I’ve watched the discussion forum devolve a bit into some sniping. (Not happy about that, but not unexpected.) In the syllabus for any “religion” course I teach I always include the “play nice” notice.
Second, besides reading and writing well, I trust that you will come to class with the ability to have an open, flexible, and inquisitive mind. Since we are, after all, discussing religious and philosophical issues, I anticipate that there will be differences of opinion among us. I expect us all to make the class a safe place in which to discuss ideas. This means that several things will not be tolerated: no swearing or vulgar language (either written or spoken), no rude or disrespectful remarks about the texts, authors, religions, or religious or non-religious beliefs of the views we’re studying, the persons in this class or the views they make or hold.
DZ often remarked that philosophers routinely go wrong when they fail to recognize the deep, deep differences between them. Both theism and atheism are legitimate moral, philosophical and intellectual positions. Part of the difficulty is that people on each side do put more trust in “argument” or “reason” than they themselves sometimes profess. The view often is that truth is phosphorescent. It glows in the dark. Even a fool can see it and nearly a “blind man”. The “reasonableness” of your position has a phosphorescent glow. It’s luminescence cannot be denied. Or so the thinking goes. “Can’t you see it shining there?”
And if the other person can’t perceive the glow? What then? Either way, arguing about it seems fruitless. And certainly calling each other names won’t accomplish much. (Although philosophers do sometimes let it rip!) The differences are real. They often are genuine.
DZ thought that philosophers (on both sides) who failed to acknowledge the differences too often try to argue down the preposterous, erroneous position of the other side. And in doing so, they often misread and misinterpret the other side. That’s where the issue of language games and various forms of life comes in. One group is genuinely speaking another language and is engaged in a very different game. No amount of stamping one’s feet, drawing diagrams, or enunciating every syllable in an effort to make oneself “clear” will, in fact, clear up the differences.
But remember, “clearing up the differences” is not the same thing as “erasing the differences” and trying to reconcile the views into something acceptable to both. I think that for DZ, clearing up the difference means making the differences clear. And that’s a big, big “difference”.