else of substance in the pol forum, and plenty of people, including myself, would argue I haven’t, at least I outted paintrape’s alt

There can logically be at most be one true religion.

If true, that's a sad commentary on mainstream academia.

Like a clock that doesn't work at all being right exactly twice a day. 😀

What did you win?

I'd argue there can logically be at most one Divine Essence, but many religions can point toward it. Perennialism for instance: different maps, same territory. Thomism works too. As related to the thread I don't have an issue with Sufism. Currently reading "Behold the Spirit" by Alan Watts, though.

No, you think it’s correct that academia has standards too high for Muslim or Hindu or even Christian apologists who believe in the infancy gospels to meet.

When truth is told, we all win. (Except you, in this case.)

theology is philosophical, how one makes sense of the world at a fundamental level

faith is personal/spiritual, how one finds their place in the world

religion is political, how one governs oneself in light of the former two

That seems very wrong

Somewhat coincides with the three fundamental questions of philosophy:

1. What am I? (Metaphysics)

2. What can I know? (Epistemology)

3. What ought I do? (Ethics)

How so?

By appealing to the word possible you are introducing modal language in which case you would need to actually define your modal scope and systems prior to your invocation of the term. Now if that’s true, then if your notion is a logical modality, you would first have to allow true contradictions before the true religion could contain contradictions, and those contradictions have to be such that it would allow for a substantive notion of true contradictions and not just true contradictions in the case of the liar’s paradox for instance.

Now when someone said that people debate about which religion is “better” I assumed that they were referring to which religion is correct, and not which religion was more instrumentally beneficial to a person or which religion a person preferred. I was thinking they meant that people debated about which religion corresponds to reality or which religion someone should adopt if they care about believing the true religion, not which religion serves the purpose of living a decent life. If it’s the latter, then there is an epistemic possibility that the religion that leads to the most decent life relative to the values and goals of the person following it would be a completely nonsensical religion that doesn’t say anything that corresponds to reality.

Actually there is a biblical scholar Dan Mcclellan that is a mormon but thinks mormonism is completely nonsensical because he was drawn to it for other reasons. But certainly if you felt that way you’ve kind of taken yourself out of the game of the “correct” religion. at least for anyone that accepted classical logic and the way metaphysics is discussed in analytic philosophy.

There’s two very popular theories of truth, deflationary and correspondence. I don’t think we need to stipulate a truth semantic to have this discussion.

Source in case you doubt: https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey...

there is also necessary truth, which is kind of the whole point behind this terrible derail

eta your link has "epistemic truth" with seems like only a slightly more redundant term than mine; sorry, carry on

If that's the US and your name is Doyle or John, then it's "Nah, man, it was totally a mistake. Trust me, bro. I got the muh feels."

Long, short, long, short...

The issue is that once you start basing what’s true on each person’s own definition of truth, their assumptions about reality, or whether they interpret claims as literal or symbolic, it just becomes something that’s in the eye of the beholder and nothing more.

Why couldn't God accept Jews, christians and Muslims? Hey guys, you didn't quite get it right but got in the ballpark and did the best you could with what you know. Same could go for any religion. You guys did the best with what you had to work with and followed your beliefs as best you could, welcome in.
Seems completely illogical to me for people to be punished based off where they were born and the culture they grew up in. Like 99.99% chance whatever your flavor of belief is is not the "one true religion" but if by some unlikely scenario there is some judgement to get to heaven, I think you'll get a pass if you follow your belief for the right reasons. Although a bit of a black mark on your record voting for Trump 3 times if helping your fellow man is part of your belief.

I don’t think people are doing that, unless they have a relative theory of truth.

Edit: anyway sorry to derail the topic of the thread. I just found it peculiar that victor seems to be embracing Islamist language for some reason.