Is it fair to say that when Western philosophers who are religious (such as a few who answer our questions here) profess 'faith' as a justification, they are effectively going against all the tenets of the logic and philosophical analysis they are quite happy to apply elsewhere to epistemology, ontology, &c?
Is it an effective shrug of the shoulders and a 'There ya go! let's move on!' cop out?
This seems particularly important to me in the light of Christians masquerading as Intelligent Designer advocates. I find it hard to believe any scientist or philosopher who was not religious to start with would find the mechanism of the eye or whatever 'irreducibly complex'and use it to deny Darwin's theory. They are simply trying to bolster beliefs already held, as no philosopher would dispute.
And the 'faiths' some philosophers cling to are surely the dominant ones in their societies and/or the ones they were brought up to believe in.
Are we now in the realms of anthropology and psychology in the above beliefs? No one believes in the Greek pantheon or Viking gods any more so how can the new ones hold more credence for those trained in critical thinking?
Read another response by Oliver Leaman
Read another response about Philosophy, Religion