So how do you draw up the line between objective and experiential evidence? If you leave it open enough to affirm Christianity then it’s also open enough to affirm Hinduism and all sorts of different and conflicting belief systems. Can you really say your own experiences are more valuable than the experiences of those in other cultures? Everyone feels they know the truth on these matters. Let’s put our feelings aside and roll up our sleeves.

James, she’s not saying that experiential evidence is conclusive in regards to Christianity. It can’t by itself confirm Christianity over and above Hinduism. But what it does is disprove the materialist, reductionist worldview, which most atheists hold, by showing there is something more than strings and quarks at play.

As an atheist, I can tell you that there are a lot of things we still can’t explain no matter how much we know about the ingredients.  String theory won’t explain how I experience the color red, or for that matter, what it means to be conscious and experience anything at all.  We have many big gaps in our knowledge still, and some of them may ultimately be permanent.  But the atheist resists the urge to fill those gaps with God. 

When you need to explain something you really don’t understand, you can say it’s magic, it’s god, or I don’t know.  The first two answers are the same, don’t really answer anything, and are dishonest. The atheist is comfortable saying “I don’t know. Let’s try to find out.”

keith r, very well put.  I see things differently.  I don’t find myself turning to God to explain things I don’t understand.  My experiences of God during prayer and meditation don’t really help me explain much of anything, but I know they exist and I know what they are.  I partly know what they are with the help of the scientific method, albeit qualitative methods rather than quantitative ones.  The descriptions of encounters with God (not always the name used) are cross-cultural, cross-gender, and have occurred in almost every generation.  We aren’t talking mindless sheep here, either, we’re talking real, thought out descriptions of people’s experiences in prayer and meditation.  Inevitably there is a repeated sense of the presence of another being.  I don’t find that people are trying to or needing to explain anything.  I think they’re simply relating their experiences and following them out to their logical conclusions.  Just my humble two cents.

Keith…I don’t know…it is a useful phrase, a placeholder for “the many big gaps in our knowledge.”  But it is a mistake to think that people of faith, including Christians, are unable (or unwilling?) to make the same use of that phrase “to explain something we don’t really understand”.  Faith is not a tool for ignoring the questions we have about life and the world,realizing that many answers are “still to come.”  Atheism, if true atheism that is declarative…there is no god…has made a conclusion about the unknowable based on its own act of faith that every explanation that is to come will be a naturalistic explanation without connection to a Creator.  Instead of “I don’t know,” the atheist declares that he DOES know…that the atheist is CERTAIN in his uncertainty…he is willing to declare the absence of a creator that he is unwilling to admit may exist, a creator beyond the atheist’s ability to grasp the creator’s hand.  If you really embrace the possibility that you don’t know, don’t you really negate the possibility of the atheist’s declaration that he knows there is no god?

keith r:
“When you need to explain something you really don’t understand, you can say it’s magic, it’s god, or I don’t know.  The first two answers are the same, don’t really answer anything, and are dishonest.”

Why would it be “dishonest” if one truly believes that it is caused by god, and that it can’t be proven that it isn’t?  Would it be “dishonest” for atheists to believe that free will actually exists?

Hi Rick - scientific and psychological studies are showing that all of those personal experiences you describe have their basis in how the brain works.  The fact that so many people across so many cultures experiences them suggests only that our brains are wired similarly - not that the experiences represent an external reality.  For example, near death experiences of tunnels of light and feelings of euphoria are known symptoms of a dying brain. They do not necessarily suggest an afterlife.  Personal experiences are by definition impossible to reproduce scientifically for validation, but because psychology has shown our minds to be vulnerable to subconscious self-trickery and strange chemical-induced experiences, we should all be highly cautious of using them as evidence of anything other than internal experiences.

@James Haddon: you are engaging in an argument of moral relativism. Hinduism and other man-made religions are in error. They do not possess the fullness of truth that is found in the one true church founded by Jesus Christ alone: Catholicism.

keith r ,
The physical & spiritual are not mutually exclusive.Undergoing a spiritual experience can have physical manifestations.If we are both spirit & matter, it makes sense the two interact with each other.

@ Joe P - It is dishonest because it claims authoritative knowledge where none exists. But I will grant that it is not consciously dishonest - I’m not saying it’s a lie, only that the claimant is being dishonest with himself, too.——- @ Jane - the atheists’ claim that there is no god is typically NOT certain.  It is provisional, and honestly open to change if sufficient new evidence arises.  I’m guessing you are not agnostic about the existence of unicorns and probably would say that you don’t believe in them. But if someone ever caught one, you’d probably change your mind. Same with atheists’ belief in god. I don’t claim 100% certainty - only that the evidence is not strong enough for me to entertain the possibility seriously at this time.  Contrast that with Christian belief/faith which (from my perspective) seems to wear the strength of it’s FAITH in the face of weak and sometimes contradictory evidence as a badge of honor.  I cannot except that style of thinking.

There is much, much, much more evidence for the truth of Christianity than for the truth of superstring theory.  Superstring theory has as yet made no testable predictions; it is based on supersymmetry, which so far has no experimental backing; and it has deep and serious mathematical problems.  I tend to agree with Peter Woit in his assertion that superstring theory is “Not Even Wrong” (from the title of his book); the phrase comes from a statement by Wolfgang Pauli about an earlier theory that was so problematic as to be not merely wrong, but utterly without meaning. See also http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=3206.

I wonder if science is reductionist because it is trying to separate itself from the rest of philosophy (remember what we know call science was originally called Natural Philosophy).  It definitely deals with the the tangible and the perceptible.  At some point however, it made the leap from studying the natural world to saying the natural world is all that there is.  Science can explain what stuff makes up the Universe, it cannot explain why there is stuff in the first place… I have found every attempt to argue otherwise to be very unconvincing.

Here is a thought.  You can know every ingredient that goes to make a cake, in exactly the right proportions… that doesn’t mean you know how to make a cake.

Atheism is dead.

See The Modal Ontological Argument For The Existence Of God.

It is impossible for Faith and Reason to contradict one another because they both address the same thing—Truth.

Science is mad that it cannot “get a picture of God” or “analyze a piece of God’s hair” when such is silly. God is outside of time and space—it is impossible to “see” God with a telescope—God made the matter that is the telescope. Etc.

Atheists that reject axiomatic principles have nothing to say when you ask them “why do you believe the past exists?” and “why do you believe other minds exist?” and so on.

Faith is hard, much more difficult than Science, and that is often why the “person of Science” runs from Faith. Faith is hard work. It is not easy. It is much easier to do math and draw pictures and otherwise “explain the world” without ever asking “how did we get something from nothing”. Oh right, the illustrious “vacuum”, which BTW is somehow both “nothing” and at the same time “a balanced combination of matter and antimatter or particles and antiparticles”, or whatever it is they use to explain it away—the fact is that that is not “nothing”. Etc.

Such atheists think they know a few “ingredients” but that’s a moving target too. Goodness sake, what about that “string theory” idea? Yes, they now say, virtually anything is possible, though not probable. So, that would include things like “rising from the dead” and “walking on water” and heck, I don’t know, maybe “multiplying loaves”. And they these string theory proponents, smug and smarmy, are in the same breath to poo-poo the Bible as “stories” and “fairy tales” when, in fact, the “stories” therein do NOT violate their touted “string theory” in so many respects. It becomes clear that such folk are Anti-Faith and not really Pro-Science.

The obstacle to Faith is Pride.

HTH.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

@ Post by keith r on Wednesday, Oct 17, 2012 7:27 AM (EST):

“We have many big gaps in our knowledge still, and some of them may ultimately be permanent. But the atheist resists the urge to fill those gaps with God”

Sorry to tell you, but God does not fit in a box.

Science fails.

One needs a different tool and, luckily, every human has it—a soul.

If one is really saying “let’s try to find out” then one ought to seek the soul and thereby gain access to God.

(It is not easy; but, it is worth it—keep trying.)

HTH.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

James, one may use reason regarding which system fits most closely with science even when recognizing that a system also contains some aspects of mystery. One reassuring aspect of Judeo-Christian thought is the historical record and the fact that more so than with any other system of belief, modern science is dependent upon the Judeo-Christian belief that with one creator there is a logical creation that functions according to consistent laws that may be understood by human reason.

keith r says, “I don’t claim 100% certainty - only that the evidence is not strong enough for me to entertain the possibility seriously at this time.”
Keith, that makes you a 99 to 1 agnostic, not an atheist. You say there is not enough evidence for Christianity yet it is historically verifiable that eleven of the apostles went to torturous deaths rather than deny what they knew to be true, i.e., that Christ rose from the dead physically. Nine-eleven (911) shows that people will die for what they believe in but no one has ever demonstrated that anyone will die for what they know to be a lie. On that one point alone, based on logic, it is reasonable to believe in the Christian message.

I get it. It’s like, somebody has to be playing the strings and maybe is singing a song, and it’s very poetic.

@Mark Kamoski, it is incredibly easy to read a snarkiness, a sense of superiority, into your posts. I hope you didn’t intend such a tone, but things like “Science is mad that…” sound remarkably like “You Catholics are just afraid of women”...it is completely baseless and does nothing for the conversation. I have not seen a case where this is helpful in a discussion such as this one.

@keith r, what would evidence for God’s existence look like?

Bear in mind the centerpiece of the new cult of atheism..redefining things.
A dream is no longer images, feelings, etc. in our minds as we sleep. It is the interplay of beta and delta waves emitted by the brain. In fact, when i was a psych major we learned about this when a person woke up, was asked what he was dreaming and he said nothing. the scientist said, you were dreaming because the wave pattern said so. who is right? but they are very good at this type of redefinition as it permits them to tell you things you know arent true.

in whatever aarea of science or social policy, they correlate two things, then redefine the term. I mean, you have to. how else could you study love unless you can point to a change in a PET scan and say there. Then they can tell me, with authority that if i dont have the same blip in my PET scan when thinking of my wife, i dont really love her. which would suprise both of us a great deal. But they know best. ( another problem comes from acting upon this false information…yikes!)

Extend this notion to just about anything. They are very good at redefining scientific terms, metaphysical terms, even the works of charity. Een easily overlooked things…does “before the common era” ring a bell. This accompanies purging our world of any Christian iconography, etc. they are winning because we let them redefine these things and go along.

On another note, their depressing existence in a meaningless world desparately clings to religion. even if only to mock it, theey must stay connected for relevance. try getting an atheist to stop whining about Christianity and you will have withdrawal symptoms that make a heroin addict quit cold turkey. Evolution is my personal favorite. as a scientist, if the facts prove a theory and all onervations line up, it can be a law of nature. but i repeatedly hear from atheists..especially students in my class, they “believe” in evolution. as if one needs faith. Compound this with a rather average scientific understanding and I think they really do treat science as an alternate means of faith. They aren’t very scientifically savvy and don’t have good critical thinking skills. Maybe it’s all these silly standardized tests, but they are really parroting a belief system. Let overlook the few gods in their midst, like hawking or whoever, but the atheist themselves are incredibly ignorant of what they are doing. Dawkins is smart for capitalizing on these fools by perpetuating their irrationality. One could say Dawkins is ‘devil-ishly’ smart.

Naturalism doesn’t justify the atheist’s trust in science.

As Howard said above,
String theory is collapsing.

For 30 years it has reigned over theoretical physics, incredibly without empirical data, in spite of great efforts to find some.  The recent failure of the CERN Collider to yield any confirmation of string theory is probably its swan song. 

With the end of string theory, theroetical physics has NO credible explanation for things like fine tuning, and worse, it has no clear path forward.  Ive heard a top physicist say that many of his colleagues are suffering grave depression as a result.  Dr Greene’s book is largely an denier’s attempt to conceal this from the public, hoping the situation somehow improves. 

I suggest that you check out at Peter Woit’s blog, “Not Even Wrong” .  Or read Lee Smolin’s book “The trouble in physics” to get an idea of how far things have fallen.

I would just like to say that, for the most part, this is a remarkably civil and interesting conversation. I am grateful at how many people are entering into a real discussion and exchange. Thank you.

I’d like to argue that modern science is anything but bleak.

A good scientist (whether theistic or atheistic) should never give up on inquiry. There should never be a point where you say, “Well there you have it, now we know everything there is to know about ____.” Accepting something as fact, without further inquiry, is antithetical to the scientific method. Why would a true scientist ever want to consider themselves a reductionist? What is the reason for not searching for an explanation of the “ingredients”?

On the contrary, I think that we should always be open to our current understanding of the physical universe changing and being altered by new discoveries. With that kind of scientific worldview, I’d say the future looks pretty bright.

We have to be careful to separate science from the scientism that is discussed here.  Scientism is a metaphysical view of the world that science itself does not depend on.  And although it is true that science does depend on a metaphysical understanding of the world, scientific findings can’t in themselves be used to define the metaphysics that defines science.  In fact one of the well-known problems associated with the reductionist views expressed by Greene & co is that it becomes ultimately self-refuting.  We cease to even be able to establish what is true and what is not.

It is worth looking at the work of Hayek where he identifies how the reductionist approach, that he himself used to advocate,  really just ends up in a regression.  Really this whole subject is far more complex than Weinberg’s creed-like assertion of his metaphysical world view would indicate.  He’s better off sticking to the physics.

Where are our vaunted theologians when we need them?

Now I’m delighted to see this stuff here.  But its astomnishing that it took a former atheist and homemaker to 5 chidren to bring it up.

Look at the theology departments at top Catholic colleges. They invariably have feminist theologians, minority theologians, liturgy gurus, etc.  But almost never a person whose education and profession interest is in the sciences. 

Tammie’s point is an excellent one: people who believe in God need to know the sciences.

young scientist:
“Why would a true scientist ever want to consider themselves a reductionist?”
How could a “true scientist” NOT WANT to be considered a reductionist?  Does a biologist argue that there are biological laws that don’t follow the laws of physics?  Or that the laws of psychology trumps the laws of chemistry?

But that’s particularly the problem with science.  Science is intrinsically reductionist.  All you need are the fundamental laws and fundamental ingredients, and EVERYTHING supposedly can be explained.  And as Greene put it “the reductionist worldview is chilling and impersonal.”  No, human existence is NOT chilling and impersonal.  Therefore, there must be more to existence than science could ever fully explain.

Tammie:
“But almost never a person whose education and profession interest is in the sciences.”
Well, most of the time a theologian chooses to concentrate on theology as supposed to science.  And likewise a scientist chooses to concentrate in theology as opposed to theology.
Of course there are exemptions, such as Robert Spitzer and the late Stanley Jaki.  But it’s flat out wrong to say that it is “almost never” the case that a theologian is completely ignorant or lacks any interest in the sciences.

You are correct, “a theologian chooses to concentrate on theology”.

But how do you “concentrate on theology” nowadays, and be ignorant of science, and its theological and philosphical issues? 

I note that such things are not taught to the average student, because the faculty is either ignorant of them, or doesnt think theyre fun.

Just check theological conferences. 
To call them wastelands of minutia and academic fashion would be an undeserved compliment. Theology should be a serious field, relevent to the modern world

Thank you for this.  Excellent comments too.  Last Sunday our priest’s sermon was about praying with people who are passing from this world, and how holy this time is.  He spoke about his first stint as a chaplain in a hospital when he was newly ordained.  While praying at the side of a dying man, the elderly gentleman reached out toward someone that nobody else could see and declared, “behold the Lamb of God!” with joy, and passed on.

I have to agree with Joe P.  I’m not sure how you figure the vast majority of ‘theologians’ know nothing of science.  Most theologians I know, at the college I attended, are very familiar with recent scientific advances.

