Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

[Irishman]

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

Because without it, we have no basis for belief. Anyone can justify belief in anything without any possibility of scrutiny. This frightens me. Faith and revelation are inscrutable under your position, and that makes them prime candidates for manipulation and abuse. Let alone the fact that there is good reason to conclude that faith and revelation will NOT lead you to a reliable conclusion (the mere presence of faith guiding you to two contradictory positions with no way of deciding between them proves this).

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.

Sarcasm aside, you offer nothing more to the debate than the people who argue "I believe on faith and there is nothing you can say to convince me otherwise".

Those of us who value the search for truth (even if it is unattainable), or even non-contradictory theories of evidence, will dismiss faith as a system of justification.

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".

Because you do not justify your claim of truth at all. Inscrutable "revelation" is all that is necessary for a claim of truth on your position.

How about this: it was just revealed to me that an green apple is floating in the middle of the Andromeda galaxy... By your own argument that belief is now unassailable. You can no longer argue my irrationality because my justification is revelation.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

You have not provided any basis for your arguments. In fact, your attempt to "justify" belief itself is based on completely arbitrary epistemological, metaphysical and philosophical grounds.

I again reiterate that there is nothing about that which is mere fideism.

====

What is more impressive here is the explicit denouncement of religion on the basis of sheer, pure, unbridled rationalism of the post-Enlightenment positivist sort. That's actually just as much contingent and religious as arguing that Jesus Christ is the foundation of all our conclusions // that pretty much means your replies are akin to trying to justify Islam with the Bible and so on.

You have not left the ground of subjectivity here. As such, you are pretty much powerless to argue against it; so what, you worship reason. But have you been unaware of the fact that no two philosophers can even agree on the exact role of sense based knowledge, abstractions, belief and analytical syllogism can serve us on unveiling and giving us genuine and authentic knowledge?

On the contrary - you just take a couple of post-Kantian, post-Humean, post-Cartesian assumptions about the omnipotence of mathematics and systematical reason and proceed to denounce everybody based on this completely subjective belief.

Philosophy has not only been remarkably unable to surpass this barrier of inherent subjectivity, it is pretty much powerless to counter the main objective of the more traditional and ancient systems of religiosity (esp. the pre-protestant ones), which is to change and to actualize. Here the Islamic scholar brilliantly states the obvious: Modern Science, whose goals are the same, BUT on a purely material and exterior plane, also had much difficulty with differentiating itself from being relegated to the label of another quaint and weird metaphysical belief when it was initially devised.

Feyerabend, and many others, have pretty much demolished the thesis that Science represented and still represents a triumph of logical tools and common sense over "Medieval superstition". The Aristotelian system pretty much demolished and still demolishes Scientism on logical grounds, yet Scientism and the Cult of Science have taken us to much further heights than Aristotelian syllogisms - what if we had just done as you said, and sticked to measuring everything with a basis on mere logic (1)? We would still be left with pre-Copernican, pre-Newtonian physical systems and would have nowhere near as much domain over nature and machines as we have today.

There is no gain in trying to denounce the subjectivity of religion behind the facade of the total subjectivity of philosophy. You're simply gonna receive the same answer over and over: prove me that your philosophy is The Philosophy, before you arrogate yourself the authority to try to demand from believers that they prove their religion is The Religion.

1 - That's another basic defect of philosophy: it cannot pass from virtuality to actuality. It provides us with systems of knowledge, but their implementation is always defective or totally lacking. It is nothing but mere theory. Here the role of "knowledge" itself must be questioned: what use is a knowledge, in K. Marx's own words, that does not give us power and that serves a clear purpose? What use is a knowledge that only serves to clothe things with abstract concepts, all of them tainted by a visible psychological bias, as opposed to allowing us to genuinely become one with them?

[Kitsunegari]

Who, al-Ghazali?

[Irishman]

Jean, I really don't think you are understanding. Your comments on my motivations and defense of scientism, rationalism, etc (none of which I am actually supporting if you tried to be charitable) are completely off point.

I am not attacking religion. I am attacking the use of faith or revelation as a basis for belief.

