Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

I thought the whole point of "Socrates through Quine" was uncertainty?

Your one liner is pure win.

[Irishman]

So, here's my point. In case you missed it with your rants: I am not tring to prove anything, the burden of proof on the contrary is upon you. I earnestly believe that Christianity is the True Faith. Atheist then attacks me. I ask then what makes Atheist's viewpoint more than just a subjective opinion. Atheist can't answer.

If you want to call arguments rants, then OK...

1) You actually are trying to prove something: a negative. You are trying to prove (or at least claim) that reason has no place in guiding faith.

2) I agree with you and point out that if that is true, then faith is uselessly subjective. You cannot offer any motivation to believe it over any other "revelation" based belief.

3) You ask an atheist what makes their viewpoint less subjective WE HAVE ANSWERED. It is principled, metered by (generally) reliable methods. Your "faith" has no meter, no principle and I have shown that through argument.

So that's what I have done. In the fact that I have proved none of you can possibly affirm anything, I have unwittingly silenced any criticism of the Faith more powerfully than with a system, an individual 'ism' of myself could ever do.

You have not silenced the criticisms, you merely ignore them. You take the view, put your hands over your ears and say "LALALALALALA" until people stop arguing. That is all there is to "revelation".

I thought the whole point of "Socrates through Quine" was uncertainty?

Nobody has claimed to be arguing about certainty. Nobody has claimed inductive reason produces certainty. Just another one of Jean's strawmen.

All I see are subjective opinions, and all I see are people who cannot possibly actualize anything

That's the whole problem, you lack the ability to differentiate between partially subjective and wholly subjective systems.

[Col. Tartleton]

That's the whole problem, you lack the ability to differentiate between partially subjective and wholly subjective systems.

How can something be partially subjective?

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

I am not trying to prove a negative. I am actually demanding an answer: 1) is your system subjective? 2) If no, then why should I employ it to prove Christianity?

Your distinction between "partly subjective" and "totally subjective" misses the point. Again, that very definition is subjective. OK you might believe in it. But that's just you.

The irony here is that you accuse me of leaving room even for Scientology and LDS to be given credence. ON THE OTHER hand, all of your efforts point to that. Sorry it's futile. Doesn't matter if you try to be sophisticated or what, in the end your philosophy has as much worth as saying Xenu metaphysically waved his hand to create the Universe.

Christianity asks us to know its truths through Faith, not through concepts, mathematical formulae, or empirical-based systems.

I suggest, Irishman, before you fall in the trap of philosophical theology, that you read about Jorge de Burgos, a character in the Name of the Rose. Pay attention to what he says, especially when he argues - as brilliantly pointed out by a colleague of mine - how Thomas Aquinas is an enemy of Christianity and how these philosophical systems invert our proper relationship with reality.

Luther even considered Aristotle the Antichrist. Nothing against the Stagirite, his philosophy is nice, but ultimately it is wolf in sheep's clothing: a deceiving humanism, giving us an illusion of power through concepts, as always. And historically, you'll look everywhere, but you'll not see a better theistic philosophical system than Aristotle's. Everybody who tried to use philosophy to prove God based himself more or less on him.

[Lazarus]

I am not trying to prove a negative. I am actually demanding an answer: 1) is your system subjective? 2) If no, then why should I employ it to prove Christianity?

Your distinction between "partly subjective" and "totally subjective" misses the point. Again, that very definition is subjective. OK you might believe in it. But that's just you.

The irony here is that you accuse me of leaving room even for Scientology and LDS to be given credence. ON THE OTHER hand, all of your efforts point to that. Sorry it's futile. Doesn't matter if you try to be sophisticated or what, in the end your philosophy has as much worth as saying Xenu metaphysically waved his hand to create the Universe.

Which sounds awfully like "The invisible man waved his hand and created the universe" There is as much proof for God as there is for Xenu.

Christianity asks us to know its truths through Faith

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. If that's the standard of proof that you need, then it's entirely up for you to decide on your own time. The problem with "knowing through faith" though is that a lot of things ask us to know them through faith, Islam, Judaism, the many different sects of Catholicism and Christianity and when you just know through faith, how do you sort out which is right? It's impossible to refute an argument based in faith - and you need to refute some of them because all of them claim that there is room for only one.

I dont want you to take this as an attack, I am genuinely asking because you are more educated on the matter then I am. How do you figure out which faith is the one true faith if there's no way to scrutinize them?