Though I would argue that science is not inherently reductionist if you make a distinction between “explaining how (or explaining that)” and “explaining why”.  Science doesn’t really answer the why.  For example, why is it man is capable of knowledge such that he can exceed his natural physical limits and fly?  What other creature is capable of this?  Science can tell us that we have done this, and how we have, but not why.  Not science in the physical science sense.

Given that science has successfully explained more and more about the universe over the centuries, and theologians can’t even agree on how many gods exist, I’ll stick with science and ignore the theologians until they can start to reach some kind of consensus.

Thanks for your post. I am taking a communications class and with a recent speech a student enlightened us on Sam Harris.  Now I would not have chosen to speak about the Catholic church because I would not want to offend my classmates, and beause they would not be interested.  So I was first appalled by her choice and secondly irritated at having to listen to drivel.  Just because someone has a Ph.D. in Neuroscience does not mean he has any knowledge about real life and religion.  YUCK!  I suppose, I should take the high road and pray both for my fellow student and the atheist in question.  I think several bloggers have made the same point that you do.  Science is great at what it does, examining the physical world, but it should not be used to examine anything beyond that. 

The reductionist view can be refuted with an initial example, and then we can build a logical chain of reasoning beyond that. A thing is not merely its component parts. Its components parts are its “matter” but “form” is also required. For example, a heap of car parts with all of them present is not a car; they must be assembled in the right way to constitute a car. With the assembly, form is added to the matter to make a real car. With this, “form” is one basic metaphysical principle to build up higher metaphysical principles (it is “metaphysical” because it transcends the reductionist principle that physical science uses). Then there there is “essence” which is an even higher metaphysical principle. Essence is the “what” of something. When we see a person, we are not simply seeing a collection of parts or pixels with our eyes, but an *intelligible* over-all form. This over-all intelligible form or essence is a true objective reality in its own right which transcends the individual components. Where the individual components are many, this intelligible form is *one.* We cannot say that this essence is merely a subjective creation of our minds for it is fundamental to our understanding of reality. All the words that we use in a given language point to individual essences in their oneness and transcendence. Even those who argue against essences must use words that point to essences or intelligible forms. An additional metaphysical principle is *being* or objective reality as opposed to mere sense quality. When we see a flower, for example, we are not merely perceiving a sense pattern, but a *being with* sense qualities. It has “objective-reality-ness” as a fundamental metaphysical moment proper to it. Without that, we could not say that anything has objective existence outside our egos. With that, we have a launching board to spiritual realities such as human souls, angels, and God. With objective reality being distinct from sense property, we can postulate beings that are objectively real, which lack sense properties, which are spiritual entities. And with essence or intelligible form being distinct from component parts, we can say that angels are pure essences, in which each one is its own species. If being is distinct from materiality, it is logically consistent to say that there is something which is Pure Being - Being Without Limitation, which is God. There are further logical arguments that can be advanced that show that these things really exist (which is beyond the scope of this post).

Highly, strongly recommended reading for the physics-based arguments to prove the existence of God:  Robert J Spitzer, SJ’s “New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy”.
.
http://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-Contributions/dp/0802863833
.
Will require closer attention on the reader’s part when he delves into actual physics stuff, but Fr. Spitzer does a fine job of simplifying the concepts for the layman to understand while not watering it down too much.

By definition, scientific method excludes God as a component. This is because God is unobservable, and there is no observable evidence of any activity or presense of a God. Moreover, God performs “miracles,” which, also by definition, are violations of scientific laws.
.
Scientific method is practice to explain HOW things are, not WHY things are as they are. As yet, science does not explain why particles are there, it just observes that they ARE there. Why they exist is a religious question that should be exclusive from science.
.
Also, science is self-correcting: there have been paradigm shifts in scientific outlooks as new discoveries emerge. Newton, Einstein, and Dawin are just a few whose observations and interpretations of new information have changed scientific outlook.
.
God, however, is eternal and can do no wrong. If Jesus didn’t exist, the Church would be ruined and Christianity would be another pretty fiction. Likewise, if God was involved in scientific method, science would have no meaning and there would be no reason for humans to make new discoveries.
.
There are scientist who are religious, but they separate their religion from their work as scientists. There are other scientists that are agnostic/atheist, but that is their personal decision.

Brian Westley:
“Given that science has successfully explained more and more about the universe over the centuries, and theologians can’t even agree on how many gods exist, I’ll stick with science and ignore the theologians until they can start to reach some kind of consensus.”
Is there any consensus in the scientific community that something as mundane as free will exists?  How could science ever argue that true free will exists…that we can somehow control the laws of physics via our free will?  Nope, science can’t give an explanation at all for free will…except maybe that it doesn’t exist entirely.

But if free will doesn’t exist, that none of us are truly morally responsible for anything that we have done or will ever do (because we’re strict automatons slave to what physics dictates us to do…can you really blame a car for breaking down?), then what is the point?  But isn’t that really the ultimate conclusion to the atheistic/materialist worldview.  That ultimately there is no point to anything at all, because we’re merely a bunch of subatomic particles banging into each other (or tiny strings vibrating) and nothing more profound.  Nah, I’d rather live by the axiom that existence truly does have meaning and go from there.

Knowing all the ingredients of chocolate cake and understand what order they need to be incorporated and why they need to be in the bowl is no replacement for the experience of eating chocolate cake.  Especially double dark chocolate cake with raspberry filling.

Modern Physics and Ancient Faith by Stephan Barr, is another book that really digs deep and explains the relationship between science and religion very well.

@Captain America—St. Augustine would agree with you.  Check out this link: http://www.pibburns.com/augustin.htm

I’m not sure how conversations like this devolve into the pros and cons of reductionism or physical determinism.  Following the scientific method doesn’t commit anyone to rejecting free will or to asserting that the human mind cannot appreciate beauty and knowledge in ways that are separate from the simple confluence of particles and physical laws.
For a scientist (and I am one), this all comes down to what kinds of conclusions are acceptable given observable evidence.  It’s true that string theory can (under certain conditions) be consistent with physical observations, but whether it can unify the standard model of physics with quantum theory is as yet unknown.  Whether it succeeds or not will eventually be borne out by the scientific method. If it fails, another theory will have to be constructed and tested.  That’s how science works.

Of course, science cannot rule out the potential presence of a Creator.  But it is this very fact that makes believing in a Creator fruitless.  There may be 1 Creator or 72.  Perhaps the creator is a flying octopus.  All such postulates are on equal footing and so believing in any single religion makes little sense.  Now some may suggest that since the basics of string theory are as yet untestable that they are equally imaginary.  To this I have 2 responses:
1) String theory already encompasses Newton’s laws and can explain (and predict) real observations from nuclear reactions to gravity. So it fits facts even though it’s theoretical underpinnings (strings and supersymmetry) are yet to be observed, and, very importantly, it offers a potential framework we can use to build tests in the future. Religion’s assertion that God created everything offers no such framework and makes no useful predictions.
2) Even if I were to accept the idea (which I don’t) that string theory is equally as imaginary as religion… this does nothing to bolster belief in religion.  If string theory is a failure, it doesn’t suddenly become more logical to believe in the flying octopus.

@Jim J. McCrea

Jim, I appreciate your thoughtful post on being and transcendence; it’s the kind of considered debate that I think is productive.
But, I am in disagreement about the separation of “matter,” “form,” and “essence.”  I agree that some systems seem to have emergent properties.  The human brain is a good example. Consciousness, sense perception, and personality all arise from a complex collection of neurons and chemicals.  But why does this point to something transcendent or spiritual?  Neural connections and interactions are sophisticated enough to generate patterns, thoughts, and a self-reflecting, self-modifying mechanism.  Appealing to the concept of the soul or a being separate from the tissue is not necessary.  I suspect this will be fully proven in years to come when fully functional human minds are simulated in computers and become just as conscious and interactive as we are.

When I saw the title of this article on Google News I was expecting something other than how religious followers get depressed and nuances about nonbelievers.

To whom etc.:
My usual response to evolution-minded “Christians” is Rom 1:20, “For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.” NWT (Douay the same.) I emphasize “the things made” (cf. Ps 8:3) and “inexcusable”.
For the evolution-minded atheists, I remind them of the teaching that every evolutionary development demanded resources of some kind from the organism, and that the end result must have had some survival value: There ain’t no free lunch. So, how did we get our appreciation of beauty, shared by worshiper and atheist alike, but not by animals? What was/is its survival value? A popular conception is that bees e.g. ‘are attracted to pretty flowers’ for sustenance, but that’s an unscientific, anthropomorphic view. In 2nd grade at least children are taught that bees’ eye-brain systems respond to certain wavelengths of light which tell them ‘fly over here and follow your instincts’. All “reductionist”, as Dr Weinberg says. So, again I ask, ‘We humans find and see and discuss and share simple beauty. Why?’
Alternatively I ask, ‘The cell of biology is a chemical factory. I can show you how a factory is designed and built for industry; please do the same for the “simple” cell.’
Most on either side don’t listen, but I speak anyway.

The problem with the view of those who espouse “scietism” is that science cannot explain human realities like sense experience,emotional experience, and intellectual experience. For example, when a person sees green, science can explain the fact that certain spectrums of light are absorbed by a green object and others are reflected. The reflected light reaches the eye, which sends data to the brain which interperates the sense data as “green.” However, none of these things is the experience of seeing green. These physical changes are associated with the experience of seeing green, and are causes of the experience of seeing green. But none of them is the experience of seeing green. There is nothing about the light waves or “electrical currents” in the brain that are anything like seeing green. When one sees green, the matter of his brain does not become green. No, the experience of seeing green is an entirely non-physical reality. While it may be caused by the physical, the experience is not physical. The same can be said of any emotional or intellectual experience.

Seht ihr den Mond dort stehen?
Er ist nur halb zu sehen,
Und ist doch rund und schön!
So sind wohl manche Sachen,
Die wir getrost belachen,
Weil unsre Augen sie nicht sehn.

Wir stolze Menschenkinder
Sind eitel arme Sünder
Und wissen gar nicht viel;
Wir spinnen Luftgespinste
Und suchen viele Künste
Und kommen weiter von dem Ziel.

My response was too long for the comment box, so I wrote it here:

http://exconvert.blogspot.com/2012/10/athesits-like-poetry-too.html

There is the concept of God of the Gaps. When we can’t explain something, then it must be God. The fact of the matter is that science will never be able to explain the first cause, because the first cause can not be explained. Everything has a first cause what is causing a quark or string to exist historically or t this present moment? Matter can not explain itself. It takes something much greater to explain it.

As someone who loves science, I hate to see scientists take the awe and mystery out of science and even use science against the creator of science. It’s like using art against the artist!

As unfortunate, most of the modern theories like general and special relativity, the Big Bang, and evolution are full of contradictions and imaginations in order to make us forget the God who loves us and to denigrate man.

In the Bible we are told that the entire universe is created for the earth - the sun, moon and stars were created for signs, and seasons, days and years…for the earth. The earth was created for man, and man was created for God.

Man is created in the image and likeness of God and the angels were created for ministering spirits…for man.

This makes man uniquely special in the universe and gives him an incredible responsibility to love the God who has given him so much…especially the blood of Christ.

Frankly, I find the Christian view of science quite a bit harder to understand, as eloquently stated by Georgia Rep. Paul Broun (and member of House Committee on Science, Space and Technology):
-
http://www.christianpost.com/news/georgia-rep-says-evolution-is-a-lie-from-pit-of-hell-82859/

Something to ponder:
.
Do you know the probability of having an anthropic universe like ours (that makes specific conditions for human life possible) occur by mere accident?
.
Or to put it another way, do you know how UNLIKELY it is to have such a finely tuned, anthropic universe of low entropy happen just by chance?
.
The odds against that happening is: 10 ^10 ^123 (10 to the power of 10, to the power of 123 - those are two exponents in there) to 1.  (See Fr Robert J Spitzer’s book, ‘New Proofs for the Existence of God’.)
.
That number with two exponents up there is the number calculated by Roger Penrose to demonstrate ‘the odds against our universe having its low entropy at the Big Bang: 10^10^123 to 1. 
.
Let Roger Penrose himself describe how vast this number is: “This now tells how precise the Creator’s aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 10 to the 10123rd power. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10123 successive 0’s.” Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we would fall far short of writing down the figure needed.
.
It may not prove God exists specifically; but only that the likelihood that this universe of ours of carbon atoms capable of sustaining human life occurring by accident or coincidence is so infinitesimally small, so unlikely, it boggles the mind.  Which suggests that this universe did not develop by mere chance; and that there is the ‘perfect aim’ of a Creator outside of time and space, a Perfect Being of Omnipotence that allowed such ‘extraordinarily complex fine-tuning’ to unfold. (Spitzer again, God and Modern Physics, online)
.
Don’t you think it takes greater faith to believe this particular universe happened by chance rather than through the work of a Prime Mover, a Creator, a Perfect Being that is that Singularity from which all things in the universe came from?  (I know that agnostics prefer to cop out of the argument by saying, ‘I don’t know.’)

Joe P:
“Is there any consensus in the scientific community that something as mundane as free will exists?”

Not that I’m aware of.

“How could science ever argue that true free will exists…”

Cognitive science might come up with a method, but I don’t think it’s a coherent question in the first place.

“that we can somehow control the laws of physics via our free will?”

That I very much doubt, but feel free to try and demonstrate it.

“Nope, science can’t give an explanation at all for free will…except maybe that it doesn’t exist entirely.”

So what’s your point?

“But if free will doesn’t exist, that none of us are truly morally responsible for anything that we have done or will ever do (because we’re strict automatons slave to what physics dictates us to do…can you really blame a car for breaking down?), then what is the point?”

Because whether free will exists or not, the threat of levying fines, locking up, or killing people actually results in a change in behavior.  The question of free will simply isn’t relevant.

“But isn’t that really the ultimate conclusion to the atheistic/materialist worldview.  That ultimately there is no point to anything at all, because we’re merely a bunch of subatomic particles banging into each other (or tiny strings vibrating) and nothing more profound.”

You can conclude that if you want, but I’m certainly not bound by your limits.

“Nah, I’d rather live by the axiom that existence truly does have meaning and go from there.”

Your response has nothing to do with my original point, which is that science advances, while theologians have yet to reach a consensus on anything.  Theology simply isn’t useful.

Rick= “The fact of the matter is that science will never be able to explain the first cause, because the first cause can not be explained.”

That’s a bold assertion Rick but I think the Casimir effect is evidence of an uncased cause through quantum fluctuations. Chalmers University of Technology has created light from a vacuum and further experiments by the EU are planed using a high intensity laser. I would elaborate further but I get the impression people here are more interested in justifying their beliefs and badmouthing nonbelievers than pesky scientific details.

@TeresaL -In response to your arguments for fine tuning and “first cause.”
It is interesting that you should cite Roger Penrose, who refers to himself as an athiest.  I would say that any calculation of the likelihood of our universe is tenuous and largely based on speculation.  How can one calculate the likelihood of the universe when we don’t know exactly how it began or how many such universes there are?  Perhaps the underlying constraints of space-time require that the constants of the universe exist as they do.  Perhaps, as some theories suggest, there are an infinite number of parallel universes.  In such a case, the existence of our particular universe would be a relative certainty… nothing special.  The point is, we don’t know and lack of knowledge does not logically lead to belief in God (let alone belief in a particular Christian version of faith). 
As to the idea of First Cause, many argue that science will only bring up new questions and can never answer what the ultimate cause of the universe is.  To this, I say that science is not a religion. Science is not supposed to satisfy the human desire for meaning. It is a method and a system that relies on logic, reason, and experimentation to draw conclusions and develop rational ideas about the world.  Scientific methods will continue to create theories about how the Big Bang occurred and what happened before it.  If these theories have gaps, missing elements, or are not fully satisfactory, that is because the problem is complex and not yet tractable with our current tools.  Even if it remains unsatisfactory for centuries or millennia, that doesn’t make God more likely.  One should not mix up social/cultural needs to ascribe meaning to the world with the rational processes of understanding the world.  God doesn’t solve the First Cause problem since, if God is something rather than nothing, then surely the something of God must have a beginning or a cause.  Simply to say that He always existed is no different than saying the universe always existed.

