As someone who studied philosophy (among other things) I think that view is a little bit simplistic. Philosophy has given up the idea of the one universal truth out there that you just have to figure out for a reason. A lot of what surrounds us is a matter of perspective to such an degree that trying to figure out one objective (and maybe on top logically sound) truth behind everything is not just ridiculous, but potentially outright dangerous.

I'd be the last person to argue that there is a lot of trash in philosophy. Hermetic stuff that revolves around itself and simulates complexity of thought through choice of words. There are definitely many pearls as well.

90% of everything is trash, that's true nearly everywhere.

That article is clearly not saying that you shouldn't read philosophy at all. It's arguing that there is a lot of crap philosophy, but there's plenty of articles arguing there's a lot of crap physics, psychology, and economics. That doesn't mean we should do that research.

Edit: Actually, rereading this article, the author is clearly saying basically the opposite. The author is saying philosophy is useful if it is critical.

"""Unfortunately, many important problems are fundamentally philosophical problems. Philosophy itself is unavoidable. How can we proceed?"""

How can you point to this article as proof that we shouldn't be studying philosophy when the article says it is unaviodable?

No, she's wrong. The modern scientific models each form a kernel of truth from among the BS, and today we have to deal with quantum mechanics and its quirky bizarre predictions which invalidate the "just look at it" and "just think about it" schools of philosophical thought.

For example, she claims that God exists. A typical trait of God is knowing everything about the universe; say, knowing the positions, momenta, and spin of every particle. But QM gives us Heisenberg's Uncertainty, which prevents anybody, including hypothetical deities, from knowing that information. Indeed, QM typically isn't materialistic; it is wrong to insist that all of those particles definitely have some position and momentum at an instant in time. So, whatever her God is, it isn't the all-powerful one. (The all-powerful God has many better-tread problems in pure metaphysics, like the Problem of Evil, but I don't know what "evil" is and so I'm leaning on QM.)

There is no problem in having to learn philosophy by reading surveys of historical ideologies. Philosophy is cumulative, and as little as one semester of studying historical philosophy can massively improve a person's critical thinking skills.

Really, the problem is in not taking seriously enough the invalidation of old philosophies by newer thoughts, as we continue to improve what we know. There are many positions that are simply wrong, including positions which we currently think are correct!

you might do well to learn what attributes classical theism claims of a deity before slandering them; any deity bound by the natural laws of the world is hardly in keeping with the claims of theistic traditions of all stripes , excluding some late 20th century evangelical protestants.

and the problem of evil is only significant to lay people; in the study of the philosophy of religion it has been considered a rather weak objection for some time now.

The wavefunction isn't ontic. This means that, even if God can see the whole universe, they can't actually know the real values associated with each particle; they can only have an epistemic, partial view. You might do well to study some quantum mechanics!

supernatural means above the natural order; your conception of a deity is out of step with traditional theism and represents straw man building at best

No amount of natural evidence (that is, empirical evidence) can ratify a supernatural belief. Following Popper, then, the burden of evidence is on you to overcome quantum mechanics.

We're both deists, by the way. I follow the Flying Spaghetti Monster. However, the FSM is absurd, which means that I cannot use the FSM's existence to conclude facts, and additionally doesn't affect the material universe. Also, the FSM doesn't maintain cults, encourage child abuse, start wars, nor allow simony.

Your "traditional theism" is metaphysically and epistemically weak; it cannot say anything about the world other than that its deity exists and has material affect upon the universe. However, empirically, there is no evidence of the deity (because they are supernatural), and so the deity cannot have any scientific method associated with it. Simply put, there's no room in the natural world for a supernatural being! Every empirical effect is instead considered scientifically.

The only gap left would be for you to show that miracles or other supernatural phenomena are real. On that, I have nothing polite to say, just to wish you good luck on what will definitely fail.

we were on the subject of your straw man burning; Which you seem to have already fessed up to ... something which speaks to some redeemable qualities.

Let's not pretend that naturalism rests not on metaphysical assumptions.

I've not confessed to or recanted anything, silly; I merely have outlined my position more clearly so that you don't have any ridiculous dodges like "that's what an atheist would say."

I don't have a straw man. I have any deity which is like Jehovah, with Jehovah himself as a special case. Any deity is subject to self-defeating arguments and open to criticism from science.

I am not a naturalist, but that's the closest position that you can imagine, I guess.

Anyway, if you don't actually want to talk about QM, then we'll just have to talk about how Jehovah's followers keep trying to do something about COVID-19, but all of their appeals have led to nothing. Meanwhile, science and technology give us models for understanding, combating, and preventing the pandemic. Are you really going to pledge yourself to your deity and cough your lungs out?

Broskie, take it from an agnostic/natural theist, who actually ended up going down the Philosophy of Religion rabbit hole. Throwaway is right. You've lost before you even got started. The arguments you brought up have been well trod, and very influential pieces of theistic philosophy built around them.

Science can only posit the how. Not the who or the why. Throwing quantum mechanics at the problem doesn't solve anything either, because ultimately you at some point at the end of a nigh infinite chain of why are left with the question "Why something rather than Nothing?"

The answer is either silence, or God, the recognized nominative signpost of the answer , even by the Wittgensteinian approach.

Your COVID-19 related rantings commit the fallacy of assuming the nature of God, or committing the anthropocentric fallacy of thinking God even gives a rat's arse about us, or that there is enough of a working understanding of prayer to count on it in a technological way. It's not a terribly uncommon itis for the modern theistic skeptic, but does demonstrate a horrendous lack of effort in having grounded one's skepticism through actual effort to confront and dismantle the theistic construct at it's core, or to understand it's place in human society.

Religion has no beef with science, nor the other way around.

All you're showing is that you don't know much of quantum mechanics either. Should you choose to change that, MIT has published a nice lecture series on quantum physics [0], the first in a group of three.

Your bold claim "why something rather than nothing?" assumes that there is, in fact, a something to refer to, and QM directly challenges the simplicity of that assumption. So many words to fight against the lack of an ontic wavefunction!

[0] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUl4u3cNGP60cspQn3N9d...

this claim is contested , and some would even say disproven; why do you keep bringing it up like a life raft.

Show your work. Prove for us that the wavefunction of the universe is ontic.

Again, strawmen and worse. Theism hardly excludes science or technology. 3 children down you attempt to change the subject again. You have already admitted that you could only argue against deism. I don't expect everyone to come to the light (Strong links between autism & atheism); I do expect a higher level of commentary on HN ...