Here's why:

S1 believes that the earth is round on faith.
S2 believes that the earth is flat on faith.

There is no progress that can be made. No discussion, no principle. It is entirely subjective (unlike many of the other theories which, while not entirely objective, are not completely subjective as yours would be).

Here's where it gets scary:

S1 believes it has been revealed that all Jews should die.

If we defend revelation as an inscrutable source of truth, we cannot call him wrong!

I would prefer you to stop commenting on other philosophical theories which 1) I am not defending, and 2) Don't come into play. We should be discussing your claim that revelation is an inscrutable justification for belief. That is YOUR claim. My only claim is that it is a ridiculously unreliable, subjective, and contradictory position.

EDIT-

Do you not understand that there are different levels of subjectivity in methodology? If you think that any subjectivity automatically destroys a whole methodology, that is our source of disagreement. I have never claimed we can remove all subjectivity, but to say that Science is as subjective as picking or plopping on a belief is absurd.

[Himster]

Faith is just guessing really.
Reasonable expectations are made through collection of data, statistics and experience, I have a reasonable expectation that I won't be hit by a car if I look both ways when crossing the street based on past experience and statistics. I have a reasonable expectation that my brother will help me in anything if asked: based on past experience.

I don't see where faith is neccessary except for the pleasure one may attain from it, but that just equates faith with :wub:, thus all I can say is: please don't do it with children.

[xcorps]

Faith is just guessing really.

Actually no. Faith is the opposite of guessing.

Faith would be expecting help from your brother even though past experiance has shown that he won't.

[Lazarus]

Faith would be expecting help from your brother even though past experiance has shown that he won't.

Actually that would be a delusion - a firmly held belief despite all evidence to the contrary

Though that's a great example otherwise. Suppose you had never needed to call on your brother before for assistance, you would believe he would help you just because you're family. That's faith.

[xcorps]

Actually that would be a delusion - a firmly held belief despite all evidence to the contrary

Fair point.

[Col. Tartleton]

Faith is what happens when the evidence runs out.

At some point there is no way to tell if we're the product on a statistically impossible series of events or direct interventions by a God. In an abstract sense it's sort of a choice between moral nihilism and morality. There isn't much else.

And given that there's no way to tell you choose or reject a God. God is as likely as it is unlikely. Thus forcing a "leap of faith" or an acceptance of uncertainty.

The only reasonable stance is agnosticism, and that's kind of a cop out. So if Dawkins wants to be an atheist, he chose to be an atheist. He can argue what motivated him to argue against a God, that's fine, but it's kind of absurd for him to argue against God. Arguing against myths is fine though. I think he's making a leap of faith between the notion that human myths are false and that there isn't a God.

He has to focus on specific arguments against specific beliefs. You can't argue that Islam or Shinto is ridiculous under the same general heading that religion is ridiculous. They'll instantly turn the point to the fact that choosing God vs No God arbitrarily is a departure from science.

I mean if you don't believe, fine, but you're not going to be proving that argument in a court of law. If you could someone would have. There have always been theists and there have always been skeptics. It's not a self evident truth.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

I am not attacking religion. I am attacking the use of faith or revelation as a basis for belief.

Here's why:

S1 believes that the earth is round on faith.
S2 believes that the earth is flat on faith.

There is no progress that can be made. No discussion, no principle. It is entirely subjective (unlike many of the other theories which, while not entirely objective, are not completely subjective as yours would be).

Here's where it gets scary:

S1 believes it has been revealed that all Jews should die.

That is all a misconception, based on a perception that is on the human-all-too-human level yet.

Strictly speaking, and despite all outward appearances, Revelation is not a function of humanity. Revelation is always attributed to something beyond and independent of man. God is the source of revelation in all Three Abrahamic Faiths, with Islam going further and arguing that the Coran is uncreated, unconceived.

So the risk of this is totally ridiculous. Based on appearances, one might say that religion is made up; yet it's religion itself that prevents subjective opinions such as these from breaking through everything.

Subjectivism is the curse of our civilization and has been ever since "Latin Christianity" broke up. The cosmopolitanism is merely a mask that it has became impossible to even have a shred of belief in any of the 30000 different philosophies and dogmas that are placed about.

In a normal situation, Revelation is beyond human reason, beyond human authorship, and so it is beyond the divisions that characterize the human perspective. Is that perfect or totally representative of reality? No. Because there are still many sects around, all of them claiming to be the truth. But never confuse that with an orientation that basically relativizes truth from "within" the mind, as opposed from "without" - such as the case with heretical beliefs, etc... which do not claim to destroy moral, ethical and religious absolutism but to merely replace it. Many times, conflict arises as a result of divergences in interpretation, not of the source itself; so the Bible is the center and apex of Christianity, just as the Church - BUT the hows and whys sometimes diverge.

Besides, your example is meaningless. No religion, none ever, has ever given authoritative statements on merely external, dry and dead empirical properties (such as the "Earth is round"). That's up to man and man alone, and to empirical science and scientific instruments. If you had ever bothered to make any deep study of the religious phenomenon, you would know it concerns a totally different level.

[Astaroth]

You have not adressed his points at all.

Here is a really simple question for you: you believe in religion A. I believe in religion B. What makes your religion any more "right" than mine?

Now you will say the Bible or God's revelation or something. But what if I have my own holy book and my god(s) appeared to me as well, yet with a completely different message?

There is ZERO objectivity, unless you arbitrarily declare your religion as the right one. There is no proof you can provide, no evidence of any sort, not even any philosophical arguments. Zip.

[Himster]

Faith would be expecting help from your brother even though past experiance has shown that he won't.

That is kinda guessing.
guess(gs)
v. guessed, guess·ing, guess·es
v.tr. 1. a. To predict (a result or an event) without sufficient information.
b. To assume, presume, or assert (a fact) without sufficient information.

2. To form a correct estimate or conjecture of: guessed the answer.
3. To suppose; think: I guess he was wrong.

v.intr. 1. To make an estimate or conjecture: We could only guess at her motives.
2. To estimate or conjecture correctly.

n. 1. An act or instance of guessing.
2. A conjecture arrived at by guessing.

[Irishman]

That is all a misconception, based on a perception that is on the human-all-too-human level yet.

Strictly speaking, and despite all outward appearances, Revelation is not a function of humanity. Revelation is always attributed to something beyond and independent of man. God is the source of revelation in all Three Abrahamic Faiths, with Islam going further and arguing that the Coran is uncreated, unconceived.

So the risk of this is totally ridiculous. Based on appearances, one might say that religion is made up; yet it's religion itself that prevents subjective opinions such as these from breaking through everything.

Not true at all. We are talking about inter-religious views. Not inter-christian discourse.

Religion only prevents subjective views by enforcing one completely arbitrary view as TRUTH and then forcing everyone to agree. That hardly seems like a reliable epistemic system.

Subjectivism is the curse of our civilization and has been ever since "Latin Christianity" broke up. The cosmopolitanism is merely a mask that it has became impossible to even have a shred of belief in any of the 30000 different philosophies and dogmas that are placed about.

Let's ignore the thousands of religions that existed pre-christian and during christian reign, shall we

Your view of history is sadly biased toward Mediterranean cultures.

In a normal situation, Revelation is beyond human reason, beyond human authorship, and so it is beyond the divisions that characterize the human perspective. Is that perfect or totally representative of reality? No. Because there are still many sects around, all of them claiming to be the truth. But never confuse that with an orientation that basically relativizes truth from "within" the mind, as opposed from "without" - such as the case with heretical beliefs, etc... which do not claim to destroy moral, ethical and religious absolutism but to merely replace it. Many times, conflict arises as a result of divergences in interpretation, not of the source itself; so the Bible is the center and apex of Christianity, just as the Church - BUT the hows and whys sometimes diverge.

You have confirmed my point. Revelation is beyond human reason, therefore any person claiming revelation is inscrutable: see my above post.

Besides, your example is meaningless. No religion, none ever, has ever given authoritative statements on merely external, dry and dead empirical properties (such as the "Earth is round"). That's up to man and man alone, and to empirical science and scientific instruments. If you had ever bothered to make any deep study of the religious phenomenon, you would know it concerns a totally different level.

