Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

[Col. Tartleton]

I agree, but regardless of whether or not we know it there are laws of physics, there is reality outside our minds. It is this that superstitions are in conflict with.

Is there a reality outside our minds?

[Himster]

Is there a reality outside our minds?

Only if you believe there is.

[Col. Tartleton]

Only if you believe there is.

Well, I'm going to need a lot more heroin.

[frozenprince]

Is there a reality outside our minds?

[Himster]

Well, I'm going to need a lot more heroin.

Heroin doesn't help with solipsism.

[Hakkapeliitta]

Heroin doesn't help with solipsism.

But if you're a solipsist heroin is a lot cheaper. Or it could be.

[fkizz]

I supose religious scientists weren't covered in this thread? They do exist (Max Plank was one of them).

[Phier]

I supose religious scientists weren't covered in this thread? They do exist (Max Plank was one of them).

Plant was a deist, in his day they were considered no better than atheists.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

@col Tartleton,

According to the latest materialistic metaphysics, trapped in the vacuum created by Cartesian leftovers, there is no reality outside our minds. Which is really pathetic: if everybody here who's calling me a solipsist knew the fundamental layers of their own belief, they would be the ones who would be calling me a "realist" instead. Fundamentally, every rationalism is a form of idealism, and indeed every form of reality which assumes we are the fundamental creators of it, instead of the receptacles of a given - as apprehending, perceiving, doubting and thinking machines for instance - will eventually fall into the trap of subjectivism and solipsism inherent to the fiction of all purely abstract mental constructs and all empiricist perceptions.

Knowledge according to the senses is "Self-Self consistency" and nothing more.

[Irishman]

@col Tartleton,

According to the latest materialistic metaphysics, trapped in the vacuum created by Cartesian leftovers, there is no reality outside our minds. Which is really pathetic: if everybody here who's calling me a solipsist knew the fundamental layers of their own belief, they would be the ones who would be calling me a "realist" instead. Fundamentally, every rationalism is a form of idealism, and indeed every form of reality which assumes we are the fundamental creators of it - as thinking machines - for instance, will fall into the trap of subjectivism and solipsism.

Who is the "latest metaphysican" you have read who subscribes to idealism? There are some, but it certainly isn't the predominant view in metaphysics.

Also, I'd like to try my hand at my objection 1 more time because I still don't think you got it:

Let's assume you are correct and revelation and faith should not be analyzed by reason. Then the burden is on you to provide two things to us:

1) Why believe using faith? It cannot be the reliability of the beliefs, irresistability of the beliefs etc because these are inherently rational arguments for the beliefs. So why derive beliefs from revelation at all? What purpose do those beliefs serve?

2) Why believe SOMETHING SPECIFIC from revelation or faith. This is the subjectivity argument. Faith is equally powerful for every religion and my belief in an imp on Saturn. So what guides faith?

These questions, if not answered, will make us dismiss faith based on your own claims. If you cannot answer these two questions, then your maintaining the separation of faith from reason is self defeating.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Let's re-explain why analytical truth is not a deus ex-machina, the measure of it all, or the sort of thing which you are subreptiously trying to put in the place of God here.

1 - Because analytical truths are contingent, external, approximate. The analytical method, empirical in nature, dissects the object and reduces it to a bundle of dead general properties - it kills them.

Bergson and Goethe killed this method, on the other hand.

2 - Because logic relies on generalizations, while many events in the Bible are particulars. Logic says that according to "natural laws", resurrection is impossible because it does not occur under the contingent state of nature it happens to generalize on.

On the other hand, the particular events of resurrection are not based on any natural laws or physical theories. They are acts of God in the full sense, which happen because of a fundamental one-time change in contingency that cannot be deduced or analyzed or inferred based on general categories.

Not to mention that logicisism sucks.

Your claims are ridiculous. First you must define what constitutes "objectivity": let's first remember that no analytical truth, ever, can reach an absolute certainty unless it is a mathematical truth, and that is why the solid core of Physics is not language and theory but formulae around which phenomenical harnessing can be obtained and of which theories are only accessory. Two contradictory theories, viz the world is round, the world is flat, can be employed around a single mathematical framework to obtain excellent results. That means anything can be ultimately said, and the end result is "why thus, and not thus?", leading to infinite possible conclusions.

If you go further, and reduce objectivity to that, then you fall into the trap of Scientism. So basically truth is a mathematical formula; but mathematical formulae are purely quantitative. That effectively means you're asserting all your non-quantitative perceptions, such as morality, shapes, colors, etc... all of which are not reducible to purely quantitative space and formulae, are unreal.

[Irishman]

Nothing in your post actually address the questions. They attack this 'logicism' you attribute to me. Try to answer the questions, the burden is on YOU to do so because you are claiming that faith should be used as a basis for belief. Also good to see you abandoned the "latest metaphysics" comment.

Why do you have such a problem actually addressing other people's criticisms? You just go on ramblings about historical figures or how they destroyed human value. I posed two simple questions that don't rely on any empiricism or logicism to answer. They ASSUMED you are correct and then asked the natural follow up question.

Your claims are ridiculous.

I didn't make any claims. I asked two questions about your position.

First you must define what constitutes "objectivity": let's first remember that no analytical truth, ever, can reach an absolute certainty unless it is a mathematical truth, and that is why the solid core of Physics is not language and theory but formulae around which phenomenical harnessing can be obtained and of which theories are only accessory. Two contradictory theories, viz the world is round, the world is flat, can be employed around a single mathematical framework to obtain excellent results.

This has nothing to do with the honest questions I asked about faith.

If you go further, and reduce objectivity to that, then you fall into the trap of Scientism. So basically truth is a mathematical formula; but mathematical formulae are purely quantitative. That effectively means you're asserting all your non-quantitative perceptions, such as morality, shapes, colors, etc... all of which are not reducible to purely quantitative space and formulae, are unreal.

Again this says nothing to answer my questions.

If you don't want to answer my questions or even address my concerns, I can't force you. However, it is very bad form and you shouldn't pretend you are doing anything other than preaching at us, you are clearly not interested in discussion. I'm trying to have an honest discussion about the use of faith to determine belief. I asked two questions about it, you responded with nonsense about empiricism, logicism and scientism. Can't you just answer the questions?

Let's try to actually participate in the discussion shall we?

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

OK, let's simplify it to a manner you'll understand. You cannot put a star way to the moon. You can even simulate that, but it will look awful. The thing that is truly ridiculous here is that you're assuming that words, concepts, languages, composite definitions, substances, essence, etc... - all of which is derived from your senses, and just that - is the key to understanding God. That's like saying you can build a star way to the moon, and that's also being philosophical, and falling into the inevitable spectrum of rationalism-empiricism. How can you say that "God exists", when you clearly mean here that God is nothing but a physical body? And besides, what is "existence"? Didn't Hume & Kant objectively conclude that saying "x exists" adds nothing to the proposition at all? That's what puzzles me.

Philosophy sucks.

[Irishman]

OK, let's not answer the questions. I am not asking you anything overtly philosophical. I am not asking you to defend your position against reason. I'm just asking you some pragmatic questions about faith. They are:

1) Why believe using faith? It cannot be the reliability of the beliefs, irresistability of the beliefs etc because these are inherently rational arguments for the beliefs. So why derive beliefs from revelation at all? What purpose do those beliefs serve?

2) Why believe SOMETHING SPECIFIC from revelation or faith. This is the subjectivity argument. Faith is equally powerful for every religion and my belief in an imp on Saturn. So what guides faith?

I would really like to discuss this. Leave aside all reason, logicism etc. These are natural questions to anyone claiming faith as the basis of belief. These questions appear in the most basic theologies.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

I am not positioning myself against reason. In fact I believe rationality has its uses. Belief and rationality are not polar opposites, you're relying on a thoroughly post-Duns Scotus metaphysics here, and you don't even know it. Actual knowledge depends just as much on syllogism as it does on the act of belief.

What you're trying to forward, however, is a contingent rationalist or empiricist philosophical system as being the truth of it all.

Let's remember that "Faith", "Reason", etc... are meaningless terms unless we can define them and express them according to their relationships and properties to "Reality".

That's where you fail to do anything. That's where it is philosophy, and that's the point of contention. It's like playing russian roulette without the "bullet" part: no deal, no go, nothing.

[Irishman]

Jesus, you really will not answer any of my questions will you? I'm not advancing anything at this point. I'm asking you two questions about the use of faith to support beliefs. That is all.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Credo ut intelligam. That's what I can say about Faith. There are good philosophies hanging around about Faith - none of that however concerns the question here, which is "can we prove theological truths with natural philosophy?" My answer is no, matter is finished. If I tried to add in natural philosophy, I would be contradicting myself.

[Irishman]

I recommend you think about these questions then, because they are quite damaging to the use of faith to determine belief.

[Himster]

You can only prove facts with facts, but you can justify anything with faith.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Man cannot justify himself without faith.