A bit of perspective

T

Torin

Well-known member
I notice that mostly, the debate on the internet is between atheists who want something verifiable or falsifiable to support theism and theists offering metaphysical arguments. Theists tend to be more interested in philosophy than atheists, who favor science.

This is all explicable by appeal to the recent history of philosophy.

20th century analytic philosophy was heavily influenced by logical positivism. LP is dead in philosophy, but it has persuaded a lot of scientists to this day. So, atheists who like science will often echo logical positivism.

21st century philosophy of religion is mostly religious, unlike 20th century philosophy of religion. So, it's not surprising to see many theists have more interest in this discipline and the resulting body of work than the atheists they argue with.

I'm not an expert on this, and my intent is not to say anybody is right or wrong. I just thought this could be of interest to someone. Thanks for reading.
 
Torin said:
I notice that mostly, the debate on the internet is between atheists who want something verifiable or falsifiable to support theism and theists offering metaphysical arguments. Theists tend to be more interested in philosophy than atheists, who favor science.

This is all explicable by appeal to the recent history of philosophy.

20th century analytic philosophy was heavily influenced by logical positivism. LP is dead in philosophy, but it has persuaded a lot of scientists to this day. So, atheists who like science will often echo logical positivism.

21st century philosophy of religion is mostly religious, unlike 20th century philosophy of religion. So, it's not surprising to see many theists have more interest in this discipline and the resulting body of work than the atheists they argue with.

I'm not an expert on this, and my intent is not to say anybody is right or wrong. I just thought this could be of interest to someone. Thanks for reading.
Click to expand...
Theists tend to be more interested in philosophy because that's all they've got.
 
I've noticed atheistic skeptics just like to argue until they turn colors. Never satisfied and never having any answer for themselves. In fact they are like a succubus for argumentive endeavors, leeches on the butt of lifes existential questions. :D

Was that too strong? Should I tone it down? :ROFLMAO:

The facts proven here is that atheist posters are just skeptic critics who offer little and criticize a great deal.
 
@Whatsisface

Theists have revelation, or think they do. It's not inevitable for theists to be more interested in philosophy. They could view reason as an enemy to faith. (NB: It is.)
 
It's a logical fallacy that science can somehow be separated from all philosophical ideas.

Sensory perception is not a path to ultimate justified true belief, under science or philosophy.
 
Furion said:
I've noticed atheistic skeptics just like to argue until they turn colors. Never satisfied and never having any answer for themselves. In fact they are like a succubus for argumentive endeavors, leeches on the butt of lifes existential questions. :D

Was that too strong? Should I tone it down? :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
No, you need to look in the mirror.
 
Dizerner said:
...
Sensory perception is not a path to ultimate justified true belief, under science or philosophy.
Click to expand...
Do you have a better path - that is, one you can justify claiming is more reliable?

I mean, I agree when you say "ultimate", but I cannot see what we have that can do even as well.
 
Torin said:
I notice that mostly, the debate on the internet is between atheists who want something verifiable or falsifiable to support theism
Click to expand...
A god that is verifiable or falsifiable isn't worthy of the term. It is a peculiar contradiction for an atheist to somehow be in possession of a criteria or standard by which to discern their gods, and these are exclusively their gods.
Torin said:
and theists offering metaphysical arguments. Theists tend to be more interested in philosophy than atheists, who favor science.
Click to expand...
How about simple logic? Perhaps if we consult the definition of commonly accepted words, we might note that transcendence allows for divinity that exceeds or surpasses the quaint definitions which humanity seeks to comprehend deity. In the final analysis, do we really want gods that are easily defined and understood, or do we want a god who inspires incomprehensible awe?
 
Torin said:
I notice that mostly, the debate on the internet is between atheists who want something verifiable or falsifiable to support theism and theists offering metaphysical arguments. Theists tend to be more interested in philosophy than atheists, who favor science.

This is all explicable by appeal to the recent history of philosophy.

20th century analytic philosophy was heavily influenced by logical positivism. LP is dead in philosophy, but it has persuaded a lot of scientists to this day. So, atheists who like science will often echo logical positivism.

