Atheism, Theism, Science & Philosophy

[Esquilax]

I also subscribe to empiricism in several areas, such as my love for the scientific method. I do, however, believe empircism has limits in terms of its scope of application. As you're aware, empricism posits that true knowledge is experienced via the senses. However, I believe that sensory experience of each human being is entirely subjective and that we need to transcend beyond our sensory system in order to experience what I call God.

Everything is experienced via the senses. Like it or not, you exist in a body where the only lens you have with which to experience the world is your sensory organs. Can you name a single aspect of existence that you experience without using your senses?

Saying empiricism is limited because the senses are subjective is just targeted solipsism; you don't go around distrusting every other aspect of your life because your senses are subjective, after all.

I postulate that almost all atheists are rationalists, and some of them often use the word "rational" without actually having the slightlest idea about the philosophy behind it or its origins. Because Richard Dawkins says rationalism leads to truth, the case is closed. Rationalists often believe that they can instantly and simplistically dismiss a proposition without engaging in any real thought on the matter. A good example of a rationalist: Jesus' resurrection is scientifically impossible, therefore, it must be logically false. This is why rationalists (with no prior knowledge of philosophy or history) annoy me.

Isn't the magic answer more simplistic and credulous, though? We know that resurrection is impossible, we've never once seen it occur in all our recorded history; that is thinking about the matter. If something is entirely out of our sphere of experience- despite the definite willingness people would have to test this claim that resurrection is possible, so it's not for lack of trying- then it's safe to say that it's impossible. What you're asking us to do is make an exception for the single example you like; this is hardly rational.

Not to mention, there are other reasons to doubt the resurrection of Jesus, like the fact that there's no contemporary historical records that even show that he existed.

We postulate that mystical experience does have a material cause, but this does not explain why the experience exists in the first place, hence my reason for attributing it to an external agency.

When you don't know the answer for something, then "I don't know," is the answer. You're not justified in just sticking something magic in the gap, because you've got as little evidence for that as you do for a material explanation. It demands further investigation, not just the most comfortable answer that comes to mind at the time.