Why are modern philosophers so reluctant to discuss the Creator and the process of Creation? [closed]

Question

I would like to understand why people become so defensive as soon as philosophical discussion gets into the areas covering things beyond our known reality.

Why do questions related to God or other 'Creator' concepts become so ideological?

Answer 1

It has very little to do with God, creator, even religion.
And everything to do with the history (and geography) of Christianity.

Notice the profile of secularism in politics and you will see a curious spectacle

US

Trump/Republicans are right wing and have warm relations with the (evangelical) Church

UK

Cross the pond and the Labor-Tory divide is very little one way or other to do with the Church

France

Le Pen is "far right". And rigorously secular.
Hmmm... What gives??

The answer happens when you reach Rome

Italy

Secularism is so paramount that Italy carved a piece of its own flesh out of its heart and said: Vatican?! Please be a separate state!! We respect the Pope. But kindly lay off our politics!

All this can be expanded to centuries of history.

The Short version

As you came closer to Rome the domineering increased. (In the past)

And hence the reaction. (Still continues!)

In short, most of secularism is a reaction to (the history of) the Papacy.

That is why US is happy flirting with religious fundamentalists — it had no bad experiences. Unlike Europe.

And Russia which had its own flavor of Christianity for one millenium has a completely different take on secularism

The Answer

So what's the answer to your question?

You think your question is philosophical. [It is]

But your listeners (at least from the western world) hear it as treading on their century old insecurities.

So they dont respond from logic (leave aside philosophy). They respond from their insecurities

Let me give you an example:

Richard Dawkins

Dawkins is a famous current atheist. He makes the case that it is absurd that there are some 25 seats in the UK parliament reserved for Anglican bishops.

Fair enough.

But is that a philosophical point? Or a political one?

I'd argue its not even a very political one like Is democracy or socialism better?

Its a very specific local argument in current day UK politics. Who are you fooling when you make it sound like a grand philosophy-theology issue?

Russell

I remember a relevant anecdote which Tagore related to me years ago in Calcutta.

Tagore: I was in Cambridge then and Russell took me out for a morning walk. We were passing by a Catholic Church where a choir was singing. I suggested going in to hear the beautiful hymns.

Russel: No, thank you!

The hymns and incense and coloured glasses make me confess to feelings my intellect does not approve ; I want to keep my mental sky clear of the mystic clouds.

Among the Great

Clearly Russell is not saying he is not religious (a cognitive point) but he doesn't want to be emotionally affected.

Also people in those days and so atheists in particular were more honest than today — compare Russell and Dawkins.

Answer 2

I don't know that there's a broad reluctance or defensiveness. And any of that might exist for a variety of reasons, such as:

• Some people might disagree with a theist's reasoning, which may be perceived as defensiveness (whether it is or not).

• Some people might see a lack of practical implications of certain god concepts (e.g. deism or pantheism), and thus aren't inclined to discuss that.

• Some people might feel strongly about their opposition to the idea given their perception of the harm caused by specific religious beliefs or religion and magical thinking more broadly (which is of course distinct from reasons to believe that any given religion is true or justified).

• Of course, on the other side of things, theists might have their entire sense of identity ingrained into their religious belief, and they commonly believe there are eternal consequences to hanging onto that belief. So that can certainly cause a lot of reluctance or defensiveness if someone's challenging that.

  And the line between defensive and aggressive is blurry, so defensiveness on one side may feed into defensiveness on the other side.

• People may also feel that any given god-related topic is outside of the scope of what they want to talk about or outside the scope of whatever platform is being used.

Answer 3

In the western world, discussing gods has moved to theology since naturalism and science left too few gaps to require a single god of the gaps. There are no miracles observed often enough (or at all) to be subject to scrutiny or further philosophic thinking.

Morality is based on secular values and reasoning while religions are based on scriptures of predominantly sexist, racist, superstitious nature. As in God wants you to mutilate your body, not shave, not eat during special times, avoid eating pork, wear a funny little hat, hide your face, obey your fascist parents, marry a person you don't love, deny your sexuality, pray only to that one god, not wear condoms and so on...

The plurality of religions in a globalized world each with their own scriptures prevents any useful philosophical discussion on scripture.

Therefore discussing gods now mostly looks like marketing for this cult or that trying to recruit members.

Another reason might be that through science, humanity has accumulated so much knowledge to study that a single lifetime is not nearly enough to be an expert in many things, and that leaves philosophers little time to study the traditions, scriptures and superstitions of this cult or that, as they would do in the past.

The churches are also not powerful enough anymore to gatekeep funds or rights to publish, so philosophers in the west don't have to produce writings to appease churches anymore.

But if one misses those days, in several Islamic countries I would assume secular education and ideology to be so low that philosophers might still be writing about gods, and how to best kill unfaithful spouses or commit acts of terror in the name of God to faithfully follow scripture.