Would Polytheism Be Better For Us ?

[Franco]

Um, I'm calling a Technical on that one, fella.

[Fëanor]

So it is wishful thinking to suppose God exists, but it is not wishful thinking to suppose, a priori, science gives us truth?

Like I said before, the scientific method is less about truths or answers, than it is about questions.  The thing is, by formulating ever new questions, we learn more truth than the priest or the armchair can ever teach us.

So what rational premises do you propose as an alternative?

As pertains to theology, no premises would the a good thing.

[Florestan]

Um, you really haven't understood anything I've been writing, have you?  It is entirely necessary to hypothesize some sort of metaphysical statement, or do you somehow think you don't have to?  Do you think science can prove that it has some connection to reality within its own methods?

Do you think I am not aware of Occam's Razor?  You should be aware that this is a metaphysical concept, by the way.  There is no way to prove that the most simple explanations are always closer to the truth.  You are being sloppy.  You want to deny all metaphysical concepts exist, except when it suits you.

I would suggest you give this "most atheists, scientists, and rational thinkers" stuff a rest.  First of all, you're wrong.  Second of all, it doesn't matter what "most" thinkers think, it matters what is true: the spiritual universe either exists, or it doesn't, regardless of who thinks so.  Third of all, it is entirely possible to be completely rational and also believe in God for reasons other than "stress relief" or whatever nonsense you dream up for "why".  This recourse to strawmen seriously weakens any argument you may have.  And I am still unsure what that argument might be.

Quoted for truth, entirely. BYW, Occam was a faithful Roman Catholic Christian.

[Dr. Dread]

Quoted for truth...

Shocker.

[Catison]

Shooting holes is not passing on knowledge. Lay your knowledge on me. Right now. In your next post.

This knowledge is that science doesn't get to talk about reality for free, a priori or ex nihilo.  You absolutely must make a metaphysical statement in order to get science started.  This metaphysical statement might be something as simple as, "Science discovers reality."  But what that particular metaphysical statement doesn't do is reaffirm itself.  Science cannot prove it discovers reality in any way, so there is no means for justifying any truths it discovers to a person who doesn't accept it.  In order for science to be about our reality and to provide a support for our interactions as humans, we must all agree that science does indeed talk about reality.  But we can't start there, and we certainly must not fool ourselves into thinking science itself provides its own philosophical justification.  Just because we can form practical implementations with scientific ideas doesn't mean these ideas, in fact, are the right ones.  We can do amazing things with science, but the reality underneath remains a mystery.  This means science is a tool, not a philosophy.

One particular philosophical position is that God exists, and because he is the creator, there is a rational order to the universe we are able to discover and exploit.  This is also a metaphysical statement, but it has two advantages over the seemingly more simple "science discovers reality" statement.  Firstly, it reaffirms itself, at least for a Catholic, because these truths are reaffirmed by the Church daily.  I can provide more detail here if you like.  Secondly, God, and again for a Catholic, the Church, provides a ground for moral justification.  There is the bonus, with such a position, that the words "right" and "wrong" have real meanings grounded in a Truth permeating all of us, regardless of whether we believe them to be true or not.  So, with this particular metaphysical statement, science and morals make sense.  Two for the price of one, which is the best application of Occam's Razor if I ever saw one.

Fire away.

[Catison]

The thing is, by formulating ever new questions, we learn more truth than the priest or the armchair can ever teach us.

The thing is, I don't agree and you can't prove it to me using your supposed universal toolbox.

As pertains to theology, no premises would the a good thing.

If this is what you think you are doing in your argument you get an F- in Philosophy.

[Catison]

Shocker.

Shocker...

I suppose we should all start agreeing with the people we think are wrong.

[DavidRoss]

OK, to speak more plainly, you're a hypocrite.

I note that your response here was entered while I was fleshing out my pithy response above. I will re-enter it here in case you missed it among the intervening posts:

Well, David, you asked me why I don't just come here in search of truth and without an agenda.  Yet you now admit that you "persist in trying to pry open minds that have been barred and nailed shut".  How is your agenda better than mine?  How, for that matter, is it different than what you suppose mine to be?

Speaking of category errors.... 

(1) I asked no such thing.
(2) I made no such claim regarding the comparative values of agenda.
(3) There is an enormous difference between trying to browbeat people into sharing your beliefs by telling them they're stupid if they don't, and promoting the virtues of fair, rational, open-minded consideration of other points of view.
(4) Understanding another point of view does not mean finding some point of superficial dissimilarity from your own and attacking it, but rather entering into the frame of reference of the other and seeing it in its entirety, giving full faith and credit, as it were, in an effort to recognize how it makes sense and coheres both internally and externally.
(5) Understanding another point of view does not require that you agree with it.  You may understand it and then choose not to accept it, due for instance to an article of faith that you choose not to accept.
(6) The process of careful, open-minded investigation into other perspectives can not only be very helpful in promoting better understanding of others, replacing enmity with comity, but can prove invaluable in helping us to recognize similar articles of faith and flawed reasoning embedded in our own perspectives.

