I was raised Catholic, not too strictly. My big sister was the lucky one that went to Catholic school for early elementary. I guess I just kind of floated along, not too strong on religion, but not exactly divorced from it. In 1970, my sophomore year in high school, I saw my first comet (Comet Bennett, a beauty) and got hooked on astronomy. I kind of slid gradually into the realization that the picture religion painted was not exactly correlated with the facts and the appearance of the actual universe, unless you did some serious weaseling and rationalizations. That was my wake-up call. Empiricism trumped dogma. I have been an atheist and an amateur astronomer for 41 years now. The most difficult part for most of my Christian friends and relatives to grasp is the willingness to say “I don’t know- there isn’t enough evidence.” All of my most religious or woo-oriented acquaintances cannot fathom not having total knowledge of the universe. They crave it so much, they invent it out of nowhere. That always struck me as being so tragically sad, not being secure enough in our own mind that you grasp frantically at anything, no matter how counterfactual or downright harmful.
Jim Atkins
United States
Atkins makes just one point: Scientism, leading to Materialism and Atheism. Atkins mistakes the searching of his acquaintances as searching for scientific facts, outside the realm of empiricism. Perhaps they are searching for whatever is true, not just contingent, physical factoids.
Empiricism / Materialism / Atheism cannot trump any non-physical knowledge due to the restrictions of material testing. So Atkins has restricted his own search for knowledge to physical lumps. That’s OK, but it cannot lead to any moral conclusions, nor can it logically lead to a rejection of non-physical existence. So his Atheism, which he based on empiricism, is non-coherent for the standard Atheist reasoning flaw, the Category Error.
Empiricism does not have the capability to reject that which it cannot test. So being in the “untestable category”, non-physical existence cannot be refuted by empiricism. If Atkins were to test his Atheism using empiricism, he would learn some things about empiricism and its limits. That would require open and objective self-analysis, which is not an Atheist strong point. Or he could learn about the underlying philosophy of science, of which he seems completely unaware, as are so many amateur scientismists. But that is doubtful, because he is self-assuredly superior to any non-empirical knowledge.
Summary: Adopted science as a sophomore in high school; Scientism, Materialism and Atheism after that.
19 comments:
All of us are non-physical beings at the very core who have made the decision to live life on this planet as human beings and add more to our experiences.
We all knew before we came to this planet what the purpose of life was and we are all part of the same bigger non-physical being. So, really, when you are getting wisdom from a non-physical being, you are getting wisdom from your higher self in a sense and thats the only way you can ever get wisdom.
If Jim Atkins can not find this part of himself it is because his empirical eyes are blinding his non-empirical spirit sense.
Either the "nonphysical existence" can affect physical objects or it cannot.
If it can affect physical objects (even indirectly), then by those effects, it can be proven. So it's reasonable to expect physical proof.
If it cannot affect physical objects, then what difference does it make whether it exists or not? How could it possibly matter since it can't ever affect anything we can detect? What would be the difference between it existing and it not in any practical sense that could ever matter to anyone?
If you are willing to say that something "exists" even if it has no detectable effects whatsoever, even in theory, then there is no longer any difference between existence and non-existence.
Sure, if you want to believe something completely meaningless because it makes you feel good, go for it. But you can't expect other people to - given that you not only have no evidence to support it but have carefully constructed it so that there can be no evidence.
I mean, what if I said "there's an undetectable elf under my desk". Would you do anything but laugh? Of course I have no evidence, it's undetectable.
RK,
Here is a clarification of the proposition which might alleviate some of your confusion:
The proposition is that it is not non-coherent that a non-material agent residing in a non-material realm and having the ability to create a physical, material creation would also have the ability to interface with that creation.
It is the non-material realm and its contents which is not measurable by the scientific methods of the material realm, because non-material entities are not accessible to material investigation. The expectation of material access to non-material evidence is a Category Error.
Plus, the example of the existing material evidence which is available for examination and refutation at the site of the proposed miracle at Lourdes, allows you and anyone who cares to, to empirically, experimentally and scientifically test, examine and produce the material evidence for refutation which Atheists claim to base their worldview upon.
So you have material evidence available for your refutation.
As for your undetectable elf, the only issue here is what Atheists believe, and the lack of hard evidence for their beliefs, despite their claim of being "evidence-based".
So it is up to you, the Atheist, to produce the hard data which refutes the situation at Lourdes. Otherwise your beliefs are not supported by evidence, and are therefore based on faith, which is the fundamental characteristic which Atheists attribute to "religions" as a denigration.
Go ahead, we'll wait.
If anyone is wondering what Stan is talking about when he mentions Lourdes, well, in 1858. a child told people she saw Mary (as in mother of Jesus). The child said that Mary told her to dig. The child dug and hit water.
Explain that, atheists! It's real until you can provide an explanation!
Hello there!
Kawan here seems to understand some of the mystical/occult truths derived by that source of knowledge (just to mention.).
I think the problem with Science is that some people are so politically and ideologically motivated to take authority on the way science is done (incluiding Atheist Materialists and Young Earth Creationists), that scientific research seems hampered in many areas, and there are so many scientists out there who have to fund themselves (that's also very frequent with Physicians working in research, Pharmacists who don't work for Big Pharma and Physicists). Some important issues are mentioned in a book called "Against the Tide" by Perelman & Corredoira.
The book's here.
Kind Regards.
"Empiricism / Materialism / Atheism cannot trump any non-physical knowledge"...
What is non-physical knowledge? Examples? How is it tested?
"Supernatural", "non-physical" and "non-material" are defined by what they are not. Can someone tell me what they are and not what they are not.
"but it cannot lead to any moral conclusions,"
Concepts are caused by physical events in the brain. Morals are conceptual.
Kawan said...
"All of us are non-physical beings... his non-empirical spirit sense."
Kawan. I guess Stan wants me to believe this until I can prove you wrong. That's how good reasoning works!
RK said...
"...given that you [Stan] not only have no evidence to support it but have carefully constructed it so that there can be no evidence."
You hit the nail on the head.
Stan said...
proposed miracle at Lourdes
Are you going to give us any data on what you think this miracle is?
And do you expect atheists to disprove every event that someone somewhere thinks is a miracle? Because there will always be another story; there will always be another event for which there is not enough information to clarify what really happened.
Until there is a reason to consider this event, why should anyone consider it?
"As for your undetectable elf, the only issue here is what Atheists believe
The issue is really about how to think rationally. To put it nicely - you have a different view to the rest of the world. A view that most people can see leads to nonsense.
Otherwise your beliefs are not supported by evidence,
Lack of belief.
Atheism is a lack of belief not a belief.
So it is up to you, the Atheist, to produce the hard data which refutes the situation at Lourdes.
What situation? This is ongoing?
Things are not true until proven false. Why not produce this hard data which leads you to believe this "situation" is a miracle?
”What is non-physical knowledge? Examples? How is it tested?
Great question. Knowledge itself is non-physical; it doesn’t exist in lumps in the brain which may be removed for examination and then passed on to future generations. It is encoded onto substrates for transmission, and it is easily recoded for a changeover from one substrate to another, say from ones and zeroes to patterns on a screen.
We can also have knowledge that there exists knowledge. Knowledge of the non-physical entity “knowledge” doesn’t necessarily exist as part of knowledge. For example, my dog knows the word, “sit”. But does he know that he knows it? Not necessarily.
Knowledge cannot be had without exercising the cognitive functions: apprehension, comparison, differentiation, judgment, comprehension.
And knowledge is not valid unless it conforms to the first principles: coherence, evidentiary sufficiency (not necessarily physical), falsifiabilty (if physical), explanatory power, and inferential density. These are the tests.
Finally, knowledge is either internalized or rejected.
” "Supernatural", "non-physical" and "non-material" are defined by what they are not. Can someone tell me what they are and not what they are not.”
All that is need here is to define “natural”, “physical”, and “material”. So if we take the requirements for empirical science, then they are “things” which are experimentally testable, experimentally replicable, and falsifiable. Scientific knowledge is subject to probability restrictions, due to the Inductive Fallacy, and its offspring, the Deductive Fallacy. For example, Einstein’s velocity restriction to the speed of light, which was universally accepted due to its mathematical beauty, is now being questioned due to subsequent testing which seems to falsify it. Scientific knowledge is contingent, forever.
The terms questioned above refer, of course, to subjects which fall outside the boundaries of natural, physical, material constraints. In fact, we can ask, why should it be considered a theoretical “universal” truth that nothing exists other than these things, especially considering the universally contingent nature of science as a source of knowledge.
” Concepts are caused by physical events in the brain. Morals are conceptual.”
There is causal confusion here. Physical events in the brain indicate the transmission of information or knowledge, or the processing of the cognitive functions as they move information across the substrate; there is no reason to think that the brain, a physical lump, is anything more than a substrate, and this is the more parsimonious conclusion. Either the brain IS intellect, or it hosts intellect as a substrate. If the brain is tautological with intellect, rather than the host of it, then the intellect would be surgically removable for inspection under microscopy.
Morals are, in fact, conceptual. But concepts are knowledge, which is non-physical.
(continued)
(continued)
” RK said...
"...given that you [Stan] not only have no evidence to support it but have carefully constructed it so that there can be no evidence."
You hit the nail on the head.”
First this is a Tu Quoque. Second, Atheists are the ones who claim to be rational and evidence based; the requirement for evidence fits their own claim, so the structure pre-exists in the claims of Atheism: why is that such a problem, then?
” Stan said...
proposed miracle at Lourdes
Are you going to give us any data on what you think this miracle is?”
It astonishes me that Atheists will not go to the source of the data they requested, perform an objective, scientific analysis, and then report the data which refutes it. No, I will not provide a secondary account for you.
” And do you expect atheists to disprove every event that someone somewhere thinks is a miracle? Because there will always be another story; there will always be another event for which there is not enough information to clarify what really happened.
Until there is a reason to consider this event, why should anyone consider it?”
No, my expectation is that Atheists will not even go to one specific event, which they requested to have presented, to perform their claimed ability to refute. My expectation is that Atheists will dodge every intellectual challenge with excuses such as the above.
Atheists prove over and over that they are willing to make claims as if they are truth, and then immediately renege when they are challenged. Atheism is the rejection of absolutes, including any grounding for logic; Atheist logic is notoriously ephemeral; it is the antithesis of actual grounded logic.
Here is an example:
” Lack of belief.
Atheism is a lack of belief not a belief.”
Atheism overtly rejects. The denial is an act of irrationality in support of an ideology which cannot be defended using its own claims to evidentiary standards.
” So it is up to you, the Atheist, to produce the hard data which refutes the situation at Lourdes.
What situation? This is ongoing?
Things are not true until proven false. Why not produce this hard data which leads you to believe this "situation" is a miracle?”
First, the Atheists here demand examples; Lourdes is an example.
But WOW! I do love this assertion, made as a truth statement:
” Things are not true until proven false.”
And this:
” Why not produce this hard data which leads you to believe this "situation" is a miracle?”
The assertion is made, and has been for more than 150 years. I did not make the assertion, nor do I feel a need to defend it. The assertion was presented in response to Atheists here who demanded an example. The example is given; the assertion is made. Now it is up to the Atheists to refute it, using their own standards for evidentiary sufficiency.
But as for expectations, I do not expect that to happen because Atheism is an empty, false claim, which Atheists cannot live up to. So they will, instead, provide excuses and dodges, which I will document as they show up here.
Are there atheo-materialists out there that do not deny claims of the paranormal such as pre-cognition, remote viewing, psionics etc.
I presume that if there are such folk, the "paranormal" or "supernatural", for them, is simply an expression of "natural" phenomena that we currently do not understand.
Would he/she who holds the materialist worldview say that the totality of reality, at least in principle, is "comprehensible" to the human mind?
A part "rising above" the whole?
Atheism is an empty, false claim.
Atheism is not believing in gods. It is not a claim or an assertion. To claim it is is a strawman.
KK Dowling
Do you think that making the claim that you do not disbelieve lends you credibility? It is not possible for you not to have a belief, unless you have never heard the claim or have forgotten it. Agnostics believe they need more information. Atheists believe that there is no deity.
This modern claim of "no belief" only adds to the distrust of Atheists by rational people because that claim cannot be true. Moreover it is a purposeful dodge of the need to abide by their own rules for their beliefs, and to provide evidence for them which adheres to the rules which they apply to others.
There is a difference between knowledge and belief.
BTW,
a- Evidence of the supernatural is "category error".
b- Lourdes is material evidence of the supernatural.
a and b are contradictory. You can't have it both ways.
"Lourdes is an example"
followed by
"I did not make the assertion, nor do I feel a need to defend it."
Then lets consider it not an example then.
KK Dowling said,
"a- Evidence of the supernatural is "category error".
b- Lourdes is material evidence of the supernatural."
Lourdes is evidence of non-material interference in the material realm. That's the evidence that the Atheists on board wanted to see so they could refute it.
To bring you up to speed, here is a copy (from the comments above) that outlines the proposition being made:
"The proposition is that it is not non-coherent that a non-material agent residing in a non-material realm and having the ability to create a physical, material creation would also have the ability to interface with that creation.
It is the non-material realm and its contents which is not measurable by the scientific methods of the material realm, because non-material entities are not accessible to material investigation. The expectation of material access to non-material evidence is a Category Error.
Plus, the example of the existing material evidence which is available for examination and refutation at the site of the proposed miracle at Lourdes, allows you and anyone who cares to, to empirically, experimentally and scientifically test, examine and produce the material evidence for refutation which Atheists claim to base their worldview upon.
So you have material evidence available for your refutation."
If you wish, I'll reword it to help clarify it. For some reason the current crop of Atheists on board are not addressing this issue head on.
SloMo:
""Lourdes is an example"
followed by
"I did not make the assertion, nor do I feel a need to defend it."
Then lets consider it not an example then."
Good. I like a straight forward run-away.
The assertion is still made, despite your run-away. It's been made for over 150 years. It has material validation for you to refute. Just as you Atheists requested.
But go ahead, run off. At least that's more honest than throwing fallacies at it.
So you do assert this and you do feel a need to defend it?
Perfect troll work there SloMo.
Either defend your belief, refute the Lourdes claim, or quit wasting my time.
You're claiming miraculous appearances of Mary?
Does this mean your Catholic?
RK,
Nope. I did not make that claim, I merely provided access to it for the Atheists here, per their request.
Atheists have made the claim that, given two separate realms, the material and the non-material, that if the non-material realm is not accessible to the material realm, then the material realm is also not accessible to the non-material realm.
But that is a misunderstanding of the proposition. So I restated the proposition to clarify it for the Atheists. The two realms are separate, tautologically; but access to both realms by an agent resident in the original non-material realm is probable if the material realm was created by the agent in the pre-existing non-material realm.
The Atheists then requested an example of non-material influence or interference in the material realm so they could refute it using empirical, experimental, material scientific methodology. So I referred them to a 150 year old proposition of that which was made at Lourdes, and which proposition contained both non-material elements and material elements. This satisfies their requirements for a proposition of non-material interference in the material realm, and it is not my proposition, it has existed for a century and a half.
Here is the proposition being made (for the third time in this thread):
” "The proposition is that it is not non-coherent that a non-material agent residing in a non-material realm and having the ability to create a physical, material creation would also have the ability to interface with that creation.
It is the non-material realm and its contents which is not measurable by the scientific methods of the material realm, because non-material entities are not accessible to material investigation. The expectation of material access to non-material evidence is a Category Error.
Plus, the example of the existing material evidence which is available for examination and refutation at the site of the proposed miracle at Lourdes, allows you and anyone who cares to, to empirically, experimentally and scientifically test, examine and produce the material evidence for refutation which Atheists claim to base their worldview upon.
So you have material evidence available for your refutation."
We are still awaiting Atheist refutation.
Without the ability to refute such things using their own evidentiary requirements, Atheism is seen to be a belief system without basis in evidence for its own beliefs.
Without the basis in evidence as Atheists claim, their belief system is thus based solely on faith alone, and is therefore a religious belief system.
Post a Comment