Dustin:
“Perhaps, as some theories suggest, there are an infinite number of parallel universes.”
Don’t you think the infinite parallel universe theory requires just as much faith as the belief in God?

@Joe P.
That depends on a lot of things.  The infinite parallel universes theory is a possibility that is not proven.  I don’t necessarily “believe” in it or have faith in it.  I understand that if the mathematics works and it is consistent with other theories that explain, e.g., gravity and thermodynamics, then those facts lend it some support.  But I also appreciate that physical truth will probably turn out to be more complex and nuanced than our current physics explains.  The bottom line is that we don’t need to have a final answer right now.  We can only go as far as logic and reason allow.  To me, this is not about science vs. religion.  It’s about rational assessment vs. a choice to believe in a supernatural explanation. I also never mean to assert that a God does not exist.  It may be impossible to make such an assertion. But it is just one of many possible explanations for the universe, and one that is probably least productive in terms of its ability to be investigated either by mathematics or experiment.

@Post by Jacob on Wednesday, Oct 17, 2012 10:36 AM (EST):

Dear Jacob—

This is a follow-up regarding your comments on my post, where you say…

“it is incredibly easy to read a snarkiness, a sense of superiority, into your posts. I hope you didn’t intend such a tone, but things like “Science is mad that…” sound remarkably like “You Catholics are just afraid of women”... it is completely baseless and does nothing for the conversation. I have not seen a case where this is helpful in a discussion such as this one.

...well, first, there is no such intent, as you suggest.

As to the suggested “baseless” nature of my post, I invite you to actually read some of this thread as it has developed. In particular, I will draw your attention to the fact that it seems that no atheist has countered my points in any direct way. For emphasis, I will repeat some of those points here.

- Atheists that reject axiomatic principles have nothing to say when you ask them “why do you believe the past exists?” and “why do you believe other minds exist?” and so on.

- [Atheists tout] the illustrious “vacuum”, which BTW is somehow both “nothing” and at the same time “a balanced combination of matter and antimatter or particles and antiparticles”, or whatever it is they use to explain it away [when] the fact is [painfully clear] that that is not “nothing”.

- Humans can trust their senses.

- Measuring rods remain invariant as they undergo positional changes.

- Etc, etc, etc—there are A LOT of these axioms (principles taken on faith alone) in the much vaunted “pure science” world—but, my point is—they do NOT want to address these points rather they want to say things like “religion is a delusion” and “the Bible is a fairy tale” and the like—I do not know if you have encountered the hostile (angry) atheists but, believe me, you will find them if you look around—those people are far less than gruntled—so that’s why I say (correctly I might add) that I refer to such as “mad/angry”—they are.

What I am getting at here is that there is an painfully obvious contradiction in the position of the “science only” crowd. Yes, in this case I am challenging that position in a direct and forceful manner because that is necesary sometimes and a good idea and, yes, “helpful”. All approaches are needed, “soft touch” and “direct approach”, so you will note (if you follow what I say) that I vary my approach. This is intended. For the record, I will remind everyone that this “discussion” here on the “existence of God” is primary foundational (perhaps the most important) question that a human can ask. Afterall, it relates to the eternal salvations of immortal human souls, so the “stakes” could not be higher.

Go ahead, I dare you (or anyone)—read my posts at the top of this thread and then read some of the rest and you tell me—do you not see what I say would be said being said by the athiests? Right here, far down in the thread, there is a science-only person bringing up the great “vacuum” as if it were actually “nothing”. Sheesh, Hawkings himself (brilliant and excellent on so many matters) misses this point too—his latest is something like “the universe does not need God, it can create out of nothing” but he quickly adds that “gravity” and some set of “laws” are also necessary. So, again—that is not “nothing” so what about THAT?

All we hear is crickets at that point.

Not to mention (well I guess I will mention) the good old Ontological Argument For The Existence Of God. Jimmi-nee crickets on a Ritz cracker!!! That’s pure and perfect logic. What about THAT?

Anybody? Anybody? Bueller?

Dawkins and Hitchens and their ilk seem to never engage an Alvin Plantinga on such matters. I wonder why???

(BTW, the moral relativists are cut from the same cloth.)

So, in general, it is not the theist that is saying “I am smarter than an atheist” rather it is the atheist who dismisses the theist’s point of view without listening. OK, I say, you want to talk “science” and “pure research” let’s talk a little about that, let’s talk about science and axioms (that is, matters taken on pure Faith in the scientific world), first principles. There are TONS of these and yet (strangely) the atheist, when he/she wants to start bashing “matters accepted on faith”, somehow only manages to bash the “science-plus-religion-crowd” and not the “science-only-crowd”. I wonder why that is? I have concluded that many such “science only” folk do not want to do so either out of pride or ignorance. The former I can pray about but the latter I can help to alleviate, with posts such as these.

God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

I have a friend who is a Christian Scientist (the denomination) and he talks about the emotional importance of his Christian Science beliefs and the sense of understanding of the universe and his relationship with God, the All in All, infinite love, etc.  He also couples that with specific examples of healings he has realized in his life.

I’m an atheist but do not doubt the sincerity of his emotional claims (although I give him advise on how to interpret his physical claims). 

How is he any less accurate in his emotinoal view of God than you are?

For many of those espousing the supremacy of science, they forget that they have been able to reach that “conclusion” by constructing their framework to exclude the possibility of any meaningful existence outside of their ability to measure such existence with 5 senses and instruments that report back to the five senses.

When they even crack the door open on the possibility of god (agnosticism v. atheism), this is generally a very small crack that is under their total control in terms of the questions and evidence they are willing to admit for consideration. “I will consider any evidence that I personally deem worthy of consideration.”

The scientific and theological minds are not incompatible.  In fact, the widest possible exploration of creation and our part in the creative process is only possible when the scientific mind is truly open to the unknown with a humility that knows it is only unknown because of our human limitations.  It is unknown, but it is not unknowable within the fullest context of creation.

Science performed under the hubris of “my 5 senses and brilliant intellect” is partly science and partly ego.  Theology is not the impediment to discovering truth.  This can be credited to human pride. 

I am not suggesting that all speculation is created equal.  But in the total history of human intellectual inquiry into our existence, there is much that is worthy of consideration…even if it cannot be quantified by human observation under a microscope.

@Post by Dustin on Thursday, Oct 18, 2012 9:27 AM (EST):

Regarding this…

“I also never mean to assert that a God does not exist.  It may be impossible to make such an assertion. But it is just one of many possible explanations for the universe, and one that is probably least productive in terms of its ability to be investigated either by mathematics or experiment”

...it seems to me that such an approach carries a somewhat hidden assumption, namely “humans do not have souls”.

Such an approach limits discovery to math and experiment. Such approaches suggest that a belief is warranted (reasonable) only if they can be put under a microscope, which assumes that everything that is worth thinking about can be put under a microscope.

So, the warrant in belief in God is thereby undermined (or discredited) on opinion only, since the counter-case cannot be proven “may be impossible” which means the atheist is in the same boat as the theist.

As such, the “productive” value of an assertion becomes validated by whether or not it can be addressed using the scientific method. That’s a problem because it marginalizes the theist, shuffling him/her to the curb by “more productive” matters.

“Wait” the theist cries “you are risking your immortal soul by not seeking God”.

To which the scientist replies something like “give me something that I can put under a microscope or else don’t bother me”.

Does the scientist give the same reply to his son when he says—“look Dad, isn’t that rainbow beautiful”?

Let’s hope not.

And, in fact, he probably will not.

So that is good AND it is something for the scientist to think about long and hard because he there thereby admits God exists.

(Its a journey but the dots ARE there.)

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

@ Post by Psy on Wednesday, Oct 17, 2012 10:38 PM (EST):

Dear Psy—

Regarding this…

“That’s a bold assertion Rick but I think the Casimir effect is evidence of an uncased cause through quantum fluctuations. Chalmers University of Technology has created light from a vacuum…”

...that’s a pretty awesome “vacuum” that they have there but it certainly is not “nothing” and so the question remains.

See “vacuum” here…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum/

Yes, there are a bunch of “pesky scientific details”, such as…

- Measuring rods remain invariant as they undergo positional changes.

- Other minds exist.

- The past exists.

- Humans can trust their senses.

- etc, etc, etc

Oh yes, and the overarching fact that it is just a THEORY and, while we are at it…

“this [vacuum] state is impossible to achieve experimentally. (Even if every matter particle could somehow be removed from a volume, it would be impossible to eliminate all the blackbody photons”

...and so on with a BUNCH of other qualifications and “I forgot to mentions”.

(Let’s pay special attention to the word “impossible” in the quote above, OK?)

Yes, science is good, and I am very happy for Casmir et al and it is good that they are busy, but let’s not kid ourselves, their experiment…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect/

...is not a demonstration of truly “something coming from nothing” but rather “a view of what happens when”.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

I appreciate the remarks by the posters here. I certainly approach these subjects with humility and the appreciation that I don’t have all the answers.

Just a brief reply to a few of the recent posts on scientific knowledge and ways of knowing.  It’s true that many scientists would agree that sense information is the only way to know the world (empiricist view).  However, some would agree that a priori knowledge is possible through reason, independent of sense information.
To those who appeal to knowledge that isn’t available to scrutiny through experiment, through senses, or through reason alone, I ask what is source of that knowledge?  If something exists (e.g., a soul) then it must be verifiable through some mechanism (even if beyond the scope of science today, and even if that mechanism is nothing more than rock-solid philosophical logic).  If we are to believe that something can both exist and also be completely independent from the material universe, we should have very strong reasons for such a belief.  The presence of beauty and the existence of minds are not sufficient evidence. Beauty is on some level a social construction which is probably influenced by biology.  The existence of minds may turn out to be material-only.
In addition to Richard Dawkins book “The God Delusion”, I also recommend the following text for those interested in human consciousness:
“The Quest for Consciousness” by Christof Koch

God does not belong in science-by definition. All Jennifer wants to do is b**ch about science “interfering” with religion. If Catholicism was the science authority, we’d still be praying to God to end polio, bubonic plague, smallpox, and other epidemics. We’d still think the universe was heliocentric, we’d have never put a man on the moon, or have a machine exploring Mars. We’d have never seen the beautiful pictures of Saturn’s rings, and the outer planets.
.
We would also think like Todd Akins—that there are “legitimate” rapes and that a woman’s body “has ways” to prevent pregnancy if she was “really” raped. We would still be exorcising demons from sick people and let people bleed to death from wounds that could be easily sutured in an emergency room.
.
Any reasonable Christian still sees a doctor when they think they might be ill, and it doesn’t matter if that doctor believes in God or not. It has nothing to do with his/her profession and the Hippocratic Oath. God has never been observed to “cure” a person without medical help.
.
Stick to your religion, but don’t use it to define science. You don’t know the basics of scientific method or the reasons for being a scientist. Just because you people don’t understand it and don’t experience the beauty of new discoveries about the universe as a scientist does not mean you are experts on “transcendence.”
.
You are the close-minded people if you can’t accept that.

Mark Kamoski, I have no idea what point you are trying to make if any.

Howard, please enlighten us non-German speakers or readers here with a translation of the poem you posted.  Otherwise, that was a nice-sounding piece of poetry that will be meaningless to us ignorant of German.  (Who wrote it, by the way?)

@ Post by Psy on Thursday, Oct 18, 2012 12:11 PM (EST):

Dear Psy—

Regarding this…

I have no idea what point you are trying to make

...oh, I am sorry that you missed my point.

Upon review, I was actually pretty clear so I am wondering if you actually “read the post” or just “scanned it” or maybe “ignored it”?

Regardless, I am more than happy to state my point here again, in simplified form.

My point is that the “vacuum” (AKA “nothing”) that you include in your so-called evidence that science can get “something from nothing” (AKA uncaused cause) is not, in fact, “nothing” so the evidence fails.

As noted in my citations (above) there is a whole heck of a lot of “stuff” entangled in that so-called “vacuum” and so one cannot honestly call it “nothing”.

I hope that is clear.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

@ Post by True Democrat on Thursday, Oct 18, 2012 11:21 AM (EST):

Dear True Democrat—

Regarding your statement…

God does not belong in science-by definition. All Jennifer wants to do is b**ch about science “interfering” with religion. If Catholicism was the science authority…”

...that’s just the point there, bucko, Science and Religion are not mutually-exclusive, rather, much to the contrary, they are complimentary.

This is not an either/or situation but a both/and situation.

For example, the father of the Big Bang Theory is a Catholic Priest.

So they next time any atheist wants to start talking about a big chunk of “science” at-large (oh at least a huge chunk of the field of Astronomy, Astro-Physics, Etc) well, yes, that atheist IS going to go to the Catholic Church, a Catholic Priest, to get answers, as the Big Bang Theory is foundational to such “science”—that is, it is possible to be both a good believer and a good scientist.

As to the practical matters (go to a doctor when sick), the same applies.

HTH.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

@Posted by Mark Kamoski on Thursday, Oct 18, 2012 1:10 PM (EST):
“it is possible to be both a good believer and a good scientist”

I think I can agree with that.  Everyone has to explore the facts and the arguments in their own way and in their own time.  Reasonable people will reach different conclusions, but it’s important we continue to respect each other in the process.

@ Post by Dustin on Thursday, Oct 18, 2012 1:18 PM (EST):

Dear Dustin—

I say “ditto” to what you say, so there we have it.

If we do see each other in Heaven (just hypothetically speaking of course) then maybe we can shake hands but unless and until then, I hope this will do.

:-)

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

Mark Kamoski, so its about semantics, I don’t recall defining a vacuum as nothing nor did I offer any definition of a vacuum or claim “something from nothing” and I don’t see how its relevant to supporting Rick’s assertion that “the first cause can not be explained.”
An acquaintance of mine made the first measurements of the Casimir effect back in 1996 or 97 (Steve Lamoreaux)and you have provided nothing that I am not aware of.

@ Post by Psy on Thursday, Oct 18, 2012 1:56 PM (EST):

Dear Psy—

Regarding this…

I don’t recall defining a vacuum as nothing nor did I offer any definition of a vacuum or claim “something from nothing” and I don’t see how its relevant to supporting Rick’s assertion that “the first cause can not be explained”

...simple…

first-cause-argument => implies => something-from-nothing

...that is, an uncaused-cause

Peter Kreeft has a good exposition of this. It goes like this, suppose I said I had the world’s best book and it has every answer you want. You say “I want it”. I say “my friend has it”. You ask my friend and he says “my wife has it”. You ask his wife and she says “my father has it”. And so on. Well, in this chain, if no one actually HAS the book, then you will never get it. Right? Right. So, existence is like the book. It comes from somewhere. So too with “things in general”. Etc.

And, BTW, ahem, let’s not be coy here, please? Cards on the table.

You DID cite Casmir right?

OK, great, you did—I just checked.

So, Casmir relies on a so-called “vacuum” and so, here we are, back to my refutation of the so-called “vacuum”, as above.

That’s my point.

HTH.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

@ Post by Mark Kamoski on Thursday, Oct 18, 2012 2:24 PM (EST):

I made a typo…

...this…

first-cause-argument => implies => something-from-nothing

...should have been this…

no-first-cause-argument => implies => something-from-nothing

...so that is an important correction.

Thanks.

