Reply to Why don't you believe in God?

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Why don't you believe in God?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote]

Oh, dear!  Back to epistemology...but it is too late to describe different ways we can know things.

For now, just note that rationalists who contend we may only know what the scientific method can prove have a self-negating system, for we cannot test whether the scientific method is the only way to know things using the scientific method.  And even scientists and mathematicians use logic along with empirical evidence...deduction and induction...and so forth.

And it does up generally come down to probability rather than certainty, for physical and metaphysical questions, doesn't it?  God is reasonable but not obvious--that, at least, is plausible?
[/quote]

OK.  The scientific method is pretty much the acquisition of knowledge through evidence.  If you know of another way to do it, offer it up.

And probability is used in science, but not in the way that you imply.  Saying that science deals in probabilities means that they carefully analyze a set of data and determine the mathematical probability that their result is due to random chance.  It is not the same as saying[b] "nothing is certain, so everything is just an opinion"[/b], or [b]"does God exist?  Well there is a lot of unexplained stuff in the world, so probably".[/b][/quote]

Just want to thank you for making any of my future posts superfluous.  I would like to buy you a drink.[/quote]

The above are two very, very different statements.

Neither rationalists nor theists would subscribe to the first statement, which is either universal skepticism ("No truth is knowable") or universal subjectivism ("all truth is an opinion, i.e. dependent on the knower" ).

The second statement is [i]religious[/i] skepticism.  It claims we may know truth about the physical world by the scientific method, but since any truth about the metaphysical world cannot be subjected to the scientific method, we cannot know the truth about metaphysics.

Some rationalists then prove a negative.  "There is no evidence of God, therefore there is no God."  This is an a priori decision.  According to their method of knowing truth, God cannot possibly be known.  What we cannot know does not exist.

Some rationalists realize it is not possible to prove a negative.  But since they cannot know God in the only way they can know anything, they consign "knowledge" of God very strictly to[i] irrational[/i] belief in the unseen and untested.  They call that "faith," and exclude faith from reason.

Where rationalists see "no evidence," theists see opaqueness, some light reflected back to the eye, but neither utter darkness nor transparency.   Theists distinguish three different kinds of truths:

#1  truths of faith and not of reason
#2  truths of both faith and reason
#3  truths of reason and not of faith

Theists try to answer objections to propositions in #1, prove propositions in #2, and share acceptance of propositions in #3.

The fun starts when "proving a negative" atheists like Dawkins try to prove the scientific method is the only way to know truth.  But that will have to wait for a later post.[/quote]

So much blather.  As far as Dawkins trying "to prove a negative", you'll probably want to show your work.  Anyway, I think you like to hear yourself think a lot more than you're interested in a structured argument.  Frankly, most of this stuff just doesn't cohere.  It's just somewhat sloppy thinking designed to elicit an "Amen" from the choir.  There's no evidence that you've even understood half of what's been said to you.

Bottom line is, you believe in God because you were told to from an early age, in a culture that privileged the Judeo-Christian God, and you're working backwards from that conclusion.  All the rhapsodizing about "opaqueness being reflected back into the eye" and mischaracterizing the position of non-theists is bluster.  Could there be a metaphysical world?  Of course, so long as it's one which we can never sense, influence, or have influence us.  But that doesn't get us very far.  As far as you various "kinds of truths":  #1 which pretty much equates to "the irrational", #3 is "the rational", and #2 is what is usually referred to as "hokum".  We dealt with this about 30 comments ago (e.g. "The Miracle of the Sun", and "My Pancake Looks A Bit Like Judas Iscariot")[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics