Reason and Research as opposed to Rhetoric on Religious Claims

[Silmarien]

It is problematic lacking some sufficient evidence. If all arguments for god were deductive arguments then they would only demonstrate internal consistency within the group of ideas rather than some application to the real world.

How are you defining evidence and which arguments are you familiar with? If modern, secular metaphysical assumptions are not sufficient to fit everything we know about the universe, I consider that evidence against said assumptions and am happy retreating to older understandings.

Knowing how christianity was or is practiced doesn't demonstrate any of it's claims, nor does it help us determine what ideas are correct or incorrect in terms of reality.

In the event that Christianity is true, understanding more about the early church and the context in which it developed does help to serve as a measuring stick in determining how to address later doctrinal developments. The religion has picked up a ton of cultural baggage over almost 2000 years.

There are reasons for the evolution sure but what does that tell us? That ideas about God have changed over time? Does it tell us something about God or does it tell us something about humanity?

It shows us how humanity's most sophisticated thinkers have addressed the question and what the most compelling approaches look like. To what degree that is a reflection of humanity is certainly an interesting question, but the same one can be asked of the more modern shift away from theism.

 

[quatona]

Since the phrase "methodological naturalism", can always be replaced with "having some sort of evidence for your assertions" I have no good reason to remove it from my epistemology.

Methodologically speaking, I have yet to be presented an alternative to it.

 

[Dirk1540]

Nagel's, "What it is Like to be a Bat." Is a monumental work.

This book title alone just makes it sound really cool!

 

[Silmarien]

This book title alone just makes it sound really cool!

It's an essay.

Actually, you should be able to find it in just about any Philosophy of Mind or Analytic Philosophy compilation.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You can use expensive buzzwords all you like.

What buzzwords? I haven't used any buzzwords. I'm using descriptors that scientists like Eugenie C. Scott herself uses ...

The fact of the matter is that the only reason that gods and the supernatural "can't be studied" scientifically, is because they are without any manifestation. And they are defined explicitly in such a way that they simply can not be empirically studied.

In short, they are indistinguishable from non-existant things.

Ok. You've just placed yourself in the class of Philosophical Naturalist.

How would I know that it's "god" that's "revealing" himself and that it's not just me talking to myself, hearing voices or being just mistaken?

You'll know because you'll feel drawn to express an aesthetic response to Christ.

Not "any one of us". Instead, only those people who insist on claiming and believing that god is real...

Whatever.

In a worldview where gods aren't considered to be real, it is actually quite normal and fully up to expectation, that these gods don't show up anywhere in reality.

That's kind of what non-existing things do: not show up.

Invisible things that don't wish to be tested by human beings ALSO don't show up .... which is what puts us back into Methodological Naturalism.

 

[variant]

How are you defining evidence and which arguments are you familiar with? If modern, secular metaphysical assumptions are not sufficient to fit everything we know about the universe, I consider that evidence against said assumptions and am happy retreating to older understandings.

You would be arguing from a position of ignorance.

If we don't know any specific X then I am free to believe in Y without real evidence.

Irrational.

In the event that Christianity is true, understanding more about the early church and the context in which it developed does help to serve as a measuring stick in determining how to address later doctrinal developments. The religion has picked up a ton of cultural baggage over almost 2000 years.

It picked up tons before that too but none of this tells us anything about how to evaluate it's claims.

It shows us how humanity's most sophisticated thinkers have addressed the question and what the most compelling approaches look like. To what degree that is a reflection of humanity is certainly an interesting question, but the same one can be asked of the more modern shift away from theism.

If humanity's "most sophisticated thinkers" weren't deciding how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, then you wouldn't see any such trend.

Their ideas lasted over the eons because they were compelling to the human mind and no competing systems of thought were doing a good job at challenging them.

Where does that leave us in terms of what we "know" though? It's as I said, very squishy.

For most of that time humanity was wallowing in story telling, supposition and repression.

 

[variant]

Methodologically speaking, I have yet to be presented an alternative to it.

I'm just not enamored with "making stuff up" as a viable alternative.

 

[variant]

What buzzwords? I haven't used any buzzwords. I'm using descriptors that scientists like Eugenie C. Scott herself uses ...

Ok. You've just placed yourself in the class of Philosophical Naturalist.

You'll know because you'll feel drawn to express an aesthetic response to Christ.

Whatever.

Invisible things that don't wish to be tested by human beings ALSO don't show up .... which is what puts us back into Methodological Naturalism.

All unfalcifiable claims are going to look the same when the theologian hides behind them for cover.

It's amazing that YOU are the one complaining though.

 

[Silmarien]

You would be arguing from a position of ignorance.

If we don't know any specific X then I am free to believe in Y without real evidence. Irrational.

Well, if you want to be irrational, you can always wander around accusing people of arguing from a position of ignorance when they haven't even given an argument. That's the ever popular logical fallacy of jumping to conclusions.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

All unfalcifiable claims are going to look the same when the theologian hides behind them for cover.