I can see how you might believe that I'm being hypocritical, and how it might be comforting to you if thinking so enables you to discount and dismiss the challenges I've offered, but the fact is that again you're conflating ping pong balls with hand grenades.

I really believe, based on the evidence of your posts here, that you are bright enough to set aside your ego's attachment to the ideas you've expressed.  It's not about who's right; it's about what's right. 

The doorway to wisdom opens when we can honestly approach every question with the attitude that we just might not know everything; then we can enter with the idea of discovering what there might be for us to learn instead of "proving" that we already know it all.  Nothing presents as great an obstacle to learning as thinking that we already know.

[Fëanor]

...  
The doorway to wisdom opens when we can honestly approach every question with the attitude that we just might not know everything; then we can enter with the idea of discovering what there might be for us to learn instead of "proving" that we already know it all.  Nothing presents as great an obstacle to learning as thinking that we already know.

Well said.  Shall we both not try a little harder?

[Dr. Dread]

Thanks for taking the time, Catison. I do come down on the side of the spiritualists in this matter, but not dead center in Christianity.

[Florestan]

This knowledge is that science doesn't get to talk about reality for free, a priori or ex nihilo.  You absolutely must make a metaphysical statement in order to get science started.  This metaphysical statement might be something as simple as, "Science discovers reality."  But what that particular metaphysical statement doesn't do is reaffirm itself.  Science cannot prove it discovers reality in any way, so there is no means for justifying any truths it discovers to a person who doesn't accept it.  In order for science to be about our reality and to provide a support for our interactions as humans, we must all agree that science does indeed talk about reality.  But we can't start there, and we certainly must not fool ourselves into thinking science itself provides its own philosophical justification.  Just because we can form practical implementations with scientific ideas doesn't mean these ideas, in fact, are the right ones.  We can do amazing things with science, but the reality underneath remains a mystery.  This means science is a tool, not a philosophy.

I can't help myself but agree, Dave. 

at least for a Catholic [...] and again for a Catholic

And for an Orthodox, too.  0:)

[Catison]

Thanks for taking the time, Catison. I do come down on the side of the spiritualists in this matter, but not dead center in Christianity.

No problem here.  I think we are arguing deism v. atheism here, so you fit right in!

[Catison]

BTW, I have no problem with atheism or atheists, per se.  What I don't like is this idea that their philosophy is better or that people who are different are dumb or fooling themselves.  A knowledgeable atheist is one who knows the limits of that particular philosophy, is comfortable with them, and accepts them.  Same for Christians and any other religious follower.  None of us should suppose that our philosophy is bulletproof, and should take the time to recognize its weaknesses and whatever counterarguments exist.  Then we can have a meaningful discussion.

[karlhenning]

BTW, I have no problem with atheism or atheists, per se.  What I don't like is this idea that their philosophy is better or that people who are different are dumb or fooling themselves.  A knowledgeable atheist is one who knows the limits of that particular philosophy, is comfortable with them, and accepts them.  Same for Christians and any other religious follower.  None of us should suppose that our philosophy is bulletproof, and should take the time to recognize its weaknesses and whatever counterarguments exist.  Then we can have a meaningful discussion.

This will shock, shock, shock Dave (but it's got to be done):

Quoted for truth.

[Florestan]

BTW, I have no problem with atheism or atheists, per se.  What I don't like is this idea that their philosophy is better or that people who are different are dumb or fooling themselves.  A knowledgeable atheist is one who knows the limits of that particular philosophy, is comfortable with them, and accepts them.  Same for Christians and any other religious follower.  None of us should suppose that our philosophy is bulletproof, and should take the time to recognize its weaknesses and whatever counterarguments exist.  Then we can have a meaningful discussion.

This will shock, shock, shock Dave (but it's got to be done):

Quoted for truth.

To add awe to shock: I agree.

[Dr. Dread]

[karlhenning]

(* passes Dave some hot chamomile tea *)

[Florestan]

(*ipasses all, atheists and theists alike, a glass of the prefered drink*)

[Dr. Dread]

(* passes Dave some hot chamomile tea *)

[DavidRoss]

BTW, I have no problem with atheism or atheists, per se.  What I don't like is this idea that their philosophy is better or that people who are different are dumb or fooling themselves.  A knowledgeable atheist is one who knows the limits of that particular philosophy, is comfortable with them, and accepts them.  Same for Christians and any other religious follower.  None of us should suppose that our philosophy is bulletproof, and should take the time to recognize its weaknesses and whatever counterarguments exist.  Then we can have a meaningful discussion.

Amen, amen, amen!  There are a number of professed Christians on this site, none of whom (at least presently  ) goes out of his way to stir up controversy by starting threads like this, nor who actively proselytize here for their religion, nor who attack non-believers as damned sinners who will burn in hell!  There are also folks of other faiths--and with no religious belief at all--who behave equally civilly.

How ironic that the only people here suffering the close-minded bigotry that they accuse Christians of, and who actively proselytize for their own "faithless" faith, and who start threads like this for the sake of attacking other people and their beliefs as stupid, are all folks who identify themselves as atheists! 

And that--I hope--is my last word on the matter for this go-round!