Are Atheists "Philosophically Limited"....?

I see this whole thread as theists saying an atheist is philosophically limited by excluding non-evidenced speculations and religious wishful thinking in the same way they say an atheist is morally limited by not having faith in the ten commandments. The observation is self-serving to the theist and in actuality carries no weight.The problem with philosophy is that as a discipline it has none. There are no rules. Anything that enters a human head can be built into a philosophical position. And since there are no rules, and thus no venues for determining strength and quality between them, even the most absurd philosophies stand shoulder-to-shoulder to all others.Any practice that can be so structured as to promise absolutely anything and everything to everyone, in fact delivers nothing to anyone. Philosophy is such a practice.A realistic analysis of the various philosophies (meaning a scientific treatment of the quest for knowledge) would eliminate all those that exist on un-evidenced speculations and emotional wishful thinking, those absurdities that are known to plague the human mind in the absence of critical analysis. Throwing out the obvious rubbish would surely make philosophy itself philosophically limited. Not a bad thing at all. It might then have some utility. But today that is pipe dream.Other than for the intellectual entertainment and argumentative joy of it all, philosophy produces nothing of value for our species. Being philosophically limited in actuality has no meaning.

As mathematicians and academics they provided the first science in its nascent form.What did we get from them philosophically?Divine fatalism, Platonism, knowledge as recollection, divine inspiration. They helped set the un-critical, non-empirical foundation of philosophy that remains useless to us all to this day.What do you say they gave us of any philosophical value?

I can appreciate this view and such is their legacy in most eyes.I disagree.They were teachers of woo. Their views held sway and underminded the advance of emperical study, and all its attendant benefits in techology, cosmology, physics, biology, etc., for more than 2 millenia. Humanity's growth in knowledge (the real kind that lenghens life spans, cures disease, flys us to the planets) was stunted by their philosophy in the same way the christian church (steeped in this philosophy) retarded human advancement during the dark ages.They may have been great intellects in their age, but their lasting detrimental effects on human thought have not been overcome by man to this day, though we make slow progress against them.Imagine where we as a species would be today if Socrates had used his critical thinking skills to evaluate evidence instead of positing knowledge as divine revelation. Such a waste.

With appropriate evidence, GDR, science is open to any possibility. If there were evidence of non-physical reasons we would want, we would yearn, we would bleed, to know how. Science follows the evidence. And if there is no evidence to support its existence, and can never be any evidence to support its existence, then it is merely an un-evidenced speculation, a whim that bubbled up in your head, and therefor does not exist except in your mind.Why should anyone even consider an un-evidenced whim in trying to examine reality?

But it is the only one with any evidence to support it physical, non-physical or otherwise and there is a boat load of evidence for it.No one can show anything otherwise. Without some viable reason why should we entertain any other notion?

Guilty as charged.Errant philosophies have hamstrung the human mind, retarded our progress and development as an enlightened species and caused no end of bloodshed.I do indeed firmly believe that knowledge comes from empirical study, not sitting around hoping some god will pop something into your head.We got nowhere the last 3000 years of waiting around for some god or gods to enlighten us. We have made a whole new world in the last 300 years of empirical study.The evidence of human history attests to the efficacy of the latter and the deficiency of the former.

You think the effect on language, government, society, law, philosophy, habit, diet due to the Battle of Hastings, all studied, documented, argued and peer reviewed by archeologists using empirical evidence in the scientific method is saying nothing? You have a limited view of what science can and cannot do.Anything of any evidentiary value is open to scientific analysis. Anything.

GDR, there you hit it. We should NOT have any confidence in our reasoning. Time and again human reasoning has shown itself to be faulty. Our two philosopher friends for example. For all their wisdom and brilliance they got it all wrong.That is why we have made such progress in these past 300 years. We no long rely on just someone's reasoning. We check the facts, duplicate the processes, scrutinize the logic. We have the scientific method. We have discovered the reality-reveling power of empiricism.It's late here. I have to go.I have enjoyed this very much, GDR. You're a pleasure to talk with.

Don't crow too loud over this, GDR. Remember my initial response to the OP: Message 38

quote:

---

Other than for the intellectual entertainment and argumentative joy of it all, philosophy produces nothing of value for our species. Being philosophically limited in actuality has no meaning.

---

So, yes, I am guilty ... of nothing. Nothing wrong in studying to build an H-bomb. The effort led directly to a greater understanding of particle physics, the Stanford Linear Accelerator and FermiLab, and to the full theory of Stellar Nucleogenesis.What the politicians (christians all, btw) chose to do with that knowledge was not a science decision. One could see things this way if one ignores the reaching effects of science on society.I see the situation as a humanist enlightenment borne of the acknowledgement that the human condition is universal. We are all the same species with all the same pains, needs and desires as shown to us by the sciences of Evolution, Medicine, Psychology.

