A Serious Question For Theists

[GrandizerII]

I don't agree at all that they're opposites.

From the strict philosophical standpoint, rationalism is the view that all or most truth is deductive and a priori, deriving logically from a set of axioms gained by intuition or inherent knowledge. However, the term is not very often used so strictly, so this form of rationalism is generally known in English-speaking philosophy as continental rationalism, as its original proponents, such as René Descartes, were largely situated in continental Europe.

The term is more commonly used to refer to a synthesis of continental rationalism with its former rival philosophy, empiricism. This looser rationalism holds that empirical observation is more useful than intuition for gaining one's starting axioms, but one can use deductive reasoning from these axioms just as well. The best embodiment of this way of gaining knowledge is the scientific method; hence, rationalists tend to give high regard to science, designating it as the primary or sole proper source of truth.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rationalism

---

Actually there are tuns of lectures, documentaries, essays about Islam and God.. on the web.

If you want my advice you can watch Jeffery Lang he is wit and clever! You would like him even if you didn't believe him

I can help you if you want.

I mean when I want to know about atheism I prefer to watch a documentary or an atheist who is a great writer or famous for his bright ideas.. I would seek knowledge from a good source.

I don't think that talking to me is good source .. I'm not a scholar.. I'm just a thinking muslim who reads a lot!

Seen and read a lot of Islamic material, especially the stuff related to purported scientific miracles in the Qur'an. Wasn't impressed to be honest.

[Esquilax]

1. The old "primitive people were ignorant" red herring where you know very well that those people were not making scientific observations in the bible.

So are you saying that the bible wasn't intended to be treated as a real account? It wasn't set up as a position on the origins of the universe?

2. Spoken like a true empiricist. You insist on that point of fact, where biblical Christianity, for one, is based upon the premise of an unknowable fact.

An unknowable fact is indistinguishable from a nonexistent one.

Until you can get over that self imposed restriction, you're stuck with your illogical/ contradictory position.

You still haven't established any contradiction or illogical premise of my position. You've just asserted it.

Just to let you know esq, this is the end of my engaging with your sophistry in this thread.

That's just the way you work, isn't it? Evade, evade, evade, and then blame everyone else for not agreeing with you based on the barest of arguments that you've actually made.

[ignoramus]

guys, fascinating reading...

I can understand why thiests need to dismiss all of the scientific evidence, not just some. Because if "god" created everything, and we prove that a tiny bit was not his work, then the whole deck of cards collapses... On the other hand, if right now, a man came to me and told me he was jesus, and proved it by walking on water and turning water into wine! I would say, nice one mate, pull the other one! My question is what proof do we athiests really want to be convinced? We will be sceptical (because that's what we do) to the point where nothing he can do will convince us.

EG; I say make it rain, it starts raining? I say, you cheeky bastard, you've got people in planes in the sky making it rain!

[GrandizerII]

guys, fascinating reading...

I can understand why thiests need to dismiss all of the scientific evidence, not just some. Because if "god" created everything, and we prove that a tiny bit was not his work, then the whole deck of cards collapses... On the other hand, if right now, a man came to me and told me he was jesus, and proved it by walking on water and turning water into wine! I would say, nice one mate, pull the other one! My question is what proof do we athiests really want to be convinced? We will be sceptical (because that's what we do) to the point where nothing he can do will convince us.

I'll keep testing him over and over and over again in various ways until I'm satisfied. Then I'll believe.

[Bad Wolf]

Am I the only one who still doesn't understand why frodo thinks atheism is illogical?

[Tonus]

I believe his claim is that scientism is illogical, because it dismisses non-physical, non-empirical evidence. If that's the correct definition, then I'll cop to scientism because the lack of consistency and coherence in "non-scientific" evidence makes it impossible to use that evidence to determine anything for certain, even to the individual in question (IMO).

[fr0d0]

I don't agree at all that they're opposites.