I urge you to read the bible before you make claims like this. It is full of dry, empirical facts and is supposedly the source of revelation for the christian church.

Oh, and the argument does not rely on empirical facts to succeed, you should be able to realize that.

S1 believes through revelation that there is an all good god.
S2 believes through revelation that there is an all evil god. (the case can be made for any number of facts about God to work. Polytheism vs Monotheism, omnipotence vs supremely powerful, etc.)

Same problem. If revelation is beyond human reason, we should reject it as a justification for belief.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

It is not "inescrutable", it is not "guessing", it is not tantamount to fideism. It has its own methodology. OK, let's post this again:

All your attempts at rebuttal are just attempts to make philosophy dominate over theology, and all your attempts fail because your philosophy is subjective. The human mind cannot get to any certainty based merely on reason, that's why there's faith for. Philosophy, its metaphysical branch, etc... Are handmaids of theology, and not independent sciences. Theology gives to philosophy the degree of certainty it could never have alone by itself, with its little mind games and mind constructs.

And virtually every religion demands faith. Even Buddhism demands faith¹. Faith is the tool through which one who cannot understand may understand. Faith improves our understanding (credo ut intelligam, Augustine). Even the atheist must confess that although his faith in Revelation is nil, his faith in thousands of other things is still strong.

Man has not gone beyond faith. We have found surrogates for God once we killed Him. The surrogates are worse.

Faith is exactly what would make such a debate be concluded. Since, of course, we're talking strictly about logical and analytical viewpoints, then fragmentation must ensue automatically. Everybody has their own little subjective beliefs about things, and once God is removed from the picture, then man will believe in almost anything.

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].

It is ridiculous to cling to a dead and sterile husk like logicism. Logical understanding has clear limitations: to demand 100% purely logical understanding from anybody is pure hypocrisy; once you cease centering yourself on such a limited, tiny and fragile vessel as the analytical and discursive intellect, which by no means is the best indicator of someone's status, worth or true intelligence (except, of course, when viewed through the *surprise* lenses of its own), then we can talk again. To think that religion would base itself on this, which exists more to fragment than to unite, is ridiculous and naive: logic has not build civilization, logic does not determine the direction of humanity's affairs, logic has not inspired anybody to make anything, logic does not differentiate an inferior man from a better man, logic does not make me better than you. Logic is a mere measuring tool, like a ruler, made strictly for certain definite number of situations and that's it.

Big congrats to ibn Tamiyya, the jurist, for cracking down the effects of this among Muslims simultaneously with al-Ghazali. He made sure that humanism would not become ingrained in Islamic civilization as it did in the West, neither that Islam would serve as a target for early Galilean scientistic propaganda.

¹

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It is wonderful indeed! O World-Honoured One! I shall now learn the All-Wonderfulness of the Tathagata, Dharma and Sangha. Having satisfied myself, I shall expound this widely to all others. If they do not have faith in the teaching, I will know that they have long practised the non-Eternal. To such as these I shall be like frost and hail."

"O good man! There are two kinds of beings in Jambudvipa. There are: those who have faith, and the others, who do not. Those with faith can be cured. Why? Because such a person can definitely attain Nirvana, which has no pox or warts."

When that [icchantika] person gains pristine faith in the Buddha's Wonderful Dharma, at that time the person annihilates the icchantika [within himself].

"Also, emancipation is the strongly abiding. It is as in the case of the khadira [acacia catechu, the extract from which - "'catechu"' - is much used as a medicine, an astringent and tonic], sandalwood, and aloe wood, whose quality is strength and faithfulness. The same with emancipation. Its quality is strength and faithfulness. Whatever is strong and faithful is emancipation. True emancipation is the Tathagata.

For these reasons, I cannot have faith in this; I dare not accept such, even when taught. I shall not take refuge in them." The Buddha said: "O good man! “’If you have doubt in what I say, it is for you not to accept it“’ [emphasis added].

If beings are perfect in innumerable virtues, they will indeed believe in this Mahayana sutra and, having faith in it, will uphold it.

