Who come first the theist or the atheist

[Fraggle Rocker]

I'm sure you've been told this before, but you project the persona of someone we'd like to see do a screenplay.

Everything I know about good communication, I learned from my wife, while she was getting her M.A. in English Literature and I typed all of her papers.

I suppose it would be nice to be a screenwriter, but having lived in Hollywood I wouldn't want the genuine "Hollywood lifestyle" that comes with that occupation. Pretty much the same reason that even though I'm a competent musician I only play and sing in bars on weekends and have a more-or-less "steady day job" for paying the bills.

However, hopefully you'll be satisfied that I use this skill in more pedestrian milieux. I'm a good teacher and a good technical writer. I once instructed computer programmers in proper business and technical writing, and I've taught people from several different countries how to speak better English.

But anyway, thanks so much for the compliment!

The subject fails on all counts of fallacy. I still maintain that primitive people, desiring to explain the natural phenomena for which they had no science, invented religion. It fundamentally arises out of superstition, the disconnect between primitive observation and the hidden natural causes.

Mrs. Fraggle has a much simpler explanation, after her years of scholarship: Religions are always invented by men, because we can't stand to answer a question with "I don't know."

 

[river]

in some ways , its not a fair question

since there is no history of thought or thoughts of Humanity before , B.C.E , Sumerians

before the flood , before the gods ( which were before the Pharohs )

I'm talking at least , 6000yrs ago , and really much more

we just need to be much , much more informed about our Ancient past , really we do

 

[Aqueous Id]

Mrs. Fraggle has a much simpler explanation, after her years of scholarship: Religions are always invented by men, because we can't stand to answer a question with "I don't know."

That's a gem. It's the kind of bright humor that gives this site a particular personality, a genuineness, that keeps me coming back for more.

 

[Aqueous Id]

in some ways , its not a fair question

since there is no history of thought or thoughts of Humanity before , B.C.E , Sumerians

before the flood , before the gods ( which were before the Pharohs )

I'm talking at least , 6000yrs ago , and really much more

we just need to be much , much more informed about our Ancient past , really we do

I agree. I think the information is available, but there is resistance to embrace it by folks who still hold on to their superstitions and their suspicion of an anti-religious conspiracy by the experts. It's crazy on both counts.

 

[lightgigantic]

Correct. God is simply a nonsensical proposition for which there can be no evidence. You might as well look for an invisible pink unicorn.

I'm not sure how that comment addresses the problem the article has in the misconstruction the notion of god and then proceeding to bark up the wrong tree

And why would he?

It might help render his argument valid

Empiricism is for finding things that are real.

Actually its about finding things out with the senses according to one's limited senses

If you want to find an invisible pink unicorn, your imagination is the best tool.

to which we can add, " ...if you want to find out about who your mother is" for persons who haven't had the prospective candidate dna tested ... provided we continue with the (myopic at best, absurd at worst) proposal that its only empiricism that establishes real things in this world

It's still open to evidence of things that do effect our natural, measurable, physical, everything.
I trust in the material world, but do not have an absolute faith in it. Empiricism leaves room to debunk itself.

Its not so much your trust of the material world that is problematic but the trust you have in your necessarily limited senses and powers of observation (or relegating the limits of reality to such feebleness) .

IOW what is not open to being debunked in your view of the world is the notion that the working field of the senses has no scope to approach issues of god since the controllable field of the senses (ie the material world) is but a contingent potency of something greater

Kind of like a frog ruminating on the size of bodies of water according to its jumping capacity

IOW empiricism simply doesn't have the tools to grapple with the question of god.
Its the failure of the author the post you linked to address this very elementary philosophical question that makes his treatise about it simply so much waffle.

:shrug:

 

[spidergoat]

IOW what is not open to being debunked in your view of the world is the notion that the working field of the senses has no scope to approach issues of god...

Then how do you even know about it?

 

[lightgigantic]

Then how do you even know about it?

I can guarantee that you use the same process when you speak about some aspect of advanced astronomy or physics (assuming you are not a professional in the field) or even to identify a particular person as your father (assuming you haven't taken to the streets with a telephone directory and a black marker to cross out names)
:shrug:

 

[spidergoat]

On the contrary, we use our senses to make telescopes and witness the stars or build particle accelerators to study the fundamental nature of matter. If God is beyond the senses, how does anyone know about it?

