The religious perspective. Wanna have this discussion?

Discussion in 'Politics and Debate' started by mcpon14, Jan 19, 2018.

  1. MarkFL

    MarkFL Guest

    Blogs:
    0
    They would be wrong about what constitutes scientific reasoning. A scientific model put forth as a hypothesis has powers of explanation and prediction, and are testable. No claims of theism have any of this. They are simply unfalsifiable statements, and as such are useless.
     
  2. MarkFL

    MarkFL Guest

    Blogs:
    0
    Skepticism is simply the rejection of any claim that has not met its burden of proof, no matter what the claim is about.
     
  3. mcpon14

    mcpon14 Guest

    Blogs:
    0
    They are not operating under scientific reasoning. They are operating under divine reasoning. All I meant by "in the scientific sense" is that they take truths as factual as much as the scientific-minded take facts. :)
     
  4. mcpon14

    mcpon14 Guest

    Blogs:
    0
    But under divine reasoning, the burden of proof has been met if the divine authority is taken as true authority, meaning that whatever he is passing down as divine revelation is taken as true because it came from him or her.
     
  5. MarkFL

    MarkFL Guest

    Blogs:
    0
    What "truths" are you talking about?
     
  6. mcpon14

    mcpon14 Guest

    Blogs:
    0
    That is a subjective term. It can be said that scientifically-minded skeptics are pseudo-skeptics, too. :)
     
  7. MarkFL

    MarkFL Guest

    Blogs:
    0
    If we label something as fact, even though there is no backing evidence, this does not make it fact. A fact is that which cannot be legitimately dismissed, because the evidence supports it. There is nothing factual about theism...it's all faith-based dogma...claims made without evidence, which the skeptic is compelled to reject.
     
  8. mcpon14

    mcpon14 Guest

    Blogs:
    0
    Something that a person take as factual.
     
  9. MarkFL

    MarkFL Guest

    Blogs:
    0
    You seem to be very confused about skepticism...it's merely the rejection of claims made without evidence. It's very simple.
     
  10. MarkFL

    MarkFL Guest

    Blogs:
    0
    Many people take many things as factual, but unless it is done so because of compelling evidence, it is not actually factual.
     
  11. mcpon14

    mcpon14 Guest

    Blogs:
    0
    Not facts, because that is a scientifically-minded word, I meant truths. But, to the religiously-minded, divine revelation cannot be legitimately dismissed because, to them, the evidence irrefutably supports it. :)
     
  12. mcpon14

    mcpon14 Guest

    Blogs:
    0
    Define evidence. I think that is at the heart of this discussion. :)
     
  13. mcpon14

    mcpon14 Guest

    Blogs:
    0
    Who says that what a person takes as factual is not actually factual?
     
  14. MarkFL

    MarkFL Guest

    Blogs:
    0
    A fact is something supported by evidence, and evidence is the available body of information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Nothing in any religious dogma can be considered a fact, whether in the end it turns out to be true or not. If we don't have evidence to support something, then we cannot call it a fact.
     
  15. tool

    tool Addict

    Blogs:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2017
    Posts:
    2,511
    Likes Received:
    437
    We're entering Epistemology here.
     
  16. mcpon14

    mcpon14 Guest

    Blogs:
    0
    That's what this whole topic is about, lol. From the very beginning, lol. :) You just notice, lol? :)
     
  17. tool

    tool Addict

    Blogs:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2017
    Posts:
    2,511
    Likes Received:
    437
    @Both.

    I'm using philosophical jargon here.

    Suppose you're a rationalist, what is the origin of your a priori knowledge? Descartes claimed that he received divine enlightenment through meditation i.e. he's not receiving it from reading the Bible. I can accept Descartes claim as much as I can accept the absolutism of mathematics (though both are only absolute in your heads and not in the real world). But how many people can actually claim that they have received such divine revelation? And if you're a skeptic, why would you believe what a book said or what someone said? In other words, you can't claim a priori absolutism if your axioms are dependent on the outer world instead of the inner world (Descartes' mind-body Dualism).
     
  18. MarkFL

    MarkFL Guest

    Blogs:
    0
    I consider myself a rationalist, and my knowledge comes from evaluation of evidence. If I can verify a claim, based on compelling evidence, then I will accept the claim, otherwise I will reject the claim. If I discover new evidence, then I will adjust my worldview accordingly.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. mcpon14

    mcpon14 Guest

    Blogs:
    0
    See, to a scientific-mind, there is no one that can have true divine authority and/or to have a true divine revelation but to the religiously-minded, there can and they see them as such for various reasons. To Descartes, it seems, only yourself can only have that authority, not divine authority necessarily, but authority to give yourself a prioris. :)
     
  20. tool

    tool Addict

    Blogs:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2017
    Posts:
    2,511
    Likes Received:
    437
    Well, I completely reject rationalism. I am what you would call a hardcore Empiricist.
     

Share This Page