Mahaparinibbana Sutta // Digga Nikaya

[Kitsunegari]

Big congrats to ibn Tamiyya, the jurist, for cracking down the effects of this among Muslims simultaneously with al-Ghazali. He made sure that humanism would not become ingrained in Islamic civilization as it did in the West.

He was long after al-Ghazali, but yeah i guess he deserves a small bit of credit for helping to crack down on freethinkers and ensure that "civilization" would remain an ossified backwater for centuries.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

"Free-thinking" is a nice piece of delusion. "Free-thinking" is uncontrolled babble, at best, and has led us nowhere significant. As the Islamic article shows very well, "free-thinking" was more responsible for the disintegration of entire superstructures, civilizations, families & the like than for any moral and intellectual progress.

[Kitsunegari]

"Free-thinking" is a nice piece of delusion. "Free-thinking" is uncontrolled babble, at best, and has led us nowhere significant.

Like the moon? While i agree that humanism has gone too far and what we have now is basically nihilism, that "uncontrolled babble" of competition and debate is what makes human flourishing possible. You can try to squelch free inquiry and impose a rigid worldview but eventually you'll get defeated by physically and intellectually by more dynamic societies. The key is to find a balance between the extreme traditionalist and nihilist positions.

[Irishman]

All your attempts at rebuttal are just attempts to make philosophy dominate over theology, and all your attempts fail because your philosophy is subjective. The human mind cannot get to any certainty based merely on reason, that's why there's faith for. Philosophy, its metaphysical branch, etc... Are handmaids of theology, and not independent sciences. Theology gives to philosophy the degree of certainty it could never have alone by itself, with its little mind games and mind constructs.

Once again you have refused to actually address any of my concerns outright.

I do not know why you keep returning to criticisms of logicism, rationalism, etc. Neither I nor anyone else in the discussion have defended them.

I offered an argument why your 'methodology' is contradictory, inscrutable and wholly subjective; you ignored it. You have not once defended against my criticism, instead you shift focus to philosophical points that I am not even advancing. You are intentionally making strawmen of my arguments to blow them down.

It is bad form and halts the discussion.

If you wish to address my arguments rather than strawmen, I would be happy to continue. Other than that I have offered my arguments, consider them if you wish.

Edit, cause I couldn't let these things stand---

"Free-thinking" is a nice piece of delusion. "Free-thinking" is uncontrolled babble, at best, and has led us nowhere significant. As the Islamic article shows very well, "free-thinking" was more responsible for the disintegration of entire superstructures, civilizations, families & the like than for any moral and intellectual progress.

What version of history have you studied? I grow tired of this 'golden age of religion' nonsense.

Faith is exactly what would make such a debate be concluded. Since, of course, we're talking strictly about logical and analytical viewpoints, then fragmentation must ensue automatically. Everybody has their own little subjective beliefs about things, and once God is removed from the picture, then man will believe in almost anything.

Here is your problem, we are not talking about purely logical or analytic viewpoints. We are talking about principled vs. unprincipled, your's being the latter. Refer to the above argument in which I showed that your system would lack any system of differentiating between claims of revelation.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

There is no way to address this with reason. We would not leave the ground of subjectivism here; you only attack me because you do not have faith, and I have addressed this perfectly.

Actually, the very cosmological and metaphysical notion that the Universe is reducible to a perfect harmony of number and has its inherent positive rationality (the emphasis on the good part of the good-bad antinomy)... As well as its later aberrant offshoots, that sought to reduce everything to thought and to reason, is a metaphysical notion of mystical origins. (see via negativa)

So what that you think you can dismiss it because you can't understand it? Well, first you must formulate a metaphysics. A how you can understand it, and base it on logical and individual analytical discernment alone; you'll then enter the realm of philosophy, of Aristotle, Hegel, etc... If you don't do it, what prevents me from claiming things like: a) you're being deluded, and living in a dream. none of perceptions are real, b) you 'don't exist', c) so on?