From the strict philosophical standpoint, rationalism is the view that all or most truth is deductive and a priori, deriving logically from a set of axioms gained by intuition or inherent knowledge. However, the term is not very often used so strictly, so this form of rationalism is generally known in English-speaking philosophy as continental rationalism, as its original proponents, such as René Descartes, were largely situated in continental Europe.

The term is more commonly used to refer to a synthesis of continental rationalism with its former rival philosophy, empiricism. This looser rationalism holds that empirical observation is more useful than intuition for gaining one's starting axioms, but one can use deductive reasoning from these axioms just as well. The best embodiment of this way of gaining knowledge is the scientific method; hence, rationalists tend to give high regard to science, designating it as the primary or sole proper source of truth.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rationalism

I have no problem with that. I think that pretty much describes my own approach. That they are opposite seems to be the prominent view, taken from a quick Google. Perhaps they are talking about strict adherence to either, which I can understand.

---

guys, fascinating reading...

I can understand why thiests need to dismiss all of the scientific evidence, not just some.

As a Christian, I don't dismiss any scientific evidence whatsoever. I don't find that I need to, and I don't find that I need to compromise my beliefs at all. If I have problems with either, my faith or my understanding of science, then I know I'm doing something wrong.

For example... I agree completely with evolution, and I also believe that the bible is true, and that a thorough literal reading of biblical origins does not conflict in any way with scientific discovery.

---

I believe his claim is that scientism is illogical, because it dismisses non-physical, non-empirical evidence. If that's the correct definition, then I'll cop to scientism because the lack of consistency and coherence in "non-scientific" evidence makes it impossible to use that evidence to determine anything for certain, even to the individual in question (IMO).

If you're denying rational, which is what I think scientism is doing besides being self defeating (1), then I can't see how that position is tenable

1 : Philosopher of religion Keith Ward has said scientism is philosophically inconsistent or even self-refuting, as the truth of the statements "no statements are true unless they can be proven scientifically (or logically)" or "no statements are true unless they can be shown empirically to be true" cannot themselves be proven scientifically, logically, or empirically.

Ward, Keith, Is Religion Dangerous?.
Alston, William P (2003). "Religious language and verificationism". In Moser, Paul K; Copan, Paul. The Rationality of Theism. New York: Routledge. pp. 26–34. ISBN 0-415-26332-8.
(source = Wikipedia)

[Tonus]

If you're denying rational, which is what I think scientism is doing besides being self defeating (1), then I can't see how that position is tenable

Oh. That's a different definition than I was assuming. I don't think science needs to deal in that kind of absolute. But I think any discipline that purports to prove something needs to provide evidence that we can at least consider for discussion and that follows some sort of rules. And I think it's the rules part that makes the supernatural (or metaphysics, etc) impossible to verify.

[FatAndFaithless]

guys, fascinating reading...

I can understand why thiests need to dismiss all of the scientific evidence, not just some. Because if "god" created everything, and we prove that a tiny bit was not his work, then the whole deck of cards collapses... On the other hand, if right now, a man came to me and told me he was jesus, and proved it by walking on water and turning water into wine! I would say, nice one mate, pull the other one! My question is what proof do we athiests really want to be convinced? We will be sceptical (because that's what we do) to the point where nothing he can do will convince us.

EG; I say make it rain, it starts raining? I say, you cheeky bastard, you've got people in planes in the sky making it rain!

As to what it would take for me to believe in God(s), I simply don't know. However, if said God is supposedly as powerful and all-knowing as his fan club purports, then he/she certainly knows what would convince me, and as of yet I'm still waiting.

[fr0d0]

If you're denying rational, which is what I think scientism is doing besides being self defeating (1), then I can't see how that position is tenable

Oh. That's a different definition than I was assuming. I don't think science needs to deal in that kind of absolute. But I think any discipline that purports to prove something needs to provide evidence that we can at least consider for discussion and that follows some sort of rules. And I think it's the rules part that makes the supernatural (or metaphysics, etc) impossible to verify.

What does it want to prove?

I don't think it wants to prove anything. I don't claim that God exists... I believe that God exists. I think the rule is that you can't prove it. If you could then it would be false.