Quag and Angel have mutually agreed to meet here in the Philosophy forum to discuss their philosophical differences in their proper place, instead of derailing threads in other forums. (See the quoted exchange at the bottom of this thread starter.) All members of DP are invited to join them in this enterprise.
Among the topics to be discussed are:
1. logic and argument
2. morality
3. the existence of God
All philosophy begins with a question. Following Quag then (See his post below), the first question addressed in this thread is:
What is a belief and what is its role in argument?
I might have missed that discussion you two were having but will offer the following, and I'll do my best to stay within the confines of the intention of Philosophy (I've studied it, read plenty from the academia, enjoy it, but am by no means an expert... even though I did stay at a holiday inn express.)
It is reasonable to say that Philosophy starts with a question. But more importantly Philosophy seeks the *right* question in an effort to obtain new understandings, which is another way to say advance how we look at things no matter if challenging conventional wisdom, get to more depths of knowledge and reason, *start* to address an ideological dispute, what have you.
The question... "What is a belief and what is its role in argument?"
Philosophy starts to define belief but usually by the basis for the belief. As in interpretationism, representationalism, functionalism, other, or some combination of factors to account for all kinds of things we 'believe' no matter if we are talking about something monumental like religious principles or something trivial like the belief we need coffee first thing in the morning.
In this context though belief is a basis for one's argument as applied to morality, or the existence of God, or any number of debates where belief becomes a basis for the discussion from that point of view.
Where it gets a bit dicey is when we look at belief as a set of propositions and principles held to be 'true' by the one with that argument, and that tends to be separate from system of process based rationale or really any epistemological standards (which makes a principle of separating belief and opinion, or the rationale for belief.) Do not mistake basis for proof or acceptance by all parties involved in the discussion, we are simply talking about a state of mind and reasoning where belief tends to invoke an acceptance point for those with that argument to these tough questions. Philosophy has been struggling with these questions ever since Philosophy became an academia in the first place.
We can debate all day long on the value, or weight, of an argument based on a system of belief (religion) against a system of process (science) but ultimately all we will prove is how adversarial those methods are. What is more important, and more valuable to discussion over impasse, is the framing of that argument to advance a question.
Logic on the other hand, again with the intentions of Philosophy, is all about methods and principles in reasoning. The determination of correct from incorrect reasoning is more based on the method to obtain whatever conclusion than the acceptance of that conclusion. To avoid those same dangers of adversarial conclusions that stop the question from even attempting to be answered even if inconclusive or without consensus.
Philosophy has long since established the divorce between morality and the existence of God. We can discuss both within the same question but we know that reasonable people from across multiple cultures all with different understandings from beliefs eventually end up with fairly common moral code. Even cultures without what we define as "God fearing" end up with the same basic principles of things like lets not kill each other, steal each other's things, harm each other, etc. Reasonable people can determine morality without a system of belief being the basis for those determinations.
In conclusion, belief has a role in discussion on these things as systems of belief impact how we view things but by no means are they the absolute authority from which all other arguments are determined to be less. I would go so far that there is onus on systems of belief to amplify their argument with the very reason (or method of logic) that systems of process demand anyway. If it were otherwise Philosophy would not exist and all conventional wisdom would be the universal accepted truths no matter if those principles helped or not.