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

If that's the standard of proof that you need

For the 10000th time, Christianity is not a scientific theory or a philosophical system.

These are all passing. There's no need to accomodate the needs of Truth to the smaller man-made truth that a) comes and goes away, b) contingent, c) is only approximate and subjective.

[Sphere]

Christianity asks us to know its truths through Faith, not through concepts, mathematical formulae, or empirical-based systems.

As do most religions.

What should trouble you is that there are well over a billion Muslims, most of whom earnestly pray and give themselves over to Faith and God, and through this process are reinforced in their belief in the Koran and the teachings of the the Prophet (pbuh) as being the true and final Word of God. In other words, there is no mass conversion to Christianity going on in the Muslim world. And this is just one non-christian religion, there are thousands of others not to mention the more heretical Christian sects like Mormons, Jehova witnesses etc.

So even as a believer in a particular religion, you are rather forced to admit that the use of Faith to determine truths most of the time leads to false beliefs.

Or perhaps if these billion Muslims just prayed 8 times a day instead of 5, and had a more intense Faith, they'd finally find the truth and accept Jesus Christ as their lord and Savior?

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

To quote the words of a Platonist, at least they believe in metaphysical 'subjectivity'. Ergo, they believe in God, soul, resurrection of the dead, prophethood of Jesus, Revelation, Sacred Scripture, Apocaliptical eschatology, etc... That to me, is much finer than being an atheist.

But it must trouble you, as a legitimate defender of such nonsense and tripe as the Bill of Rights, the Universal Declaration of "Human Rights", Enlightenment "individualism", the blessing and deifying mission of man's material progress and self-worship, etc... to see that many people dismiss and consider your little philosophy nonsense and subjective.

It must hurt for you to know that there are atheists who are monarchists, anti-humanistic, who defend that religion must form a close symbiosis with the state, who agree with the political genius of a Thomas Hobbes or a Bossuet or a de Maistre even if they cannot be brought to accept the dogmas of the Christian faith.

It must also hurt you that there is the opposite spectrum. Communists, Stalinists, etcetera who believe that the very notion of the "individual" and "individual rights" are affectations that must be exterminated, and that the only atheism that makes sense is the atheism of good old dialectical marxian materialism, as opposed to the pseudo-metaphysical and idealistic ramblings of a Dawkins or a Hitchens, both of whom feed upon trite, discredited and obsolete 19th century optimist leftovers.

May a) Compulsory Education, b) Science, c) [insert idol here] make these men see the TRUTH (tm) before it is too late.

In other words, you resort to mere philosophy has not solved mankind's problems by a single jot. We are still stupid, we still kill ourselves over ideals, we are still fundamentally divided, we still die of old age no matter how obsessed with personal health we become. Christianity has a name for that: Original Sin. So we're perfectly fine with Christianity, ya know?

Your criticism applies better to yourself.

[Irishman]

In other words, you resort to mere philosophy has not solved mankind's problems by a single jot. We are still stupid, we still kill ourselves over ideals, we are still fundamentally divided, we still die of old age no matter how obsessed with personal health we become. Christianity has a name for that: Original Sin. So we're perfectly fine with Christianity, ya know?

Hmm, we cannot rid ourselves of subjectivity completely so let us embrace it fully!

That is your position, and I find it laughable.

It must hurt for you to know that there are atheists who are monarchists, anti-humanistic, who defend that religion must form a close symbiosis with the state, who agree with the political genius of a Thomas Hobbes or a Bossuet or a de Maistre even if they cannot be brought to accept the dogmas of the Christian faith.

No, not in any way. Why would it?

It must also hurt you that there is the opposite spectrum. Communists, Stalinists, etcetera who believe that the very notion of the "individual" and "individual rights" are affectations that must be exterminated, and that the only atheism that makes sense is the atheism of good old dialectical marxian materialism, as opposed to the pseudo-metaphysical and idealistic ramblings of a Dawkins or a Hitchens, both of whom feed upon trite, discredited and obsolete 19th century optimist leftovers.

You can't attack my actual arguments so you build another strawman. How original.

[Sphere]

To quote the words of a Platonist, at least they believe in metaphysical 'subjectivity'. Ergo, they believe in God, soul, resurrection of the dead, prophethood of Jesus, Revelation, Sacred Scripture, Apocaliptical eschatology, etc... That to me, is much finer than being an atheist.

So for you it would be a terrible turn of events if the members of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula had a mass conversion to secular atheism? Are you really prepared to defend the Islamic world? You must be a very brave person.

I don't think I have to defend Stalinism if I want to say that Faith seems to be a bad way of figuring things out out. Empirical based science has it's own problems and I am more than happy to talk about them (head over to Anthenaeum if you don't believe me), but I fail to see how that redeems the rather self-evident problems of saying Faith produces reliable results. On the contrary, faith seems to produce whatever result is desired, hence the plethora of religions.

You can create as long a list of horribles stemming from atheism as you want, but you still are very much saddled with things like the Mormon's being informed through Faith that Native Americans are actually the lost tribes of Israel if you are going to try and defend faith in general.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

That is your position, and I find it laughable.

I am not really proposing that. I am just saying that it is laughable that you try to attack the Faith with subjectivity: because once you get into the realm of concepts, abstract theories, natural reasoning and so on, you're in the realm of subjectivity.

My suggestion is that you all kill the inner Socrates within yourselves and see reality with new eyes, unimpaired by a bulky, byzantine, abstruse and unreal abstract apparatus. Socrates was a pedant: occasionally he said something of brilliance, but his main legacy is mass delusion. Theories change nothing, and even if I could do the impossible and produce a complete philosophical theory for Christianity right now and here, it would dessecrate not only the inner meanings of the Mystical Theology, it would serve no purpose because philosophy does not save one from death and changes nothing.

In the realm of the senses, in the realm of theories, in the realm of mind, which is nothing but the realm of the individual, in fact in the whole realm of the individual, one is not free from subjectivity. This is all I can say.

[Kitsunegari]

But it must trouble you, as a legitimate defender of such nonsense and tripe as the Bill of Rights, the Universal Declaration of "Human Rights", Enlightenment "individualism", the blessing and deifying mission of man's material progress and self-worship, etc... to see that many people dismiss and consider your little philosophy nonsense and subjective.

It must hurt for you to know that there are atheists who are monarchists, anti-humanistic, who defend that religion must form a close symbiosis with the state, who agree with the political genius of a Thomas Hobbes or a Bossuet or a de Maistre even if they cannot be brought to accept the dogmas of the Christian faith.

I'm starting to agree with some of this myself, human beings are spiritual by nature, and, IMO, the universal rationalism of the 19th and 20th centuries has helped lead to a kind of inverse spirituality, a pervasive nihilism that has eaten the soul of the West.

[Irishman]

I am not trying to prove a negative. I am actually demanding an answer: 1) is your system subjective? 2) If no, then why should I employ it to prove Christianity?

Your distinction between "partly subjective" and "totally subjective" misses the point. Again, that very definition is subjective. OK you might believe in it. But that's just you.

Oh nonsense. There is a clear and objective difference between guessing and setting up methodology which produces reliable (if not perfect) results. That should not be a point of contention.

Christianity asks us to know its truths through Faith, not through concepts, mathematical formulae, or empirical-based systems.

Then what sense of KNOW is there other than guessing?

I suggest, Irishman, before you fall in the trap of philosophical theology, that you read about Jorge de Burgos, a character in the Name of the Rose. Pay attention to what he says, especially when he argues - as brilliantly pointed out by a colleague of mine - how Thomas Aquinas is an enemy of Christianity and how these philosophical systems invert our proper relationship with reality.

Luther even considered Aristotle the Antichrist. Nothing against the Stagirite, his philosophy is nice, but ultimately it is wolf in sheep's clothing: a deceiving humanism, giving us an illusion of power through concepts, as always. And historically, you'll look everywhere, but you'll not see a better theistic philosophical system than Aristotle's. Everybody who tried to use philosophy to prove God based himself more or less on him.

This is exactly the problem. People like Aquinas, seeing the woeful state of theological dogmatism, attempted to defend their position rather than blindly accepting it. You would have us dismiss their work and the drive to reason because it doesn't agree with the conclusion you want to hold.

EDIT

I am not really proposing that. I am just saying that it is laughable that you try to attack the Faith with subjectivity: because once you get into the realm of concepts, abstract theories, natural reasoning and so on, you're in the realm of subjectivity.

Actually you are proposing that, because you deny that systems can have varying degrees of methodological subjectivity.

