Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Or, if we hold it up to the same standards as everything else that humanity observes, it's complete and utter rubbish. Give me a reason to think otherwise. Until you do, I'm not going to give your faith an "evidence exempt" status

Subjective argument, completely fallacious. So you think it's rubbish? Right, that's just you.

Mathias is right. The burden is not on atheists to disprove god, but on theists to prove god. Most of the time you have to prove a theory, not try to prove a negative.

This is a delightful piece of misinformation that is primarily the fruit of misconceptions which are quite ingrained in Greek philosophy and the Western mind.

No Religion, no theistic religion in particular, has ever claimed that it can prove God through logic. Theistic religion is embodied not in a philosophical exercise but in Revelation, which is given to the Prophets and constitutes per se 1) Absolute certainty and differentiates the prophet from the common man. All Abrahamic religions recognize prophetic gifts and lineages: Abraham, Jesus, etc... and so on. To this, Islam merely adds Muhammad.

As such, there is no discussion on the Revelation itself, but around the Revelation. Revelation is taken as a post facto given, totally unquestionable, just like sense experience is the foundation of knowledge through logic (demonstration cannot be proved by demonstration). All discussions thus is oriented on the legitimacy of Revelation itself due to a set of strict theological criteria: from it stem questions like - "is Islam a Christian heresy? Is Christianity false? Has the Messiah came?" Etc...

Greek humanism, on the other hand, has sought to invert the proper relationship between the sacred and the profane by arguing that theological truths must be submitted to rational inquiry and are only valid as such, reaching an extremism that denies the authority of the prophets. So you start seeing on the West, from the Scholastics on, an obsession with arguments that try to "prove" God from a merely logical point of view, as opposed to pointing to Revelation as a viaticum for absolute certainty. This mentality corrupted a significant part of believers since then, and has been a great vulnerability through which philosophical atheism and skepticism has entered through.

Strictly and definitely speaking, Revelation cannot be proved by logic. It uses criteria that are totally different and totally at odds with the presuppositions of logical thought, esp. common Aristotelian logic. A brilliant example of this is given here, where an Islamic teacher explains and makes precisely the point I am arguing; this is further compounded by al-Ghazali, himself a teacher of Islamic theology who wrote the best refutation of logical arguments for God in existence. Gregory Palamas, an Orthodox Saint, is contemporary with him in knowledge, eloquence and efforts.

No such a figure appeared in the Scholastic West. As a result this plain and obvious truth has become oblivious to Western civilization, which began to trust man made judgments more than the message of Christianity. The result is that Christianity, being pushed further and further into the background, finally crumbled to the forces of secularism after they became radical in the Enlightenment. The Scholastic philosophers themselves who dominated the West not only had no serious arguments against les Philosophes and their barrage of refutations, but can be seen in retrospect as their grandfathers. Since they have been literally obsessed with making God only a concept of the mind reliant primarily on Aristotelian dialectics, it was merely a matter of time before the reality of God became a mere fiction subject only to the mind's peculiar wanderings and judgments.

There is no arguing on this point. Either the atheist trusts, through faith in the Prophets, actualization of the teachings and the peculiar language of the Scriptures, that God exists, that He is a Supreme Being, that He has given mankind a Way to attain Him, or he will still be an atheist in all but name for trusting his own judgment over that of religious authorities even when purely mental concepts and categories such as accidents or substance are employed with success to "prove" that "God exists". All analytical questions such as these cannot reach certainty for their very nature as mere contingent probabilities, and are thus not only misguided, they are totally useless - only through Revealed knowledge can we reach any certainty.

[Denny Crane!]

Subjective argument, completely fallacious. So you think it's rubbish? Right, that's just you.



This is a delightful piece of misinformation that is primarily the fruit of misconceptions which are quite ingrained in Greek philosophy and the Western mind.

No Religion, no theistic religion in particular, has ever claimed that it can prove God through logic.

Since no religion can have an objective source and must rely on its individual proponents we know this ain't true and none more famous than WLC. Quite surprised you said this one.

Theistic religion is embodied not in a philosophical exercise but in Revelation, which is given to the Prophets and constitutes per se 1) Absolute certainty and differentiates the prophet from the common man. All Abrahamic religions recognize prophetic gifts and lineages: Abraham, Jesus, etc... and so on. To this, Islam merely adds Muhammad.

As such, there is no discussion on the Revelation itself, but around the Revelation. Revelation is taken as a post facto given, totally unquestionable, just like sense experience is the foundation of knowledge through logic (demonstration cannot be proved by demonstration). All discussions thus is oriented on the legitimacy of Revelation itself due to a set of strict theological criteria: from it stem questions like - "is Islam a Christian heresy? Is Christianity false? Has the Messiah came?" Etc...

Notice you don't dismiss paganism or hinduism on this, just as valid and thus restricted in no ways you mention.

Greek humanism, on the other hand, has sought to invert the proper relationship between the sacred and the profane by arguing that theological truths must be submitted to rational inquiry and are only valid as such, reaching an extremism that denies the authority of the prophets. So you start seeing on the West, from the Scholastics on, an obsession with arguments that try to "prove" God from a merely logical point of view, as opposed to pointing to Revelation as a viaticum for absolute certainty. This mentality corrupted a significant part of believers since then, and has been a great vulnerability through which philosophical atheism and skepticism has entered through.

Incredibly specific ethnocentricism...ugh.