—Mark Kamoski

Mark—why is it that you think I’m an atheist? Just because I’ve defined scientific method as “not including God?” You don’t think the awesomeness of the Universe is inspiring and can lead to spiritual enlightenment?
.
I notice that you yourself use scientific facts in you attempt to dispute with Psy—and that evidence neither “proves” or “disproves” the existence of God. Science and religion may be complementary, but they are also mutually exclusive. Again, by definition, scientific method excludes god(s) and, in addition, religion, by definition, must have one or more gods.
.
Also, again, people can practice science and have religious belief—maybe or maybe not Catholic, but some sort of appreciation for the divine.
.
Jennifer has brought up a description of reductionist thinking that has nothing to do with religion, just to b**ch about “atheist thinking.” Jennifer writes this blog to complain and condemn atheists. If her ideas about what atheists think are from her own experience as an atheist, then she was only a misinformed agnostic at most.

@ Post by True Democrat on Thursday, Oct 18, 2012 2:39 PM (EST):

Dear True Democrat—

Mark—why is it that you think I’m an atheist?

...oh, I am so sorry, I really thought you were because your argumentation seems to be tending toward the “keep God out of everything because God does not really matter to anything or anyone”. That was my impression and I am VERY happy to have been wrong. In fact, I am elated that you are theist and, as such,

I do not, however, agree that God and science need to be addressed as mutually exclusive, if that is what you (or anyone) is suggesting, as these 2 seems to be inextricably entangled.

Jennifer, Gods loves her and I do too, is a bit “edgy” at times. That’s more a stylistic convention than “gut fire” or “ire” in any way, I think. While I do not think that, given the same headline, I would have written anywhere near the same article as Jennifer, but that’s her artistic license, I suppose. I will say that when one writes such articles, as this present one, it can often seem to be an over-generalization. There is a “spectrum” of “atheism” at-large and, it seems, that there are few (if any) “pure atheists” (my term) who categorically deny once and for all that God exists, and do so in an absolute and certain manner. It seems to me that most who say “I am an atheist” actually mean “I do not now believe in God but I do not close the door on the idea”. So, I think Jennifer is just “stirring things up” more than “condemning”, and do I certainly hope that is the case because that is the way it should be—condemning is not a good thing.

Regardless, I am happy to hear you are a theist or, at least, “not an atheist”.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

The “reductionist” view that Jennifer complains about is simply another description of “Occam’s Razor.” This view is necessary for the practice of science, so that accurate observations can be made from experiments with matter. God is immaterial—ergo God cannot be observed by science.
.
Jennifer is trying to pass the reductionist view in scientific method as “the atheist view of science.” The view may be necessary for the practice of scientific method, but it is not the view of scientists—atheist or not. Do you honestly believe atheists/scientists don’t experience love, joy, grief, peace of mind, guilt, reverence for beauty and horror at atrocity?.
.
Jennifer is applying the reductionist view to atheists because she has to convince herself and others that atheists are less than human, as “God wants them to be.” While I’m not atheist myself, I think Jennifer’s “analysis” of atheist thinking is prejudiced and hateful.

I’d like to recommend Terry Pratchett’s wonderful novel Thief of Time to everyone here. It’s somewhat tangential to the conversation, but as I read about reductionist views, free will, and especially the post on matter and form, I was powerfully reminded of the book and compelled to share.

One of the major themes of the book is that “the whole is more than the sum of its parts.” There are characters who die from eating chocolate because, although they understand exactly how every atom fits together, the experience of eating chocolate is too much for their brains to process. At one point they take a famous painting down to its constituent molecules in an attempt to discover what makes it “art.”

I love Terry Pratchett! Have you read “Good Omens” by Pratchett and Gaiman?
.
Honestly, though, I will have to re-read “Thief of Time,” but I get the analogy. He is great at satirizing both religion and science and taking them ad absurdum.
.
I wish more people had his worldview.

“Good Omens” is another of my favorites, but to be honest I consider “Thief of Time” one of the best books I have ever read. Someday I will feed my children bikkits.

kelsey—
.
I think we can both agree that people need both science and spiritual experiences to live a healthy, rational life—and that it’s a good thing to have a sense of humor.
.
Trouble is, Jennifer keeps coming up with blanket statements about “how atheists think,” as if they were some other species that aren’t intelligent enough to understand faith or love Jesus. She encourages her fellow Catholics to look down on them as angry, willfully ignorant, adversaries who have no compassion and live only to attack religion, especially Christianity. This is too much of a stereotype for me to stomach. Unlike Pratchett and similar writers/artists, she is not satirizing—she really means what she writes.
.
And her fans always take the bait.

The ascendancy of a lifeless and mindless metaphysic in science ought to be transient in the long run. It results from the success of reductionist methods. But eventually “subjectivity” will re-enter the picture and infuse the scientific conception of the cosmos with more reality. However, I do not believe that our current human religions will survive this process. There are aspects of intellectual religious culture that might survive, but the cruelty of nature and the smallness of Earth in the universe are not consistent with theological optimism. Some other spirituality and some other concept of the first cause will be needed.

Posted by True Democrat on Thursday, Oct 18, 2012 6:17 PM (EST):kelsey—
...Trouble is, Jennifer keeps coming up with blanket statements about “how atheists think,” as if they were some other species that aren’t intelligent enough to understand faith or love Jesus. She encourages her fellow Catholics to look down on them as angry, willfully ignorant, adversaries who have no compassion and live only to attack religion, especially Christianity. This is too much of a stereotype for me to stomach. Unlike Pratchett and similar writers/artists, she is not satirizing—she really means what she writes.”
********************************
Well, she writes from personal experience which gives authenticity.

First, a shout-out to Dustin above, for his true intellectual humility about these things.
.
Ultimately, all is personal speculation and decision-making on these subjects; some of us prefer to believe in a Divine First Cause and find enough reason to do so, and often find our lives much more meaningful for it; others decide not to believe at all and find it all meaningless - it is the way it is, nothing more; still others are agnostic and prefer to hold off on any decision-making about such things - personally, I find that a most unsettling state. 
.
As a friend of mine said, you can’t drag a person kicking and screaming into belief and conversion.  Those of us who do believe, we do so in a Creator who is responsible in some direct or indirect way for everything that exists in this universe that we know of.  And we find sufficient reason for holding such faith.  There is an inherent hunger in humans to know the ‘why’ for our existence, and the answers offered by Church teachings suffice to sate that hunger.  What may seem like solid philosophy to us might appear to be mere sophistry to others. 
.
Conversion can happen when one experiences some kind of powerful, often life-changing event - or it may be a series of small significant events - things that are revelatory to that person on a deeper, perhaps mystical, level, and that cannot be easily explained away by material causes, and not dismissed as mere coincidences.  .
.
There are also intellectual conversions that can happen - as what seems to me occurred in the case of the late British philosopher, Antony Flew, who, after over five decades of being at the forefront of atheism, even tangling with the likes of Christian apologist C.S.Lewis, declared in his 80s that ‘there is a God.’  He came to that conclusion after pondering the complexity of the universe in all its details, especially the results of investigations of DNA. In Mr Flew’s own words:
.
“My departure from atheism was not occasioned by any new phenomenon or argument. Over the last two decades, my whole framework of thought has been in a state of migration. This was a consequence of my continuing assessment of the evidence of nature. When I finally came to recognize the existence of a God, it was not a paradigm shift, because my paradigm remains, as Plato in his Republic scripted his Socrates to insist: ‘We must follow the argument wherever it leads.’”
.
From where I stand, I think that possession of an intellectual honesty and humility (of the kind that the commenter Dustin above has shown) can lead certain persons to conversion to faith.  I remain astounded to learn of the many great minds and persons, agnostics and atheists, who converted to theism, Christianity (including this oft-derided among intellectual circles Roman Catholicism), to wit (a partial list):
Graham Greene, C.S. Lewis, Antony Flew, Bl. John Henry Newman, G. K. Chesterton, Marshall McLuhan, Evelyn Waugh, Dorothy Day, A. J. Cronin, Alexis Carrel, Mortimer J Adler, etc. etc. 
.
So much for the condescending remark from some who I think know little about it, that religion (especially Catholicism) are only for the weak-minded.

Kathleen—are you saying Jennifer was a willfully ignorant person who hated Christianity before she found Christ? No wonder she preaches her anti-atheist stereotypes like an ex-junkie.
.
Like I said, I’m not an atheist, but I am pro-science, and I don’t like the blanket statements Jennifer makes about scientific methodology being part of the atheist world view. Jennifer’s personal experience is not everyone’s personal experience.

Ooops… an error in my post above: G K Chesterton doesn’t belong to that list - he was a convert from the Anglican Church, not atheism/agnosticsm!

True Democrat ,
I’m saying she writes from experience.
We all write from personal experience, which makes our writings not necessarily correct, but authentic.

Kathleen—
Just because it’s “authentic” does not mean it’s not prejudiced. She should stop crossing scientific thinking with atheism. I know she hates atheists, but science is not the driving philosophy of atheism. Most of the Catholics in this blog use science facts to make their points, so they should not be blaming the reductionist approach to science as the atheist world-view.

True Democrat ,
I guess we’re seeing different things in the article here.I don’t think Jennifer (or any Christian) “hates” atheists, & I’m puzzled how you might “know” that she does.
Science is amazing, but for some it’s a religion-replacer.
Authenticity can include predjudice.We all bring some of that into the conversation.

PS- And in my own case, I bring prejudice AND bad spelling….
:)

“Atheists, especially those of the “new atheism” variety, are hesitant to put too much stock in any experiential data, and thus they shun any feelings that would indicate that there’s something supernatural behind the universe, relying only on what we can observe and prove through science instead.”
/
Perhaps I expressed myself incorrectly—I infer that she hates atheists from what I’ve seen of her blogs. Most of the time I don’t care enough to comment, but this blog seems to imply that scientists should include God in their observation, and that all atheists have a reductionist view in all aspects of their lives. She then goes on to preach what a depressing world-view atheist-thinking embraces. She does not know this—she is making a blanket statement about atheists—not some atheists. She is blaming New Atheists in particular, probably because they are the most outspoken against religion, but at best she regards all atheists as mentally abnormal sociopaths.
.
True, everybody has their own prejudices, but Jennifer is making statements against a particular group of people, just as the Ku Klux Klan preaches about people of color, Hitler wrote about in Mein Kampf, and so on.
.
It’s quite a contrast from her previous (and better written) post on the thinking behind atrocity. She should practice what she preaches.

Not sure why True Democrat holds such vitriol for Jennifer and her blogs. Methinks he/she is making blanket statements about Jennifer’s ideas. J is talking about generalities, the more dominant views especially of militant New Atheists because those are the ones she knows best from her atheist days. I really don’t infer any hate for atheists from her posts.  However, from the persistent and insistent posts True Democrat writes here, it sounds to me like he/she has a personal vendetta against the blogger. Just my opinion.

I do believe that each of us has a God-shaped hole in our hearts, that only God alone can heal.
.
It’s one thing to give examples of its historical accuracy or explain how well the texts have been preserved over the millennia, but keep in mind that the Bible does not carry any special weight with most atheists, so quoting John 3:16 or Romans 5:8 is not going to have much impact. It’s easy to forget if you were raised in a house with a deep reverence for Sacred Scripture, but most atheists think that large parts of the Bible simply aren’t true, and many see the entire thing as a work of fiction.
.
The vast majority of atheists I talk to do not have accurate knowledge about Catholic doctrine—even those who were raised nominally Catholic.
.
They would never believe something that is fundamentally unreasonable, so it’s important that they understand that a person does not need to check his rational mind at the door to become Catholic—that, in fact, the Catholic worldview is the most reasonable of all…
.
These are Jennifer’s own words: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jennifer-fulwiler/the-catholics-guide-to-atheists
.
Her rants are passive-aggressive, but according to Jennifer, the only good atheist is an atheist to Catholic convert like herself.

True Democrat, I fail to see how Jennifer’s opinions can come off as “rants” or “passive-aggressive” to you.  Au contraire, it seems to me that ‘tis your persistent posts here that radiate the aggression and anger and resentment that you ascribe to Jennifer’s writings - rather than Jennifer’s do. To me, she writes with such calmness and sobriety, which is why I find her blog an excellent read.  She doesn’t rant at all.  And I feel that it is you who wants only to attack her ever idea critical of atheists’ perspectives with such unprovoked ferocity.  Why? Only you know, as it’s just another mystery to me in this mysterious universe of ours!

uhm, *ever = *every.

When you stop writing lies, I will stop telling the truth.

Atheism is ordered toward rejection and pride, where as positive-principle-based belief systems are ordered toward acceptance and humility. The latter is much better for you psychologically and morally than the former, and the lack of understanding of this concept is one of the key things that distinguishes the “new atheists” from their nonbelieving forebearers.
And so, to the folks participating in A Week, I would say one thing: Become Catholic.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jennifer-fulwiler/the-danger-of-atheist-pride#ixzz29rU7fO4e

GOD is God.  I am not.  God is a beautiful mystery, GOD IS LOVE and from this LOVE the universe (and time and space) and everything (and everyone)in it was created BY HIM and FOR HIM.  He takes care of the details and entrusts us as stewards to take care of each other and our world.  FAITH is a gift from Our Creator, He instills in our soul the innate LONGING to BE ONE WITH HIM. 

Have a blessed and JOYful day, basking in God’s love for you!!

Weinberg:
“The reductionist worldview is chilling and impersonal. It has to be accepted as it is, not because we like it, but because that is the way the world works.”
Greene:
“If you understand everything about the ingredients, the reductionist argues, you understand everything.”
JF’s personal opinion:
“I think this is a perfect summary of where modern atheism goes off the rails.”
Well, JF is entitled to her opinion.  My opinion is that this opinion is an opinion that can be dismissed as uninformed and simply anti-science.
JF’s better opinion:
“When people decide what’s true and what’s false based solely on feelings and emotional experiences, they can end up with all sorts of crazy beliefs.”
Like religious beliefs for example?  You have two new “saints”.  Of course you claim to have “evidence”.  I doubt that “science” would validate your “evidence”.  The Republican Party is more anti-science than the Democratic Party.  Evolution denial.  Climate change denial.

“Science can explain what stuff makes up the Universe, it cannot explain why there is stuff in the first place.”
Some “why” questions may never be answered by science.  So what?  Do you really think “God did it” is an adequate answer?  Which “god”?  Why did that “god” do it?  Not to mention the Young Earth Creationists who are certain that “god” did it just 10,000 years ago.  Science may not have all the answers, but religious answers are simply “making things up” to be compatible with the “holy scriptures”.

“See The Modal Ontological Argument For The Existence Of God.”
Well, if your “god” created this universe 13.7 billion years ago, why didn’t he leave that slightest actual “evidence”?  Why would that creation mean that your particular religion is correct and the thousands of others are wrong?

“No, human existence is NOT chilling and impersonal.  Therefore, there must be more to existence than science could ever fully explain.”
Yes, apparently “meat computers” like humans and the other apes seem to find some “personal” meaning to their lives.  But perhaps this is simply an “emergent property” of such a “meat computer”.  That would be a scientific explanation.  So your conclusion is a non sequitur.  There is no indication that any particular religion actually has a “better” meaning.  There are only a thousand different personal opinions.  Worship a “god”?  Why?  Heaven or hell?  No evidence.  Life after dearth?  No evidence.  Salvation?  What’s the point?  Become re-incarnated as an insect?  Crazy.

“I think we can both agree that people need both science and spiritual experiences to live a healthy, rational life.”
Define “spiritual experience”.  Do you really need a feeling of “Jesus loves me” to live a healthy, rational life?  Lots of scientists claim to have some sort of “spiritual experience”.  So what?  That does not mean that any particular religion has any basis for a claim of “truth”.

