Showing posts with label appologetics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label appologetics. Show all posts

Sunday, February 19, 2012

Atheists Deny the Norm of Truth: Tillich's Impied OA

Photobucket
Paul Tillich



Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
Empirical knowledge is not the only from of Knowledge.

I. Argument: knowledge is more than just empirical observation, there is a norm of truth.

Duane Olsen's argument that Tillich has an implied ontolgocal argument in the ground of being and the norm of truth.




(quote)
The indubitability of the norm of truth is shown by a reductio argument regarding the process of knowing. In different places and in different ways Tillich points out that denial and doubt in knowing presuppose the norm of truth.[xvii] I want to systematize Tillich’s reductio argument at this point to show that all major theoretical postures presuppose this norm.

We can imagine four major postures taken by a subject to any theoretical judgment. One could affirm the judgment, claiming it corresponds with reality; one could deny the judgment, claiming it does not correspond; one could doubt, question, and debate the judgment; or one could claim a decision cannot be made about the judgment. All of the options presuppose the subject’s ability to apply a correspondence-norm, or norm of truth. Certainly one must apply a norm to affirm a judgment. One must also apply a norm, however, to deny a judgment. Any negative judgment presupposes and lives from the positive bearing of a norm of truth by the subject. One cannot deny that a judgment corresponds to reality without presupposing the subject’s ability to make judgments about reality. Doubting, questioning, or debating a judgment presuppose a norm of truth as well. One could not debate the veracity of a judgment without presupposing the capacity in the debaters to determine that veracity. Doubting or questioning a judgment is only meaningful under the presupposition of a norm that gives validity to that questioning and doubting. Finally, the claim that one cannot know whether a judgment is true presupposes the bearing of a norm to determine how or why a decision cannot be made.

It is important to note that the argument for a correspondence-norm, or norm of truth, is on a different level than arguments about the specific nature of the correspondence between subject and object. The correspondence itself may be conceived in terms of naïve realism, idealism, or a multitude of positions in between. Every theory about the nature of the correspondence, however, relies on the presupposition of a correspondence-norm that would make it possible to formulate, and affirm, deny, debate, or declare uncertain that theory. Put differently, the theory of the specific nature of the correspondence between subject and object is another field of knowledge that is subject to the ultimate criterion of knowledge, which is what is disclosed in the idea of a correspondence-norm.

To claim that the capacity to apply a norm is indubitable is the same thing as saying the subject bears an indubitable awareness of truth. In other words, when one analyzes the major postures toward judgments and shows how a norm of truth is presupposed as something borne by the subject in every posture, one is pointing out an awareness of truth the subject has, though it is something the subject may overlook, especially in doubting or denying particular truths. Through the reductio argument, one focuses attention on the fact that the subject bears a norm of truth, thus raising it to conscious awareness. I speak more below about the character of this awareness, but for now I simply affirm something Tillich presupposes, which is the identity between the affirmation that the subject bears a norm of truth and the subject’s awareness of this norm.[v](closed quote)



NONAME
Duane Olsen teaches at a private Christian college. I see that a a strike against him. No more or less reputable than this guy:
(website as follows) mormonhistoricsitesfoundation.org/about/baugh.htm


Because he can compare Olsen to Joseph Smith that proves he's no good? Even though the two have nothing to do with each other. Olsen's knowledge of philosophy is excellent, professional and graduate level and Smith's was non-existent, we are still supposed to put Olsen on the level of Smith, why? because the all knowing anti-intellectual says to.

argument from analogy, and a bad one.

this is obviously going to far and I have to say this in the strongest terms. This is nothing more than bigotry and a refusal to think masked as some sort of religious indignation but at beast it's nothing more than incredulity at work. I've seen this atheist gimmick at work before: shut down any sort of evidence that that counts against one's position on some made up grounds such as "this perosn i the person that he is so that disqualifies him becasue he disagrees with me."

Look, you are here to argue with religion. So instead of arraign with a regions person, who knows his philosophy, you just go "this guy is religious and religious is bad so therefore I'm excused form listing he's wrong a priori tart's all there is. amen.

where's the proof. the proof is he's not agreeing with me. then when I say "you are an ideologue he gets angry and says "O how dare, I've told you before there is o atheist ideology. Dismissing arguments because they are by your opponents is nothing more than ideolgoical move! scream until you are blue that you don't have an ideology then you make moves likes an ideologue. There is no difference in saying "I am NOT going to listen to him because he's a religious person" and saying "I'm not going to listen to him because he's on the other side. which is just saying I"m not going to think.

I wont listen to him because he's a Jew, or the a communist, or he's black, or he's white, she's a feminist. If these rub you the wrong way, that's just what you are doing, you are not doing it against a group you hate, so you think it's cool. This what ideologues do! that's ideology!!!!

The really puerile thing about it is if you actually read the article and if you understood what it says you would see that he knows his stuff. So an argument that being form a small private Christian college means he doesn't know what he's talking about is just wrong headed, he does. The fact of the matter is if the fundies at his school took what he says seriously they would have to take a giant step away form fundamentalism.

Understanding Tillich is liberating form fundamentalism a prori. If to disagree with it is one thing, but even if you disagree just to undersatnd it requires a level of education such that one is less of a fundie than before. It's quite self defeating for atheists dismiss religoius thinkers a prori just for being religious. That's what's wrong with the accommodation argument.




Noname Again:

"Basically the quote from Olsen in just word salad that could be used to rationalize anything. I see this as an argument against rather than for Christianity simply because this level of mental gymnastics needs to be resorted to. Past experience tells me that if the word salad was put in plain language it would appear silly and Christians would get upset."



This is a self contradictory statement. this statement tells us two things. It tell us that he doesn't understand the Olsen article, and that his reaction to ti is mere knee jerk becasue he doesn't undersatnd it.

He calls it mental gymnastics but that just proves he doesn't understand it because it's quite cogent and if he really understood it he would see that. I see it, others whose opinions I respect and who have graduate level knowledge have read it and this so too.

Obviously he doesn't understand it. Then to say "word salad" all that means is he can't follow an arguemnt that's made at an academic level.

these guys who are so anti-knowledge and anti-intellectual who hate big words and think up insulting epithets for knowledge and erudition, (like "word salad" using big word whut I doesn't know) they are decrying their ignorance but we mustn't make them feel that they don't know anything becuase that's insulting. never mind how insulting it is that he refuses to consider an opponent just becuase he is on the other side, or that he refuses to learn or the follow the issues.

We must cater to the anti-intellectual becuase the school system has raised them to believe they are exempt form having to learn anything and their sense of entitlement is through the roof.

Metacrock's version is much clearer:

Quote Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
1) Tillich understand’s God to be the unconditioned, eternal, transcendent, ground of all being;
That is fine I think it is an unfortunate use of the word God

Quote Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
(2) Truth is an unconditioned norm based upon the correspondence theory; truth is correspondence between subject and object.
Truth is not unconditional. Is the man handsome?

noname
Yes, truth is correspondence between subject and object. That is all it is. Very simple, yet often subjective. Truth is fuzzy.



Quote Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
(3) The norm of truth is self verifying sense; truth as a concept cannot be untrue unless the concept of truth is affirmed in contrast to the possibility of untruth. Any particular truth can be doubted but not the concept of truth itself.

Noname
I disagree. Truth, as you stated above is a correspondence between subject and object. It can still be subjective. Is that car expensive? For me yes for you no. Is that math problem difficult?
The argument doesn't say there's never a question about particular facts. It's talking about the concept of truth itself. To say truth is relative requires a concept of the larger notion of truth to compare to. Otherwise you don't have a sense of contradiction.

Quote Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
(4) Due to this unconditioned, necessary, and indubitable nature the norm of truth is understood to be transcendent of subject and object, and transcendent of any particulars of nature.

Noname
Your argument has fallen apart at this point. Even if you could provide an example of some indubitable and necessary nature of truth it could quickly be exposed as dependent on human language and that is a whole other can of worms.
He just supplied me with that knowledge. He's saying my concept of subject object is wrong. That means there has to be a clear universal concept of truth in order to argue that some notion is false. Otherwise there's nothing co compare to. Truth and falsehood can only be compared amide a background that acknowledges the possibility of truth and error. If all truth is realtive you can't say one idea is false and another true.

Quote Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
(5) The transcendent unconditioned is equated with God in Tillich's understanding of being itself (from 1); the existence of such a norm is demonstrated in the nature of the norm of truth.

Noname
That is fine but ultimately unconvincing.


If you are not concentrating.

Monday, August 16, 2010

The Games Atheists Play

The games atheist play. I knew some atheists once who loved to play monopoly. They loved it so much they decided that atheism monopolizes science. I've also known many an atheist who loved doge ball. But then who doesn't sometimes? Hide and seek? No, atheists don't like seeking. They definitely do not like things being hidden. They like scrabble, where things are spelled out clearly and they control the vocabulary.

There are two things I find atheists doing on message boards that drive me up the wall.

(1) Assume no givens of any kind

(2) Confuse real logic with personal taste


The first one, assume no givens, I should say allow no givens. I've seen this in many forms. It's basically the idea that everything has to be totally proven. This tendency to demand that everything be proven is an outgrowth of their epistemology, which through going empiricism, and empiricism in a inductive, scientific sense. True empiricism in the old philosophical sense is not good enough. They demand total absolute proof of any assumption made. This is so extreme I find atheists asking me to prove the assumption that God is love. They will not accept the idea that this comes with the package of a Christian belief system or that it is empirically experienced my own sense of the presence of God.

But the ultimate example of this kind of thinking gone wild was seen a board the other dad (AARM--or RE-AARM) there was a thread called "why would God?" Meaning why would God allow pain and evil. So I began discussion on my soeteriolgoical drama idea, which begins by saying "here are the assumptions I make for this argument." This guy puts my word "assumption" in big blue font and says "you are just assuming!" Yes, chicken pie I know, that's what I said I was doing. Of the idea that all studies, arguments, treatuses, essays and any other sort of heuristic device employs assumptions, is foreign to this guy. Then he really took the cake, he says "This is circular reasoning, because you are assuming God!"

Now, friends, the name of the thread was "why would God?" So the thread assumes God from the get go, and to answer the thread is to assume God. Moreover, the question was about the belief system of Christianity. If you as a Christian believe that God is good, how can you explain that God allows pain, ect ect. The very nature of the question demands that anyone attempting to answer assume God in the answer. But this guy wants to argue that it's circular reasoning just to have a belief a prori. So not only will they not allow any sort of belief things must be proven form the outset, but they confuse this with logic to begin with. I was not making an argument to prove he existence of God. I was explicating my belief system. thus it should perfectly fair and understood that to explain beliefs I have to assume my belief.

But this response of the atheist also highlights the second problem, not understanding logic. How many times have I heard atheists say "your ideas are not logical," only to find that they have no clear idea of any logical rule violated. To them logic just "I like this" and illogical means "I don't like this." When accused of circular reasoning I always ask them to tell me what makes something circular reasoning. Nine times out of ten it turns out they confusing circular reasoning with saying something unproven. In direct response to this question (what is circular reasoning in my argument) the will say things like "we don't know what came before the big bang." This means my argument is circular because I'm making an assumption not based upon absolute evidence but speculation. When I point out that circular reasoning means the premise rests upon the conclusion of an argument, and none of my arguments do this, they just poo poo it like "O how can I be expected to keep track of all those rules." This makes the charge of "circular reasoning" pretty meaningless.

The idea that we know God exists because they Bible says so, and the Bible is the word of God so we can believe it, is a prefect example of circular reasoning. This is entirely because the premise (God exists) rests slap dabe upon the conclusion (God's existence is proven by the bible). The authority of the Bible comes from the thing in question, God. This is akin to begging the question. Circular reasoning is a lot like and is a form of question begging. The proof is based upon the thing in question, and the thing in question is proven by the proof that rests upon it.

None of my arguments have this quality. But what really gets me is these guys are not even assuming that unproven arguments are resting a premise upon a conclusion they are just using the term "circular reasoning" because they've heard it before and its sounds like a logical buzz to employ for the idea "I don't like this idea."

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

For Rex: Christaintiy, a Force for Liberation

Photobucket
Father Camillio Tores
First Catholic priest to join
a communist insurgent group



Atheists only look at the negative. As Joseph Campbell said "cynicism appears as insight to the cowardly mind." Atheists are cowards and thus they mistake cynicism for insight. They are cowards because they are afraid to seek spirituality they afraid of the subjective, they are afraid to risk being wrong, most of all they are afraid of God. (by "them" and "they" understand the usual caveats). Rex (faithful loyal opponent) makes the charge that Christianity has augmented and fomented so much social evil. But of course atheists mine that data and ignore the good complete.

This was originally written for Hector Avelos when I was trying to persuade him to debate me formally. He never did.

Modern atheist "wisdom" leads our atheist counterparts to contend that religion is dark and evil; God is a big meanie, and they try to stick Christianity with every social iill one can imagine, from cold breakfast to nuclear way. Some of their favorites include slavery, war, social oppression. These are suppossedly condoned in the Bible. What these great thinkers and paradigms of social insight have missed is the fact that Christianity has always been a major force for liberation and social reform. This has been true since Moses led the Israelites out of Slavery in Egypt (this became a powerful metaphor for slaves in America). In the early centuries of Christianity Christians such as Olympia, Deaconess of Constantinople spent their family fortunes to buy slaves so they could free them; they would rescue abandoned infants form under bridges (the ancient world's version of modern day abortion clinics). We know that the civil rights movement was largely motivated by the Bible. Civil rights workers tapped into an old tradition, very much at the core of the abolition movement, that found the Bible not a source of oppression but of encouragement and liberation. They did not call the major Civil rights organization "The Southern Christian Leadership Conference" for nothing! The major figure in the Civil Rights movement was not a minister for nothing. The link between the Bible and liberation goes way back, in the history of liberalism (first abolition group in America, Pheobe Palmer and the Methodist Woman's Association--same people did the first Women's Suffrage group in America) but also in the history of American social justice. But have we forgotten the Baragan brothers? Christianity and the Bible were a big influence upon the anti-war movement in the 60s as well. In fact we can find historically that Christianity has influenced and led to reform, revolution, and radical movements throughout history.

From Joachim of Flora and his thirteenth century revolt of the poor, to sixteenth century peasant revolts in south Germany, to the folks at Lo Chambo (who hid Jews from the Nazis and some of them died doing that--where Camus stayed when the wrote his great novel Le Peste--but I'm sure Avaols would find that of no intrinsic value, being literature and all.) The Ranters, the Levelers, The Diggers, the Quakers --all were revolutionaries or social activists inspired by the bible. Read he Journal of John Woolman to see how this major voice in the early abolition movement was inspired by the Bible. Also consult William Wilburforce, and the abolitionists of the early nineteenth century as well.

Avalos's arguments are themselves totally irrelevant, because he ignores liberation theology as though it doesn't exist. I was a seminary student and (if I do say so myself) a very active political activist in the Central America Solidarity Movement of the 80s. I can tell you liberation theology was a major movement of the day, and the Bible was a source of its inspiration. Liberation historians demonstrate that the Christian left is very old, and it has been involved in every movement in every time period including the beginning of Imperial Christianity, when Olympia the Deaconess gave away her family fortune to free slaves (Constantinople of the 300s). Most people begin to date liberation theology with the radical priests of the `60s. If they know the history of the modern movement, they begin with CLAMB and Christians for Socialism in the `50s. If they are really historically minded, they start with A Theology for the Social Gospel, by Walter Rauschenbusch. But, Rauschenbusch, while he could be viewed as a forerunner, and while he called himself a "Christian Socialist," may really represent the end of an older tradition of Christians in the labor movement of the late 19th century (his work was written in 1917). Those who came before him, in the labor movement, represent a vast movement of religiously minded reformers with antecedents in the Second Great Awakening, much of which Hudson documents. (Winthrop S. Hudson, Religion In America: A Historical Account of the Development of American Religious Life. Second ed. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1965, 1973, 310-315.). Enrique Dussel uncovers a long history, far more indepth than we have time for here.

The point is that the "religious left", including all forms of Christian socialism, and left-leaning social reformers, is very old and represents a whole world unto itself. It is well worth learning, and demonstrates the irony and tragedy of the current climate in the academy, a climate in which academics would rather feed their urge to bash religion rather than create a dialogue with thinkers who have access to a vast tradition they themselves know little about. (History and the Theology of Liberation. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1976). Another excellent source is Smith's book on revivalism (Timothy L. Smith, Revivalism and Social Reform: American Protestantism on the Eve of the Civil War. Baltimore, London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1957, 129-80.)

While many conservative readers of the CADRE may feel that they have another side to the issues of the Central America movement, one thing we can both agree upon, weather for good or ill: a large part of the support given the FSLN (National Sandinist Liberation Front--the "Frente", the dreaded "Sandinistas") and those who took part as Nicaraguans in that movement, drew their inspiration from their Christian faith.

For a strong sense of the crucial nature of religion to the struggle in Latin America see Penny Lernoux's book, (Penny Lernoux, Cry of The People. Penguin Books, 1982. 29-30). Let us remember priests such as Father Camillio Torres, who was the first priest, but not the last, to take up arms in the struggle. He died in Colombia in 1966. His example sparked much interest in liberation movements throughout Latin America. For a look at religious involvement in the Nicaraguan revolution in particular, see Margaret Randal, Sandino's Daughters: Testimonies of Nicaraguan Women in Struggle. (Vancouver, Toronto: New Star books, 1981.) The example of Thomas Borge in Nicaragua, the FSLN Minster of Interior, is awe-inspiring in that he confronted the torturer who tortured him and killed his wife. He forgave the man and let him live because Borge had become a Christian and read in the Bible to turn the other cheek and forgive. Nothing is more touching than the letter he wrote to Father Ernesto Cardinal about his new found faith. Borge was the leader of the FSLN, the "Sandinistas" in Nicaragua. He was one of the first to help start the Sandinista party. Some might argue that his commitment to religious belief was mere propaganda; but, while he was yet a guerrilla on the run in the mountains, he sent for a priest (Ernesto Cardinal, later to become a member of the Sandinista party). He wished to discuss religion with the priest. The simple note he sent is one of the most moving documents of the Latin American struggle.

"I knew a God who joyfully rang the church bells and dressed up when General Somoza visited León... a God who forgave the heavy sins of the rich... I slew that God without mercy within my conscience. It would seem, however, that God does not wish to die. In the jungles of Colombia there has been a new Bethlehem. Camilio Torres told us before dying, or perhaps told us in dying. Father I await you..."

The priest made his way through the mountains to talk with the revolutionary, and the Nicaraguan revolution kicked in the womb. (Andrew Reding, Christianity and Revolution: Tomás Borge's Theology of Life. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1987.) Liberation Theology was spreading to South Korea and all of Asia as the Berlin wall came down. (see James H. Cone, Minjung Theology: People as the Subjects of History. ed. by the Commission on Theological Concerns of the Christian Conference of Asia. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1981)

I have no problem with finding more scholars to read more ancient texts that are now being ignored. The study of the Bible is not forcing anyone away form such study. Dr. Avalos himself could have chosen to spend his time studying these texts--then we would be enlightened by his brilliant scholarship!

People are ignorant of the Bible; we need more scholars to teach it. Ignoring the Bible is not the answer. The Bible is not all there is to the Christian tradition. Christianity is a living tradition, with many sources, not the least of which is one's own inner life. The inner life consists of prayer, but also intellectual understanding, literacy, and not just how to read the labels of aspirin bottles but an understanding that there is a world of letters. I cannot abide academics who hate the world of letters. This is the essence of the one-dimensionalizing tendencies of atheism and reductionism that the PC crowd have taken up--and Avalos is their spokesperson. They want to further one-dimensionality at the expense of Western culture. The Bible is at the heart of Western culture. Avalos wants to persuade us that Biblical values are ancient-world and thus foreign to us, but they are the heart of our culture. All of our modern values are the grandchildren of Biblical values. Democracy; autonomy; selfhood; the individual; basic human rights; humane treatment of the poor; worker's rights; even modern science--it all comes out of the Christian tradition.

Arnold J. Toynbee observed that Christianity freed humans from the cyclical understanding of time. Christianity made “history” in the modern sense possible. Ancient paganism, the texts with which Avalos wants to replace Biblical studies, would not have allowed us progress in history, or even a modern concept of history at all; they were focused upon the eternal return of the god/goddess from winter to spring. The same things over and over again. But Jesus died and rose once for all, and then we venture forward in time toward an eschatological horizon. There will be no end of history. History will continually sublate itself until the final and once for all return of Christ.

We can make progress. But we can only make progress if we remember who we are and where we came from. We cannot abandon the inner, the world of books and letters, our ability to think, faith in God, or our understanding of culture as it was and as it will be. This makes the Bible far more relevant than anything, and it means that people with Ph.D's in Biblical studies have an awesome responsibility: a responsibility to promote the world of letters, not to abort it. One is called to teach, not to persuade the student to give up learning. We need to learn more about the Bible. We need to talk up the Bible, we need to educate people on it, and we need to help students develop their own little worlds lined with books so they can understand the interrelationship between the Bible and the culture. I fear this is something for which many of our modern teachers are not equipped.


Notes on Sources


1 Matthew L. Lamb, Solidarity with Victims: Toward a Theology of Social Transformation. New York: Crossroad, 1982, 122.

2 Barry Katz, Marcuse and The Art of LIberation: An Intellectual Biography.Verso, 1982, 200.

3 A. Daniel Frankforter, A History of The Christian Movement: The Development of Christian Institutions. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1978, 170.

See Also, Karl Marx and Frederick Engles,The Communist Manifesto . New York: International Publishers Co. inc. 1948, 1984 ed. 33. Granted, Marx didn't think much of "Christian Socialism" in the middle ages, which he called ":Feudal Socialism." "Nothing is easier than to give Christian asceticism a Socialist tinge. Has not Christianity declaimed against private property...? Christian socialism is but the Holy Water with which the priest consecrates the heart burnings of the aristocrat." Granted, history was waiting for Marx to come and introduce true socialism. But, the socialism of the middle ages was more diverse than that. It existed in the monasteries as a monastic form, along side early capitalism, but it also existed among the peasants and in revolutionary form. And there were thinkers, such as Joachim of Flora who led a peasant revolt to bring on the end of times.

4 Enrique Dussel, History and the Theology of Liberation. Maryknoll New York: Orbis books, 1976. Dussel uncovers a long history, far more indepth than we have time for here. The point being, the "religious left," including all forms of Christian socialism, and left leaning social reformers, is very old and represents a whole world unto itself. It is well worth learning, and demonstrates the irony and tragedy of the current climate in the academy, a climate in which academics would rather feed their urge to bash religion rather than create a dialogue with thinkers who have access to a vast tradition they themselves know little about.

5 Winthrop S. Hudson, Religion In America: A Historical Account of the Development of American Religious Life. Second ed. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1965, 1973, 310-315.

Most people begin to date liberation theology with the radical priests of the `60s. If they know the history of the modern movement, they begin with CLAMB and Christians for socialism in the `50s. If they are really historically minded, they start with A Theology for the Social Gospel , by Walter Rauschenbusch. But, Rauschenbusch, while he could be viewed as a forerunner, and while he called himself a "Christian Socialist," may really represent the end of an older tradition of Christians in the labor movement of the late 19th century (his work was written in 1917). Those who came before him, int he labor movement, represent a vast movement of religiously minded reformers with antecedents in the second great awakening, much of which Hudson documents.

6 Timothy L. Smith, Revivalism and Social Reform: American Protestantism on the Eve of the Civil War. Baltimore, London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1957, 12980.

7 Penny Lernoux, Cry of The People. Penguin Books, 1982. 29-30. Torres was the first priest , but not the last, to take up arms in the struggle. He died in Colombia in 1966. His example sparked much interest in liberation movements throughout Latin America.

8 Andrew Reding, Christianity and Revolution: Tomás Borge's Theology of Life.Marknoll, New York: Orbis books, 1987. Borge was the leader of the FSLN, the "Sandinistas" in Nicaragua. He was one of the first to help start the Sandinista party. Some might argue that his commitment to religious belief was mere propaganda, but , while he was yet a gorilla on the run in the mountains, he sent for a priest (Ernesto Cardenal, latter to become a member of the Sandinista party). He wished to discuss religion with the priest. The simple note he sent is one of the most moving documents of the Latin American struggle. "I knew a God who joyfully rang the church bells and dressed up when General Somoza visited León..a God who forgave the heavy sins of the rich...I slew that God without mercy within my conscience. It would seem, however, that God does not wish to die. In the jungles of Colombia there has been a new Bethlehem. Camilio Torres told us before dying, or perhaps told us in dying." The priest made his way through the mountains to talk with the revolutionary, and the Nicaraguan revolution kicked in the womb.

9 For a strong sense of the crucial nature of religion to the struggle in Latin America see Penny Lernoux's book, op. cit. For a look at religious involvement in the Nicaraguan revolution in particular, see Margaret Randal, Sandino's Daughters: Testimonies of Nicaraguan Women in Struggle. Vancouver, Toronto: New Star books, 1981.

10 James H. Cone, Minjung Theology: People as the Subjects of History. ed. by the Commission on Theological Concerns of the Christian Conference of Asia. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis books, 1981. Minjung means "mass of the people," as in "a great crowd." It is a theology specific to South Korea, where they are not allowed to use the term "the people" because the government fears the spread of Maoism. But, this is one example of a liberating style theology spreading over Asia.

Monday, April 5, 2010

Playing the "Prove You Exist" game: Atheist Asnwers

here we have a different thread:




Quote Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post 71


this is my "prove I exist" game. the game: prove to me using nothing but objective scientific data that there is a mind beyond my mind the point is to prove that there is not scientific data that helps us with epistemology but we have to resort to epistemic judgment. This proves hat science cannot be the only form of knowledge, so not having scientific proof of god is not an indication God is not real, and having logical arguments for God is not a draw back.



The game works like this: I demand they produce scientific evidence or data to prove the following questions, and this is usually played in response threads like "There's no scientific proof for your God" or statements about "the only trust worthy form of knowledge is science."


areas to prove:


a world beyond my consciousness


that other minds exist in this world


that I exist


that the future will be like the past


that the sun will rise in the morning.



They started out with incredulous responses. They tired to ridicule the value of the game sign it was stupid it proves nothing blah blah. One guy tried to name drop by mentioning every Scottish philosopher he could find. Genetic fallacy, identify the origins of an idea dn you beat the idea. He gets points for knowing it was Scottish Philosophy but the one guy he didn't name is the right one, Thomas Reid. Not that Reid ever played this game but it was suggested to me while reading him.


still me:


First I'm going to say this and you need to read the whole thing to see what i mean: God is not adding a fact to the universe. Belief in is God is not just a belief in one more entity but is a belief in an aspect of being, that of necessary eternal being.




let's settle the BS about "proof is only for mathematics." But if that's the case then atheists have to stop saying "there's no proof for your God" because God is not mathematics. You also miss the point of that expression becuase it means you can't expect any scientific data to be proof of anything. So then say "There's not scientific data that proves God" and expect that o be a big deal is a total contradiction to this concept that proof is only in mathematics.



When non mathematicians use that expression "proof" they really mean a very tight collation. Scientists will speak of "proof" which not math and call it proof and they mean more than just correlation. They also mean a mechanism. But epistemologically speaking even the inclusion of a mechanism is part of the correlation becasue nature doesn't come with labels telling us what the causes are. The analysis that decides what is a mechanism for a cause is also a correlative result.



So the upshot is we have two choices, we can either use the term "proof" in a less strict since, an "informal" sense of really strong warrants, or we can admit that its' silly to want proof of God since God is not a mathematical construct.



For those who chose the former, you are not out of the woods yet. I have often made a point that we take many things for granted which are not provable by science, not even in the informal sense of the term. For example basic epistemic judgments about other minds have to be made by a judgment or leap of faith, they cannot be settled by scientific data becuase any scientific data could be part of the illusion.



That means 2 things:



(1) It's false to say that we can't believe something without proof because we believe things without proof all the time, and in fact we could not live a coherent rational life without making assertions of these things which cannot be proved.



(2) This means there has to be a method for making such judgments that does not involve math or scientific data and that is only available to us Logically. Descartes tried to supply that method with the cogito ("I think, therefore I am?")



That method is found generally in various forms of philosophy especially existential and phenomenological but also deductive reasoning.




Because God is not merely adding a fact to the universe but really consists of coming to an understanding of some facet of being, the theist and the atheist live in different worlds. We have totally different ways of understanding the nature of truth the nature of proof the importance of logic and the basic epistemological set up.



What that means is it is absurd to make claims such as "there's no proof for God" because it's meaningless to expect proof for something that is not a matter of contingency but underpins the whole nature of existence; it also means that the demand for scientific data is absurd. Scientific data is only available where one has contingencies and where one can make observations. We can't make first hand observations about the basic nature of reality, and that's what the idea of God is, it's a concept about reality.



To believe in God is to believe in one's own contingency. That's why Tillich says if you know being has depth you can't be an atheist. That means if you realize there's more to being than just contingent things, and you realize you are contingent and there must be some necessity that these contingencies are pinned upon, then you can't be an atheist because that is a priori the definition of God.





The good little soldiers did their ideological duty and spouted a bunch of canned answers but did not answer the argument:



You claim atheism is based upon facts, and there not facts that stick up for belief in God. You also claimed the only form of knowledge is empirical scientific data, which of course the atheist ideology thinks that atheism has in abundance.



the upshot is the atheist ideological propagandist dictum that one cannot believe without proof.



I said two things:



(1) alleged factual basis of atheism is totally selective, it includes only facts that seem to bolster the ideology but ignore those facts that speak against it.



(2) You believe things all the time that cannot be demonstrated in empirical scientific data. You take for granted the necessity of epistemic judgment and you make such judgments all the time.



These are not "facts" that can be demonstrated objectively but you assume them as fact all the time and never consider the flimsy nature of proof concerning them.




A. The existence of your own mind



B. the existence of a world external to your own mind



C. The existence of other minds not dependent upon your imagination.



I have a huge list but this will do for now. No evidence at all of any kind has been presented yet to demonstrate the factual nature of these beliefs.



you are believing you exist in a real world with real other minds based upon 0 empirical scientific data capable of proving these assertions. To accept them as "facts" you must assume them as judgments.



upshot: demonstration of the necessity to use philosophy and logic in discursive reasoning to understand the reality of the world rather htan proving it by empirical scientific means.

Another try out for Saturday Nite Live. I'm laughing already.



here's the guy he got it from in post 70



Quote Originally Posted by madmax2976 View Post

What argument? Pretty much all you ever offer is:


I am Metacrock and I am great

Atheists are stupid and bad


That's really not much of an argument. Citing a few names here and there doesn't make it anymore impressive. From what I see, most of the time you don't even listen to what others are saying, rather you make things up and attribute it to them so you can pretend to have addressed something they actually said.
That's his answer to my quotations form experts, I do quote sources that anyone can find and see they they exist and I don't make them. I prove I don't make them up becuase you can look them up, but of course they would never do that.

Madmax:

Yes, you're a legend in your own mind - we get that.


Would you care to lay out your argument in a syllogism that can easily be followed or is that asking too much?

Meta:
same as above: foolish mockery, you are not capable of answering the arguments with logic or evidence so you have to result to mocking. Hate group atheism going into operation doing what they do best, mocking and ridiculing because they can't think.


if you had an argument, if you could disprove my point. you would do it. If you really had anything to say about that made any kind of sense you would be fighting tooth and nail to hand on to that. when atheist start the mocking game we know they can't think they are out of ammunition and they have packed the thinking.


this is just another example of the one and only argument atheists have, incredulity "I refuse to believe not matter what the evidence."



same thread post 37






Quote Originally Posted by His clay View Post

As the opening post already stated, “. . . we shouldn’t think that the divine nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image fashioned by human art and imagination.” That, as explained already, is what has been said; this answers your first question. Put another way, the atheistic straw man god, that they allow theists to have (paragraph 2 section 1 of OP), is a figment of the atheist's imagination.


In regards to your second question, is it good or bad to intentionally erect a straw man, and then beat it down as if it were the real thing? Your second question has already been answered as well; try reading the second paragraph of section two again.


Perhaps, you are trying, and I'm being overly critical. Yet, it does not appear that you tried to understand the OP, so I have responded restating what it seems you have missed. I'm not trying to be rude.
Madmax

What I missed is the evidence that God's not a figment of the imagination. I'm pretty sure I missed it because it wasn't there. Feel free to show how I'm wrong.

Meta:

The game proved exactly what it set out to prove. It also proved some other things too. It mainly proved that some atheist on this board cant' think, don't understand what's being said, can't comprehend what they read, and can't think seriously and can't face arguments like men.

The purpose of the game was to answer two kinds of statements by atheists:

(1) Science is the only valid form of knowledge; (2) there is no scientific evidence for God, therefore, it's irrational to believe because only scientific evidence counts. the game disproves this notion because it demonstrates that there is a whole level of thought prior to science, above scinece, from which science itself derives, that scinece cannot be used to provide answer for.

We take that level for granted because we don't need scientific evidence on that level (epistemology) and it can't help us anyway. That proves that scinece is not the only form of knowledge. not having scientific evidence for God doesn't mean it's irrational to believe, it just means that the question of God is not a scientist question but a equation on a philosophical level.

The proof that science can't work on that level: they never made one single attempt to show any scientific at all! They just gave up a prpori becasue they know I'm right. Instead of seriously arguing they spent most of their time (after I shot down a few early attempts which where mostly name dropping) just mocking and ridiculing the exercise.

what they really proved is that they are not prepared for serious thought.

read the thread. they should be totally ashamed but of course they wont be because acting little gigle girls made them feel like big men, big men who are afraid to debate seriously.

http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...-a-little-game


Men face each other face to face and said their piece and when they are proved wrong point blank they admit it. These guys act like small children on the playground, here's something to run around and gigle at. Let's run around and make little sing song rhymes about metacorck and make fun of him and gigle like girls.

Their behavior in that thread is appalling. They try to fault me for everything from using red fonts to illustrating very important ideas, to things they made up by misreading articles and not comprehending them.

When I answered the article miscomprehended they began a fury of posting to bury my argument way back where no one will see it.

I worked for a long time getting stuff together and making arguments and they will answer those argument with irrelevant little one liners like "you are delusional"or " another try out for Saturday night live."

they think they are being so clever and they are getting their ruch from mocking a Christian but what they are really doing is showing the world that they cant' think they can't take ideas seriously and they can't understand what's being said.

do you, lurker, really want to become a little chattering monkey who can't think? why don't you join their movement of little full of hate monkeys that get their rush by mocking and ridiculing their intellectual betters. Does that sound appealing to you?