Strictly and definitely speaking, Revelation cannot be proved by logic. It uses criteria that are totally different and totally at odds with the presuppositions of logical thought, esp. common Aristotelian logic. A brilliant example of this is given here, where an Islamic teacher explains and makes precisely the point I am arguing; this is further compounded by al-Ghazali, himself a teacher of Islamic theology who wrote the best refutation of logical arguments for God in existence. Gregory Palamas, an Orthodox Saint, is contemporary with him in knowledge, eloquence and efforts.

No such a figure appeared in the Scholastic West. As a result this plain and obvious truth has become oblivious to Western civilization, which began to trust man made judgments more than the message of Christianity. The result is that Christianity, being pushed further and further into the background, finally crumbled to the forces of secularism after they became radical in the Enlightenment. The Scholastic philosophers themselves who dominated the West not only had no serious arguments against les Philosophes and their barrage of refutations, but can be seen in retrospect as their grandfathers. Since they have been literally obsessed with making God only a concept of the mind reliant primarily on Aristotelian theology, it was merely a matter of time before the reality of God became a mere fiction subject only to the mind's wanderings and judgments.

There is no arguing on this point. Either the atheist trusts, through faith in the Prophets, actualization of the teachings and the peculiar language of the Scriptures, that God exists, that He is a Supreme Being, that He has given mankind a Way to attain Him, or he will still be an atheist in all but name for trusting his own judgment over that of religious authorities even when purely mental concepts and categories such as accidents or substance are employed with success to "prove" that "God exists". All analytical questions such as these cannot reach certainty for their very nature as mere contingent probabilities, and are thus not only misguided, they are totally useless - only through Revealed knowledge can we reach any certainty.

Or seeks any kind of reason given a dearth as opposed to a drought of external information establishes facts on their merits, all of this is so ethnocentric and makes utterly zero sense to my japanese friend who read this same post and was like WTF I haven't been exposed to this catholic or atheist this is all new and yet...I got nothing to add to this debate it just seems like a bunch of mumbo jumbo and yes I've read the bible and as it happens studied analytical philosophy. He agreed this is a bunch of ethnocentric hugely biased claptrap that extols the virtue of one lot of thought based on nothing.

Sorry, but I really did enjoy bringing in another perspective, I'm hoping he joins and brings a whole new thought process to the ethos.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Since no religion can have an objective source and must rely on its individual proponents we know this ain't true and none more famous than WLC. Quite surprised you said this one.

Fallacy.

Notice you don't dismiss paganism or hinduism on this, just as valid and thus restricted in no ways you mention.

Fallacy. Outside the scope of my argument.

Incredibly specific ethnocentricism...ugh.

Another fallacy. I love how modernistic debaters love to use arguments like this: "oh but it was made by a German...". Doesn't matter. What matters is the argument, not the person.

Or seeks any kind of reason given a dearth as opposed to a drought of external information establishes facts on their merits, all of this is so ethnocentric and makes utterly zero sense to my japanese friend who read this same post and was like WTF I haven't been exposed to this catholic or atheist this is all new and yet...I got nothing to add to this debate it just seems like a bunch of mumbo jumbo and yes I've read the bible and as it happens studied analytical philosophy. He agreed this is a bunch of ethnocentric hugely biased claptrap that extols the virtue of one lot of thought based on nothing.

Sorry, but I really did enjoy bringing in another perspective, I'm hoping he joins and brings a whole new thought process to the ethos.

This is how it works.

Jesus said: "I am the Way, I am the Light. Only through me you can reach God." He then exposed his teaching and made his miracles. All of this was recorded in historical documents.

He did not waste time arguing that accidents, substance and design "prove" God.

And a Christian should strive to imitate Jesus.

Don't like it? Prefer to think rationalism and logicism, for all their tired absurdities, are better? Then there's nothing more to do or say. Without a capacity to forget oneself and to look beyond one's little judgments, one cannot attain genuine understanding of the Christian religion.

[Lazarus]

All of this was recorded in historical documents.

20 or 30 years after the fact, when the tales had plenty of time to gather some creative license.

History paints Yuan Shu as a wasteful tyrant. It says that Napoleon is a midget. It tells us the Civil War was one of the bloodiest in American history that had a chance of going either way.

History books are written by men. Men get things wrong. Sometimes on purpose, sometimes accidentally.

Don't like it? Prefer to think rationalism and logicism, for all their tired absurdities, are better? Then there's nothing more to do or say. Without a capacity to forget oneself and to look beyond one's little judgments, one cannot attain genuine understanding of the Christian religion.

Life is absurd. Being a Christian and saying things to the man in the sky at a specific point at a specific time is no less absurd than being an Atheist that thinks that the universe in it's entirety just came about at some stage for little or no reason.

[Vhaelor]

Fallacy.

Fallacy. Outside the scope of my argument.

Another fallacy. I love how modernistic debaters love to use arguments like this: "oh but it was made by a German...". Doesn't matter. What matters is the argument, not the person.

You're calling him on fallacies but don't deign to mention which one or how it is a fallacy (assuming you talk about a logical fallacy)?

Life is absurd. Being a Christian and saying things to the man in the sky at a specific point at a specific time is no less absurd than being an Atheist that thinks that the universe in it's entirety just came about at some stage for little or no reason.

Just as a curiousity/an aside, I've actually never met an atheist who has asserted that which you state (a positive assertion that the universe came about for little/no apparent reason). The only honest thing that people can actually say today is "we don't know. It may be a prime mover (god), or it may not. It could be something which is not god, something completely foreign to us/something we would not even recognize as intelligence. Or it could be just a fluke of nature such as it is."