“Dawkins and Hitchens and their ilk seem to never engage an Alvin Plantinga on such matters.”
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/02/26/sunday-sermon-on-sophisticated-theology-plantinga-proves-god/
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/12/30/alvin-plantinga-sophisticated-theologian/

Hey, I’m not saying JF is a bad person. I like most of her family blogs. It’s just that she sometimes shoots off an unnecessary bullet against “atheist thinking” that has the same attitude as a recovering alcoholic has against people who still take a drink.
.
Any hint of what she thinks is an “atheist view” is a sign of sick thinking to her. She qualifies her posts by adding “that not all atheists are like that,” but strongly implies that it is in spite of their atheism.
.
I know 12-steppers who won’t come to a friendly bar-b-que if beer is available. They consider the drink they once loved too much a poison to be avoided at all costs. Maybe it is—for them.
.
Jennifer hates atheism and so-called “extreme atheists” the same way.

JD-
“I think we can both agree that people need both science and spiritual experiences to live a healthy, rational life.”
.
That was my line, not JF’s. Again, I may have expressed myself incorrectly. I mean people need to just experience the awesome joy of just knowing we exist in this beautiful world, without caring about “how” or “why.”
.
That’s my “pet peeve” about her—she regards her conversion to Catholicism as a program of recovery for the “disease” of atheism.

“Atheists, especially those of the “new atheism” variety,”
Hilarious swipe at so-called “new atheists” as though there was actually
anything different from “old atheists”.

“are hesitant to put too much stock in any experiential data,”
What a silly thing to say!  I have a lot of “experiential data” about how other human beings act (not to mention dogs and cats) and I “put a lot of stock” in it.  Most humans are quite benevolent when one is benevolent to them.  Dogs too.  So what?

“and thus they shun any feelings that would indicate that there’s something supernatural behind the universe,”
How silly.  Why should anyone think that “feelings” are a true indication that there’s anything supernatural behind the universe?  That’s just superstitious wishful thinking and of course it’s anti-science and anti-reality.

“relying only on what we can observe and prove through science instead.”
Well, define “observe through science”.  I observe REALITY every day and that’s the fundamental definition of “science” - observing and understanding reality.  Those who decide that “wishful thinking” is good enough to “rely” on, are simply fooling themselves.

“What I Don’t Get About the Atheist View of Science”
There is no “atheist view” of science.  There is simply “science”.  Apparently you do not understand “science”.  Atheism has nothing to do with science except that science is based on “evidence” and atheism is based on “lack of evidence”.  Religion and faith are belief without evidence.  So religion and faith are incompatible with science.  So your religion blinds you to the nature of science.

Greene:
“Is it really the case that feelings of joy, sorrow, or boredom are nothing but chemical reactions in the brain—reactions between molecules and atoms”
And the scientific answer is YES.  There is no evidence to the contrary.

“What I Don’t Get About the Atheist View of Science”
Apparently you are not the slightest bit interested in learning from the comments that appear after your irrational opinions.

@ Post by JD Hughes on Monday, Oct 22, 2012 8:30 AM (EST):

Dear JD Huges—

Regarding this…

Religion and faith are belief without evidence. 

...please note that science is ALSO “belief without evidence”, especially in its foundation.

Science has many “axioms”, which we can understand as just a fancy term for “faith”, for example, note closely the following…

- Other minds exist.

- Measuring rods remain invariant as they undergo positional changes.

- There is a a past.

- Humans can trust their senses.

- Etc.

These axioms, and others like them, are the foundation of science. Without them science is meaningless. And yet, they cannot be “proven” with “evidence”. It is simply is not possible. So that is “faith” of a kind, like it or not.

Admit it or not—if you are a “scientist” then you rely on “faith”. Period.

That is, so-called “scientific evidence” is rooted in the scientist’s “faith” in the underlying axioms that science assumes to be true.

A typical theist knows and accepts “faith” as a starting point.

A typical atheist has “faith in axioms” but does not “see it” or admit it.

Who is the blind one?

HTH.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

“Other minds exist.”
I think, therefore I am.  You post, therefore you are.
“Measuring rods remain invariant as they undergo positional changes”
Well, there is a little matter of “general relativity”.  If the “speed of light” is not a constant, there is any way we could ever know that?
“There is a a past.”
The IRS can give you their knowledge of your past.  You ignore it at your peril.
“Humans can trust their senses.”
Unless they can’t?  Optical illusions?  Where did this nonsense come from?  I don’t think CERN is detecting the Higgs boson with human senses.
“Without them science is meaningless.”
Well, science certainly seems to work pretty well in the real world that I live in.  Does it work for you?  How does it fail?  Religious “truth” is simply “wishful thinking”.  But religions certainly would love to impose their beliefs on everyone else.  Sharia?  HHS mandate?  Why are religious opinions given undeserved privilege?
“That is, so-called “scientific evidence” is rooted in the scientist’s “faith” in the underlying axioms that science assumes to be true.”
Yes.  And if you have an “evidence” that any “underlying axiom” is wrong, I certainly wish you would bring it to science’s attention.  Unlike religions, science is open to change when new evidence is discovered.
“A typical theist knows and accepts “faith” as a starting point.”
And then discovers that prayers are ineffective.  And ignores that negative evidence.  Doing the same thing over and over again without any results is called what?
“A typical atheist has “faith in axioms” but does not “see it” or admit it.”
Wrong.  Atheists “admit” that there are some fundamental assumptions about reality.  But as long as science seems to “work” for a reliable understanding of the universe, then the findings of science are accepted as provisionally “true”.

@ Post by JD Hughes on Monday, Oct 22, 2012 10:05 AM (EST):

Regarding this…

And if you have an “evidence” that any “underlying axiom” is wrong, I certainly wish you would bring it to science’s attention. 

...it is clear that one can be SO close to seeing the point but not quite get it.

The point is that those axioms CANNOT be proven.

Honest scientists know and admit this fact.

Are you an honest scientist?

For example, no human evidence can be presented to humans to prove the following axiom…

“humans can trust their senses”

...it simply cannot be done.

Tongue-and-cheek remarks are an insufficient dodge to the underlying fact, and need for honesty to admit the fact that…

Science relies on faith in it’s underlying, unprovable, axioms.

Squirm though one may, it is still a fact.

What is called for here is a little intellectual honesty and justice.

The old “an atheists accepts X as provisionally true” is a common red-herring that atheists often use as a last-ditch effort to avoid admitting that they have faith. In fact, they know that science is based on faith in axioms. They know that such axioms are unprovable. And yet they say things like “provisionally” and “until proven otherwise” when they know that no such “provision” will ever exist to “prove otherwise”. That is a last-ditch effort because the only other choice is to claim ignorance of the fact that “science is based on faith” and, with this present post and many other writings much more ancient, such ignorance can no longer be claimed. The only alternative is to run from the truth.

Science is based on faith in its underlying axioms.

Period.

Like it or not, that is a state of affairs—it is NOT a point open for argumentation.

That’s part of being human; so, we should all get used to it.

HTH.

God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

What “axioms” do you mean? Gravity? 2+2=4? The earth moves around the sun?
.
How many times must it be repeated before you get it? Science, BY IT’S DEFINITION, cannot have any god(s) or “supernatural” factors in its practice. Religion, BY ITS DEFINITION, MUST have god(s) and supernatural focus. They are mutually exclusive modes of thought that people practice for different reasons. THEY DO NOT MIX.
.
Why do you insist that it must be a “faith,” which again is a religious view that includes god(s) and the supernatural?

Mark—you hate atheists even more than Jennifer. That hardly implies that you are at peace with your faith. You sound very angry.

@ Post by True Democrat on Monday, Oct 22, 2012 12:39 PM (EST):

Dear True Democrat—

Regarding this…

What “axioms” do you mean?

...as noted above, let’s start with this one…

Humans can trust their senses.

...and that is an example of what I mean.

Upon reflection, it is clear to see that the validity of human perception itself cannot be verified by human perception.

It is simply not possible.

That is taken “on faith”, by atheist-scientists and theist-scientists alike.

Well, one might say, that is reasonable though, because if one does not take THAT as a starting principle then one cannot address the world in any meaningful way.

There is nothing contradictory here, it is simply a point to start from, that’s all.

The contradiction comes when one says things like “faith in God is superficial and wishful thinking” when it comes from an atheist-scientist who does not admit his/her “faith” in the axioms of science.

As I stated previously, it is a curious matter.

The atheist-scientist say “you have no evidence for your belief in God and so it is silly” and “my belief in science is not silly because it is based on evidence” and then someone points out the fact that “science is based on axioms that are unprovable” and the atheist-scientist gets all huffy.

What I am saying here that it is inconsistent, (at the least), to reject some belief,  X, because that belief does not rest on scientific evidence when, in fact, all scientific evidence already rests on axioms that are taken to be true without any proof (or any way to prove them).

The 2, faith and reason, (we can also say faith and science), are not mutually exclusive. That’s the mistake many make. Rather, they are mutually complimentary but notice the order, faith first then reason—axioms first then conclusions. Etc.

HTH.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

@ Post by True Democrat on Monday, Oct 22, 2012 12:41 PM (EST):

Dear True Democrat—

Regarding this…

Mark—you hate atheists even more than Jennifer.

...that is not true. Please do let me know where I have indicated “hate” for atheists. I would be happy to elucidate my points if they are unclear or another phrasing is better suited for anyone. Regarding “hate”, I have no such intent or feeling, and much to the contrary I wish the best for all humans. For the record, I will state here clearly—I love all humans. My love is, of course, imperfect because that is a function of my own humanity, and I apologize where it is imperfect. I write with a smile on my face, BTW.

Regarding this…

That [your hate of atheists] hardly implies that you are at peace with your faith.

...this statement is leading because it assumes that that the 1st proposition, “Mark hates atheists”,  is true, which I assure you, it is not and so this 2nd statement is a non-starter in the way that you have framed it. That said, I can assure you that my faith has very little (if anything) to do with me and, rather has most everything (perhaps everything) to do with God.

Regarding this…

You sound very angry.

...I am so sorry that it seems that way to you. Again, I assure you, I have no anger or ill intent as I write these posts. I am happy to have the opportunity and grateful for the facility. I am not sure what I can do about your perception of my posts and the relative state of my “anger”. Let me put it this way—as I write, I am having fun, I intend to harm no humans, and I intend to point to the Truth to the best of my ability.

I do love you, True Democrat. It is no wonder that you are addressing these topics. Humans have souls. Each soul seeks the Truth. The Truth is God. We are all ordered this way. Truth is evident in many areas of science and the scientific method and etc. As such, souls enjoy such matters. Even more pure, so to speak, is Truth found though Logic. Wittgenstein is right—Logic is transcendental. So, science and religion both gravitate towards the Truth. There is no contradiction between the two because both point to the Truth. Truth cannot be false. In as much as humans seek what is good and true, they seek God, whether or not they know it. Go, please, seek reality, seek truth, seek proof, seek understanding, seek knowledge, seek what is good, Etc. These are all worthy and good paths. And, if one truly seeks the truth then one will find it. That is the good news.

So, you see, this “discussion” we are having, is not hostile. It is just uncovering some of the many ways of thinking about the world around us, and about ourselves. So, if you say to me “I seek the truth”, which it appears you do—then I simply say back “I seek the truth too”.

Look, I am just saying “science is based on faith in that it rests on unprovable axioms and that kind of faith is akin to a theist’s faith in God”. You seem to be contesting that point. That is odd to me and I am asking you to explain that. That is all. (For now, anyway.)

Stay in touch, and no I do not hate you, rather I love you.

HTH.

Thanks.

—Mark Kamoski

“Squirm though one may, it is still a fact.”
Of course it’s a “fact”.
It’s also completely irrelevant to reality.  But apparently it’s not irrelevant to religious people who wish to try to denigrate science.  Science really tries to find “truth”.  Each religion just makes up its
own “truth”.
“What is called for here is a little intellectual honesty and justice.”
Hilarious.  What is “justice”?  Do you really think that religion’s complete failure to describe anything “real” and science’s outstanding success at understanding the universe can be made “equivalent” by your
silly attempt at obfuscation?
“In fact, they know that science is based on faith in axioms.”
Yes.  And it has worked pretty darn well for understanding reality for quite a while now.  The Theory of Gravity seems to be correct.  But no one “understands” why mass warps space-time?  So what?  The Theory of Evolution is obviously true.  One obvious result is that the evolution of a really intelligent species who is capable of single-handedly destroying a lot of this Earth’s ecosystems was not inevitable.  Another obvious result is that the human species will either evolve further or go extinct.  So what?  Religion has nothing useful to say about reality.
“Science is based on faith in its underlying axioms.  Period.”
And, in spite of that “fact”, it really works for a proper understanding of this universe.  Religion is relatively useless except as a method of claiming that you must do what you are told to do in fear of “hell” or in hope of “salvation” and “everlasting life”.  Hilarious nonsense.
“God bless you.”
Thank you for your condescension.  There are no “gods”.  A blessing is useless.  But it seems that you admit that I exist.

“the atheist-scientist gets all huffy”
Hilarious.  A religious non-scientist gets all “defensive”.  My “faith” is just as good as yours???  Hilarious.

“What I am saying here that it is inconsistent, (at the least), to reject some belief,  X, because that belief does not rest on scientific evidence when, in fact, all scientific evidence already rests on axioms that are taken to be true without any proof (or any way to prove them).”
Ridiculous.  It’s not “inconsistent”.  Religion does not have any “evidence” except “revelation”.  Why pick Catholicism over Mormonism?  Just look at all the “recent evidence” for Mormonism.  Those gold plates.  Science has a consistent understanding or reality based on the evidence and the fundamental assumption that this universe can be understood by observing the evidence.  There’s no inconsistency.

“faith and reason, (we can also say faith and science), are not mutually exclusive”
Of course they are.  There is no “reason” behind “belief without evidence”.  It’s just “wishful thinking”.

“they are mutually complimentary”
They are NOT complementary and you get no compliments from me.

@ Post by Earl Thompson on Monday, Oct 22, 2012 1:53 PM (EST):

Dear Earl—

It is good to see that you have been reading along and are contributing to the discussion.

Regarding your statements above, namely this…

Religion does not have any “evidence” except “revelation”...

...and this…

Science has a consistent understanding or reality based on the evidence and the fundamental assumption that this universe can be understood by observing the evidence.

...note, please, that science has no “evidence” for that “fundamental assumption”, and that is exactly what I am talking about here, in the most part.

Great, you you concede the point that science is based on “faith in axioms” (my phrase) or, as you put it, “fundamental assumption”.

You seem to want to direct the focus to “what has theism done for us recently”. You seem to point to the success of science. Well, that success is driven by minds, human minds. And, guess what, most of them are theists. The vast majority, in fact. about 12% of the humans are “atheist” or “non-religious”, per Wikipedia today. Let’s stipulate that that is close. Well, as I have said, science and religion are complimentary, and not contradictory. That “success” you point to came (largely) from theists, not atheists. So, it is more accurate to say that that is what “theist minds” have yields, not “atheist minds”. That is, that success in science comes (largely) due to the contributions of theists, not atheists. So maybe you should consider that?

Look, there is no condescension intended from my end, and I am not sure why you suppose that such exists. I am just pointing out that the “purity of science” is found in its axioms, its “fundamental assumption” and that is “faith of a kind” to anyone who cares.

Now for the next important question—What is BEHIND that fundamental assumption?

What is the objective, eternal, absolute reality BEHIND that fundamental assumption?

That is the question.