21st century philosophy of religion is mostly religious, unlike 20th century philosophy of religion. So, it's not surprising to see many theists have more interest in this discipline and the resulting body of work than the atheists they argue with.

I'm not an expert on this, and my intent is not to say anybody is right or wrong. I just thought this could be of interest to someone. Thanks for reading.
Click to expand...
From a scientific perspective,

Jesus was quite clear that by doing/keeping/following his teachings we will
1- know the truth. John 8:31-32
2- demonstrate we love him. John 14:23
3- both Jesus and YHVH will come to make their home with us. John 14:23
4- build our lives on a solid foundation and life's problems won't destroy us. Matthew 7:24-27
5- YHVH himself will give us a heart to know him.

as a result of these things, we will be able to actually know YHVH.

Not JUST that he is real. But actually know him.

From a philosophical perspective, isn't that the whole point?

To personally know and experience the truth and reality of yhvh?
 
Whatsisface said:
Ok.

No, but there is a tendency in that direction. WLC argues along philosophical lines rather than tries to justify revelation.

Yes.
Click to expand...
You might be interested in reading more WLC if you think his primary reason for believing is philosophical. Craig's approach is very much "faith seeking understanding." That is typical.
 
Torin said:
You might be interested in reading more WLC if you think his primary reason for believing is philosophical. Craig's approach is very much "faith seeking understanding." That is typical.
Click to expand...
I've seen him talk about his primary reason which is more to do with revelation, but sticks to the Kalam or the moral argument rather than justifying said primary reason.
 
shnarkle said:
A god that is verifiable or falsifiable isn't worthy of the term. It is a peculiar contradiction for an atheist to somehow be in possession of a criteria or standard by which to discern their gods, and these are exclusively their gods.

How about simple logic? Perhaps if we consult the definition of commonly accepted words, we might note that transcendence allows for divinity that exceeds or surpasses the quaint definitions which humanity seeks to comprehend deity. In the final analysis, do we really want gods that are easily defined and understood, or do we want a god who inspires incomprehensible awe?
Click to expand...
In the end, anything will do as long as it can be verified.
 
Whatsisface said:
I've seen him talk about his primary reason which is more to do with revelation, but sticks to the Kalam or the moral argument rather than justifying said primary reason.
Click to expand...
I've always wanted somebody to ask Craig

"If your arguments aren't what convinced you, why expect them to convince anybody else?"
 
Torin said:
I notice that mostly, the debate on the internet is between atheists who want something verifiable or falsifiable to support theism
Click to expand...
This does not apply to many of you, so if it does not, don't take it as such. Generally speaking, the internet is populated by a variety of low church atheists that only know how to say some form of "I don't see any evidence." (which itself is based in Philosophy, not science, BTW) The moment an atheist mans up--and many do, even here-- and sets forth a positive worldview and defends it, they no longer only cite science or verificationism. Can't be done, and that's the difference.

Big picture, though, science can never be divorced from philosophy or stand alone apart from philosophy, while philosophy, even good philosophy, occurs apart from science routinely, though it is able to incorporate it when appropriate.
 
Eightcrackers said:
What worldview?
"I believe and live as though gods don't exist"?

Or "I assert that gods do not exist"?
Click to expand...
Any comprehensive summary one sets forth as a description of reality: Naturalism, Materialism, Humanism, Buddhism, Nihilism. Must be 1,000 of ready-made positions to choose from, but one can define it for themselves if they like. Doesn't matter. In the context of my comment, what does matter is that it puts everyone on equal footing and gives a better chance of a grown-up conversation rather than low-church atheism internet ridiculousness. Keep an eye on folks like 5wize or Komodo or Gus. They'll declare what they believe about things, positively, and are willing to share burden of proof. Intellectually honest and respectable.

What's not is only knowing how to shout repeatedly things like "there's no evidence for God!" Not only is this a formally irrational claim, false, and a sophomoric view of the nature of evidence, it's a tell. I've been doing this a long time and have deep connections in the atheist community. This is a tell for low-church atheism with a consistent high level of confidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top