The important part is only that we keep looking for the answer and not stop and settle for one answer, because experience has taught us in science that the moment you think that you have the answer to something - don't worry - it's wrong or not detailed enough.

[Irishman]

Jean de la Valette,

I think the main problem that people who claim that Revelation is the origin and justification of religious belief will have to face is that those religious practitioners will have no reliable, objective way of differentiating between different claims of "revelation" or different systems of revelation entirely.

What we usually find when people make these claims, is that they are willing to open other positions up to rational criticism, but not their own. Or you sneak rational justification in with some bias to your own position.

Basically reason is the only way we have of objectively comparing two sets of beliefs or claims, and if you dispose of it to protect your religious beliefs, you must present us with some other way of operating which should lead us to proper conclusions.

You speak of Revealed knowledge, but how do we differentiate that "knowledge" from other "revealed knowledge" of other religions, specifically those foreign to Judeo-Christian tradition?

If your answer is that Christianity is just correct, that it is a brute fact, you will be dismissed without worry because we could say the same of Hinduism or Jainism.

You cannot maintain that we obtain knowledge through revelation without also giving some rational support of that knowledge.

This is what led the Scholastics to pursue rational belief in God, because just saying that the Bible or Revelation is perfect is not a justifiable guide for belief.

When do we have legitimate instances of Revelation and when do we not?

[MathiasOfAthens]

Life is absurd. Being a Christian and saying things to the man in the sky at a specific point at a specific time is no less absurd than being an Atheist that thinks that the universe in it's entirety just came about at some stage for little or no reason.

Reason why its absurb is because you admit you dont know so you point to the man in the sky with no evidence but claim he did it and you settle with this answer for the lack of another explanation.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

I think the main problem that people who claim that Revelation is the origin and justification of religious belief will have to face is that those religious practitioners will have no reliable, objective way of differentiating between different claims of "revelation" or different systems of revelation entirely.

What we usually find when people make these claims, is that they are willing to open other positions up to rational criticism, but not their own. Or you sneak rational justification in with some bias to your own position.

Basically reason is the only way we have of objectively comparing two sets of beliefs or claims, and if you dispose of it to protect your religious beliefs, you must present us with some other way of operating which should lead us to proper conclusions.

You speak of Revealed knowledge, but how do we differentiate that "knowledge" from other "revealed knowledge" of other religions, specifically those foreign to Judeo-Christian tradition?

Irishman,

Theology is a valid Science. We are not seeking here to promote unhinged fideism, but to keep reason within bounds.

All the three Abrahamic religions spring from the same theological orthodoxy: namely the priesthood of Melchidezek and the prophethood of Abraham. Every authority of the clergy today in the Catholic Churches traces direct lineage to it, and as a result, they transmit the teachings handed down from times immemorial, and only changed according to special and authentic messages of prophecy.

There is a whole set of abstruse methodological criteria that define whether this approach is valid, that approach is valid, and so on. Theology is one of the most intricate sciences in history; what I am explicitly arguing against is not against reason, but against an understanding that seeks to reduce everything to a product of reason and the senses.

You speak of Revealed knowledge, but how do we differentiate that "knowledge" from other "revealed knowledge" of other religions, specifically those foreign to Judeo-Christian tradition?

If your answer is that Christianity is just correct, that it is a brute fact, you will be dismissed without worry because we could say the same of Hinduism or Jainism.

You cannot maintain that we obtain knowledge through revelation without also giving some rational support of that knowledge.

This is what led the Scholastics to pursue rational belief in God, because just saying that the Bible or Revelation is perfect is not a justifiable guide for belief.

When do we have legitimate instances of Revelation and when do we not?

The objection from subjectivity is really outside the scope of my argument. Others will probably argue better; there is no way to replying to this without verifying the theological claims of each side. This is possible with the Abrahamic religions, and is indeed done all the time - although the subject of course cannot be fully elucidated precisely because it is not fully reducible to reason.

We know from a strictly theological viewpoint that the coming of Jesus was a matter of prior Scriptural prophecy, and this viewpoint is espoused by the Christian Church. Likewise we have viewpoints that advance this is not true, and so on; a multiplicity of opinions, orientations and beliefs is natural in this point and even viewed as natural many times in many places.

If you think this is bad, then know that rationalism alone has been incapable of changing this. In fact, outside of certain postulates of mathematics and physics that are very modern and restricted, all empirical knowledge suffers from this very same subjectivity. All analytical knowledge is necessarily subjective and contingent. As such, the best reply to your argument is exactly your argument in a reverse form: if you think that theology cannot escape subjectivity, then how can you demonstrate that philosophy does not fall in that same trap? The multiplicity of philosophical outlooks is just as big as that of theological viewpoints.

This means that philosophy has not gotten any better at explaining the world than theology used to do, despite the widespread idea that philosophy is less arbitrary than theology. You could say that scientific methods have allowed us a breakthrough, but only on matter of control: on the matter of scientific theories, it was successfully demonstrated that scientific methods still cannot break through this philosophical subjectivity and that two rationally contradictory theories can be employed together to ensue a much better experimental and mathematical outcome. Rational theories merely save the appearances and are much a matter of belief, they are not a picture of reality.

Remember that the start of every theology lies in belief first, and only after in logical and critical criteria of measurement.

[Himster]

Theology is a valid Science.