HTH.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

Mark—why do you insist that science is a religion? The axioms of science that you call “faith” are directly or indirectly observed, while no one claims to has “observed” any god(s) and religion even demands that you believe without observation.
.
I think what you hate about atheism is that it really is not a faith. Science test hypotheses and if they have enough observable evidence through testing, hypotheses become accepted as theories. Theories can be disproven when observable evidence contradicts them.
.
While neither you or Jennifer state directly that you hate atheism and atheists, your anger over science and atheism because they don’t include God in the practice of science and/or in their world-views is obvious. You consider atheists as enemies of your faith and constantly need to argue that “atheist thinking” is wrong.
.
Everyone needs an adversary to define their own principles, but I don’t see where atheism is a threat to your religion. I keep repeating that they are mutually exclusive modes of thought. Some people prefer one over the other, but most are somewhere inbetween the two extremes.

“It is good to see that you have been reading along and are contributing to the discussion.”
Hilarious.  The former identity “contributing to the discussion” has been “blacklisted”.  So he has moved on to a new identity.  :-)
“that science has no “evidence” for that “fundamental assumption””
Of course science has “evidence”.  The evidence is that science really, really WORKS for an understanding of reality.  The “evidence” is in its success.
“And, guess what, most of them are theists.”
Hilariously irrelevant.  Science is a method and scientists use the scientific method and belief without evidence is completely useless.
“So maybe you should consider that?”
Nope.  Any scientist worth his pay “checks his religion at the laboratory door” with the hat and coat check person.  Religious dogma is simply irrelevant to science.
“What is BEHIND that fundamental assumption?”
Hilarious question.  Why must there be anything in front of, beside, or behind reality?  Reality just IS.  Next you’re going to claim there must be a “First Cause”.  :-)
“What is the objective, eternal, absolute reality BEHIND that fundamental assumption?”
Your “question” is rejected as nonsensical.  Not to mention that it has nothing to do with any particular one of the thousands of religions.  That’s why atheists facetiously put forth the “Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster” as an answer as to “why there is a reality”.  That’s just as good an answer as any other answer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
“The central belief is that an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe.”

Apparently you have attempted some sort of “analogy” between the fundamental assumptions of science and the belief without evidence of religions.  I reject such an analogy as ridiculous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_realism
http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=4209
“The most important thing to know about reality is that science understands it well enough to rule out god, and almost everything else that provides wiggle room for theism and mystery mongering.”
Jerry Coyne from two days ago:
“If the existence of God is not a scientific question, at least in the broad sense of “science” as “seeing if something really exists using the methodology of repeatable observation and verified prediction,” then it’s not a question that can be answered one way or another.”
Jerry Coyne 7 days ago:
“Theology is useless for advancing knowledge—it only impedes science by confusing the public and raising “science stoppers” like the fine-tuning argument and the claim that morality implies a God.”

@ Post by Earl Thompson on Monday, Oct 22, 2012 6:32 PM (EST):

Dear Earl Thompson—

Regarding this…

>>> The evidence is that science really, really WORKS

...please note that Science cannot know whether or not it really works unless a scientist accepts the axioms first. Note that those axioms are unprovable by their very nature. For example, that “humans can trust their senses” is unprovable. It is impossible to introduce anything outside of the realm of human perception to prove that perception is valid, trustworthy, testable, obserable, etc. So too with the past and other minds and so on. As such, faith (belief without scientific evidence) is required of the scientist before he or she can think or say anything meaningful. There is no success to be observed outside of the overarching axiom, namely—humans can trust their senses.

Regarding this…

>>> Apparently you have attempted some sort of “analogy” between the fundamental assumptions of science and the belief without evidence of religions.  I reject such an analogy as ridiculous

...you are welcome to reject whatever you wish. However, the fact is that both science and religion require faith, faith in something as a starting point—and in that respect they are similar. As I note above, axioms are the necessary starting point for the scientist and they are unprovable and must be taken on faith. It really is that simple. You do not have to call it faith, but it amounts to a similar thing regardless. You have not refuted my claim that science is based on faith—in fact, you have admitted it is true where you state (above) that there are fundamental assumptions in science. If you do not want to call it faith then that is fine. However, we should address the matter as to whether or not we agree that some of these fundamental assumptions are unprovable or not. I suggest that we should try to talk about the “humans can trust their senses” fundamental assumption. Maybe that will help us to narrow the focus a bit.

Do you or do you not admit that “humans can trust their senses” is an unprovable fundamental assumption in science?

Regarding this…

>>> Theology is useless for advancing knowledge—it only impedes science by confusing the public and raising “science stoppers” like the fine-tuning argument and the claim that morality implies a God

...it is interesting. Scientists so often point to matters of probability and say “see there that X is highly probable given this math equation”. But, the atheist-scientists refuse somehow to call the Big Bang, or any other starting point, somehow special given its highly coinincidental anthropromorphic (sp?) reality. That is not to stop science—in fact, it encourages science—keep making that “one in a ka-gillion-zillion” number showing highly improbable our world is—we like to see those zeros—and we love math, so please do not stop science, keep figuring out and demonstrating how improbable this world is.

Regarding morality, it is another matter because without an absolute principle of authority behind morality any moral assessement becomes a simple matter of personal opinion. The moral relativist can just say of Hitler “it is my opinion that what Hitler did was wrong” whereas it is only the moral absolutist who can say “what Hitler did was wrong”, and there is a huge gap between the two. Now, what IS the origin of that absolute, eternal, authoritative principle backing that moral structure?

Regarding this…

>>> Why must there be anything in front of, beside, or behind reality?  Reality just IS.

...hey, wait a minute! I thought science was “all about” questions? Keep seeking? Keeps asking? Right? Well, this is a question too. Also, if “reality just is” then we have an eternal, self-sufficient, first-order, nothing-before-it, kind of thing don’t we? That sounds like there might be something always was, always is, and always will be. That sounds similar to the “I AM” of the Bible. What do you think?

To simply say that religion is useless does not make it so.

BTW, you seem to be finding things “hillarious” and “ridiculous” a lot in this discussion. I guess I am glad you are amused; but, I must say that I am trying to have a serious, meaningful discussion here. Simply “laughing over the microphone” at another speaker is hardly a civil approach to public discourse. I am beginning to wonder if you are taking these matters seriously or not. And so I must ask you—do you wish to have an honest, open, serious discussion of these matters or not? (Your answer is likely to affect my ability to reach you via such means, and I do wish to do so if at all possible.)

HTH.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

@ Post by True Democrat on Monday, Oct 22, 2012 4:03 PM (EST):

Dear True Democrat—

Regarding this…

The axioms of science that you call “faith” are directly or indirectly observed,

...there is an underlying assumption here, namely the following axiom of science…

Humans can trust their senses.

...and that axiom cannot, by definition, be observed.

What do you say to that?

Please advise.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

“Science cannot know whether or not it really works”
Hilarious.  Stop using a computer or a cell phone!
“the fact is that both science and religion require faith”
Riiiight.  And the fact that there is not the slightest resemblance to the “kind of faith” required is certainly not important.
“it amounts to a similar thing regardless.”
Hilarious irrational nonsense.
“keep figuring out and demonstrating how improbable this world is.”
Hilariously irrationally irrelevant.  This world actually exists.  So the probability that it exists is obviously 100% regardless of how “improbable” it would be considered from a distance of a million years or a billion years or 13.7 billion years.  If that asteroid had been 10 minutes later in its orbit 65 million years ago and failed to help kill off the dinosaurs, probably mammals would still be small things running between the dinosaurs’ legs.  Talk about “improbable”!
“without an absolute principle of authority behind morality any moral assessement becomes a simple matter of personal opinion”
Hilarious.  I do not recommend that you drive through red lights based on your personal opinion that your time is more valuable than anyone else’s time.  You are likely to find that the policeman’s opinion is backed up by the judge’s opinion and your opinion is not considered important.
“I thought science was “all about” questions?”
That’s just stupid.
“What do you think?”
I think reality does not need to have anything “behind” it.  How could you possibly “prove” otherwise?  Where is your “evidence”?  What would such “evidence” even look like?  It really is a stupid question.
“To simply say that religion is useless does not make it so.”
That opinion is based on its complete failure to produce anything useful.
“I must say that I am trying to have a serious, meaningful discussion here.”
Hilarious.  You have failed.  You have not said anything meaningful.  You have stated your opinions and I have called them ridiculous and irrational.
“hardly a civil approach to public discourse.”
I’m not interested in a civil discourse.  I know that your mind is made up and I know that my mind is made up and I know that there is no point in a civil discourse.  But, of course, when my non-civil discourse is noticed by your policeman, then I will be blacklisted again.
“do you wish to have an honest, open, serious discussion of these matters or not?”
I do not.  You are obviously incapable of a discussion that does not reflect your prejudiced world view.
“I do wish to do so if at all possible.”
Give it up - it is not possible.
“Thanks”
I can continue to insult you as you require.
“God bless you.”
Such a silly, irrational thing to say.

@ Post by Earl Thompson on Tuesday, Oct 23, 2012 10:21 AM (EST):

Dear Earl Thompson—

Regarding your statements…

>>> I’m not interested in a civil discourse
>>> I can continue to insult
>>> “do you wish to have an honest, open, serious discussion of these matters or not?” I do not.

...I must say that such choices are neither mature or nice.

However, now your intent and will have been exposed, and that is one step closer to the truth.

If you change your mind and decide that you do wish to have an an honest and open and civil conversation on such matters, then please feel free to let me know but, until then, I wish you a good life and (all things being equal) I simply cannot continue with someone who refuses to be honest and open.

I am sorry that you have closed the discussion this way and I hope that one day it may continue.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

Mark—you seem to prefer making exchanges with Earl—who is itching for a fight, I’ll grant. You are continuing to make outrageous claims about science, simply because the method does not acknowledge God.
.
So obviously, you also hate scientists because they practice and promote science, which is atheist by default. And you enjoy fighting with Earl because it vents your anger.
.
Your religion is obviously not enough for your peace of mind.
.
Earl—don’t get wrapped up in the illogical premises of the people on this site—religion embraces the irrational. They don’t accept anything not supported by their faith, and the only books they will read are bases on their “scripture.” I’ve seen other bloggers run around in circles because, once you make a point they can’t dismiss they, start calling you “troll,” and ban your identity from the site.  “Gloria” got frustrated and angry the same way.

@ Post by True Democrat on Tuesday, Oct 23, 2012 12:26 PM (EST):

Dear True Democrat—

Regarding this statement of yours to me…

>>> You are continuing to make outrageous claims about science

...I have made no such claims and I ask you to highlight what you think might be such a claim.

That said, my question to you, from my previous post to you above, still remains…

I call your attention to that.

(See above.)

Let us move on. To see that the axiom “humans can trust their senses” is taken on faith can be disconcerting to those who have not considered it. Afterall, it shakes the very foundation of reality. Humans exist in a blackbox of perception. Humans cannot step outside this box. As such, the tools we are given (eyes, ears, hands, minds, etc) are the only things that can help us to understand our place in reality. There is no other perspective except that which derives from our senses. In a way, we must accept on faith that our senses are trustworthy, or else we can do not claim knowledge of any kind. It goes deeper than just the five senses, in fact it goes to awareness itself, consciousness, of “being awake”. We must trust this, and trust it wholly on faith, if we wish to honestly comment on the world. This is a shocking realization to many, and some fall back to ignorance because it is a complete admission of faith.

That is understandable, and we all grow in our own way. The bad news is that such a foundation of faith does not shackle (as many think) but rather frees the human to a literal universe of possibilities, discovery, and beauty. The good news (in a way) is that many skip right over the admission of the fact that “humans can trust their senses” and get right to the exploration and discovery and beauty in the world—and that is a good thing for them to engage. I suppose that is understandable in that things probably can be no other way in a rational approach to reality—so, those who do not see their own faith can still live it, and those who do see their own faith can also rest assured in the knowledge that humans are firmly grounded in faith.

HTH.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

True Democrat= “So obviously, you also hate scientists because they practice and promote science, which is atheist by default.”

I would say ‘apathetic’ towards religion by default. Without a testable hypothesis religion and God are non-issues for science.

Mark—I guess you don’t trust your senses. Science is peer-reviews, which means it every hypothesis is rigorously tested by many scientists. If they get the same results, that is supportive evidence for the hypothesis. Enough supportive evidence and the hypothesis becomes a working theory.
.
Maybe you have a “sense of God”, whereas others do not, and would not know what you mean. That doesn’t make the other five senses that humans share and less reliable in scientific method. You wouldn’t be exchanging your ideas on the internet on your computer if most human senses weren’t reliable.
.
You have the axiom that there is a God, and you experience joy in that axiom, but you don’t practice science. Jennifer experienced a time in her life where she thought she didn’t believe in God, so she knows it’s possible to have that mode of thought. For some reason she seems to fear “atheist thinking” like a 12-stepper who is afraid to go into a bar.
.
It seems inconceivable for you to accept a mode of thought that does not include God. You have to re-define science as a faith, when it’s very foundation is to be skeptical.
.
Why can’t you lighten up?

Psy—
You have a point, but most atheism is apathetic about God. Again, by definition science must exclude god(s) or it would not be science. Gods do not belong in a science class.

Sorry-I write under Julie, because for some reason my name came up banned. It might have been because of my dispute with Mark Shea.
.
It just seems necessary to keep up other conversations on this post. I’m sure “Gloria” did the same, but Mark Shea was offended because I didn’t believe the perpetual virginity of Mary was important.
.
Some bloggers are overly-sensitive.

“It might have been because of my dispute with Mark Shea.”
Of course I have been banned many times by Mark Shea.  He usually deletes my offending posts.  But he actually reads many of the comments on his religious nonsense.  Apparently JF does not.  But someone must have noticed, since I was not “banned”, but I was “blacklisted”.  Mark Shea has moved his nonsense to patheos.com?  I have ignored him over there.  Wow!  He has generated 10 posts just today.  The volume is crazy.  The posts have very few comments except for one about Romney and abortion.
“Some bloggers are overly-sensitive.”
Especially if they are religious and they get criticized as irrational.  :-)

“To see that the axiom “humans can trust their senses” is taken on faith”
But that’s a lie.  Humans cannot trust their senses a lot of the time.  It was much safer to assume that the movement of the grass really meant that there was a lion out to eat you than it was to assume that the movement of the grass was meaningless.  So your fundamental premise is simply wrong and stupid.

“the tools we are given (eyes, ears, hands, minds, etc) are the only things that can help us to understand our place in reality”
What a stupid thing to say!  I get a lot of help in understanding my place in reality by communicating with or reading the ideas of other humans.  A language and written communication allows our opinions about reality to be passed down over time.  So we do NOT have to rely on just our senses and learn everything over again as a child.  (Lions would surely eat us if parents did not teach us to stay close to the campfire.)

“trust it wholly on faith”
You are simply stupidly misusing the word “faith”.  I think it would be correct to say “we trust our senses to a limited extent based on experience in this real world.”  That’s not “faith”, that’s intelligent use of our brains.

“those who do see their own faith can also rest assured in the knowledge that humans are firmly grounded in faith.”
Crazy gobbledygook???

JF doesn’t have to bother reading replies to her blogs because she has her watchdogs—Mark, Claire, anna lisa, among the most vicious—while insisting they “pray for you.”
.
Banned or blacklisted—what difference does it make? They are still trying to get you to shut-up because you bother them.
.
Catholic indoctrination is serious mental abuse:
http://mirandaceleste.net/2011/09/06/the-serious-consequences-of-childhood-religious-indoctrination/

Jennifer, well put!  CS Lewis was always brilliant on this topic—perhaps at his most insightful in his essay, “Meditation in a Toolshed”.  Check it out if you haven’t already!