One of these days I am going to learn to read the additional messages in a thread before I respond.I see where others are addressing your points quite well. I'll not pile it up.[Lurk Mode = On]

This is understandable. You are a theist. Your will is driven in this direction. But like Omni said, every time the light has come the mystery has dissolved away. Throughout all our millennia this has always been. We have no cause to expect otherwise from the darkness ahead.There will always be mystery. No matter how bright the light there will always be someplace for some to imagine their deity. The better word for mystery, those burning questions which we have yet to answer, is our ignorance. Theism is dependent on our ignorance to survive. Without some dark ignorance in which the theist can invest their hopeful wondering their fantasies all fall away.Theists must encourage the darkness, must embrace our ignorance. But, for a species on the verge of awakening to the universe this is not a good thing.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

For Raphael: This logic is astoundingly bad. The statement is one of fact, observed in all religions, is the very reason religions developed and is further evidenced by the responses received.Nowhere in there is any axiom of knowing all the answers. Nowhere is there expressed an eschewing of the possibility of not holding all the answers. Some so wished this to be the case they have conjured demons to fight where there are none. I hope this is misspoken or an error of syntax because the "embracing ignorance" phrase was applied to theists. I am not a theist so, no, you are correct, I do not actually do this. I do not embrace the areas of our ignorance. I strive to eliminate them. Correction. A heavy preponderance of evidence leads to this conclusion. It is hardly "presupposed". Theism is fantasy. The archives of this forum are chuck full of theism's denials of observed facts and the expressions of beliefs to which there are no logical steps from reality.Theism. Belief, not just without evidence, but contrary to evidence. Fantasy. Do you even know you have proven my point? If our views on theism agree that it embraces the darkness rather than the light, that it embraces the mystery rather than the knowledge, that to sustain the theism you must point to the gaps in our knowledge, must point to those areas of our ignorance, in order to point to your deity, if we agree on this then why the push back?There is no contention here. As I said in my post above, and as you have so eloquently written in yours, theism is dependent on the darkness of ignorance to sustain itself.For GDR: And yet you point to our ignorance ...

quote:

---

... because science uncovers the process does not mean it has uncovered the agency ...

---

in which to sustain the hope that some deity is there.Gentlemen, I do not have to support the position I stated in my message. The two of you have done so for me.Edited by AZPaul3, : title

Again, GDR, right there is the reliance on our ignorance. Theists need there to be another level of unknown beyond what we have discovered. That over there, where we have not been, that is where this god's work is done.Theists find the black box and slap a label on it "God Inside". But when we open the box and another natural process pops out they have to go deeper into the shadows to slap their label on the next box. They win every time. If it's not there where we look then it is in the next step beyond our knowledge, in the shadows, in our ignorance.If they didn't have this infinite roll of labels they could not maintain the fiction. One could not be a theist. There has to be someplace where this god's work was done. As the light shines deeper into the shadows there will always be that next patch of ignorance ahead.This is not some opinion. It is fact born of observation. This has been going on for millennia and we have all seen the process in action. Theism needs the mystery or it ceases to exist. Theism must find those gaps in our knowledge, must embrace our ignorance, must encourage the darkness, to maintain the fantasy that the mystery still exists.

Tomato, potato. Potato, tomato. Faith in knowledge? Wow. I have knowledge of knowledge. No need for faith.Do I accept that your flavor of god may be hiding in our ignorance? Do I accept that someone else's flavor of god may be hiding in our ignorance? The actual question should be do I give a R. norvegicus sphincter whether anyone's flavor of deity(s) are hiding in the copious dominions of human ignorance.What I accept is that religionists of every theism require the darkness of ignorance to say their god is present in (chose an area of ignorance) because it sure isn't revealed in our knowledge. Science in general, and I specifically, do not care that you need to hide your god somewhere. You do. Religion developed to try to cope with the unanswered questions. Every time a priest said that the proof of their beliefs was over there, someone went and looked and it wasn't there. The more our knowledge grew, true god-of-the-gaps, the priests had to keep pointing elsewhere.These days, with the explosion of knowledge, you have been getting you butts kicked at every turn. We understand your need to find deeper more inaccessible places to hide the evidence of your deity so that you are not constantly having to face just how wrong you and your creeds have been. I can understand your feeling that science is trying to actively "ignore the gaps in our knowledge in order to sustain the hope that some deity is not there."The christian martyr complex, the conspiracy of the great scientific cabal is out to purposely and pointedly frustrate your beliefs. Science is out to snatch away your divine hiding places by ... what? ... learning new things in all aspects of our existence without any regard to your nor anyone else's concept of god. Oh, for shame!I do not care what god you are trying to hide. I do not care where you try to hide it. I do not care about these side tracks.The observation was made, and you and GDR, have unwittingly confirmed, that religion requires the dark shadows of ignorance to sustain its fantasies. I am content.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : fixt ooppses

Since your god is not evidenced anywhere in our knowledge then its evidence must be hidden elsewhere. Since it is not in the light where we can see you have no other option than to point to where we cannot see. You say your god is somewhere inaccessible to present technologically-enhanced human cognition. To your credit you try to dress the area as one where we can never see. So, you can never be shown to be wrong. The god of the ultimate inaccessible gap in knowledge. The place of our forever ignorance.How could anyone entertain such a thing? I know, I know... faith.The point is, GDR, that without that area of ultimate forever ignorance to hide its evidence you would have no deity. The evidence of its existence will have vanished. Your theism requires that area of ignorance to survive."I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing."Breaking news. Faith or not, without evidence you are nothing.