It's amazing that YOU are the one complaining though.

You're missing a point that scientists who work within the context of Methodological Naturalism would make ... so, I'll just let Eugenie C. Scott (atheist) explain it to you in the following video as she addresses the fallacies of the I.D movement and it's particular approach to science. Along the way, she also refutes the Philosophical Naturalism of Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne as it applies to Evolutionary Theory.

 

[variant]

Well, if you want to be irrational, you can always wander around accusing people of arguing from a position of ignorance when they haven't even given an argument. That's the ever popular logical fallacy of jumping to conclusions.

You haven't eh?

if modern, secular metaphysical assumptions are not sufficient to fit everything we know about the universe, I consider that evidence against said assumptions and am happy retreating to older understandings.

Sure looks like an argument to me. Maybe I am missing something.

 

[variant]

You're missing a point that scientists who work within the context of Methodological Naturalism would make ... so, I'll just let Eugenie C. Scott (atheist) explain it to you in the following video wherein she also refutes the Philosophical Naturalism of Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne as it applies to Evolutionary Theory.

Neither are one of my assumptions, I take issue with making claims that can not be shown to be true or false, and then holding that up as if it were evidence of anything.

If demonstration is not possible for or against your position, meaning you would never know if your position is true or false given any observation, it is outside the realm of your ability to know.

When people start to actually expand the knoledge base on God's we should listen to them as experts on those subjects. Until then we should ignore their ravings because they are indeed talking about a subject they have little or no real knoledge of.

I do not rule out Gods, I am agnostic, I generally talk about how vacuous claims about Gods tend to be.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Neither are one of my assumptions, I take issue with making claims that can not be shown to be true or false, and then holding that up as if it were evidence of anything.

So far, I haven't spoken of any evidence, other than subjective, religious self-evidence.

...I know, it gets confusing because you have different kinds of Christians here who espouse different assumptions about the nature of science, of evidence and of rationality, and all that.

 

[variant]

So far, I haven't spoken of any evidence, other than subjective, religious self-evidence.

...I know, it gets confusing because you have different kinds of Christians here who espouse different assumptions about the nature of science, of evidence and of rationality, and all that.

I understand that you aren't worried about evidencing your beliefs. That's the point.

Being snippy about why some people take that as a good reason to dismiss your ideas is the issue we're discussing here.

I would be enthralled if theologians could get around the idea of naturalism and start showing compelling evidence of their claims.

Getting around the "methodological" part is going to be more difficult because every workable system of epistemology is going to require a method of demonstration.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

@variant. I'm not being snippy. I'm simply trying to lay down some points to some of your atheist compatriots about how all this stuff meshes in theory and practice.

The one point that I haven't gotten to yet is that when it comes to methodology and "justified true beliefs," no epistemological system is trouble free. But apparently, we have both atheists and Christians who nearly seem to think their respective views are superbly efficacious in dealing with the God question, to which I have to say that if either atheists or Christians really could be efficacious in this regard, then that would make the New Testament false.

 

[variant]

...don't dare watch that video. I'd hate to see what happens when one atheist talks about how other atheists are ... wrong, and yet other atheists happen to hear of the conflict.

The video simply doesn't disagree with my views.

It rather simply demonstrates my position that ideas about God are vacuous, they literally explain everything. They can have any properties. They indeed have any properties that the theist wants.

Many think we've got to make sure that people who have nothing to do with the subject don't have their feelings hurt, because they've decided for whatever reason to adopt some specific metaphysical ideas about the universe. I don't care. Your vacuous ideas are vacuous regardless of whether science can rule them out or not.

If only my extensive reading into intelligent design offered what I was after instead of the same vacuous apologetic theism.

There is plenty of room for theists in science, as you can have whatever beliefs you want. The science is about evidence and testing.

The reason the science can't test your beliefs though is because they are vacuous untestable lumps of philosophical mush.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The video simply doesn't disagree with my views.

It rather simply demonstrates my position that ideas about God are vacuous, they literally explain everything. They can have any properties. They indeed have any properties that the theist wants.

Many think we've got to make sure that people who have nothing to do with the subject don't have their feelings hurt, because they've decided for whatever reason to adopt some specific metaphysical ideas about the universe. I don't care. Your vacuous ideas are vacuous regardless of whether science can rule them out or not.

If only my extensive reading into intelligent design offered what I was after instead of the same vacuous apologetic theism.

I'm a proponent of BioLogos, not I.D. You do know that, don't you?

 

[variant]

I'm a proponent of BioLogos, not I.D. You do know that, don't you?

The video was about ID, I thought you wanted me to address it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The video was about ID, I thought you wanted me to address it.

...did you actually ...... watch (and listen to) .... the video?

 

[variant]

...did you actually ...... watch (and listen to) .... the video?

Yes.