“Jennifer, well put!”
Hilarious.  JF never actually reads the comments.
http://lewisrocksmysocks.blogspot.com/2009/01/meditation-on-toolshed.html
“C.S. Lewis uses the juxtaposition of a beam of light against the darkness to strengthen his point that both experience and observation are dependent on each other when seeking knowledge.”
But that has nothing to do with any religion.
“Lewis simply declares that one must be ready to experience the absolute truth by being a part of the event and also to observe the same event by looking at it.  In this way the truth can be determined.”
Hilarious.  As if any one individual could know that he has found the “truth”.
From the actual essay written in 1970:
“We do not know in advance whether the lover or the psychologist is giving the more correct account of love, or whether both accounts are equally correct in different ways, or whether both are equally wrong. We just have to find out. But the period of brow-beating has got to end.”
“period of brow-beating”???  In 1970???  Hilarious.

“C.S. Lewis uses the juxtaposition of a beam of light against the darkness to strengthen his point that both experience and observation are dependent on each other when seeking knowledge.”

And he is quite right to do so, and it is clear to the honest mind that, as such, the scientific method thereby requires faith in its axioms.

For example, see…

Uncertainty principle

In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously. The more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

This faith is similar to religious faith in many ways.

C.S. Lewis is truly a great author.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

“And he is quite right to do so, and it is clear to the honest mind that, as such, the scientific method thereby requires faith in its axioms.”
You use of the word “faith” in this context is simply a silly attempt to try to get religion to be comparable to science.  FAIL.
“This faith is similar to religious faith in many ways.”
What a stupid thing to say!  The uncertainty principle is actually observed.  There is no evidence for anything supernatural.  Science actually WORKS for a proper understanding of reality.  Religion is “wishful thinking” that has nothing useful to say about reality.
“C.S. Lewis is truly a great author.”
Nope.  Simply another in a long line of failed apologists for irrational nonsense.

It seems to me that some atheists often say things like…

“Science actually WORKS”

...when, by doing so, they fail to realize that they have accepted a series of axioms, axioms which cannot be proven through observation but can only be accepted on faith, by definition.

At the foundation of such faith is, for example, the fact that atheists pre-suppose that “humans can trust their senses”.

That is, to say things like “X is observed” pre-supposes that the mechanisms to “observe” are trustworthy, given that humans are bound to their perceptual faculties, etc.

The is no science without faith in axioms. Period. It is an inescapable fact.

Of course, that is not a problem at all, for at the foundation of reality (experienced both spiritually and scientifically) is “Truth”, which is objective, absolute, universal, etc—namely, God.

Wittgenstein is correct when he said…

Logic is transcendental.

HTH.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

“they fail to realize that they have accepted a series of axioms, axioms which cannot be proven through observation but can only be accepted on faith, by definition.”
But, you idiot, it’s an entirely different kind of “faith”.  It’s a JUSTIFIED faith because science actually does lead to a proper understanding of reality.  Religious “faith” in NOT justified.  It’s simply “wishful thinking” and “fooling yourself” and a “delusion”.
“At the foundation of such faith is, for example, the fact that atheists pre-suppose that “humans can trust their senses”.
WRONG!  You are repeating your nonsense for the tenth time!
“pre-supposes that the mechanisms to “observe” are trustworthy”
WRONG!  Observations are not “trustworthy” unless others perform similar observations and communicate that their observations are in agreement.  Religious “observations” are nonsense because most “observers” do NOT agree about their religious opinions.
“There is no science without faith in axioms.”
And that “faith” is JUSTIFIED!  So it’s completely unlike religious “faith” which is NOT justified.
“at the foundation of reality (experienced both spiritually and scientifically) is “Truth”,”
WRONG.  There is no such thing as “Truth”.  There is scientific “provisional agreement” and there is “religious nonsense”.
“which is objective, absolute, universal, etc—namely, God.”
WRONG.  Not objective, not absolute, and there are no “gods”.
“Logic is transcendental.”
Hilariously irrelevant.
“Thanks”
for calling you an idiot for the tenth time?????
“God bless you.”
There are no “gods”, so such a thing as “god bless” is stupid.

Often, atheists say things like…

There is no such thing as “Truth”. 

...and yet they, at one and same time, they admit (rightly so) the classic laws of thought…

law of identity

law of noncontradiction

law of excluded middle

...and, what is more, they rest their entire scientific matrix off such universal, absolute, objective, transcendental truths, in a leap of faith.

What often keeps such folks from admitting the fact of “transced

And, alas, they often devolve into unhappiness and anger, calling people names and stamping their literary feet because the foundation of their “scientific method” has been exposed for what is it—faith, and they are often very uncomfortable with that word “faith”, and yet they live it. It is a mystery, of sorts, that one can believe something and conduct their life based on that belief and, at the same time, not “see” or understand that belief. I suppose it spiritual development is evolution-based, in that it develops over time.

Atheists often seem to push around the buck, saying contradictory things like “of course I do not trust my senses” and “if I ask a lot of other humans and they agree with my sense data then yes I will trust my senses”. To which the theist tries to calmly and gently point out that such thinking simply “moves the focus of the point at hand away from a given human to another”, without actually addressing the point at hand. That is—“well, what is there to prove that THOSE folks can trust their peceptions”, etc.

For example, atheists sometimes say things like “[science] actually does lead to a proper understanding of reality”, when they seem to miss the point that “understanding” is a matter of the mind, the very thing one accepts on faith. I think they just do not like the word “faith”. Perhaps “acceptance of axioms which cannot, by definition, be proven” is better, but they often do not like that much either.

Such is truly a mystery at times.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

“Often, atheists say things like…

There is no such thing as “Truth”.”

They do?  Where?

@Post by Brian Westley on Monday, Nov 5, 2012 2:27 PM (EST):

Dear Brian—

Regarding your questions…

[atheists say things like ‘There is no such thing as Truth’] They do?  Where?

...well, for starters, please check here, (above)...

@Post by Earl Thompson on Monday, Nov 5, 2012 11:04 AM (EST): “There is no such thing as Truth”

But, I do not mean to single-out directly or reply direct to that poster because he (or she?) has already stated that he (or she?) is not interested in having an open and honest dialog, so little can be done to reach such, except (of course) to pray for them.

Another place to look for similar such “denial of the existence of truth” statements is in the circles of a proponents of moral relativism, though I do not mean to suggest that such folks are always atheists.

While we are at it, it should be noted that a primary problem with moral relativism is the fact that it reduces all moral analysis to a matter of personal opinion, which is scary given, for example, the obvious odd position that a moral relativist can only say to Hitler “it is my opinion that you have done something wrong by killing all those humans”. Note the moral relativist cannot say “such killing is wrong”, rather he can only say “it is my opinion that such killing is wrong”, and there is a world of difference between the 2 statements. In short, there is no absolute, objective foundation to the moral relativists claim to correctness. Proof at hand, however, is the fact that the moral relativist never seems to want to be treated like a moral relativist. Furthermore, the good news for the moral relativist is the there is an sea of moral absolutists ready to tell Hitler (and his kind) that “such killing is wrong” and work towards the realization of such moral absoultes.

But, now that you have joined in here, and more to the point at hand, are you saying that you believe that “there is such a thing as truth”?

Just curious (among other things).

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

Well, in his case, he seems to object to your equivocating on “Truth” as if it means the same as “god.”

it should be noted that a primary problem with moral relativism is the fact that it reduces all moral analysis to a matter of personal opinion, which is scary given

But it’s the only thing going.  Gods never show up, only people claiming to speak for them.

“except (of course) to pray for them.”
Hilarious.  Prayers are useless.
“that it reduces all moral analysis to a matter of personal opinion”
New hilarious nonsense???
“such killing is wrong”
Self-defense is no excuse?  The death penalty is wrong?  Who decides that “such killing is wrong”?  Catholics?  Muslims?  Death to the apostate!
“a sea of moral absolutists ... work towards the realization of such moral absolutes.”
Riiight.  Like your silly anti-contraception nonsense?  Like Sharia?
“at the foundation of reality (experienced both spiritually and scientifically) is “Truth”, which is objective, absolute, universal, etc—namely, God.”
No, that’s simply incoherent.  There are a thousand different spiritual truths - which means there are no spiritual truths.  Scientific “truth” is provisional - so it’s silly to label it as “Truth” with a capital T.  Universal “truth” is just silly until you give a better definition of what you mean by that.  And no gods exist, so that does not belong in any statement about “truth”.
You remain a religious idiot.

It seems to me that those who say things like…

“There is no such thing as Truth”

...never seem to address the “Laws Of Thought” or other such matters.

@ Post by Brian Westley on Monday, Nov 5, 2012 6:53 PM (EST):

Regarding statements such as these…

[moral relativism is the fact that it reduces all moral analysis to a matter of personal opinion]... But it’s the only thing going.  Gods never show up

...I would probably say something like the following.

For an omnipresent being, the idea of “showing up” simply does not apply.

As such, the question becomes—Am I seeking God?

A wise person once said something like—God gives us enough light to find him if we seek him but God does not give us so much light that we will find him if we do not seek him.

God is all around us—have you not seen a sunset? Have you no knowledge of logic? Have you not studied math? Have you not experienced such beauty?

For example, beauty is NOT in the eye of the beholder—rather, beauty is in the object itself.

Consider that, please.

It seems to me that wise person is correct.

And so, I am pointing out that if one seeks the truth then one will find it.

And, axioms (such as the Laws Of Thought) are truths.

And, humans take such matters on faith.

Happy hunting!!!

:-)

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

“A wise person once said something like—God gives us enough light to find him if we seek him but God does not give us so much light that we will find him if we do not seek him.”
No, that’s simply stupid.
“God is all around us”
No, that’s simply stupid.
“And so, I am pointing out that if one seeks the truth then one will find it.”
No, that’s simply stupid.

For an omnipresent being, the idea of “showing up” simply does not apply.

As such, the question becomes—Am I seeking God?

No, that’s completely ignoring the fact that gods don’t make laws or debate philosophies of morality.  Gods simply aren’t USEFUL, and they don’t contribute to such discussions.

Here’s an example:
Is polygamy moral?
The answer, if you go by “what god wants,” depends entirely on what god(s) you think exist.  And if you disagree with another person who believes in a different god, there is no way to reconcile your two answers, because neither of you have used any sort of reasoning to get your answer.

@ Post by Earl Thompson on Tuesday, Nov 6, 2012 5:30 PM (EST):

Dear Earl—

I asked you directly the following question…

“do you wish to have an honest, open, serious discussion of these matters or not?”

...and you answered…

“I do not”

...so, unless and until your answer changes to THAT question, anything you may say cannot be trusted, so that is why you are being ignored, for the most part.

If, however, you wish to approach this discussion logically and rationally (without name calling and other such tactics), then perhaps we can continue our exchange—so, please do let us know if and when you want to be honest and serious about this topic.

That said, your latest reply, which amounts to no more than calling the opposing argument “stupid” is really a new low for you, which I must admit, is a bit surprising and remarkable given the depths to which you had already fallen.

Even still, I encourage you to come back, and have a nice discussion.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

.

@ Post by Brian Westley on Tuesday, Nov 6, 2012 7:09 PM (EST):

Dear Brian—

Regarding your statement…

>>> gods don’t make laws or debate philosophies of morality

...you are right in that “gods” (plural) do not make laws. However, God does, in the sense that God is the absolute, objective, unchanging foundation upon which morality is based. If “gods” existed, polytheism,  then the matter of morals would be fuzzy (at best) precisely because there would be no single objective foundation. As such, only where “God exists” (singular) can “morals exist” (absolutely, with a single source). Without the existence of an absolute standard, there are no “morals” but just “opinions”.

Regarding your statement here…

>>> Gods simply aren’t USEFUL, and they don’t contribute to such discussions.

...for God to be “useful” in this way, as you put it, he must first be “found”. If one does not seek a close relationship with God, then how can one expect to be attuned to such “help”?

Regarding your statement here…

Is polygamy moral? The answer, if you go by “what god wants,” depends entirely on what god(s) you think exist. 

...this is a good but a future question, because if one has not yet come to the knowledge of God’s existence then finding a good answer to this question and understanding it is very difficult, perhaps impossible. The short answer is that God has revealed his law to us clearly on this matter. However, that answer will not be easily understood by someone who does not believe in God or in Truth, etc. This is why, truly, the moral-relativist actually has chosen to have no moral compass—he does not have such because he has chosen to have no absolute standard, and as such he cannot adjudicate such matters but only cast a vote of opinion.

One may ask, then—Why do some moral compasses appear “broken” or “faulty”? The answer is, again, a future matter, to be understood properly and completely only after coming to the knowledge of the existence of God. Regardless, we can try to address the matter. The short answer is that humans are a fallen race. Understanding this will be lost, probably, on those who reject the notion of the soul and moral absolutes and etc, so such an answer is not, strictly speaking, meant for them. However, for some completeness, we can simply note that “humans have free will” and “a human with free will means that human can choose evil” and “through successive choices of evil-over-good a human can weaken his moral underpinning” and etc. It is a theological matter and the explication gets involved, but the short story is that “humans have free will” and a human choosing evil-over-good is the source of most (perhaps all) evil in the world today.

Granted, these matters of moral discernment can be tricky, but nnly sometimes. However, to suppose there is no correct answer without fully investigating is foolish. One ought not assume, especially (for example) in matters of life and death. In areas where uncertainty abounds, one ought to be very careful and move to the side of safety, such as using a simple tenant like “life is good” until the matter is clearly resolved.

For example, because some math problems are harder than others, does not automatically mean that the hard math problems have no solution. True, sometimes something that is perceived to be a “math problem” is proven to have “no solution” but that is not any trouble because there it has simply been discovered that X is not a “problem” but a “state of affairs”. Such cases are just a discovery of faulty perception if one had assumed the matter to be a “problem” at first. 

All problems have solutions. If a problem does not have a solution, then it is not a problem but rather a state of affairs. This holds true throughout all human thought. Moral judgement falls under this heading too.

Yes, there may be something that has yet to be classified as either a “problem” or a “state of affairs”. However, for such cases, it is generally better to assume that it is a “problem” and try to solve it or prove it to be a “not a problem but rather a state of affair”, then to alternately simply assume it is a “state of affairs” and do nothing about it at all.

All that being said, let’s also be clear that there are matters that are quite clear morally. The moral relativist has the most trouble defending his or her position in these areas. Because, for example, the direct and willful taking of innocent life is a “standard” by which humans live today, in general. For example, we have laws in the USA against such. We should ask—Why? Well, the answer is that it is because society has chosen to side with the moral-absolutists on this matter, not the moral-relativists.

If moral-relativism were the order of the day, then no one could be found “guilty” of murder except by his or her own judgement. Etc. So, as I mentioned above, the moral-relativist never wants to be treated on such terms and, as such, he or she clearly shows that such a position is empty, merely an attempt at rationalization or simply a matter of not thinking the matter through.

So, in conclusion, I can simply say that God does never “show up” in the way you mention because He loves us so much that has given us “free will” and that “free will” allows us to ignore him, to “tune in another station”, to “go about our merry way”. He cannot both “force himself upon us” and at the same time “allow us to ignore him”. But, conversely, for those who seek God with an honest and open heart, God is easily found and one can develop a living, true, and real relationship with God simply, directly, and easily—it is as simple as saying a prayer. (Prayer, BTW, is simply “talking to God”, among other things.) There is an order here—first we need God, then we get absolute principles, then we get moral order, then we get peace, then we get harmony, then we get advancement, and etc.

G.K. Chesterton rightly said…

“Morality is always dreadfully complicated to a man who has lost all his principles.”

But, I will follow-up by saying—

Morality is often pretty simple to a man who has found at least some of his principles.

HTH.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

TL;DR
You are a well-indoctrinated idiot.

“...you are right in that “gods” (plural) do not make laws. However, God does, in the sense that God is the absolute, objective, unchanging foundation upon which morality is based.”

Nope.  Your “god” has never shown up.  All you have are people who CLAIM what your god wants.

“If “gods” existed, polytheism,  then the matter of morals would be fuzzy (at best) precisely because there would be no single objective foundation.”

Why do you assume that?  What if, for example, all the gods agreed on morals?  You’re just making up stuff.

“Is polygamy moral? The answer, if you go by “what god wants,” depends entirely on what god(s) you think exist.

...this is a good but a future question, because if one has not yet come to the knowledge of God’s existence then finding a good answer to this question and understanding it is very difficult, perhaps impossible. The short answer is that God has revealed his law to us clearly on this matter.”

No, not to US.  You, again, are CLAIMING to know what your god wants.  That is definitely NOT clear to ME.

But you can’t even understand that.

@Post by Brian Westley on Wednesday, Nov 7, 2012 8:30 PM (EST):

Regarding this…

Your “god” has never shown up

...that is not true. Jesus walked the earth. If you do not recognize that, then there are other ways to address the matter. For example, that a person is not perceived by one human does not mean that person has not ever “shown up” in the sense of time and space.

It is a matter of using the right tool for the job. For instance, God will not “show up” under a microscope, in the sense that scientists want to “measure God” with a microscope. Rather, a different tool is needed and, thankfully, we all have one—that “tool” is the soul. So, some of the most important questions for humans to address are “Does God exist?” and “Does the soul exist?”. Given that, it looks like the present inquiry is on the right track.

Regarding this…

>>> All you have are people who CLAIM what your god wants

...no, that is not all I have. I have the knowledge that it is possible to know God through the natural light of reason. Such a path of knowledge is precisely what many humans are following. Yes, it is difficult at times, but it is well worth it. However, please note that the process is simple—Seek God. If one seeks God, then one will find God. If one finds God, then one can come to know God. If one knows God, then one can come to know about God’s will. Etc.

Regarding this…

>>> What if, for example, all the gods agreed on morals? 

...in that case there would be, again, just a collection of “opinions” and no over-arching, objective, authority to serve as a basis for moral structure. The counter-argument to your suggestion is simple— what if one of those gods decides to change his or her mind? That trump invalidates the polytheistic model. Etc. As such, there can be only one God, only one source for moral authority, only one source for Truth, only one source for Beauty, and so on. But, we should be careful to remember, the complete nature and reality of God cannot fully be know, because we are creatures, so there is nothing limiting in converging to a single source.

Regarding this…

No, [God has NOT revealed his law to us clearly on this matter]

...well, then, if one were in THAT position then I would recommend that one ought to study the matter a bit more. There is a TON of good human writing on the matter. Maybe crack a book? Also, make some time for meditation, that is GREAT stuff, when properly directed toward God of course. Understanding comes through an act of the will and the sweat of the brow, usually. I am sorry for such lack of clarity in humans and I will try to help reduce such lack of clarity, but I am quite imperfect at such. That said, please do feel free to ask direct questions and I will try to answer them.

To someone who does not know what God’s will is, I say— Seek God and Ask God.

If one is having trouble seeking God then to that person I say—Ask God for help with THAT too.

Regarding this…

That is definitely NOT clear to ME. But you can’t even understand that.

...well, I think that I do understand that one may claim the matter is not “clear”, and I am sorry for that situation. However, perhaps such a one has not really stated what, precisely, it is that is not “clear”? If one is seeking clarity on God’s existence or God’s will then, as above, my answer is the same—“Seek God” and “Ask God”, and remember that humans can help guide humans too, and God often works through humans.

And so I ask, exactly what is not “clear”?

Coming to know God is a relationship. It is a two-way interaction. It is not a science project. Here is an analogy. When one wants to get to know a person, one generally does not say “prove your existence to me?”. One generally does not say “let me have some of your DNA so I can see what makes you tick”. No. In such a case, if one seeks from the heart, then one often says something like “hey let’s spend some time together so I can get to know you better” and THAT is a good way to go.

So, in a metaphorical sense, I can say—“Go have a cup of coffee with God”.

HTH.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

“Your “god” has never shown up
...that is not true. Jesus walked the earth.”

So you claim.  Again, I don’t believe your claims.  Deal with it instead of trying to ignore it.

“All you have are people who CLAIM what your god wants
...no, that is not all I have. I have the knowledge that it is possible to know God through the natural light of reason.”

That’s just another unsupported claim.

“What if, for example, all the gods agreed on morals?
...in that case there would be, again, just a collection of “opinions” and no over-arching, objective, authority to serve as a basis for moral structure.”

So if one god killed all the other gods, that god would now be an objective authority?
Well, I disagree.

“No, [God has NOT revealed his law to us clearly on this matter]
...well, then, if one were in THAT position then I would recommend that one ought to study the matter a bit more. There is a TON of good human writing on the matter. Maybe crack a book?”

It doesn’t look like you have done so, or you might have noticed all the other god-believers who disagree with your morals.

“And so I ask, exactly what is not “clear”?”

Just re-read what I was replying to, and you’d see this statement from yourself:
“The short answer is that God has revealed his law to us clearly on this matter.”

Well no, it isn’t clear.  If it was “clear,” people wouldn’t disagree.  They do.

@ Post by Brian Westley on Thursday, Nov 8, 2012 9:37 PM (EST)

Regarding this…

>>> That’s just another unsupported claim.

...I am sorry to hear that you have missed my “support” for my statements. I have pointed to several arguments and facts for support; but, I am happy to restate here—For example:

- The Modal Ontological Proof For The Existence Of God (pure logic),
- The Argument From Beauty For The Existence Of God (beauty is not in the eye of the beholder but rather beauty is in the thing itself),
- The Argument From Morals For The Existence Of God (without a singular objective authority, morals do not exist but rather only opinions),
- Science is based on faith in axioms (humans can trust their senses,
- The Laws Of Thought are accepted on faith (thought is not possible without them),
- The Uncertainty Principle (faith underlies our interactions with matter), -
The Argument From Design (design implies a designer, the human brain can be trusted),
- Etc, etc, etc.

To simply say “that is unsupported” is hardly a refutation of these matters. Though it sounds a bit silly, I think the claim of “unsupported” is itself unsupported.

Regarding this…

>>> Well no, it isn’t clear.  If it was “clear,” people wouldn’t disagree.  They do.

...actually, in general, people disagree about moral matters not because God’s moral order is not explicit (it is, as we will see later). Rather people generally disagree on moral matters because they (humans) want to construct their own moral order, rather than accept God’s moral order. It is one thing to claim such-and-such is “God’s will” but it is another to actually be the case.

People, for the most part, disagree due to “pride” and “greed” and “anger” and “envy” and the like. Also, it is because humans are a “fallen race”, which is a theological way of saying “humans have injured their faculty of moral reasoning through a series of bad choices, all of which have as their root pride”.

That people disagree upon what is the objective moral law does not, for a minute, mean that there is no objective moral law. For example, two humans may disagree as to whether or not the statement “751 is a prime number” but that disagreement does not change the fact that “751 is a prime number”—it is prime regardless of the observer’s opinion. Similarly, lack of understanding of the complete moral order with precision does not mean that things are not clear.

It is often the case that the “students” are still learning basic concepts (God exists, life is from God, Life is sacred, etc) and they cannot comprehend the rest of the moral law properly without first having a foundation. One cannot read a book unless one can read a word.

For example, many atheists seem to have trouble understanding the moral order. They have trouble being clear about what is good and evil, what is right and what is wrong. Well, that is no surprise to the theist—it is because the atheist has not yet come to the knowledge of God (which, incidentally, is often largely through his or her willful rejection of God). As such, as I am noting here and recently, without God there is no basis for an objective moral standard. As such, the moral order will be a mystery to such an atheist.

So the atheist has to “get God” before he or she can “get morals”. He or she needs to stick (mainly) to that one point, the starting point—God exists. Without coming to know and accept God’s existence, the atheist must choose moral-relativism, whether or not he or she admits it as such. And, in doing so, such an atheist has no “morals” but rather just “opinions”. But, the good news is that the atheist does have a soul, whether or not he or she admits it. That soul is, intrinsically, tuned to the moral order. (More on this later.) This is quite manifest in the common example whereby an atheist has a leaning toward self-preservation. This is one way in which the atheist shows that he or she knows that “life is good”. One simply need to ask the atheist “why?” at this point and the rest leads to God. Etc.

Now, one may retort something like “well the objective moral order is sill obviously not clear to a lot of humans because many are running around killing each other in the name of God so they all cannot be right if there is an absolute moral standard”. Well, that’s just the point. When facing this condition one must decide—either “both sides are right” (which means there is no right) or there exists an objective and absolute moral authority. But, both sides claim to be “right”. Exactly, they thereby both show that they both understand there is an absolute moral authority, so that matter is settled—the argument is then about what that moral order IS. But what it IS in then “not clear” right?

Well, actually, clarity of truth and the discovery of truth are 2 different things. It is clear (undeniably true) that “751 is prime” but that to those that know what a “natural number” is and those that know what a “divisor” is and those that understand math a bit. But, to a newborn, that just might not be understood. So, a lot of this has to do with “maturity”, in a way.

Well, “common agreement decides the moral order”, one may say. No, that means that, again, there IS no such thing as a moral order, because the standard changes as society changes. Furthermore, humans have demonstrated that it is the call of conscience to NOT follow the society when it has chosen evil, see Nazi objectors, Partisan fighters, abortion protesters, etc.

Now, I suppose there are some who think they may want to live in such a world where there is no moral order. Perhaps some actually suggest they do live in such a world. However, they do not live thinking out, not in a direct manner. They want to be “treated justly”. Well, where does that justice come from mate?

Finally, what about the suicide case? A suicide case rejects the moral foundation right? Well, in general, such is often a matter of “faulty wiring”, emotionally or physically or both, or it is drugs, or abuse, or etc—but the matter seems very seldom (if at all) to be derived organically in the process of normal development in a healthy environment. However, the fact is that for such people the self-preservation part and life-is-good part do seem a bit thwarted (if not absent).

But, note well that the “sense of the good” is not gone wholly and it remains there internalized in the suicide case. The suicide feels he or she cannot stand living if it means that he or she is not experiencing the “good” that they know exists in life. This is a complex matter, of course, but the important point here, as it is related to the discussion at hand, is that the moral order is “clear” to even to a low-level case such as that of a suicide. Etc.

HTH.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

“That’s just another unsupported claim.
...I am sorry to hear that you have missed my “support” for my statements.”

No, I didn’t miss them.  I dismissed them.

“To simply say “that is unsupported” is hardly a refutation of these matters.”

They’re all old arguments that have been refuted innumerable times.  Suffice to say I don’t find any of them convincing.

“Well no, it isn’t clear.  If it was “clear,” people wouldn’t disagree.  They do.

...actually, in general, people disagree about moral matters not because God’s moral order is not explicit (it is, as we will see later). Rather people generally disagree on moral matters because they (humans) want to construct their own moral order.”

No, now you’re just assuming your conclusion.  Your objection could just as easily be used against your position by someone with a different religion whose god has different moral rules.

@ Post by Brian Westley on Friday, Nov 9, 2012 1:50 PM (EDT):

Dear Brian—

Regarding this…

>>> They’re all old arguments that have been refuted innumerable times

...that is not true because some of the arguments are the basis for inquiry itself (for example, The Laws Of Thought and Humans can trust their senses) so no refutation of the fact that such matters are axiomatic (taken of faith) is possible. Without the Laws Of Thought, refutation is not possible, at least in terms that are demonstrable to humans via language. The Identity Principle, for instance, is required in order to refute anything intelligibly, so it holds for all “sharable ideas”. So, you may claim otherwise, but it is clear that humans accept axioms on “faith” as a matter of fact, in principle and practice, as evidenced by their communication, etc.

I often hear such things coming from atheists. Odd things like “there is no truth” and so forth. It is very odd. It is an attempt at the rejection of thought itself. What is funny is that such utterances are communicated as if they are intended to be intelligible, when if fact, if the speakers rejection of the Laws Of Thought was actual (real) then such statements would actually have no meaning at all. It is uncanny that such atheists cannot see this point. They argue against the Laws Of Thought by using the Laws Of Thought. There is nothing more circular and self-contradictory. Nothing.

Regarding this…

No, now you’re just assuming your conclusion.  Your objection could just as easily be used against your position by someone with a different religion whose god has different moral rules.

...in such a case we would still have the state of affairs such that “the moral order is derived from absolute authority, God” so that part still holds and the source of the moral order is “clear”. Also, to say “whose god has different moral rules” does not fit against my argument because I argue from a mono-theistic point of view, which would simply respond to your point that “one of the 2 is not following God” but rather something else, usually of human origin.

HTH.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

“They’re all old arguments that have been refuted innumerable times

...that is not true because some of the arguments are the basis for inquiry itself (for example, The Laws Of Thought and Humans can trust their senses) so no refutation of the fact that such matters are axiomatic (taken of faith) is possible.”

Well, if you’re going to “argue” that your statements are axiomatic, there’s no point in trying to argue.

@ Post by Brian Westley on Friday, Nov 9, 2012 4:04 PM (EDT):

Regarding this…

Well, if you’re going to “argue” that your statements are axiomatic, there’s no point in trying to argue

...no, I am not arguing that my statements are axiomatic—rather I am arguing that The Laws Of Thought are axiomatic and, yes by extension, communication itself is inextricably bound up in The Laws Of Thought.

I would make a statement like yours but even stronger, as follows.

If one is going to argue that The Laws Of Thought are not axiomatic, there’s no point in trying to argue because arguing under such conditions is impossible using human language, written or spoken.

More simply put—Without The Laws Of Thought, language is meaningless.

So maybe we agree a bit on that general idea, which would be a good thing.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

“The Laws Of Thought are axiomatic and, yes by extension, communication itself is inextricably bound up in The Laws Of Thought.”

But you further tried to equivocate on that in trying to tie it to an argument on a god’s existence.  If you’re going to do that, why not just start with an axiom like “I’m right”?  It makes your methods more obvious.

@ Post by Brian Westley on Friday, Nov 9, 2012 9:04 PM (EDT):

Dear Brian—

Regarding this…

>>> But you further tried to equivocate on that [the axioms in The Laws Of Thought] in trying to tie it to an argument on a god’s existence

...well, let’s take it one step at a time, here, that’s all. One could still end up far from the God of Christian understanding along those lines. Indeed, one could then abstract to the “idea of the good” and leave it there.

So, no, I do not mean to tie it directly to an argument for God’s existence. So I mean no equivocation and do not intend to be coy on the matter. That’s why the argument is intentionally abstract and it is not meant to hide any sort of ulterior motive. Much to the contrary, I am thereby freely and openly admitting that such lines of reasoning do not, in and of themselves, lead to a complete proof the existence of the God of Catholic understanding.

The point, at this point, is much more simple than that, namely—everyone has faith.

The atheist included.

That’s all.

(At least for now.)

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

The more I read of Earl Thompson’s “Socratic” posts, the more I am convinced that I already know him.  Years ago he took a 100 level philosophy course, most likely at community college.  It was taught by a liberal secularist profressor, whom Early was quite impressed by, because he or she no doubt sounded smart to freshmen, and often embarassed 18 year olds in classroom “debates.” Intrigued by this, Earl attended the class sporadically, although he skipped the assigned readings (said readings being the built-in mechanism for any freshman to form their own opinions). He sat in the back and smirked while any student who dissented was berated by this professor. While rarely speaking himself, Earl earned a C- because his sporadic attendance allowed him to parrot enough of this profressor’s ideas to pass the final. Earl intepreted this passing grade as validation from his hero prof., and he now considers himself ordained to spread his wisdom throughout the world wide web.