Reason and Research as opposed to Rhetoric on Religious Claims

What level of training have you achieved in religious studies?

  • I'm know what I think and if I don't know something make up something that sounds smart.

    Votes: 1 14.3%
  • I know the difference between belief and knowledge claims

    Votes: 3 42.9%
  • I have had basic courses in logic and epistemology in undergraduate school

    Votes: 3 42.9%
  • I have written broadly on religious topics and taken advanced philosophy courses

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    7

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,625
6,387
✟293,730.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
@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.

I consider constant complaining about methodological naturalism to be very snippy if given no alternative workable epistemology.

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.

Many if not most of atheists I know think that their epistemology is completely unproductive in dealing with God questions. If they think otherwise I generally disabuse them of such an idea.

This is of course a problem for the idea in my opinion not a good feature.

If this comes off as dismissive by most atheists you meet, it is because it absolutely is.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I consider constant complaining about methodological naturalism to be very snippy if given no alternative workable epistemology.
What? Who is complaining "about" Methodological Naturalism. I'm not. I'm complaining about Philosophical Naturalism.

Many if not most of atheists I know think that their epistemology is completely unproductive in dealing with God questions.
Right. And I would agree with them to some extent.

This is of course a problem for the idea in my opinion not a good feature.
Right. Epistemology is a diverse subject; and no point of view is without its problems. Not mine, and not yours. That is what I'm getting at.

If this comes off as dismissive by most atheists you meet, it is because it absolutely is.
If that is the case, then why are you all here on CF ... at all? :dontcare: Because, as a Christian I have to lay out some epistemic concepts that are central to biblical theology, but if all you guys will do is dismiss these with a hand-waive because they don't mean anything to you, then there's really NOTHING for me to posit that you'll take into consideration.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dirk1540
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,625
6,387
✟293,730.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
What? Who is complaining "about" Methodological Naturalism. I'm not. I'm complaining about Philosophical Naturalism.

Philosophical naturalism isn't required. The ideas are already problematic and vacuous if we can't move beyond methodological naturalism.

Right. Epistemology is a diverse subject; and no point of view is without it's problems. Not mine, and not yours. That is what I'm getting at.

There are differn't kinds of problems. I think humanity has problems even grasping the scope of theology's epistemological problems.


If that is the case, then why are you all here on CF ... at all? :dontcare: Because, as a Christian I have to lay out some epistemic concepts that are central to biblical theology, but if all you guys will do is dismiss these with a hand-waive because they don't mean anything to you, then there's really NOTHING for me to posit that you'll take into consideration.

I don't WANT to dismiss you.

I would like to hear takes on these problems that I haven't heard before.
 
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
You haven't eh?

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

Generally speaking, saying that you prefer one metaphysical model to another is a statement, not an argument. Given the fact that I was so vague that I didn't even specify the models in question, I would think it quite clear that there was no argument involved.

Anyway, as delightful as it is to be arguing over whether we're even arguing, this is getting absurd.
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,625
6,387
✟293,730.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Generally speaking, saying that you prefer one metaphysical model to another is a statement, not an argument. Given the fact that I was so vague that I didn't even specify the models in question, I would think it quite clear that there was no argument involved.

Anyway, as delightful as it is to be arguing over whether we're even arguing, this is getting absurd, so good night.

OK, if you were just throwing out some ideas without thinking of the need to defend your reasons or preferences then there's not much to discuss.

I shall treat your ideas with as much respect as you have.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Philosophical naturalism isn't required. The ideas are already problematic and vacuous if we can't move beyond methodological naturalism.



There are differn't kinds of problems. I think humanity has problems even grasping the scope of theology's epistemological problems.




I don't WANT to dismiss you.

I would like to hear takes on these problems that I haven't heard before.

Really? I've offered a lot of "alternative" suggestions from those that are usually found with the typical WLC Apologetics crowd. The funny thing is, I seem to be dismissed by atheists just as much, if not more so.

In fact, I'm really questioning the 'need' for an apologetics area in CF.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dirk1540
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,625
6,387
✟293,730.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Really? I've offered a lot of "alternative" suggestions from those that are usually found with the typical WLC Apologetics crowd. The funny thing is, I seem to be dismissed by atheists just as much, if not more so.

I can't catalog every atheists response to your ideas, but if you are consistently suffering from the same problem as here then you should definitely expect the same response.

In fact, I'm really questioning the 'need' for an apologetics area in CF.

Values are generally pretty subjective.

