Atheists LESS open minded than Religious

[Meowzltov]

Ok, I understand both views, too - but what does that have to do with arguments? You haven´t posted arguments, neither for their nor for your own view.

Yes, I gave some basic arguments for Trinitarianism, and Jewish monotheism.

 

[quatona]

Yes, I gave some basic arguments for Trinitarianism, and Jewish monotheism.

Then that´s probably the first difference between us: What we do and don´t consider an argument.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, that's not what we mean. We mean close minded -- that the atheist is completely unable to put himself into our shoes to consider what it truly means to be a theist

Really?
Do you not know that the vast majority of atheists, WERE theists before?

, what the world looks like through our eyes, what our arguments really look like to us.

Well, obviously I can't think with your brain nore can I look with your eyes.

The very fact that you needed to switch words rather than accept what we said, demonstrates a lack of empathy on your part.

"empathy" - another word you're not using correctly.
It has nothing to do with being able to sympathise with people who believe things that you don't.

This is exactly the sort of close mindedness that we are pointing out.

No, when theists call me "closed minded", they aren't making emotional appeals.
Nore are they accusing me of not being able to see thing from the perspective of a theist.

What they mean, is that I am unwilling to believe the stuff they believe. That I consider it a waste of time to seriously consider models of reality that aren't actually reflective of actual reality.

So, the experience that I had with this, is very very different from how you seem to be using these words.

Posts, however, are notoriously misunderstood, so hopefully I have you pegged wrong.

No, I think you understood correctly.
The vast majority of the time, when theists tell me I am closed minded, what they mean is that I am unwilling to consider models of reality that
- aren't reflective of reality
or
- are unsupportable and unfalsifiable

And I have no problem admitting that either. In fact, I'll happily state it loud and proud:
No, I absolutely do not waste time on unfalsifiable and unsupportable models of reality.

 

[Meowzltov]

Do you not know that the vast majority of atheists, WERE theists before?

I don't know about "vast majority" but certain a lot. Point taken.

 

[Meowzltov]

Well, obviously I can't think with your brain nore can I look with your eyes.

If I hung around you a lot, I could come pretty dang close.

 

[Meowzltov]

"empathy" - another word you're not using correctly.
It has nothing to do with being able to sympathise with people who believe things that you don't.

I'm not talking about sympathy. I'm talking about empathy. I know the difference.

 

[Meowzltov]

What they mean, is that I am unwilling to believe the stuff they believe.

I am a theist, and I don't call every atheist close minded, and when I do, that is not what I mean.

You will always find idiots (on both sides).

 

[Cearbhall]

Be wary of anyone who describes themselves as either open-minded, compassionate, kind, generous or honest. They are most likely delusional, pathological liars or lacking any proper self-awareness..

Holy cow, no thanks. I'd hate to go through life with such a resolute, pessimistic outlook.

 

[Meowzltov]

Be wary of anyone who describes themselves as either open-minded, compassionate, kind, generous or honest. They are most likely delusional, pathological liars or lacking any proper self-awareness..

I'm not going to say I'm completely honest. In fact, I've struggle with denial a lot, which is a form of lying to yourself. And of course lying so that I wouldn't get into trouble.

But I am open minded enough that I have a solid history of changing my mind. And I am compassionate and kind enough to always choose careers that help others even though they make less money. I'm not generous when I'm only making ends meet (like now). But in the past, when I've had money, I've made it a point to give it away.

The fact that you are so jaded is sad. I don't think I'm such an exception. My parents were this way, as well as many of my siblings. Other people, I'm just not close enough to know one way or another, although I've certainly met a lot of other idealists who are kind, compassionate, and devote their lives to helping others, since we end up in the same careers and same helping organizations. But the idea is to make your charity secret to others -- I'm only mentioning it now to give you hope.

Perhaps we are both making the same mistake of assuming that most people are like us, when in fact there is a greater range? It's just a thought that occurred to me.

 

[Meowzltov]

The vast majority of the time, when theists tell me I am closed minded, what they mean is that I am unwilling to consider models of reality that
- aren't reflective of reality
or
- are unsupportable and unfalsifiable

Let's talk about this a bit.

1. You say their models aren't reflective of reality. But that's YOUR perception of reality. If it weren't reflective of their perception of reality, they wouldn't believe it. They are not psychotic or otherwise mentally deranged. No matter how much you want that to be true.

2. You say their models are unsupportable and unfalsifiable. I agree. But that doesn't mean they are false. Do you agree that you cannot reach all true through reason or scientific method? (And I *love* both reasons and scientific method.*)

Now let's consider the Christian existentialists. They were not irrational. They were extraordinarily rational people. They pushed logic as far as it would go. They reasoned until it hit a wall. But that's where the difference came in. Where other reasoners such as yourself stop at the wall, these Christian existentialists walk through the wall.

There are whole other ways of thinking. For example, some people think analogically rather than linearly. If they can see where the analogy doesn't work as well as where it does, they have a good thing going on. They can make connections that would have taken science and logic forever.

Some folks are simply intuitive. They connect the dots with very few dots. When you do what they say, it WORKS. Their ideas are born out. Even if they seem nutty. Religion, even if it seems like fantasy to you, WORKS. It makes us healthier, happier, and longer lived. It helps tribes live together in greater harmony. If it works, don't fix it.

Let's say that religion is not entirely correct, but only works because there are SOME things about it that are true. Then don't get rid of it until you know what those things are, and you have something better to replace it with. Analogy: Newtonian physics was flawed, but it worked for many centuries. We didn't replace it until we had Einstein's Relativity. Now we also know that there is a problem with Relativity. But we aren't going to trash it until we know what to replace it with that works better.

When you have something that makes human beings even healthier, even happier, longer lived, and binds society together even better, THEN you can get rid of Religion. Sound good? Til then, let God fill the God-shaped hole in our hearts.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Let's talk about this a bit.

Sure.

1. You say their models aren't reflective of reality. But that's YOUR perception of reality. If it weren't reflective of their perception of reality, they wouldn't believe it. They are not psychotic or otherwise mentally deranged. No matter how much you want that to be true.

A model that is reflective of reality, can be independendly demonstrated as such. What anyone's personal perception is, does not matter.

My personal perception for example, does not inform me that time is relative to the observer. But the objective demonstrable facts, say otherwise. When that is the case, I leave my personal perception at the door and I'll go with the objective facts instead.

So when I say that theistic models aren't reflective of reality, what I mean is that none of these models can be independendly verified or objectively demonstrated. When the level of accuracy of a model is subject to the personal perception of its adherents, it usually is a clear sign that it is actually wrong and that these adherents are mistaken.

2. You say their models are unsupportable and unfalsifiable. I agree. But that doesn't mean they are false.

Indeed. But it DOES mean that you have zero reason to accept it as true.
Models that are unfalsifiable / unsupportable are infinite in number.
It means that believing it, would be irrational.

Do you agree that you cannot reach all true through reason or scientific method? (And I *love* both reasons and scientific method.*)

Off course. Hence why I find it unreasonable to accept it as correct.

Now let's consider the Christian existentialists. They were not irrational. They were extraordinarily rational people. They pushed logic as far as it would go. They reasoned until it hit a wall. But that's where the difference came in. Where other reasoners such as yourself stop at the wall, these Christian existentialists walk through the wall.

Which is where they crossed over into "irrational".
If you hit a wall, the only reasonable thing to say is that you don't know.
And then getting to work to learn more so that you can deconstruct the wall, instead of leaving it up and pretending it isn't there.

There are whole other ways of thinking. For example, some people think analogically rather than linearly. If they can see where the analogy doesn't work as well as where it does, they have a good thing going on. They can make connections that would have taken science and logic forever.

Some folks are simply intuitive. They connect the dots with very few dots. When you do what they say, it WORKS. Their ideas are born out. Even if they seem nutty. Religion, even if it seems like fantasy to you, WORKS. It makes us healthier, happier, and longer lived. It helps tribes live together in greater harmony. If it works, don't fix it.

When the question is about how reality works, then how the answer makes you "feel" is utterly irrelevant to wheter or not that answer is true.

For the record, I completely disagree with you that it makes one "healthier, happier, and longer lived". But for the sake of argument I'll go along with it. Because it doesn't matter. If it's wrong, it's wrong.

Let's say that religion is not entirely correct, but only works because there are SOME things about it that are true. Then don't get rid of it until you know what those things are, and you have something better to replace it with. Analogy: Newtonian physics was flawed, but it worked for many centuries. We didn't replace it until we had Einstein's Relativity.

The difference is that Newtonian physics (laws of motion etc) were objectively demonstrably accurate. And it still is btw... As long as we don't leave the atmosphere and / or travel at extreme speeds, the effects of relativity are so neglectable that we might just as well not take it into account.

Now we also know that there is a problem with Relativity. But we aren't going to trash it until we know what to replace it with that works better.

It can't be that wrong, otherwise GPS wouldn't work.

When you have something that makes human beings even healthier, even happier, longer lived, and binds society together even better, THEN you can get rid of Religion. Sound good?

No. First, because clearly it isn't true what you say. Look at scandinavian countries and their sociatal health indexes. They consistantly rank on top in terms of healthiest, longevity, happiness, etc. They are among the least religious nations in the world.

Having said that, again: it doesn't matter.
When the question is about how the world works, the accuracy of the answer isn't dependend on how it makes you "feel".

Til then, let God fill the God-shaped hole in our hearts.

I don't have any artificial holes that need stuffing, thanks.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

@DogmaHunter

How do you determine a "model reflective of reality"? How do you determine "reality"? The atheist model cannot validate its reality as much as the theist. For methodological Naturalism, the fact that our observation and working analyses of phenomena has to be done within nature, is unavoidable - but this does not equal Metaphysical Naturalism, that this is all that exists. That is as much a unsupported claim as any and all theistic models on the substance of reality.

 

[DogmaHunter]

@DogmaHunter
How do you determine a "model reflective of reality"?

You compare both. You test the model in context of reality.

How do you determine "reality"?

Common observations, independend validation thereof, objective measurements,...

The atheist model cannot validate its reality as much as the theist.

There is no atheist model. There is a theist model that you can either buy into or not. If you don't, you're an atheist by default.

Theism is what requires the acceptance of certain propositions.
Atheism is the label attached to people who do not accept those theistic propositions.

For methodological Naturalism, the fact that our observation and working analyses of phenomena has to be done within nature, is unavoidable - but this does not equal Metaphysical Naturalism, that this is all that exists.

I don't think I ever stated that actual reality is limited to what we can observe and test.
However, our knowledge is.

You can't know those things that have no manifestation, that can't be observed, that can't be tested in any way. Those things that are "out of reach" of our senses, our machines, our scientific models, our empirical ways,... are those things that, pretty much by definition, are simply "out of reach", full stop.

Yes, there COULD be an undetectable dragon standing behind me, ready to snap my neck and eat me. But how could I know? How could anyone know? Why would I, or anyone else, believe it?

That is as much a unsupported claim as any and all theistic models on the substance of reality.

Sure.

That's why the only rational and acceptable answer concerning such questions is: "we don't know".

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

You compare both. You test the model in context of reality.



Common observations, independend validation thereof, objective measurements,...

Petitio Principii.

There is no atheist model. There is a theist model that you can either buy into or not. If you don't, you're an atheist by default.

Theism is what requires the acceptance of certain propositions.
Atheism is the label attached to people who do not accept those theistic propositions.

You are conflating Atheism and Agnosticism, but this is a common piece of sophistry about in the world today.

I don't think I ever stated that actual reality is limited to what we can observe and test.
However, our knowledge is.

You can't know those things that have no manifestation, that can't be observed, that can't be tested in any way. Those things that are "out of reach" of our senses, our machines, our scientific models, our empirical ways,... are those things that, pretty much by definition, are simply "out of reach", full stop.

Yes, there COULD be an undetectable dragon standing behind me, ready to snap my neck and eat me. But how could I know? How could anyone know? Why would I, or anyone else, believe it?

Petitio Principii again, as you automatically discount a lot of human experience here, in the name of empiricism and quantifiability - which such experience per defitionem, would be unable to deliver.

Sure.

That's why the only rational and acceptable answer concerning such questions is: "we don't know".

Well, I have seen that atheists have a hard time with the actual meaning of the word 'rational', which they seem to interpret quite strangely.
Anyway, this sounds more like Agnosticism you espouse here, than Atheism - but again, the modern semantic sophistry between these terms is legion.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Petitio Principii.

How the heck is it circular to compare proposed explanatory models that attempt to explain phenomena of reality, to actual reality to see if the models hold up as accurate???

You are conflating Atheism and Agnosticism, but this is a common piece of sophistry about in the world today.

I am an agnostic atheist.

I make no knowledge claims about gods and I don't accept the claim that a gods exists, outside of the minds of men, as "true".

These terms aren't mutually exclusive.
One pertains to knowledge and the other to (specific) beliefs. They are different answers to different questions. At best, one is a qualifier of the other.

Petitio Principii again

You're using that incorrectly, again.

, as you automatically discount a lot of human experience here

I do not discount any human experience. I'm in fact, not discounting anything. Rather, I am sceptical about human's interpretation/explanation and in some cases, validity of human's experiences - as human's are very capable of exaggeration or even plain lying. Humans are also very easy to deceive, confuse, influence, manipulate,... the human brain is very prone to cognition errors, mistakes, hallucination,...

This is why independend demonstration is important.

Don't you think the alien abductees are actually being serious? There ARE people out there that really really believe that they were abducted. Some experience they had, whatever it may be, led them to conclude such.

I'm not doubting the experience. I'm sure they had some kind of experience. I'm skeptical about their conclusion. I require something more then just their word for it, to accept it.

You do to, by the way, for most things in your life.

, in the name of empiricism and quantifiability - which such experience per defitionem, would be unable to deliver.

Empirical evidence, allows you to double check the conclusion of a person's experience.
The scientific method is literally intelligently designed to circumvent all those many ways how humans can be mistaken.

Well, I have seen that atheists have a hard time with the actual meaning of the word 'rational', which they seem to interpret quite strangely.

What could be more rational then saying that you don't know, when you don't know, and to require objective evidence before fantastical claims are accepted as true?

Anyway, this sounds more like Agnosticism you espouse here, than Atheism - but again, the modern semantic sophistry between these terms is legion.

Been over this. Those are not mutually exclusive positions concerning belief of theistic claims.

Agnosticism, actually, isn't a valid position by itself concerning belief in theistic claims.
Agnosticism is not about believing, it's about knowing.

I'm an agnostic atheist. Isn't practically every atheist an agnostic atheist?
I don't think I ever met a gnostic atheist.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

How the heck is it circular to compare proposed explanatory models that attempt to explain phenomena of reality, to actual reality to see if the models hold up as accurate???




I am an agnostic atheist.

I make no knowledge claims about gods and I don't accept the claim that a gods exists, outside of the minds of men, as "true".

These terms aren't mutually exclusive.
One pertains to knowledge and the other to (specific) beliefs. They are different answers to different questions. At best, one is a qualifier of the other.



You're using that incorrectly, again.



I do not discount any human experience. I'm in fact, not discounting anything. Rather, I am sceptical about human's interpretation/explanation and in some cases, validity of human's experiences - as human's are very capable of exaggeration or even plain lying. Humans are also very easy to deceive, confuse, influence, manipulate,... the human brain is very prone to cognition errors, mistakes, hallucination,...

This is why independend demonstration is important.

Don't you think the alien abductees are actually being serious? There ARE people out there that really really believe that they were abducted. Some experience they had, whatever it may be, led them to conclude such.

I'm not doubting the experience. I'm sure they had some kind of experience. I'm skeptical about their conclusion. I require something more then just their word for it, to accept it.

You do to, by the way, for most things in your life.



Empirical evidence, allows you to double check the conclusion of a person's experience.
The scientific method is literally intelligently designed to circumvent all those many ways how humans can be mistaken.



What could be more rational then saying that you don't know, when you don't know, and to require objective evidence before fantastical claims are accepted as true?



Been over this. Those are not mutually exclusive positions concerning belief of theistic claims.

Agnosticism, actually, isn't a valid position by itself concerning belief in theistic claims.
Agnosticism is not about believing, it's about knowing.

I'm an agnostic atheist. Isn't practically every atheist an agnostic atheist?
I don't think I ever met a gnostic atheist.

Yes, the sophistry of your terms, hypenated atheisms and their ilk, is the exact silliness I am tired of discussing ad nauseam on these threads.

I ask you how do you determine a 'model that reflects reality', how do you determine 'reality', and your answer is to determine your model on 'reality' (as you perceive it), which is a classic Petitio my friend. I am not going to explain the term further, as I remember how you completely and utterly failed to understand Occam's razor, and I really do not have the patience for such a discussion again.

You do not understand Scientific Method either, which is a form of Realist philosophy based on a number of axiomatic statements. I tried to explain this earlier to you, if you remember. It is really a ridiculous idea to think it can exclude or circumvent human errors on metaphysical questions. It is a system of falsification, not one that can disprove ideas that cannot fall in its sphere of methodologic naturalism. If something is not framed in a manner to which it can respond, it will not function as such. It is disingenious to try parallelisms with abductions and so forth. It is not the only model out there: Mathematics as a whole, for instance, is completely unprovable and non-falsifiable in spite of numerous attempts to do so, so you would exclude it also?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes, the sophistry of your terms, hypenated atheisms and their ilk, is the exact silliness I am tired of discussing ad nauseam on these threads.

Why are you even focussing on such symantics and labelling? Wouldn't it be more productive to focus on the actual points being made instead?

Does it really matter if I'm labeled "atheist" or "agnostic" or "agnostic atheist"?
Does it change the points I'm making in any way?

I ask you how do you determine a 'model that reflects reality', how do you determine 'reality', and your answer is to determine your model on 'reality' (as you perceive it), which is a classic Petitio my friend.

I don't see how.

You observe a set of facts and wish to explain them.
So you look for a pattern, relationships, ... in the data and conclude on some explanatory model. You now have a hypothesis. How do you test this hypothesis, if not by comparing/testing against reality?

How can anyone else be justified in accepting your model, if one is not able to cross reference it against the data of reality?

How is that circular?
If not like that, how else would it be possible to come up with accurate answers to questions about reality??

You do not understand Scientific Method either, which is a form of Realist philosophy based on a number of axiomatic statements.

Putting more and more labels on it, will not diminish its succesful trackrecord of coming up with accurate answers to questions about reality.

I'm well aware that science is based on a number of assumptions. It's not just science by the way... everyone needs to make such assumptions to be able to function in reality. The main 3 being:
- reality is actually real (we aren't brains in vats, for example)
- reality is consistent enough so that we can learn about it (gravity won't stop working tomorrow)
- models with predictive capabilities are better then models that don't make predictions

It is really a ridiculous idea to think it can exclude or circumvent human errors on metaphysical questions.

What metaphysical questions?

It is a system of falsification, not one that can disprove ideas that cannot fall in its sphere of methodologic naturalism

Ideas that aren't falsifiablie are infinite in number and thus meaningless / useless.
I really don't care about unfalsifiable models.

If something is not framed in a manner to which it can respond, it will not function as such. It is disingenious to try parallelisms with abductions and so forth.

It's just an illustration.

It is not the only model out there: Mathematics as a whole, for instance, is completely unprovable and non-falsifiable in spite of numerous attempts to do so, so you would exclude it also?

I would completely disagree with your statement about mathematics.
Mathematics is a human developped symbolic representation to describe certain things. It wasn't discovered under some rock. And each time it was found insufficient to describe new discoveries / understandings / what-have-you, "new math" was invented to expand this symbolic language, to make it possible to describe those things as well. Just like Newton pretty much did with calculus.

Considering that math was develop precisely for that purpose, is it really surprising that it actually works for that purpose?

Just like a language, it can describe existing and non-existing things.
Using mathematics, you can describe a bazillion of universes, none of which are the one that we live in.

Math, by itself, isn't a model of reality that can be right or wrong.
Math is a thing we humans developed to be able to describe / represent models of reality. THOSE can be right or wrong.

Yes, your math can be wrong as well - just like you can make grammatical mistakes in regular languages.

None of this is really relevant to wheter or not a model of reality is accurate or not and, more specifically, how one can find out if a model or reality is accurate or not.

I know of no other means then empiricism, to test the validity / accuracy of a model of reality.

If you know of one, you are more then welcome to share it. I'ld be interested in that and i'ld welcome being shown wrong.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why are you even focussing on such symantics and labelling? Wouldn't it be more productive to focus on the actual points being made instead?

Does it really matter if I'm labeled "atheist" or "agnostic" or "agnostic atheist"?
Does it change the points I'm making in any way?


I don't see how.

You observe a set of facts and wish to explain them.
So you look for a pattern, relationships, ... in the data and conclude on some explanatory model. You now have a hypothesis. How do you test this hypothesis, if not by comparing/testing against reality?

How can anyone else be justified in accepting your model, if one is not able to cross reference it against the data of reality?

How is that circular?
If not like that, how else would it be possible to come up with accurate answers to questions about reality??




Putting more and more labels on it, will not diminish its succesful trackrecord of coming up with accurate answers to questions about reality.

I'm well aware that science is based on a number of assumptions. It's not just science by the way... everyone needs to make such assumptions to be able to function in reality. The main 3 being:
- reality is actually real (we aren't brains in vats, for example)
- reality is consistent enough so that we can learn about it (gravity won't stop working tomorrow)
- models with predictive capabilities are better then models that don't make predictions



What metaphysical questions?



Ideas that aren't falsifiablie are infinite in number and thus meaningless / useless.
I really don't care about unfalsifiable models.



It's just an illustration.



I would completely disagree with your statement about mathematics.
Mathematics is a human developped symbolic representation to describe certain things. It wasn't discovered under some rock. And each time it was found insufficient to describe new discoveries / understandings / what-have-you, "new math" was invented to expand this symbolic language, to make it possible to describe those things as well. Just like Newton pretty much did with calculus.

Considering that math was develop precisely for that purpose, is it really surprising that it actually works for that purpose?

Just like a language, it can describe existing and non-existing things.
Using mathematics, you can describe a bazillion of universes, none of which are the one that we live in.

Math, by itself, isn't a model of reality that can be right or wrong.
Math is a thing we humans developed to be able to describe / represent models of reality. THOSE can be right or wrong.

Yes, your math can be wrong as well - just like you can make grammatical mistakes in regular languages.

None of this is really relevant to wheter or not a model of reality is accurate or not and, more specifically, how one can find out if a model or reality is accurate or not.

I know of no other means then empiricism, to test the validity / accuracy of a model of reality.

If you know of one, you are more then welcome to share it. I'ld be interested in that and i'ld welcome being shown wrong.

For any of us to answer either way about the full nature of mathematics--i.e. have an understanding of whether or not there is some kind of Platonic substance to it all-- wouldn't we have to know the extent to which our math actually does or does not comport to the structures of nature, or the extent to which nature defies our math?

I'm not sure that we know comprehensively either way. I think we can frame our utilization of mathematics as both a 'discovery' as well as an 'invention.' I think it can be "both/and" rather than "either/or," depending on which angle we look at it all.

And depending on how we look at math, then our assumptions about what we think science can tell us about the world, or even metaphysical potentialities, will likewise be conditioned and contextualized accordingly; that is, we'll either think that Methodological Naturalism is correct as a frame in which to work, OR we will assume that Philosophical (Ontological) Naturalism is correct, regardless of how 'empirical' we think we are being either way.

That's my two philosophical cents on the matter, cents which reflect the ongoing tensions between science and philosophy, or between physicists and philosophers of science, or even between practicing scientists (as is also reflected in this 6 minute video):

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Why are you even focussing on such symantics and labelling? Wouldn't it be more productive to focus on the actual points being made instead?

Does it really matter if I'm labeled "atheist" or "agnostic" or "agnostic atheist"?
Does it change the points I'm making in any way?

You brought it up. I merely called something 'the atheist model' and you decided this was somehow beyond the pale, and started this whole discussion. I merely pointed out how you were equating different concepts, and have steadfastly refused to be drawn into what you choose to call yourself. It is irrelevant, yes, for it merely muddies the water that no one knows what is meant by Atheist anymore and rank sophistry.

I don't see how.

You observe a set of facts and wish to explain them.
So you look for a pattern, relationships, ... in the data and conclude on some explanatory model. You now have a hypothesis. How do you test this hypothesis, if not by comparing/testing against reality?

How can anyone else be justified in accepting your model, if one is not able to cross reference it against the data of reality?

How is that circular?
If not like that, how else would it be possible to come up with accurate answers to questions about reality??

Putting more and more labels on it, will not diminish its succesful trackrecord of coming up with accurate answers to questions about reality.

I'm well aware that science is based on a number of assumptions. It's not just science by the way... everyone needs to make such assumptions to be able to function in reality. The main 3 being:
- reality is actually real (we aren't brains in vats, for example)
- reality is consistent enough so that we can learn about it (gravity won't stop working tomorrow)
- models with predictive capabilities are better then models that don't make predictions

My question was how do you determine Reality. You are describing a specific manner of testing hypotheses and deriving knowledge, but that hardly proves it to be valid or real. This is where epistemological conceptions have to be brought in, for what you say is that if I derive something from measurable empiric means and then make a theory of this, it will be confirmed by empiric means. Yes? This does not show the validity of your method at all, merely that it has been employed. You keep trying to reference that what you observe is somehow 'reality' that we need to conform to, but this must clearly be taken on faith then. For we cannot in this manner prove our observations accurate, our inferences valid or the soundness of our ideas. Science itself knows this, hence it requires thousands of years of philosophy to lay the groundwork before the method could even be articulated in the 12th century, and why it is specifically framed to only work in a methodologic naturalism. This is why noted Atheists like Bertrand Russell did not argue their atheism in this manner. I suggest you read "Why I am not a Christian" by this author, so that at least you have a framework for the beliefs you cling to, and then maybe we can have a discussion.

I really don't care about unfalsifiable models.

I would completely disagree with your statement about mathematics.
Mathematics is a human developped symbolic representation to describe certain things. It wasn't discovered under some rock. And each time it was found insufficient to describe new discoveries / understandings / what-have-you, "new math" was invented to expand this symbolic language, to make it possible to describe those things as well. Just like Newton pretty much did with calculus.

Considering that math was develop precisely for that purpose, is it really surprising that it actually works for that purpose?

Just like a language, it can describe existing and non-existing things.
Using mathematics, you can describe a bazillion of universes, none of which are the one that we live in.

Math, by itself, isn't a model of reality that can be right or wrong.
Math is a thing we humans developed to be able to describe / represent models of reality. THOSE can be right or wrong.

Yes, your math can be wrong as well - just like you can make grammatical mistakes in regular languages.

None of this is really relevant to wheter or not a model of reality is accurate or not and, more specifically, how one can find out if a model or reality is accurate or not.

I know of no other means then empiricism, to test the validity / accuracy of a model of reality.

If you know of one, you are more then welcome to share it. I'ld be interested in that and i'ld welcome being shown wrong.

Mathematics is a symbolic representation of the relations between quantities. As you yourself said, it is created to describe something that we presume to be true, a model of reality. In fact, we use it in all the other fields like physics, so if you doubt mathematics, it all falls. While we express it a certain manner, and expand our mode of expression accordingly, it is meant to represent a 'real thing', a real relationship between quantities, between numbers. When we find it wanting logically, we expand it, but our assumption is that this expansion remains a true inference from what came before it.
Whether all the mathematical possibilities are present in practice, is immaterial, for it is fact that we assume a veridicality to the ones we do find. Yet it is an unfalsifiable system, which you so vehemently reject, but is in fact the cornerstone of much of science. You are being a bit inconsistent, my friend.

As to testing the validity of a model of reality, Empiricism doesn't do that. Empiricism implies the acceptance of another model before it can become operable, such as Scientific Realism or such. There are many ways to look at reality: like the purely experiential model preferred by Buddhism, which denies the necessary veracity of our sense-data for actual inner experience; there is the Platonic in its Real world of Forms, of true Abstracts; there are Monistic ones like the Eleatics; Realism, which says we have a reality independent of our conceptual schemes and understanding thereof, in all its varieties; etc.

 

[quatona]

@DogmaHunter

How do you determine a "model reflective of reality"? How do you determine "reality"? The atheist model cannot validate its reality as much as the theist.

So, how do theists do it?