And if you do philosophy, what makes your philosophy better than mine? What makes Aristotle better than Hegel? These debates have been going for hundreds of years, and philosophy for yet is still the same. My academic professor for instance said that Aristotle is the best philosopher ("The Philosopher"), and that he has not been contradicted ever since. Others would beg to disagree.

The end result that matters to this discussion is that your path lacks objectivity. Instead of lifting us, in anagogical fashion, from the contingencies of life through pure practice, your aim is to reduce everything to sterile theories that in the end do nothing and actualize nothing.

Buddhism, as much as it is not my religion, had a perfect simile for the likes of you.

The Buddha always told his disciples not to waste their time and energy in metaphysical speculation. Whenever he was asked a metaphysical question, he remained silent. Instead, he directed his disciples toward practical efforts. Questioned one day about the problem of the infinity of the world, the Buddha said, "Whether the world is finite or infinite, limited or unlimited, the problem of your liberation remains the same." Another time he said, "Suppose a man is struck by a poisoned arrow and the doctor wishes to take out the arrow immediately. Suppose the man does not want the arrow removed until he knows who shot it, his age, his parents, and why he shot it. What would happen? If he were to wait until all these questions have been answered, the man might die first." Life is so short. It must not be spent in endless metaphysical speculation that does not bring us any closer to the truth.

... And he is right. Philosophy leads to subjectivity, not truth.

So of course we're not being concerned, at all, with that. It leads nowhere. It's like banging your head on a wall - it might give you some satisfaction, but in the end will only net you a headache and that's it.

EDIT -

1) The version of history I read is the one untainted with positivist prejudice.

2) Your complaint is addressed. Take your time to study the methodology of the Islamic Sciences, for instance: they are not unprincipled, they are not random, mystical and fideistic mumbo-jumbo. This complaint is so unaware of that fact, it is barely worth answering.

[Irishman]

There is no way to address this with reason.

Beautiful. I offer arguments, you fall back on the 'you cannot use reason to assess it'.

I can see an infinite loop when I'm in one.

There will be no progress, because your system is inscrutable. If we cannot apply reason to your beliefs, they are truly without foundation.

The end result that matters to this discussion is that your path lacks objectivity. Instead of lifting us, in anagogical fashion, from the contingencies of life through pure practice, your aim is to reduce everything to sterile theories that in the end do nothing and actualize nothing.

So you would sacrifice some principled structure that cannot eliminate subjectivity entirely for an entirely subjective system? What a ridiculous choice! There is a difference between a partially subjective system and a wholly subjective system.

I recommend looking up externalist epistemology. These are entire systems built around the partial 'subjectivism' you are so worried about which do not devolve into complete subjectivism of faith.

... And he is right. Philosophy leads to subjectivity, not truth.

See above.

And if you do philosophy, what makes your philosophy better than mine? What makes Aristotle better than Hegel? These debates have been going for hundreds of years, and philosophy for yet is still the same. My academic professor for instance said that Aristotle is the best philosopher ("The Philosopher"), and that he has not been contradicted ever since. Others would beg to disagree.

When someone attacks Aristotle, he defends or converts. When someone attacks Hegel, he defends or converts. When Russell attacked Frege, Frege couldn't defend so he converted. There can be progress. There can be discussion.

When someone attacks you, you appeal to being above reason.

THAT, is why philosophy is better than your "system".

EDIT-

Btw, having a favorite philosopher does not mean that you think their position is correct. My favorite philosopher is Hume, but he certainly was not correct on multiple points.

EDIT 2 for your edits--

1) The version of history I read is the one untainted with positivist prejudice.

So you honestly think that free thought and the scientific revolution has led to the destruction of societies? Why do people believe in this golden age myth?

2) Your complaint is addressed. Take your time to study the methodology of the Islamic Sciences, for instance: they are not unprincipled, they are not random, mystical and fideistic mumbo-jumbo. This complaint is so unaware of that fact, it is barely worth answering.

Unfortunately it wasn't. I offered an argument, you refused to address it.

I wholly admit that religious systems can be principled. YOURS is not, and I offered an argument to that effect. That is what you need to address. You claimed revelation could not be analyzed, I offered a criticism of where that would lead. You have not addressed that criticism.