I’ll start with the most important line of your entire post:
Congratulations! You have demonstrated a rare level of intellectual honesty that I find rare on AtheistForums.org. As expressed in another thread, I, like the continental existentialists recognize the role and responsibility of personal choice as the starting point for philosophical reflection.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-39998-po...pid1144612
To paraphrase:
In that same post, I mentioned the question I pose to all those who advocate philosophical positions, positions that on their face appear logically consistent, yet present conclusions severely at odds how most people actually live: do you want to live a life consistent with your beliefs?
My question has broad application. Do determinists actually think their personal choices are constrained by mindless external forces? Do eliminative materialist actually think their own consciousness is an illusion? Do radical skeptics really think that no principle actually links causes to their effects? Do idealistic solipsists actually certain of only their own consciousness? The answers are clearly no, no, no, and no. You may want to keep my question in the back of your mind as you explore the depths of absurdist “reasoning.”
Saint Peter teaches that believers do have, to some extent, a burden of proof when he tells his flock “be ready to give an account for the hope that is in your heart.” (paraphrase of 1Peter 3:15). In this particular instance the admonition does not apply. Radical empiricism, of the type you advocate, makes a tacit metaphysical claim. With the questions of my previous post, I challenged you to defend your metaphysical position. Again, stated in other ways, those questions being: 1) how do you (yes you specifically) empirically verify the claim that all knowledge is empirically verifiable?, 2) how do you justify the presumption that particular beings have natures while denying a principle that supports beings to study?, 3) In fields like linguistics, math, and economics, what principle(s) justifies the scientific inquiry objects as diverse as sentences, numbers, and trade value?
You declined to answer my questions and pose your own instead. May I suggest that you yourself are trying to avoid the positive claims implicit in your metaphysic of denying metaphysics? As for me, I have no fear of your questions/challenges.
A1: The knowledge in question is not yet “God exists;” but rather, that knowledge about reality can be gained apart from empirical verification that does not require empirical verification. Aristotle believed so and presented them in his Metaphysics. They are known collectively as the Principle of Non-Contradiction. YOU could introduce yourself to the PNC here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristo...tradiction. The point I have been making is that this knowledge is self-evident and necessary before any empirical investigation can begin AND is not subject of empirical verification.
A2: I already explained this but perhaps not with sufficient directness for YOU. Methodological naturalism, as an epistemology, cannot prove ontological naturalism (a metaphysical position), because it takes existence as given.
A3: I made no claim with respect to the “meaning of reality.” Only that reality supports the ability to make meaningful statements. If that were not the case you could not pose the question.
A4: The question is self-refuting. If reality lacks the capacity to support meaning, the question itself has not, indeed could not, have any content or referent. Moreover, to say definitively that there is no absolute meaning is itself saying that there is at least one absolute, that there are no absolutes. As you can see, your questions are easily dispatched. What I fail to understand is how a self-professed absurdist can hold fast the contradictory beliefs of scientism.
On to your next post which was of a more personal nature.
I ask myself this question all the time. I initially joined to learn, intentionally making myself a target to put my own philosophical position to the test. My own intellectual “journey” has perhaps been unique. Many people rebel against the religion of their youth. I think that in most cases this is as it should be, particularly when someone is intellectually inclined and their faith is not well grounded. But having rejected shallow faith, do the obvious mutually exclusive alternatives, like physicalism (on the one hand) and absurdism (on the other), have any better grounding? I think not.
But why is any of this important? For some it is not. Most people go along to get along. And that works fine for the most part. And yet, ideas have consequences and eventually, when conscience collides with convictions, something must give. As for me, I consider it a matter of personal integrity to live in accordance with what I believe. When the tough choices come will I find my best intentions buttressed by sound reasoning? Philosophy is useless speculation when it is divorced from its original meaning ‘Love of Wisdom’. Wisdom is where the intellectual “rubber” hits the “road” of life.
I still consider myself an existentialist. You can see this above where I prioritize an ultimately irrational personal choice as a ‘first principle’ of philosophy. I react very strongly to the uncritical pretense of some atheists who consider their existential choice as objectively rational. It isn’t. I know that I will convince no one.
Yours is a noble sentiment. In Nietzsche’s classic Zarathustra says to himself after meeting the faithful hermit, “Let me depart, that I may take nothing from him.” I think that despite his vociferous objections to Christianity and Judaism, Nietzsche didn’t see any reason to undermine the blissful ignorance of most believers. He did; however, seek to open a path for the emergence of a greater humanity free from the constraints of the intellectual foundations supporting belief. Again ideas have consequences. The materialistic justifications in ‘high’ culture filter down to popular acceptance. The corrosive effects of this process can be seen throughout Western culture from art to ethics. You’d have to blind not to see it and evil to praise it if you do.
Your state of your immortal soul is your own business. The Great Commission only asks Christians to make the world aware of the Gospel, not to compel belief. If they have not already heard the Gospel, Drich, Godschild, and others, have already adequately presented it. While I initially came on AF to learn, I now stand witness. In my own way, pompous and swarmy as it may be, I serve by revealing to all from where some ideas come and to where they lead. What they make of that knowledge is their own choice.
(December 26, 2015 at 10:48 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: I am an absurdist; I don't believe there is an absolute, objective "meaning" of reality.
Congratulations! You have demonstrated a rare level of intellectual honesty that I find rare on AtheistForums.org. As expressed in another thread, I, like the continental existentialists recognize the role and responsibility of personal choice as the starting point for philosophical reflection.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-39998-po...pid1144612
To paraphrase:
Quote:If both axioms (the reliability of intellect & the intelligibility of reality) are in fact true then knowledge can be attain. However, if either of those axioms is not in fact true then knowledge cannot be attained. One of the following applies: 1) we live in a rationally ordered world while we ourselves are incapable of reason, or 2) our capacity for reason cannot be applied to an irrational world, or 3) we live in an irrational would and are incapable of reason….Now you face an existential choice, one that cannot be rationally determined, empirically tested, or otherwise confirmed. Do you think these axioms are true?
In that same post, I mentioned the question I pose to all those who advocate philosophical positions, positions that on their face appear logically consistent, yet present conclusions severely at odds how most people actually live: do you want to live a life consistent with your beliefs?
My question has broad application. Do determinists actually think their personal choices are constrained by mindless external forces? Do eliminative materialist actually think their own consciousness is an illusion? Do radical skeptics really think that no principle actually links causes to their effects? Do idealistic solipsists actually certain of only their own consciousness? The answers are clearly no, no, no, and no. You may want to keep my question in the back of your mind as you explore the depths of absurdist “reasoning.”
(December 26, 2015 at 10:48 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Chad, I think you forget that as a Theist the burden of proof is on you. When you insist something exists and that people should believe in it, it's up to you to demonstrate good reason why we should.
Saint Peter teaches that believers do have, to some extent, a burden of proof when he tells his flock “be ready to give an account for the hope that is in your heart.” (paraphrase of 1Peter 3:15). In this particular instance the admonition does not apply. Radical empiricism, of the type you advocate, makes a tacit metaphysical claim. With the questions of my previous post, I challenged you to defend your metaphysical position. Again, stated in other ways, those questions being: 1) how do you (yes you specifically) empirically verify the claim that all knowledge is empirically verifiable?, 2) how do you justify the presumption that particular beings have natures while denying a principle that supports beings to study?, 3) In fields like linguistics, math, and economics, what principle(s) justifies the scientific inquiry objects as diverse as sentences, numbers, and trade value?
You declined to answer my questions and pose your own instead. May I suggest that you yourself are trying to avoid the positive claims implicit in your metaphysic of denying metaphysics? As for me, I have no fear of your questions/challenges.
Quote:Q1: “Using philosophy, Prove to ME this knowledge you have gained that lies outside of empirical science.”
A1: The knowledge in question is not yet “God exists;” but rather, that knowledge about reality can be gained apart from empirical verification that does not require empirical verification. Aristotle believed so and presented them in his Metaphysics. They are known collectively as the Principle of Non-Contradiction. YOU could introduce yourself to the PNC here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristo...tradiction. The point I have been making is that this knowledge is self-evident and necessary before any empirical investigation can begin AND is not subject of empirical verification.
Quote:Q2: Prove to ME that natural science CAN'T and never can be able to explain why anything exists at all.
A2: I already explained this but perhaps not with sufficient directness for YOU. Methodological naturalism, as an epistemology, cannot prove ontological naturalism (a metaphysical position), because it takes existence as given.
Quote:Q3. Please provide me with a definition of "meaning of reality," and prove it is the only correct and true definition.
A3: I made no claim with respect to the “meaning of reality.” Only that reality supports the ability to make meaningful statements. If that were not the case you could not pose the question.
Quote:Q4. …there is [not] an absolute, objective "meaning" of reality. Can you please use your tools of philosophy to prove that there is?
A4: The question is self-refuting. If reality lacks the capacity to support meaning, the question itself has not, indeed could not, have any content or referent. Moreover, to say definitively that there is no absolute meaning is itself saying that there is at least one absolute, that there are no absolutes. As you can see, your questions are easily dispatched. What I fail to understand is how a self-professed absurdist can hold fast the contradictory beliefs of scientism.
On to your next post which was of a more personal nature.
(December 26, 2015 at 11:07 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Why are you here on this forum? Why does it bother you so much that there are people in this world who don't believe in god? What motivates you to spend so much time here trying to convince atheists that they are ignorant and wrong?
I ask myself this question all the time. I initially joined to learn, intentionally making myself a target to put my own philosophical position to the test. My own intellectual “journey” has perhaps been unique. Many people rebel against the religion of their youth. I think that in most cases this is as it should be, particularly when someone is intellectually inclined and their faith is not well grounded. But having rejected shallow faith, do the obvious mutually exclusive alternatives, like physicalism (on the one hand) and absurdism (on the other), have any better grounding? I think not.
But why is any of this important? For some it is not. Most people go along to get along. And that works fine for the most part. And yet, ideas have consequences and eventually, when conscience collides with convictions, something must give. As for me, I consider it a matter of personal integrity to live in accordance with what I believe. When the tough choices come will I find my best intentions buttressed by sound reasoning? Philosophy is useless speculation when it is divorced from its original meaning ‘Love of Wisdom’. Wisdom is where the intellectual “rubber” hits the “road” of life.
I still consider myself an existentialist. You can see this above where I prioritize an ultimately irrational personal choice as a ‘first principle’ of philosophy. I react very strongly to the uncritical pretense of some atheists who consider their existential choice as objectively rational. It isn’t. I know that I will convince no one.
(December 26, 2015 at 11:07 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: … never once did I feel compelled to register to a Christian message board in an attempt to tear everyone down.
Yours is a noble sentiment. In Nietzsche’s classic Zarathustra says to himself after meeting the faithful hermit, “Let me depart, that I may take nothing from him.” I think that despite his vociferous objections to Christianity and Judaism, Nietzsche didn’t see any reason to undermine the blissful ignorance of most believers. He did; however, seek to open a path for the emergence of a greater humanity free from the constraints of the intellectual foundations supporting belief. Again ideas have consequences. The materialistic justifications in ‘high’ culture filter down to popular acceptance. The corrosive effects of this process can be seen throughout Western culture from art to ethics. You’d have to blind not to see it and evil to praise it if you do.
(December 26, 2015 at 11:07 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: It would feel unnatural (flowery words for an atheist, I know), to spend my time and energy trying to make a group of people with specific beliefs abandon those beliefs. What satisfaction would I get from that? I can't believe your motive is innocent; that you are genuinely worried for my immortal soul…So, I wonder how much of a humanist you really are if you would get more of an emotional payoff from proving atheists wrong (which you will never do), than by forming lasting relationships with people who share your values and world view.
Your state of your immortal soul is your own business. The Great Commission only asks Christians to make the world aware of the Gospel, not to compel belief. If they have not already heard the Gospel, Drich, Godschild, and others, have already adequately presented it. While I initially came on AF to learn, I now stand witness. In my own way, pompous and swarmy as it may be, I serve by revealing to all from where some ideas come and to where they lead. What they make of that knowledge is their own choice.
