An Essay about Atheism in Latin

[Belacqua]

And even that science is the only way of knowing doesn't need to be a metaphysical conviction, we can come to that notion empirically

Here is the standard question about empirical knowing, as typed out by another poster on this forum a while back:

"The truthfulness of all propositions must be empirically validated to count as knowledge."

If the above proposition is known as true, then it must be (as a proposition) subject to empirical validation. <= Is that the case?

If it is the case, how was it empirically validated?

If it does not require empirical validation, AND it is known to be true, then there seems to be a proposition (that one) whose truthfulness is known without empirical validation.

If that is true, then the original proposition is false (because NOT all propositions are subject to empirical validation, only some)

[FlatAssembler]

And even that science is the only way of knowing doesn't need to be a metaphysical conviction, we can come to that notion empirically

Here is the standard question about empirical knowing, as typed out by another poster on this forum a while back:

"The truthfulness of all propositions must be empirically validated to count as knowledge."

If the above proposition is known as true, then it must be (as a proposition) subject to empirical validation. <= Is that the case?

If it is the case, how was it empirically validated?

If it does not require empirical validation, AND it is known to be true, then there seems to be a proposition (that one) whose truthfulness is known without empirical validation.

If that is true, then the original proposition is false (because NOT all propositions are subject to empirical validation, only some)

Fine, such questions probably can't be answered using strictly the scientific method. But that doesn't mean we can't make a strong case for what is the correct answer to that via induction. And we can perhaps say induction is the first part of the scientific method: hypotheses that are tested need to be reasonable, they need not to appear to contradict our experience.

[Belacqua]

Fine, such questions probably can't be answered using strictly the scientific method. But that doesn't mean we can't make a strong case for what is the correct answer to that via induction. And we can perhaps say induction is the first part of the scientific method: hypotheses that are tested need to be reasonable, they need not to appear to contradict our experience.

Yes, I agree. If we make a claim about truth using logical reasoning, e.g. induction, this may make a persuasive argument about the world that is not science.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you know it, you can show it. If you can't, you strongly believe it, and it may even be true....but you don't know it. OFC this matter of definition can be empirically validated.

Do people who lack empirical validation get an answer right at a rate greater than chance or a control group that -does- possess empirical validation? Is there a requirement that a proposition be sound for any conclusion that follows to be true and therefore count as knowledge?

No and yes, respectively, and it's not difficult to empirically test for that. Even the act of looking up definitions is an empirical test. The only "non emperical" way that people get to right answers is by flat out guessing....but it's difficult to assert that past sense experience isn't informing a current guess, too.

Whether empiricism can be empirically validated is kindof a softball question. Yeah, it can, and has been. Cognitive science is a thing. One has to wonder why that would matter, though. Most systems meet their own self created and self serving requirements, regardless of their truth content or suitability to be called knowledge. Meanwhile, the world is full of creatures that lack any mechanism for rationality, and yet they possess some form of cognition and at least appear to know true things. Like where dinner is at, lol.

The dispute between empiricists and rationalists made more sense when we knew less about ourselves and other life. You can go ahead and empirically validate that proposition too, yourself. In contemporary philosophy, there is no necessary dichotomy between the two. A person can be both an empiricist and a rationalist, insisting that the two are complimentary rather than contradictory. Accepting that the contents of our minds are filled by sense experience, and that our rational faculty provides information about the relationships between those contents. Knowledge, in the sense that philosophy discusses knowledge, requires them both.

That's the value of science. Generating sound propositions to play with...and yes...this proposition is also subject to empirical validation.

[EgoDeath]

I'm not really sure what @Belacqua thinks of logical arguments for god's existence, but those seem to be the only thing that believers and theologians have to lean on. The problem is, I've never heard a convincing logical argument for god, and I'm not sure how any person could consider those arguments convincing, to be honest.

I think that religion is interesting, and I have a theology course bookmarked that I'm studying now.

https://bible.org/article/theology-program

But I study it solely because I find religion interesting, not convincing. Even as a metaphorical, non-literal "guide" to how to live a "godly" life, I still find religion to be total garbage, meaning, the values it supposedly provides people with are nothing that special, and one can live a "godly" life without needing to believing in god... so what's the point of religion? (By godly, I simply mean a good, virtuous life, since that's what many theists would say)

[GrandizerII]

I'm not really sure what @Belacqua thinks of logical arguments for god's existence, but those seem to be the only thing that believers and theologians have to lean on. The problem is, I've never heard a convincing logical argument for god, and I'm not sure how any person could consider those arguments convincing, to be honest.

I think that religion is interesting, and I have a theology course bookmarked that I'm studying now.

https://bible.org/article/theology-program

But I study it solely because I find religion interesting, not convincing. Even as a metaphorical, non-literal "guide" to how to live a "godly" life, I still find religion to be total garbage, meaning, the values it supposedly provides people with are nothing that special, and one can live a "godly" life without needing to believing in god... so what's the point of religion? (By godly, I simply mean a good, virtuous life, since that's what many theists would say)

Looking at the table of contents, it's got some interesting lessons, especially the one on soteriology, something that would be good for atheists to understand when debating with Christians about their beliefs on salvation because often times atheists misunderstand how salvation works according to some Christian groups.

Not sure if it has anything on neo-Scholasticism though since that's mainly (I think) what Belaqua refers to when he talks about Christian theology at its strongest.

[EgoDeath]

Looking at the table of contents, it's got some interesting lessons, especially the one on soteriology, something that would be good for atheists to understand when debating with Christians about their beliefs on salvation because often times atheists misunderstand how salvation works according to some Christian groups.

Not sure if it has anything on neo-Scholasticism though since that's mainly (I think) what Belaqua refers to when he talks about Christian theology at its strongest.

For whatever it's worth...

https://bible.org/article/ttp-endorsemen...d-students

I was hoping to find a more secular theology program, but I am unsure if theology as a subject is inherently spiritual. Maybe I'm more so looking for a Study of Religion program... Still, I'm going to finish this course first, and go from there.

And, sorry to say, I don't find any part of theology to be "strong." It's simply people finding a way for the Bible, and the Christian religion to make sense. I think it's interesting to learn about, but certainly not convincing. It's like reading about Flat Earth conspiracies or aliens... I don't believe any of it, but for some reason it intrigues me.

[The Grand Nudger]

The idea that scholasticism is christian theology at it's strongest is a complete and utter fail. Even the christian apparatus realized that the scholastic theology was a failure, and abandoned it.

The only people who peddle that tripe anymore are motivated batshit fundies selling a product that they know their low info audience won't be familiar with. It's a novelty marketing program, not an intellectual appeal. We have idioms meant to describe theological failure that are actually derived explicitly -from- scholastic theology. How many angels could dance on the head of a pin was the question St Tom spent his whole life trying to "answer"..before throwing his hands in the air and calling all of his own work garbage.

[Belacqua]

For whatever it's worth...

https://bible.org/article/ttp-endorsemen...d-students

I was hoping to find a more secular theology program, but I am unsure if theology as a subject is inherently spiritual. Maybe I'm more so looking for a Study of Religion program... Still, I'm going to finish this course first, and go from there.

From a glance at the web site, it looks as though it's aimed at people who are already believers. It's not the kind  of thing that interests me, but if you want to know what those people are up to it makes sense. They are certain to be beginning with the reality of God as a given, it seems to me, and probably spending time on how to be a good Christian rather than philosophical ideas. 

For me, the best introduction to theology is a history of philosophy course, like this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yat0ZKduW18

It traces the development of ideas like the Good and the Logos, and how they eventually fit into Christian theology. And he's not trying to convert you. 

And for the record, everything Gae is telling you is false. Scholasticism isn't for fundamentalists, and Thomas never worked on the angels-on-a-pin question. That was made up later as an insult. It may be related to very different questions where the Schoolmen spell out the difference between location and extension, but the idea that they wanted a numerical answer is a lie.

[EgoDeath]

If you apply critical thinking to what you're reading, you don't really have to worry about people converting you. Logic wins over all, even when people try to distort the facts. There's something to be said for the long game that some people play, slowly but surely trying to turn you to their side... but I'm aware of those types of tricks, so studying a theology program created by believers doesn't concern me, at least not in that way.

Thanks for the link though; I bookmarked it.