 

[universaldistress]

On the contrary, we use our senses to make telescopes and witness the stars or build particle accelerators to study the fundamental nature of matter. If God is beyond the senses, how does anyone know about it?

Or indeed care about it? The weakness of humans to NEED something more than what is logically explainable does seem to be hard-coded into our genes, alas. Thank god we have brains to realise what is bunkem, and the opposite . . .

 

[wynn]

But anyway, thanks so much for the compliment!Mrs. Fraggle has a much simpler explanation, after her years of scholarship: Religions are always invented by men, because we can't stand to answer a question with "I don't know."

Then you and her hold a weak supposal of human worth.

 

[wynn]

On the contrary, we use our senses to make telescopes and witness the stars or build particle accelerators to study the fundamental nature of matter. If God is beyond the senses, how does anyone know about it?

I can guarantee that you use the same process when you speak about some aspect of advanced astronomy or physics (assuming you are not a professional in the field) or even to identify a particular person as your father (assuming you haven't taken to the streets with a telephone directory and a black marker to cross out names)

 

[spidergoat]

Anyone can see the evidence behind any aspect of science, that's what makes it science. The same cannot be said for god.

 

[wynn]

Anyone can see the evidence behind any aspect of science

Not even remotely.


John Hardwig sums up how this is so in Epistemic Dependence.

 

[spidergoat]

Anyone can theoretically see the evidence, it doesn't mean that everyone does.

 

[wynn]

Anyone can see the evidence behind any aspect of science, that's what makes it science. The same cannot be said for god.

In principle, one has better chances to personally know God, than to personally know scientific truths.

Science is a massive field of claims that even scientists themselves have to take on faith, what to speak of laypeople.
The basic scientific principles may be simple enough, but accepting the findings of scientific studies is an act of trust, faith, except one has personally worked on that study, and even then, one has taken on faith that the principles for conducting a study are adequate to reality.

 

[wynn]

Anyone can theoretically see the evidence, it doesn't mean that everyone does.

Which means they have to take it on faith.

 

[lightgigantic]

On the contrary, we use our senses to make telescopes and witness the stars or build particle accelerators to study the fundamental nature of matter.

On the contrary, you most certainly don't.

When was the last time you built a particle accelerator?

If God is beyond the senses, how does anyone know about it?

The "your" in "god is beyond your senses" is the collective terms for persons in conditioned existence ... much like the "your" in "making particle accelerators is beyond your capacity" is the collective term for persons who lack the skills.

IOW each problem has specific tools/skills they use to address the problem

 

[spidergoat]

Scientists aren't necessarily special people. The tentative trust (not faith) we have in scientific experiments is based on methods of rigorous evidence collection and analysis. We can also see the results of scientific knowledge in real life, it has physical rewards in terms of technology- pictures of the moon, quantum computers, medical advancements, etc...

 

[lightgigantic]

Scientists aren't necessarily special people.

If that was the case you wouldn't be ruling out claims of reality based on their discipline ( a discipline that is necessarily metonymic btw)

The tentative trust (not faith) we have in scientific experiments is based on methods of rigorous evidence collection and analysis. We can also see the results of scientific knowledge in real life, it has physical rewards in terms of technology- pictures of the moon, quantum computers, medical advancements, etc...

The simple fact is that we use both science and religion establishing results in the "real" world.
The real problem is that you play science up with your imagination to an extent where it effectively has no method, rigorous evidence collection , etc - eg : suggesting that consciousness is materially reducible, etc etc ...... at such a point it is no longer science but science fiction ....

 

[wynn]

Scientists aren't necessarily special people. The tentative trust (not faith) we have in scientific experiments is based on methods of rigorous evidence collection and analysis. We can also see the results of scientific knowledge in real life, it has physical rewards in terms of technology- pictures of the moon, quantum computers, medical advancements, etc...

A nuclear physicist has knowledge and skills that the vast majority of the population does not have. In this sense, he is special. The vast majority has no comparable knowledge and skills as the nuclear physicist.
Thus, the vast majority of people has to take the claims of a nuclear physicist on faith.

Hardwig explains this very well.