(March 30, 2017 at 6:02 pm)Orochi Wrote:(March 30, 2017 at 11:17 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I agree that humans have the capacity for awe and a sense of mystery. That much is obvious. The question I have is to what is awe a response and what is our relationship with that sense of mystery. I will also acknowledge that such feelings do not prove much. At the same time, I say that such feelings do legitimize belief in the divine and if an mentally competent believer has reasonably examined various objections and potential defeaters then that belief is warranted.
YMMV. There is always a danger of that in philosophy. At the same time, MK is a special case because his diction is distinctly non-Western. I find myself translating his arguments into terms that more closely correspond to the nomenclature of Western philosophy. For example, when he says “praiseworthy”, I hear “perfection”.
That sounded a bit hyperbolic to me. I often write in a more polemic style to make a point. I will assume you were doing the same.
Many skeptics suggest that believers have failed some epistemic obligation. They wrap this idea with the dubious moral imperative that no one should believe anything without proof as some kind of cognitive obligation. In their opinion, anyone who fails in that moral duty must be either dishonest or indoctrinated or mentally deficient for not adhering to the tenets of classical foundationalism. It’s text book circular reasoning – claiming that classical foundationalism is true by appealing to classical foundationalism. (and then insulting those who don't agree)
So in the end, Benny, your appeals to Science TM as the only reliable means to arrive at truths stands on feet of clay. There really isn’t any proof that classical foundationalism exhausts all the means by which people can gain knowledge. What if, instead of being the opposite of knowledge, true faith is a special kind of knowledge, in the same category as self-evident principles and incorrigible experiences. Or to see it from another angle, true skepticism has no downward limit and ultimately undermines even classical foundationalism. What if our incorrigible experiences are illusions? What if self-evident propositions are cognitive tricks aimed only at fitness and not truth? At some point a fellow must grant that he has only made an existential choice, completely without appeal to outside principles, about how he goes about understanding the world.
Next I submit to you ( and some of my Christian brothers) that your observations about religion look in the wrong direction. Religion is not a form of inquiry about the natural world. That is indeed the domain of the sciences and the humanities. Religious practice is a way to cultivate a relationship with the divine and truths it reveal do not progress because they are timeless answers to the most primal longings of the human heart.
And your appeals to a relationship with magic pixies for truth has no feet at all in fact no legs ethier
(March 30, 2017 at 11:41 am)Brian37 Wrote: Um no, scientific method is a tool, and no, it is not set in clay, it is a process that leads us to new discoveries. It is why we drive cars now instead of riding horses. It is why we got to the moon. It is why we have flu vaccines and make new ones every year, because scientific method teaches the user to go where the evidence leads and adapt to changing data.
Yes it is an appeal, to FACTS and data, but so what. It is not a religion and is not there to cling to the mythologies of antiquity. If it were not for science we'd still be living in the stone age.
There is a huge difference to appealing with reason. logic, and scientific method, and what theists do by saying "my religion has pretty stories in it", yea and so what, they all have pretty stories in them. I can also find pretty stories in Charlotte's Web and Harry Potter without literally believing them to be true.
Science is useful and factual . Religion is useless and stands on nothing but nice sounding fiction
Atheism and science are a tireless bird or cloud able to swore on the winds of evidence
Theism and Religion are a rotting bastion built on dogma , ignorance and stagnation. It's crumbling walls manned by multitudes of apologist and preacher desperately and futiley nailing boards and splashing paint to stave off the rot .Often adding new rooms on cracking foundations and twisting corridors that end no were and might as well not be.
Religion is useless, I agree. But even in saying that most people have one and there is no utopia or pragmatic way you will ever force it out of existence as if one could or should. There are also very empathetic and kind individuals in every single religion bar none. Where all of them go wrong is thinking their religion is the cause of their empathy, when it is evolution doing it.
"atheism" is a word I hate. I know people use it, but once you start adding "ism" to the end of it it sounds like a religion. I never want "off" to be treated like a religion. I don't agree with all atheists all the time. I know Ayn Rand atheists who might be great on social issues like gays and pot smoking, but I hate their "fuck you I got mine" stance that taxes are robbery and only the rich are the job creators. I also don't like other atheists who like Che who lead to Cuba whom think it is one bit possible to rid the world of the private sector.
Science is neutral, and should be viewed that way, even among atheists. And not every atheist has the same education level regardless. We come from all educational levels and all former religions and all nationalities and skin tones. But the word "atheist" also does not mean an individual atheist will never do bad or harm others. Even atheists are still part of the same evolution and subject to the potential of the same flaws.