My suggestion is that you all kill the inner Socrates within yourselves and see reality with new eyes, unimpaired by a bulky, byzantine, abstruse and unreal abstract apparatus. Socrates was a pedant: occasionally he said something of brilliance, but his main legacy is mass delusion. Theories change nothing, and even if I could do the impossible and produce a complete philosophical theory for Christianity right now and here, it would dessecrate not only the inner meanings of the Mystical Theology, it would serve no purpose because philosophy does not save one from death and changes nothing.

Dump Socrates for what? Some writing in a book by a man who says "trust me, this is revelation we're talking about"... no thanks.

In the realm of the senses, in the realm of theories, in the realm of mind, which is nothing but the realm of the individual, in fact in the whole realm of the individual, one is not free from subjectivity. This is all I can say.

This I do not deny, but it also doesn't mean that we have to be completely thrown to the wolves. We need not embrace wholly subjective guessing as our response to the "whimsical and pitiful situation of mankind" to quote Hume.

[Sphere]

Then what sense of KNOW is there other than guessing?

I think that is weak way to attack faith. A great deal of scientific investigation as well involves making an initial guess of some sort. The difference lies in the process of checking the results and making modifications to the guess (or throwing it out completely).

Take my Mormon example of the lost tribes of Israel. An anthropologist could also guess that some tribes of Palestine migrated to N. American, and would look into the tools, languages, symbols, genetic sequencing etc. of N. American tribes to see if this guess is supported by evidence. If it doesn't pan out the anthropologist (or most anyone) would likely conclude the guess is wrong.

But because it is an article of Faith, the Mormon isn't likely to reach the same conclusion. Maybe the Mormons are right and everyone else is wrong, maybe their Faith works. But this example, and countless others, puts the defender of Faith in the difficult position of explaining a mess of contradictions and mutually exclusive claims which arise from Faith based beliefs. They cannot all be right, indeed it means most conclusions reached through faith are wrong.

[Irishman]

I think that is weak way to attack faith. A great deal of scientific investigation as well involves making an initial guess of some sort. The difference lies in the process of checking the results and making modifications to the guess (or throwing it out completely).

Take my Mormon example of the lost tribes of Israel. An anthropologist could also guess that some tribes of Palestine migrated to N. American, and would look into the tools, languages, symbols, genetic sequencing etc. of N. American tribes to see if this guess is supported by evidence. If it doesn't pan out the anthropologist (or most anyone) would likely conclude the guess is wrong.

But because it is an article of Faith, the Mormon isn't likely to reach the same conclusion. Maybe the Mormons are right and everyone else is wrong, maybe their Faith works. But this example, and countless others, puts the defender of Faith in the difficult position of explaining a mess of contradictions and mutually exclusive claims which arise from Faith based beliefs. They cannot all be right, indeed it means most conclusions reached through faith are wrong.

That wasn't my point. I was asking what sense of knowledge it is, if not subjective guessing.

There are plenty of theories of knowledge that allow for the subjectivity inherent in nature, what I'm asking if that if you disallow any form of justification other than guessing (which philosophy doesn't do by the way) why call it knowledge? Sure you guess when you make a hypothesis, but the testing and reliability of the explanation is paramount.

Virtually nobody allows that knowledge is just being right. There needs to be a justification at least (ignoring the Gettier problem). Basing beliefs of faith means that there is no longer any justification for knowledge, and that is a very scary proposition.

[Lazarus]

For the 10000th time, Christianity is not a scientific theory or a philosophical system.

These are all passing. There's no need to accomodate the needs of Truth to the smaller man-made truth that a) comes and goes away, b) contingent, c) is only approximate and subjective.

Then what is it and how do you distinguish which is the "one true faith" as they all claim to be?

[Himster]

Superstitions come and go, the laws of physics and science (know and unknown) stays the same.

[Sphere]

Superstitions come and go, the laws of physics and science (know and unknown) stays the same.

On the contrary, the assumption that keeps science going is that everything is possibly wrong. Even the assumption that the constants and thus the laws are unchanging over time is on the table (there is active research into this).

Doubt, uncertainty and skepticism are the engines that keep science ticking along.

[Col. Tartleton]

Then what is it and how do you distinguish which is the "one true faith" as they all claim to be?

Whichever one appeals to him the most.

[Himster]

On the contrary, the assumption that keeps science going is that everything is possibly wrong. Even the assumption that the constants and thus the laws are unchanging over time is on the table (there is active research into this).

Doubt, uncertainty and skepticism are the engines that keep science ticking along.

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.