(January 9, 2016 at 11:39 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Chad,..What, specifically, are your beliefs? Do you identify with a formal religion, and if so, which one? If you are Christian, how literally do you interpret the bible?I consider myself primarily a student of Swedenborg, the 18th Century visionary scientist and mystic. For the last three years I have been exploring the commonalities between Swedenborg’s theological works and Thomism.
(January 9, 2016 at 11:39 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: ... these arguments only go so far as to say: "there is more to this world than can be discovered by empirical science alone." You always fall short of actually saying what you believe in.
You’re a relatively new member so I understand that my approach may seem to be less forthright as of late. I generally have not shied away from being very explicit about my positions, like moderate realism, panentheism, a kind of essentialism, etc.
As of late, though I prefer to critique the critics. These critics are the people who presume that atheism is the only rational and logical stance with respect to the question “Does God(s) exist?”. They then proceed to demonstrate the apparent philosophical fallacies and theological follies they see in religious belief. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. If their stance is as logical and/or as rational as they say then their critiques should be cogent and firmly grounded. I have found however, that when pushed, the self-identified paragons of logic retreat into incoherent and self-refuting philosophical dead-ends, like radical empiricism.
Turnabout is fair play.
(January 9, 2016 at 11:39 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Are you afraid that if you admit to being Christian you will be held accountable for bridging that gap between the ambiguity of knowledge theory and the Christian God of the bible.No you’re right. There is a huge gap. There’s a huge gap between physics and linguistics, too, but no one says linguistics is bullshit just because it cannot be traced back to physics. If someone cannot see the general revelation of Nature than it would be pointless to discuss special revelation.
Besides, it took Aquinas about 80,000 words to bridge it to his own satisfaction and then, suddenly, he receives beatific vision and laments that all of his work was “as straw.”
(January 9, 2016 at 11:39 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: ... you REFUSE to admit to yourself that you can understand how philosophical theory in the absence of science might not be considered adequate evidence for a hard nosed atheist.I’m quite aware that a ‘hard-nosed’ atheist will only accept the findings of scientific inquiry for fundamental questions. I’m only asking them to acknowledge the precommitments they have made like this one: all statements must be empirically verified before accepted as true, except this one.