Replies

Even in philosophy one must have logical reasoning to back up one's beliefs. Otherwise it becomes irrational epistemology. One does have the freedom to choose this as their preferred philosophy though.

Philosophy is the argument for proof of faith and belief in things unknown. None have ever produced proof and all have been refuted also by argument. Of 400 religions which is proved or disproved by argument. Don't they all make the argument that each is the only truth.

This is a common misconception.
Faith falls under a category known as epistemology mistakes. Epistemology mistakes lead to "irrational epistemology", which supposedly leads to impaired functioning of the mind.
Arguments for God fall under mystical metaphysics. Many ideas regarding any form of Deity have no basis in reality. Greek myths are a good example of this. The FSM would be as well. Text book explanations of philosophy would also include God. I do wonder how historical records of Jesus's existence and early Christianity would affect this though, as there can be made a logical argument for his existence at least.

I am a Christian, so I suppose some would say that I am guilty of having an irrational epistemology. I do not believe so, but then again, I'm not convinced the text book reasoning is completely correct. However, it could also be that I'm choosing to believe in spite of rationale. I do find it interesting that many of the values that we hold to be moral solely on philosophical reasoning are also consistent with Christian values. As for the Ten Commandments, the first three deal with showing reverence for God, the other seven are also in line with values that philosophy has determined to be beneficial to life and happiness. Philosophy of Religion is different from philosophy in general. It is reasoned, though, that religion gave birth to philosophy which gave birth to science. Science was originally philosophy of nature. They are all linked, but have become separate. Sometimes I'm not sure that is completely beneficial. It seems that one can not attempt to integrate the three without being declared null by one of their proponents. Now, instead of functioning together to develop well rounded observation and perspective, they compete for superiority, and attempt to usurp each other.