RE: Exposing the Intellectual Bankruptcy of Atheists Criticizing Religion
November 9, 2015 at 12:42 pm
I write only for the sake of those who find themselves swayed by Esquilax’s rhetoric, although I wish nothing for him but the best. While you may share with him an inclination to disbelieve in God, he has hardened himself against reason and hopefully my reply below will demonstrate more fully his errors.
Most of us have read and contributed to threads about what evidence would suffice to convince an atheist that God exists. The stand taken by Esquilax against the 5W and his reasons for opposing them demonstrates that for many, no form of evidence would ever suffice. He has ruled out beforehand rational reflection as a source for a priori knowledge without realizing that in so doing he has contradicted himself. How does one go about empirically proving that only empirical knowledge is valid? And how can he dismiss a priori knowledge known by rational reflection without using a priori knowledge?
I trust that at least some of you are true freethinkers and remain willing to follow the truth wherever it may lead. My journey from atheist to Christian came from a true desire to know. I have been where you are. At the same time, I continue to challenge not only myself but professional Thomist scholars. In other words, I’m trying to prove myself wrong, even if it doesn’t show in this particular venue.
Many of you have heard that before: arguments are not evidence. Since my initial reply fails to satisfy then I will call on a greater authority than myself. In Book 4, Chapter 3 of his Metaphysics, Aristotle presents the Principle of Non-Contradiction (a.k.a. the PNC) which states that nothing can be and not-be simultaneously and in all ways. The PNC shows conclusively that 1) human being have the capacity to know fundamental truths and 2) humans can have certain and true a priori knowledge that transcends sensory verification, i.e. it lies beyond empirical knowledge.
As Aristotle shows, all arguments (including those of natural science) presuppose the PNC, its truth is self-evident, and it is impossible to think otherwise. Therefore, if even one person sees and understands the PNC, then people have the capacity to know fundamental truths. Furthermore, the truth of which they know is something fundamentally true not only about particular beings, but about all of reality as well. Aristotle’s demonstration of the PNC also shows that at least one argument can be known by a priori reflection. Therefore, Esquilax is wrong, at least one argument IS evidence: the PNC.
This is not to say that other rational demonstrations for deity are valid. The point here is that contrary to popular opinion, it is indeed possible to ‘logic something into existence’ and to provide evidence for facts about the world that are not subject to sensory verification. Since Esquilax is unable or unwilling to overcome his incredulity for all forms of rational demonstration, he prevents himself from recognizing or even considering any ideas that could challenge his preconceptions.
I cannot speak to his examples of ‘parsimonious explanations’ since Esquilax presents none. I can say; however, that natural science presupposes certain truths and facts about reality that can only be known a priori, like the PNC. Those kinds of facts about reality stand regardless of who thinks them or when they thought them. Truth has no expiration date. Natural science cannot give ‘parsimonious explanations’ of things that lie beyond its epistemological reach.
Most of us have read and contributed to threads about what evidence would suffice to convince an atheist that God exists. The stand taken by Esquilax against the 5W and his reasons for opposing them demonstrates that for many, no form of evidence would ever suffice. He has ruled out beforehand rational reflection as a source for a priori knowledge without realizing that in so doing he has contradicted himself. How does one go about empirically proving that only empirical knowledge is valid? And how can he dismiss a priori knowledge known by rational reflection without using a priori knowledge?
I trust that at least some of you are true freethinkers and remain willing to follow the truth wherever it may lead. My journey from atheist to Christian came from a true desire to know. I have been where you are. At the same time, I continue to challenge not only myself but professional Thomist scholars. In other words, I’m trying to prove myself wrong, even if it doesn’t show in this particular venue.
(November 8, 2015 at 12:59 am)Esquilax Wrote: [quote='ChadWooters' pid='1108550' dateline='1446956957']I see little point in attempting to persuade you to read Aquinas correctly.I think you mean "persuade you to read Aquinas precisely as I interpret it."
Quote:Because I have regular e-mail exchanges with notable contemporary Thomist scholars, like Dr. Fesser who wrote the article referenced by the OP, I can say with confidence that the views I present reflect not only my interpretation but that the best thinkers in the field.
(November 8, 2015 at 12:59 am)Esquilax Wrote: Is it really so intellectually fulfilling for you to not even consider the possibility that you aren't immediately, one hundred percent convincing every time?In the case of Esquilax, he will employ all the resources of his intellect to direct attention away from valid demonstrations. When he finds himself unable to do so, he hand-waves and inserts rolling eyes emoticons as if his incredulity were enough to justify his opinions. I accept that not all will be convinced because not all can be convinced. For those who have confirmed in themselves an ardent disbelief no amount of evidence or rational demonstration will lead them to the truth.
[quote='Esquilax' pid='1108555' dateline='1446958796']There is, of course, a larger problem with Aquinas that I mentioned earlier, which is that arguments are not evidence. No amount of twisting will ever get you to rational justification for belief…
Many of you have heard that before: arguments are not evidence. Since my initial reply fails to satisfy then I will call on a greater authority than myself. In Book 4, Chapter 3 of his Metaphysics, Aristotle presents the Principle of Non-Contradiction (a.k.a. the PNC) which states that nothing can be and not-be simultaneously and in all ways. The PNC shows conclusively that 1) human being have the capacity to know fundamental truths and 2) humans can have certain and true a priori knowledge that transcends sensory verification, i.e. it lies beyond empirical knowledge.
As Aristotle shows, all arguments (including those of natural science) presuppose the PNC, its truth is self-evident, and it is impossible to think otherwise. Therefore, if even one person sees and understands the PNC, then people have the capacity to know fundamental truths. Furthermore, the truth of which they know is something fundamentally true not only about particular beings, but about all of reality as well. Aristotle’s demonstration of the PNC also shows that at least one argument can be known by a priori reflection. Therefore, Esquilax is wrong, at least one argument IS evidence: the PNC.
This is not to say that other rational demonstrations for deity are valid. The point here is that contrary to popular opinion, it is indeed possible to ‘logic something into existence’ and to provide evidence for facts about the world that are not subject to sensory verification. Since Esquilax is unable or unwilling to overcome his incredulity for all forms of rational demonstration, he prevents himself from recognizing or even considering any ideas that could challenge his preconceptions.
(November 8, 2015 at 12:59 am)Esquilax Wrote: …in this case many of the ways ultimately fail because they don't isolate contributing factors. It's all just "oh, this must be god," despite the fact that there are other, far more parsimonious explanations that fit better with the science that developed between Aquinas' time and the present day.Esquilax, says this so often and with such conviction that he has started to believe it. If people followed his example, they would say Agatha Christi is a bad writer because she doesn’t reveal ‘whodunit’ in the first chapter. The 5W are the beginning and not the end of the Summa.
I cannot speak to his examples of ‘parsimonious explanations’ since Esquilax presents none. I can say; however, that natural science presupposes certain truths and facts about reality that can only be known a priori, like the PNC. Those kinds of facts about reality stand regardless of who thinks them or when they thought them. Truth has no expiration date. Natural science cannot give ‘parsimonious explanations’ of things that lie beyond its epistemological reach.