I question the "virtue" of apologetic in general as it always seems to me that the believers want to convince themselves more than others, and I don't think that people actually usually adopt religious views based upon philosophy or rhetoric.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I can't catalog every atheists response to your ideas, but if you are consistently suffering from the same problem as here then you should definitely expect the same response.

Values are generally pretty subjective.

Then it sounds like we've got little--to nothing--to talk about in regard to apologetics.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Well you do have that epistemology you seem to be stuck on.

dilbert_dead_horse.gif
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,625
6,387
✟293,730.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single

I don't know, some of the theists around here seem to like pretending they're pretty good at philosophy.

I would love to see an epistemology that could even begin to deal with the problem that God is, by necessity, undefined in any testable or rational way.

If that horse were indeed dead (and everyone got the message) I would have accomplished everything I ever wanted here.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
You've never run across Gödel's Ontological Proof? Whether or not it's sound or valid, you can't really say it's not a logical proof.

Call it what you will. It's still fallacious nonsense.

Well, at least you're being a consistent positivist.

No idea what that is supposed to mean. But I get that people in this subform are completely obsessed with labels, -isms and -ists.

I can only repeat myself: math that doesn't reflect empirical reality, is worthless.

Math is a "language" by which we can model plenty of things. Including non-existant things.
You can make a mathematical model of a bazillion non-existant universes.

But only the model that describes the universe we actually live in, will be useful.
And the only way to make your math match reality, is through empiricism.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
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.


And what does that entail/imply?

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

So.... the evidence/confirmation is.... "feelings"?
Are you aware that schizofrenics have such "feelings" concerning their imaginary friends?


Invisible things that don't wish to be tested by human beings ALSO don't show up ....

And you could never know they are real, since they wouldn't be detectable.
I can literally make up any entity on the spot and slap that "attribute" on it.

which is what puts us back into Methodological Naturalism.

Great.
Doesn't change the fact that undetectable things are undetectable and indistinguishable from the non-existant.
 
Upvote 0

Dirk1540

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 19, 2015
8,162
13,527
Jersey
✟778,285.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I question the "virtue" of apologetic in general as it always seems to me that the believers want to convince themselves more than others, and I don't think that people actually usually adopt religious views based upon philosophy or rhetoric.
Genetic Fallacy
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
In fact, I'm really questioning the 'need' for an apologetics area in CF.
In all seriousness, they reopened it because too many people were creating apologetic threads in the philosophy section (atheists and theists alike). After we got the apologetic section, the philosophy section closed because people stopped posting there since this is all anyone wanted to talk about on CF. If they closed it now, admins would have to start shutting down threads in the ethics and morality section, which is the catch-all for topics that don't fit well somewhere else. Basically, it was for practical purposes.

I do find it strange how few threads are started by Christians to present arguments or evidence for Christianity though. NV is the only person regularly creating the type of threads we're supposed to see here.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0

GUANO

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2013
739
324
40
Los Angeles
✟32,324.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I am self taught and haven't been in the formal education system since I was 8.

I'm not really aware of many Christian apologists or philosophers but am familiar with the works of the classical philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates as well as Neitzsche, Freud, and the favorite today, Mr. Dawkins.

Religious cosmology and simple etymology itself tend to be my primary source of apologetic arguments to atheism as well as religious superstition. The physical nature of cosmology in ancient religions seems to be secondary to psychology. Egyptian, Babylonian, Hebrew and Greek cosmology, magic, and mysticism appear to be more about the individual and collective psyche and it's influences and cognitions than anything physical in nature. I find that people like Dawkins and his theories on memetics are only just barely catching up to the Hebrew, Assyrian, and Babylonian understanding of sociology. The ancients just had a completely different (and quite eloquent) way of describing these very high level concepts... It was deamonology...

If love to read some good Christian philosophers or psychologists on the level Freud or Nietzsche but being outside of "institutions" I'm not exposed to many of them. I'll probably check out a few mentioned on here.

My main arguments against atheism is that the deification of principles is an inescapable condition of a cognitive mind and as such, concepts such as atheism or secularism are completely impossible within the current paradigm of human society and individual thought and behavior. The moment primitive man named the first "thing", he ceased from being capable of atheism.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
My main arguments against atheism is that the deification of principles is an inescapable condition of a cognitive mind and as such, concepts such as atheism or secularism are completely impossible within the current paradigm of human society and individual thought and behavior. The moment primitive man named the first "thing", he ceased from being capable of atheism.
As it reads there, it doesn´t seem to follow. You may want to fill in the missing logical steps.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums