I find it interesting that you jumped straight to prudential arguments for religion. I suppose it largely stems from this statement: I'm not sure if you intended this, but it seems to me that you are suggesting that metaphysics or spirituality isn't necessarily an academic subject. I think that in popular culture, that can definitely be the case. Pointing to a passage in the Bible/Torah/Koran/Tao Te Ching/ Tripakta/(insert scripture here) and saying that's why __________ isn't academic. Arguments still take place in academic settings over evidential arguments for religion though. They can be utter nonsense, weak, or surprisingly compelling. While this thread certainty isn't the place for them, I urge you to consider having a thread in this series to look at some of them. Even without answering "Does God exist," analyzing the arguments can provide insight into the form and function of religions.I'd also like to say that I intend to keep these as more casual conversations that are academically (I use the term rather loosely of course, as I can't profess to having any academic qualifications) focused than spiritually focused, because there are many diverse religions out there and not all of them are in agreement, especially when it comes to metaphysics.
Yeah. I guess I should have been more clear when I said I didn't want to focus on spirituality or metaphysics. I have no problem discussing them as concepts, for example comparing and contrasting various religions' ideas on death, the human condition, etc. There's no denying that your absolutely right that there can be some very compelling discussions that can come about when talking about those ideas and I wouldn't shy away from those conversations at all. What I more meant to come across as saying is that I'm uncomfortable about talking about spirituality and metaphysics as if they are tangible and verifiable. I am uncomfortable discussing the immeasurable as if it were measurable because I find that it is hard to keep the conversations credible and realistic. Re-reading both what you quoted and what I just wrote, I wonder if I'm making sense in trying to convey how I feel about both types of conversations and how and why I view them differently.