(July 25, 2011 at 6:34 am)Descartes Wrote: One of the fundemental concepts in Athiesm, or Materialism in general, is that life is only matter, leading to another concept : the only means of true knowledge is science, and if any claim does not have a scientific, i.e. material, evidence can not be considered true.
Firstly, getting into semantic breaks like "true knowledge" isn't going to make you easy to understand - Knowledge is poorly defined period, it's not useful to talk about in a philosophical discussion.
Secondly, science is not seen as the only means, but the most effective and reliable, it's conclusions are contingent upon the sum of the data. Personal experience and Philosophy are certainly ways we can know certain things about reality but they are generally less effective.
Thirdly, Naturalism or Materialism is a tentative conclusion, it is the idea that it is all we have good reason to believe. If someone gives us good reason to believe that there is something immaterial in existence, suppose it is shown to be logically necessary, then I'll happily accept it and will no longer be a naturalist. The idea is that we should not believe something until we have good reason to, empirical evidence is simply the epitome of reason.
Quote:This view, however, is self-contradictory. Because it sets a condition for the validity of any calim that it has to be scientific while this condition itself is not scientific. There is no scientific evidence proving the idea of science as the only true means of human knowledge, It is merely a belief that can be jstified by philosophical propositions, exactly like belief in God!
And if you always deal in misguided absolutes you're going to find yourself making many more stupid statements like that one.
.
