Atheism's Burden of Proof

[KCfromNC]

Your position is a crude version of logical positivism, a 1920s school of philosophy that has been thoroughly discredited. I would suggest looking into the literature of precisely what's wrong with it, since it's far too big a topic to discuss here.

And we're back to trying to fit people into crudely labeled boxes rather than actually discussing what they've said. Unfortunate but predictable.

The pursuit of truth is a religious value

No it isn't.

From a materialistic viewpoint, it is not entirely clear that people exist in any meaningful sense

If you're to the point where you're convinced other people don't think they exist, maybe you've messed up somewhere along the way.

None of this is an argument for theism, mind you. I'm challenging the concept of rationality, since for any non-theist, adherence to it amounts to an unexamined act of faith.

Except for the whole part where it can be part of an approach which can be shown to generate useful results, of course.

It shouldn't be applied to metaphysics because the simplest solution really is that everything is an illusion.

Citation needed.

 

[Silmarien]

Hope you get over your flu.

Thank you!

And we're back to trying to fit people into crudely labeled boxes rather than actually discussing what they've said. Unfortunate but predictable.

You haven't said anything that hasn't been long since debunked, but as you wish. The idea that science is so powerful within its methodological constraints that it must be applied to all questions, even those outside of those methodological constraints, ignores the fact that it's the limited methodology that makes it so useful in the first place. It's like saying that you've got such a powerful metal detector that it follows that it must be able to also find things that are not metal. And then of course there is the verification principle, whereby this whole line of reasoning is self-defeating, as scientific knowledge does not tell us that only empirical scientific knowledge is true knowledge.

Atheism is fine but metaphysical naturalism is really quite silly.

No it isn't.

Yes, it is. Being, Goodness, and Truth are commensurate in the long Platonic tradition that Christianity inherited.

If you're to the point where you're convinced other people don't think they exist, maybe you've messed up somewhere along the way.

In any meaningful sense, I said. Please learn to read properly. There are people out there who do seem to think that they're effectively a series of mindless chemical reactions with the illusions of consciousness and intentionality tagged on as an afterthought. I suspect you're as dismissive of materialist philosophy as you are of any other school of thought, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

 

[KCfromNC]

You haven't said anything that hasn't been long since debunked, but as you wish. The idea that science is so powerful within its methodological constraints that it must be applied to all questions

You actually think I believe this, or are you just pretending?

Atheism is fine but metaphysical naturalism is really quite silly.

As silly as any other metaphysical approach.

Yes, it is. Being, Goodness, and Truth are commensurate in the long Platonic tradition that Christianity inherited.

Yeah, of course religious people have concepts of these things. But you seemed to be saying they were solely religious values which is obviously wrong.

In any meaningful sense

, I said. Please learn to read properly. There are people out there who do seem to think that they're effectively a series of mindless chemical reactions with the illusions of consciousness and intentionality tagged on as an afterthought.

Assuming this isn't a giant strawman, how is this view of personhood meaningless?

 

[Silmarien]

You actually think I believe this, or are you just pretending?

It is what you implied, though I'm pretty sure you'd fight me if I tried to argue the sky was blue, so who knows what you actually believe about anything.

As silly as any other metaphysical approach.

We're all metaphysicians, whether we're aware of it or not.

Yeah, of course religious people have concepts of these things. But you seemed to be saying they were solely religious values which is obviously wrong.

I would say that they're more philosophical values, but philosophy and religion had a fair amount of overlap until relatively recently. You have to have a preexisting commitment to the idea that truth exists and is worth seeking out at all, which is easier to justify within a religious framework. Outside of it, I'm unconvinced that "truth" is a meaningful or achievable goal at all.

Assuming this isn't a giant strawman, how is this view of personhood meaningless?

You think you can toss out consciousness and free will and still save the concept of personhood? Where do I sign up for this brave new atheism?

 

[KCfromNC]

It is what you implied, though I'm pretty sure you'd fight me if I tried to argue the sky was blue, so who knows what you actually believe about anything.

I guess this is what passes for philosophy these days.

I would say that they're more philosophical values, but philosophy and religion had a fair amount of overlap until relatively recently. You have to have a preexisting commitment to the idea that truth exists and is worth seeking out at all, which is easier to justify within a religious framework. Outside of it, I'm unconvinced that "truth" is a meaningful or achievable goal at all.

Fair enough. Guess it depends on how you define any of it to begin with.

You think you can toss out consciousness and free will

No, but thanks for asking.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

You have to have a preexisting commitment to the idea that truth exists and is worth seeking out at all, which is easier to justify within a religious framework.

Haha. You're funny.

Religions are certainly better at imagining themselves to be the arbiters of truth. That's for certain.

 

[bhsmte]

Haha. You're funny.

Religions are certainly better at imagining themselves to be the arbiters of truth. That's for certain.

You know what they say; religions have all the answers, but don't like too many questions.

 

[Silmarien]

Haha. You're funny.

Religions are certainly better at imagining themselves to be the arbiters of truth. That's for certain.

You might want to look into the history of modern science and its relationship with Scholastic philosophy. There's a theory out there that it required the widespread faith in the intelligibility of reality granted by Judeo-Christian faith to to get a project like the empirical sciences off the ground in the first place. It's pretty interesting.

 

[bhsmte]

You might want to look into the history of modern science and its relationship with Scholastic philosophy. There's a theory out there that it required the widespread faith in the intelligibility of reality granted by Judeo-Christian faith to to get a project like the empirical sciences off the ground in the first place. It's pretty interesting.

And yet, if there is any force (or accumulation of knowledge) that has likely taken people away from Religion, it is science.

Science, has never had to account for religious claims in it's work, but religions, have had to adapt their claims to science, over time.

 

[Silmarien]

And yet, if there is any force (or accumulation of knowledge) that has likely taken people away from Religion, it is science.

Science, has never had to account for religious claims in it's work, but religions, have had to adapt their claims to science, over time.

You should look into the various neuroscientists who end up looking to the Dalai Lama for inspiration--it does happen and it should probably happen more often, given the nature of their research. I would also be interested in hearing how Buddhism and Hinduism have had to adjust their claims.

As for Abrahamic faiths, the only real issue there is Adam and Eve. Which I would have been inclined to read mythologically with or without evolution, since the story has way too many mythological and symbolic elements in it anyway.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You might want to look into the history of modern science and its relationship with Scholastic philosophy. There's a theory out there that it required the widespread faith in the intelligibility of reality granted by Judeo-Christian faith to to get a project like the empirical sciences off the ground in the first place. It's pretty interesting.

Weird, because there have been plenty of scientific discoveries in countries which have never had a major Christian influence going back centuries.

Maybe Christianity isn’t required for science after all!

 

[Dave Ellis]

You should look into the various neuroscientists who end up looking to the Dalai Lama for inspiration--it does happen and it should probably happen more often, given the nature of their research. I would also be interested in hearing how Buddhism and Hinduism have had to adjust their claims.

As for Abrahamic faiths, the only real issue there is Adam and Eve. Which I would have been inclined to read mythologically with or without evolution, since the story has way too many mythological and symbolic elements in it anyway.

Maybe you should read deeper into the bible than Genesis 1&2, you’ll discover way more scientific inaccuracies.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Maybe you should read deeper into the bible than Genesis 1&2, you’ll discover way more scientific inaccuracies.

.......... "duh" ...........!!!! Why does everyone try to imply that the Bible is, or was ever intended to be, a scientific treatise? That just gets so very old after a while. Wake up people (...that's you fundamentalist Christians, and that's you too ex-Christian fundamentalists/atheists)!!!

Maybe, if we're going to try to understand the Bible ... at all, it's time for people to instead read deeper into fields like Historiography, the Philosophy of History, and into the historical development of Ancient Jewish literature and Hermeneutics, instead of relying purely on the beginning (i.e. way back then) and the end (i.e. now) of the ol' Greco-Roman line of technical and scientific thinking.

Or, are you all just lazy??? [...((ok, start counting how many, and with whom, this gets a rise out of ....)) ]

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Weird, because there have been plenty of scientific discoveries in countries which have never had a major Christian influence going back centuries.

Maybe Christianity isn’t required for science after all!

Of course it's not required.

 

[Silmarien]

Weird, because there have been plenty of scientific discoveries in countries which have never had a major Christian influence going back centuries.

Maybe Christianity isn’t required for science after all!

This is actually a pretty well developed theory in the history of science--look up what scholars like Peter Harrison have to say. The idea that Christianity negatively impacted the sciences is very 19th century; modern historical analysis has moved well beyond that. If you don't want to read scholarship on it, Quid has got a nice post here: Faith in science vs. faith in religion.

I think people make a mistake in attributing this specifically to a biblical worldview, since all of the Christian and Islamic scholars who contributed to what would become modern science were pretty obsessed with Aristotle too, but Greek thought was pretty theologically minded as well. Too much so, perhaps--I find that something like Neoplatonism is way more in the clouds than Christianity is.

Maybe you should read deeper into the bible than Genesis 1&2, you’ll discover way more scientific inaccuracies.

Maybe you should read Christian theology to understand how Scripture has been treated historically. I will grant that evolution causes problems for the traditional understanding of original sin, especially in Catholic theology but probably to a lesser degree for the Orthodox as well, but I'm unaware of any other issues that would require a genuine shift of beliefs. Those parts of the Christian world that do not accept Sola Scriptura believe that the Church exists to interpret Scripture--the Bible does not have authority separate from the Church that assembled it.

 

[Dave Ellis]

This is actually a pretty well developed theory in the history of science--look up what scholars like Peter Harrison have to say. The idea that Christianity negatively impacted the sciences is very 19th century; modern historical analysis has moved well beyond that. If you don't want to read scholarship on it, Quid has got a nice post here: Faith in science vs. faith in religion.

I think people make a mistake in attributing this specifically to a biblical worldview, since all of the Christian and Islamic scholars who contributed to what would become modern science were pretty obsessed with Aristotle too, but Greek thought was pretty theologically minded as well. Too much so, perhaps--I find that something like Neoplatonism is way more in the clouds than Christianity is.

You're moving the goalposts. In your first post you essentially argued that Christianity was responsible for the rise of modern science, now you're arguing that Christianity merely wasn't a negative impact on science. Those are two separate points.

That being said, I don't even necessarily agree with the idea it hasn't had a negative impact. How many people have been kept out of pursuing a career in science because the church told them it was false? We'll never know, but i'm sure there has to be a substantial number. Even moreso, the largest factor keeping the general public from accepting mainstream science in the modern day is religion.

Maybe you should read Christian theology to understand how Scripture has been treated historically. I will grant that evolution causes problems for the traditional understanding of original sin, especially in Catholic theology but probably to a lesser degree for the Orthodox as well, but I'm unaware of any other issues that would require a genuine shift of beliefs. Those parts of the Christian world that do not accept Sola Scriptura believe that the Church exists to interpret Scripture--the Bible does not have authority separate from the Church that assembled it.

I have read the entire bible, along with a number of books that goes into the history of Christianity and the beliefs that went along with various sects.

There's a lot more problems when it comes to science in the bible than just the creation myth.

 

[Silmarien]

You're moving the goalposts. In your first post you essentially argued that Christianity was responsible for the rise of modern science, now you're arguing that Christianity merely wasn't a negative impact on science. Those are two separate points.

I'm not moving the goalposts at all. I'm still arguing that Christianity, or at least medieval scholasticism, was responsible for the rise of modern science. Precisely why it played out like that is an interesting question, but you can't really argue that modern science didn't come out of scholasticism. And you can't argue that scholasticism isn't religious.

That being said, I don't even necessarily agree with the idea it hasn't had a negative impact. How many people have been kept out of pursuing a career in science because the church told them it was false? We'll never know, but i'm sure there has to be a substantial number. Even moreso, the largest factor keeping the general public from accepting mainstream science in the modern day is religion.

The Church has never told anyone that science is false, so I'm really not sure what you're talking about at all. Just sounds like the typical anti-religious propaganda to me.

I have read the entire bible, along with a number of books that goes into the history of Christianity and the beliefs that went along with various sects.

There's a lot more problems when it comes to science in the bible than just the creation myth.

Not of the sort that would force people to rethink doctrines. If you want to read the thing like a fundamentalist, I can't stop you, but that's a little silly.

 

[KCfromNC]

You might want to look into the history of modern science and its relationship with Scholastic philosophy.

The history is that they separated long ago. Science has progressed by leaps and bounds. Philosophy still can't figure out what reality is.

 

[KCfromNC]

You should look into the various neuroscientists who end up looking to the Dalai Lama for inspiration

So much for science needing "widespread faith in the intelligibility of reality granted by Judeo-Christian faith".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The history is that they separated long ago. Science has progressed by leaps and bounds. Philosophy still can't figure out what reality is.

You almost make it sound like the various 'String Theories' are already considered to be describing "real" physical entities ...