This is Brilliant.
I often try to think of the most offensive illogical and positions a theist can hold for satire, but this is way funnier than anything I've invented. Good job.

[Irishman]

Irishman,

Theology is a valid Science. We are not seeking here to promote unhinged fideism, but to keep reason within bounds.

All the three Abrahamic religions spring from the same theological orthodoxy: namely the priesthood of Melchidezek and the prophethood of Abraham. Every authority of the clergy today in the Catholic Churches traces direct lineage to it, and as a result, they transmit the teachings handed down from times immemorial, and only changed according to special and authentic messages of prophecy.

There is a whole set of abstruse methodological criteria that define whether this approach is valid, that approach is valid, and so on. Theology is one of the most intricate sciences in history; what I am explicitly arguing against is not against reason, but against an understanding that seeks to reduce everything to a product of reason and the senses.

Theology is the philosophy of religion. The Scholastics were largely practicing theology which is philosophy. If you say the Scholastics were mistaken in doing theology, you cannot appeal to theology to justify your religion.

You keep trying to insert reason as much as you can so that it supports your point, and then saying "no more!" when it would hurt your position. It doesn't work that way.

The objection from subjectivity is really outside the scope of my argument. Others will probably argue better; there is no way to replying to this without verifying the theological claims of each side. This is possible with the Abrahamic religions, and is indeed done all the time - although the subject of course cannot be fully elucidated precisely because it is not fully reducible to reason.

I am not making a subjective argument. What I am asking is how you can say this: "there is no way to replying to this without verifying the theological claims of each side". How can you do this (verify the theological claims of both sides) without some sort of method of verification! You are just waiving your hands and saying "ive got a method for judging theism, but its not reason and I won't tell you its principles".

We know from a strictly theological viewpoint that the coming of Jesus was a matter of prior Scriptural prophecy, and this viewpoint is espoused by the Christian Church. Likewise we have viewpoints that advance this is not true, and so on; a multiplicity of opinions, orientations and beliefs is natural in this point and even viewed as natural many times in many places.

The only source you have for the fulfillment of the prophecies of Jesus is a book which is attempting to show that he was the messiah. That should raise some eyebrows if you ask me.

If you think this is bad, then know that rationalism alone has been incapable of changing this. In fact, outside of certain postulates of mathematics and physics that are very modern and restricted, all empirical knowledge suffers from this very same subjectivity. All analytical knowledge is necessarily subjective and contingent. As such, the best reply to your argument is exactly your argument in a reverse form: if you think that theology cannot escape subjectivity, then how can you demonstrate that philosophy does not fall in that same trap? The multiplicity of philosophical outlooks is just as big as that of theological viewpoints.

I am saying that your claim is meaningless unless you give a reason to support one over the other. You cannot say we gain knowledge and then give no way to justify, measure, or assess that knowledge.

Given an empirical system, we can judge different claims based on evidentiary value. Some people claim knowledge is subjective, but this is not as common in epistemology as you might think.

This means that philosophy has not gotten any better at explaining the world than theology used to do, despite the widespread idea that philosophy is less arbitrary than theology. You could say that scientific methods have allowed us a breakthrough, but only on matter of control: on the matter of scientific theories, it was successfully demonstrated that scientific methods still cannot break through this philosophical subjectivity and that two rationally contradictory theories can be employed together to ensue a much better experimental and mathematical outcome. Rational theories merely save the appearances and are much a matter of belief, they are not a picture of reality.

You are making wide claims without actually knowing what philosophy says or does. You keep making these claims that science is "just as subjective" but that is simply not the case. We offer rules and principles for judging different knowledge or belief ascriptions.

You do not (in fact you seem to deny that there could be justification). So your claim of subjectivity is simply incorrect.

That is not to say that there is not error or debate over judgments (that's why we have epistemology) but that doesn't amount to the radical dismissal of justification you are arguing for in theology.

Remember that the start of every theology lies in belief first, and only after in logical and critical criteria of measurement.

I'm not sure I understand the grammar of this sentence, but if you are claiming that theology starts as belief and then is critically evaluated, I would ask how? You have dismissed the use of reason in "revelation".

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Theology is the philosophy of religion. The Scholastics were largely practicing theology which is philosophy. If you say the Scholastics were mistaken in doing theology, you cannot appeal to theology to justify your religion.

No, the Scholastics used philosophical arguments as a handmaid of theology. They did not try to make theology a yardstick of philosophy.

You keep trying to insert reason as much as you can so that it supports your point, and then saying "no more!" when it would hurt your position. It doesn't work that way.

It is because, frankly, it works that way. Even that is a part of methodology.

I am not making a subjective argument. What I am asking is how you can say this: "there is no way to replying to this without verifying the theological claims of each side". How can you do this (verify the theological claims of both sides) without some sort of method of verification! You are just waiving your hands and saying "ive got a method for judging theism, but its not reason and I won't tell you its principles".

Not at all. These methods exist, they are there; if you are interested, read a book or get a degree. Every religion has its own methodology. Is it that hard to understand?

The only source you have for the fulfillment of the prophecies of Jesus is a book which is attempting to show that he was the messiah. That should raise some eyebrows if you ask me.

The "only" source for the claim that Jesus is a Messiah is a prophetic lineage that is deeply embedded within First Temple Judaism, the 'real time' witness of the Prophets who marked it in Scriptures, the coinciding elements within Jesus' life and mission to these very witnesses, and the Apostolic Succession which keeps the content of this Revelation and its Grace unaltered through generations ever since, as well as correct praxis and correct attainment of a Christian life through grace, through noetical work primarily done not only in monasteries but also by ordinary believers, through master-disciple mimesis, and so on.

Quite a way to simplify it, eh? Lol.

I am saying that your claim is meaningless unless you give a reason to support one over the other. You cannot say we gain knowledge and then give no way to justify, measure, or assess that knowledge.

Given an empirical system, we can judge different claims based on evidentiary value. Some people claim knowledge is subjective, but this is not as common in epistemology as you might think.

An empirical system does not escape the fact that knowledge is tied to the knower and is known only in the mode of the knower, thereby assuming an implicit subjectivism.

Besides, empiricism is a philosophy based on analytics. That means it does not escape that subjectivity. It has been recognized completely that all Scientific Theories are approximations and not a picture of the truth. Any and all analytical philosophy is a "save the appearances", not a "I found about it!". It does not preclude or refute the fact that an infinite number of theories can otherwise be attributed to explain any set of phenomena.

You are making wide claims without actually knowing what philosophy says or does. You keep making these claims that science is "just as subjective" but that is simply not the case. We offer rules and principles for judging different knowledge or belief ascriptions.

So does Theology. So does anything that claims itself to be "knowledge". No deal here, there is no difference at all.

You - guided by a caricature of the principle of Protestant Anglo-Saxon dogma - are tied to a totally misguided notion that Theology amounts to mere fideism. That is an absurd as any cursory
glance on Catholic and even Anglican Scholastic theology, for instance, shows.

The very fact that empirical knowledge has guiding principles in no way denies its inherent subjectivity or limitations.

You do not (in fact you seem to deny that there could be justification). So your claim of subjectivity is simply incorrect.

That is not to say that there is not error or debate over judgments (that's why we have epistemology) but that doesn't amount to the radical dismissal of justification you are arguing for in theology.

If you are arguing that analytical statements are absolutely correct, you're implying a naive realism that in fact no rationalist, empiricist or other gnoseological foundation and philosophy has ever claimed to itself. No one, be he Duhem, Aristotle, Descartes, Bacon, Hume, etc... has ever claimed that.

Now you're plainly sinking into the absurd.

I'm not sure I understand the grammar of this sentence, but if you are claiming that theology starts as belief and then is critically evaluated, I would ask how? You have dismissed the use of reason in "revelation".

I have dismissed the use of reason as a criterion to demonstrate the demonstration. This is a basic philosophical principle, BTW, and one espoused by the rationalist Aristotle. There is no such thing, as demonstration of the demonstration: the use of logical tools of criticism and measurement is only possible AFTER the brute content is given, either as "revelation" or raw sense data. Here it is not a question of "true" and "false" for its own very nature precludes such judgment. Sense data for instance is a given, independently of our judgments of it.

[Kjertesvein]

In Norway there is the idea that religion is history, in class. A sound argument if you catch the irony.

~Wille

[Irishman]

No, the Scholastics used philosophical arguments as a handmaid of theology. They did not try to make theology a yardstick of philosophy.

You cannot separate theology from philosophy without severely disabling the prior.

It is because, frankly, it works that way. Even that is a part of methodology.

You have started with a conclusion and are determining methodology to fit it, which I suppose would be justifiable given that you mean to dismiss rational justification of inquiry.

Not at all. These methods exist, they are there; if you are interested, read a book or get a degree. Every religion has its own methodology. Is it that hard to understand?

Every religion has a flawed, subjective methodology. I do not deny this, but you seem to be claiming that ONE IS BETTER, to which I ask why, and you respond, it just is.

Try to keep the ad hominems out of the conversation. I would be willing to bet I have more suffixes on my name than you. Degrees have nothing to do with the conversation.

An empirical system does not escape the fact that knowledge is tied to the knower and is known only in the mode of the knower, thereby assuming an implicit subjectivism.

Besides, empiricism is a philosophy based on analytics. That means it does not escape that subjectivity. It has been recognized completely that all Scientific Theories are approximations and not a picture of the truth. Any and all analytical philosophy is a "save the appearances", not a "I found about it!". It does not preclude or refute the fact that an infinite number of theories can otherwise be attributed to explain any set of phenomena.

Again, you seem to be taking me to be saying far more than I was. There are different levels of subjectivity. Just because two theories do not proclaim to find the truth, they are not necessarily on the same level.

So does Theology. So does anything that claims itself to be "knowledge". No deal here, there is no difference at all.

There is a middle ground between proof and utter relativism, many degrees of middle ground in fact.

There are plenty of ways to differentiate between empirical systems.

The very fact that empirical knowledge has guiding principles in no way denies its inherent subjectivity or limitations.

Nor does it open it to the subjectivity of unregulated belief, now does it?

If you are arguing that analytical statements are absolutely correct, you're implying a naive realism that in fact no rationalist, empiricist or other gnoseological foundation and philosophy has ever claimed to itself. No one, be he Duhem, Aristotle, Descartes, Bacon, Hume, etc... has ever claimed that.

Which is why I wasn't claiming that, was I... This whole section is a strawman.

I have dismissed the use of reason as a criterion to demonstrate the demonstration. This is a basic philosophical principle, BTW, and one espoused by the rationalist Aristotle. There is no such thing, as demonstration of the demonstration: the use of logical tools of criticism and measurement is only possible AFTER the brute content is given, either as "revelation" or raw sense data. Here it is not a question of "true" and "false" for its own very nature precludes such judgment. Sense data for instance is a given, independently of our judgments of it.

You seem to be changing what your claim is to suit the arguments. You claimed that religions cannot and need not justify their conclusions with reason. This makes it far more unfounded than principled scientific theory or philosophical inquiry.

You claim revelation is akin to raw sense data, that is fine. But what system do you use to assess the sense data (revelation)? You must have some sort of reason to go from data (religious experiences) to conclusion (Christianity).

Also, sense data is regularly judged and assessed. Sources, conditions and types of sense data are all differentiated and given different weightings based on scientific and philosophic principles. Why could you not assess the source of the "revelation" observation.

In fact you MUST provide criteria for judging revelation so we can determine which revelation to take as evidence and which to not.

[Lazarus]

Just as a curiousity/an aside, I've actually never met an atheist who has asserted that which you state (a positive assertion that the universe came about for little/no apparent reason).

Well, it wouldn't be fair if I summarized theism in a hyperbolic extreme and then gave atheism a proper summary

[Col. Tartleton]

Instead of arguing something indefensible like whether or not you believe in God can we look at some substantive observations Mr. Berlinski made?

Evolution:
To paraphrase:
Organisms which don't survive to reproduce don't reproduce.
As every animal is different than every other animal including it's ancestors and descendants, the ones with some traits do not propagate and others with other traits do propagate their traits.

So what? That's common sense. Evolution doesn't explain anything except that I have attributes which categorize me as person not worm. I am not either of my parents or any of my other ancestors and I will not be my descendants. That I was born of humans is abstract at best. What is a human? Something which was born of humans and copulates with humans and produces humans. Well according to the evidence I can extend that to saying that life is that which is born of life and produces life. Which makes abiogenesis impossible by definition. If there is a fundamental difference between living and nonliving than they are different. If there is abiogenesis there is no biologic. Period. If I was formed by abiotic means I am not alive and there is no death.

If it is evolution, then scientists in terminology and thought miss the point entirely. The point is that this whole notion of speciation and phylogeny is an abstraction. At no point are there species. It is a smooth transition. There is no "evolution" only change. Evolution itself is a misnomer for something as fundamental as erosion or deposition.

All that science is arguing is a direct sequence from the point of initial creation to everything being here as opposed to a direct sequence from the point of initial creation through the abiotic and then a second "intervention" which led to a direct sequence leading to all organisms. The Theistic claim generally is that a third phase of creation occurred in which humans were imbued with a "soul" or higher mind. However this is while no more absurd than the previous claims most likely unnecessary.

So tracking it back, essentially we have 3 schools of thought.

A. One Intervention
B. Two Interventions
C. Three Interventions

I think we can all agree there was what we call "The Big Bang" which is pretty well understood to be "impossible" in so far as it's an incredibly unlikely event from what we can tell. As far as we can tell, it's a matter of an effect without a cause which can pretty easily be construed as something from nothing. Then we acknowledge on the second point which is in effect a second "Miracle" in which "life" forms. Then some people add on the notion that there is a third (or perhaps four+) point of contact in which the human mind or soul comes into its own as something different than what exists in "lower animals" (and additionally the division between living but unintelligent things and intelligent things). Personally I think this is a bit self important, but it's a concept out there. I do think it's fair to say that a dog only concerns itself with what it is to be a dog while humans concern ourselves with what it is to be... However I don't claim to know the mind of a dog, but I do know I'm able to think about what that is like. Even if a dog had that capability, there in theory is a point of division between animals which can think in big picture terms and those which cannot. From what I understand, the Great Apes are on our side of that divide.

So ultimately the question is, were these "miracles" products of literal interventions or just astronomically unlikely events? And while we're at it, we should include the likelihood that Intelligence proceeds to Sapience.

Now, in order for me to sit and discuss these concepts all 3(+) must happen. It's fair to say this is approaching infinitely unlikely to happen on it's own. The answer that it could still happen on it's own, but that's sort of stating the obvious. Obviously it could happen, because it did happen. But it is however unlikely possible, just like anything which is incredibly unlikely.

So are we any closer to God or Atheism? No.

So lets see what we have if we agree that there are major divisions (we can discuss this further, this is just a crude idea I have):

Radial. (Proceeding from a point. Finite and Infinite don't really describe what I'm after here, though they may play a role once I think about this more.)
Non Radial.
Matter. (Having a material composition.)
Non Matter.
Living. (Having a biological process.)
Non Living.
Intelligent. (Having sentience.)
Non Intelligent.
Sapient. (Having reason.)
Non Sapient.
Omniscient. (Having all knowledge.)
Non Omniscient.

However if we open it into a table and get down and dirty with something I believe is rather Aristotelian (accept he's way more unclear), we can suppose that something could be Omniscient and Non Radial. Logically this being would be God. God would be perfectly compatible in the same existence. "Angels" would be Radial, Sapient, and Immaterial, proceeding from God and while "creatures" of reason are not omniscient. Imagine if energy was capable of reason. That's probably a angel. We are alternatively Radial, Sapient, and Material. Our material nature is the source of our passions and the reason we aren't totally sapient. We get glimpses of higher thought and then we get dragged back by an urge to :wub: or eat something (which are not inherently "bad" (as far as I know), but they're "ungodly" because they're animal urges and we can and do rise above them if only temporarily). Something like sound for example is a radial, immaterial, and unintelligent thing. You can keep adding more qualities to it, but that's not important.

Something like this anyway. I think there is a trail of thought in that. Somehow its 4:30 am...

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

@Irishman,

Rather than turning this into a quote fest, I see little point in continuing.

You're affected by a clear anti-religious bias. Which also extends to a complete anti-metaphysical bias, since you - following, of course, a very Cartesian and even Hegelian line¹ - deny the validity of anything but analytical rationalism. Which is, to be blunt, ridiculous.

Religions have their own methods, and their own theology. Just as metaphysics and noetical practice do have - and they are valid. To argue "it's not rational" in many instances is not only invalid, it is meaningless.

It is useless to try and explain religion even in bland philosophical terms of this sort, following a rationalist line, because the very root and principles which you endow (metaphysical, nonetheless), do not admit anything but philosophy. That's opposite not only to the religious view, it is opposite to any Scholastic compromise between philosophy and theology - it also makes religion pointless, because if all religious claims were to be reducible to plain, simple reason, then there would be no need for a Revelation.

There is no arguing in this point, except to the point that you're willing to change your views and see the need beyond the human all too human urge to clothe all shapes with concepts and believe - with an earnest religious fervour - in his power based on this.

This too is a distinction that is much more shallow, degrading and of later invention than any metaphysics, including Christian metaphysics.

1 - The I is the "Thinking Person", Reality is the "Thought of Reality", The Real is the "Rational" and so on. Against this, the Islamic methodology is most enlightening, refreshing and practical:

Logic is only a manner of reasoning which homogenized with the Greek mind and which harmonized with its philosophical environment. It emerged in a polytheistic and atheistic environment. In that time of history, the Greek thought agreed with the abstract thought and suited the ideal dialectics, which is a science without relation with the reality and what is more, its existence in the mind is abstract, because the concern of logic is only the world of generalities and disregards partialities and represented samples[17]. So its bygone time, logic did not anymore have the utility that has been assigned to it, instead, it was the main reason of the delay accused by the Greek, compared to the other nations, in the progress and effective civilization since they turned their back to the real and convenient sciences and put all their efforts and scientific interests in the metaphysical world. This is how the appearance of the scientific and civilizing development after the double revolution had an effect on the scientific power represented then by Aristotle's logic and on the religious power represented by men of the church[18]. Therefore, sciences developed before logic and its propagation in the world, and after the end of its time. In this meaning, the Sheik of Islam Ibn Taimiah said: "We couldn't find anybody on earth, having acquired some science, either religious or other, and becomes a famous figure thanks to the contribution of logic. Physicians, architects and other scientists counted a lot of realizations in their domains without the use of logic. Thus, in Islam, sciences like grammar, Jurisprudence and its Foundations and other arts have also been composed by Imams regardless to logic, besides, the majority of these Imams existed before even the Greek logic is known"[19]. For this, to impose logic as preliminary to the different sciences, including those of Islam is a thesis bringing evils and without any utility. We find in logic only loss of time, intellectual overworking, raving and pretension of achievement using slander and lie. In the answer of Ibn Taymiyya –رحمه الله- about the works on logic and the size of its credibility and its requirement in the acquirement of sciences he said: "…in the Islamic legitimacy, it is necessarily known in the religion of Islam that Allah has not required of men of science and faith the training of this Greek logic. Logic itself contains what is right and true and what is false; many or the majority of what is true does not represent a necessity of use, the useful part is considered little important by sane minds, the stupid does not benefit by it and for the intelligent, it is even needless. Its evils on those who are unknowledgeable of the Prophets' sciences are more than its profits; indeed, logic contains corrupted negative rules that are propagated among a lot of eminent people, and were the reason of their hypocrisy and the corruption of their sciences. In addition, it is completely wrong to pretend that everything in logic is true. To tell the truth, in these pretensions relative to the intrinsic attributes, to categories of the syllogism and the argument and its sources, there’s only evil and corruption on which we already spoke more than once[20] and which is, besides, demonstrated by the Muslim scholars[21]"[22].

Greek humanism sucks.

[Irishman]

You can claim your own method, that is fine. You can even claim that the source of your beliefs is beyond scrutiny, and I will allow that.

What you will need to do personally (since you wont be convincing anyone) is see why you reject other religions as mistaken. They are based on the same revelation as yours, and removing inquiry from revelation will remove your ability to criticize belief.

By your standards, anyone claiming "revelation" as their justification for their beliefs would be unapproachable. That is why I dismiss the inscrutability of revelation; it destroys any hope of inter-religious progress (as does faith, by the way).

You're affected by a clear anti-religious bias. Which also extends to a complete anti-metaphysical bias, since you - following, of course, a very Cartesian and even Hegelian line¹ - deny the validity of anything but analytical rationalism. Which is, to be blunt, ridiculous.

I don't get where you are getting this from. I'll assume you got it through revelation and I won't worry about it.

An attack on Faith or Revelation as justification for beliefs does not devolve into anything close to the rationalistic position you seem to think it does.

if all religious claims were to be reducible to plain, simple reason, then there would be no need for a Revelation.

That would be ideal, yes.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

By your standards, anyone claiming "revelation" as their justification for their beliefs would be unapproachable. That is why I dismiss the inscrutability of revelation; it destroys any hope of inter-religious progress (as does faith, by the way).

1 - Why have any inter-religious progress?
2 - Why justify beliefs in the light of reason?

That would be ideal, yes.

So, comrades - we have found the Truth! Lay aside your idols, for there's naught but one true idol! That idol is called Man, and He alone is worthy of His own worship! May we fast spread our creed to the four corners of the globe so that Man may attain enlightenment under the guise of a new Religion - free from ancient superstitions!

I must show your people the Truth, Lord. I must!

Lol.

Edit - Don't be mistaken. Secular Humanism and Atheism are great, very intelligent and very constructive. They are also very sane and very clear minded. It might be the best for many to stay as such. BUT I don't feel obliged to consider them as "truth".

[Lazarus]

You're affected by a clear anti-religious bias.

And all your statements have been fair and totally unbiased by your own background...

1 - Why have any inter-religious progress?
2 - Why justify beliefs in the light of reason?

1. Because inter-religious progress would mean a larger group of people agreeing on something - giving the world one less reason to kill/hate/silently detest each other.

2. Because being able to justify what you believe in means that people will take your belief more seriously.

[Menelik_I]

Instead of arguing something indefensible like whether or not you believe in God can we look at some substantive observations Mr. Berlinski made?

Evolution:
To paraphrase:
Organisms which don't survive to reproduce don't reproduce.
As every animal is different than every other animal including it's ancestors and descendants, the ones with some traits do not propagate and others with other traits do propagate their traits.

So what? That's common sense. Evolution doesn't explain anything except that I have attributes which categorize me as person not worm. I am not either of my parents or any of my other ancestors and I will not be my descendants. That I was born of humans is abstract at best. What is a human? Something which was born of humans and copulates with humans and produces humans. Well according to the evidence I can extend that to saying that life is that which is born of life and produces life. Which makes abiogenesis impossible by definition. If there is a fundamental difference between living and nonliving than they are different. If there is abiogenesis there is no biologic. Period. If I was formed by abiotic means I am not alive and there is no death.

If it is evolution, then scientists in terminology and thought miss the point entirely. The point is that this whole notion of speciation and phylogeny is an abstraction. At no point are there species. It is a smooth transition. There is no "evolution" only change. Evolution itself is a misnomer for something as fundamental as erosion or deposition.

All that science is arguing is a direct sequence from the point of initial creation to everything being here as opposed to a direct sequence from the point of initial creation through the abiotic and then a second "intervention" which led to a direct sequence leading to all organisms. The Theistic claim generally is that a third phase of creation occurred in which humans were imbued with a "soul" or higher mind. However this is while no more absurd than the previous claims most likely unnecessary.

So tracking it back, essentially we have 3 schools of thought.

A. One Intervention
B. Two Interventions
C. Three Interventions

I think we can all agree there was what we call "The Big Bang" which is pretty well understood to be "impossible" in so far as it's an incredibly unlikely event from what we can tell. As far as we can tell, it's a matter of an effect without a cause which can pretty easily be construed as something from nothing. Then we acknowledge on the second point which is in effect a second "Miracle" in which "life" forms. Then some people add on the notion that there is a third (or perhaps four+) point of contact in which the human mind or soul comes into its own as something different than what exists in "lower animals" (and additionally the division between living but unintelligent things and intelligent things). Personally I think this is a bit self important, but it's a concept out there. I do think it's fair to say that a dog only concerns itself with what it is to be a dog while humans concern ourselves with what it is to be... However I don't claim to know the mind of a dog, but I do know I'm able to think about what that is like. Even if a dog had that capability, there in theory is a point of division between animals which can think in big picture terms and those which cannot. From what I understand, the Great Apes are on our side of that divide.

So ultimately the question is, were these "miracles" products of literal interventions or just astronomically unlikely events? And while we're at it, we should include the likelihood that Intelligence proceeds to Sapience.

Now, in order for me to sit and discuss these concepts all 3(+) must happen. It's fair to say this is approaching infinitely unlikely to happen on it's own. The answer that it could still happen on it's own, but that's sort of stating the obvious. Obviously it could happen, because it did happen. But it is however unlikely possible, just like anything which is incredibly unlikely.

So are we any closer to God or Atheism? No.

So lets see what we have if we agree that there are major divisions (we can discuss this further, this is just a crude idea I have):

Radial. (Proceeding from a point. Finite and Infinite don't really describe what I'm after here, though they may play a role once I think about this more.)
Non Radial.
Matter. (Having a material composition.)
Non Matter.
Living. (Having a biological process.)
Non Living.
Intelligent. (Having sentience.)
Non Intelligent.
Sapient. (Having reason.)
Non Sapient.
Omniscient. (Having all knowledge.)
Non Omniscient.

However if we open it into a table and get down and dirty with something I believe is rather Aristotelian (accept he's way more unclear), we can suppose that something could be Omniscient and Non Radial. Logically this being would be God. God would be perfectly compatible in the same existence. "Angels" would be Radial, Sapient, and Immaterial, proceeding from God and while "creatures" of reason are not omniscient. Imagine if energy was capable of reason. That's probably a angel. We are alternatively Radial, Sapient, and Material. Our material nature is the source of our passions and the reason we aren't totally sapient. We get glimpses of higher thought and then we get dragged back by an urge to :wub: or eat something (which are not inherently "bad" (as far as I know), but they're "ungodly" because they're animal urges and we can and do rise above them if only temporarily). Something like sound for example is a radial, immaterial, and unintelligent thing. You can keep adding more qualities to it, but that's not important.

Something like this anyway. I think there is a trail of thought in that. Somehow its 4:30 am...

Best reply on the thread so far, I didn't understand quite it, but when I finish reading Berlinsky book I will have a go