Are Atheists "Philosophically Limited"....?

I think they presented a view that transcended narrow religious concepts and encouraged us to think critically. I believe that the natural human condition encourages us to make god(s) in our own image. It is my view, (based on minimal knowledge), that they showed us a way beyond the idea that a deity was something more than a route to power, which goes to show that we still have a lot to learn from them. I think that they did this by teaching that there are great moral truths that are universal.I don't pretend to have a great understanding of their teachings but that is what I would give as their greatest contribution.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

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.

quote:

---

How is that.e is a quote from my post to Straggler which I think is consistent with what I posted to you, and maybe adds context.

---

It's just a repeat of the same thing. If you think that refusing to go with the evidence is good because it opens up more room for speculation then I have to say that you are a lousy philosopher.

quote:

---

OK if you say so, but it seems to me that if it is your firm belief is that there is nothing beyond the physical then you will not accept the possibility of non-physical answers, as non-physical answers can never be physically proven.

---

Of course there is no demand for physical proof here. Just real evidential support for the "non-physical" answers. And someone claiming to have "non-empirical evidence" that they will not describe or explain certainly does not count.

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?

The fact that we exist at all is evidence of something. Why have we come to exist at all. It is that "why" which is the big question and which philosophy and for that matter theology attempt to answer, but not with the scientific method. I agree that random chance is a possible answer but it isn't the only one.

But that again is my point. By your post it seems that the only truth that we can have, in your view, is gained through empirical study. You discount the work of the great philosophers which would seem to make you philosophically limited.

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?

Absolutely, and we have learned so much, but science is limited to that which can be tested and repeated. For example we can say that the Battle of Hastings was fought in 1066, and we can know that on an historical basis, but science has nothing to say about it. We have all sorts of knowledge that isn't scientific. Every one agree that human emotions are real, and even though we can see their reactions on the brain doesn't explain why they exist. Science deals, once it gets past the theory stage, with something closer to absolutes whereas philosophy searches in a much vaguer world.Maybe we are just creatures that exist because of random chance but even that wouldn't explain why we exist at all. From your perspective none at all, but to the philosophers a great deal, which again goes back to the question asked in the OP.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

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.

OK let's assume random chance. This means that we are a chance collection of atoms and molecules, (lucky us), and it then follows that our reasoning is from this same random collection of atoms and molecules. Why then should we have any confidence in the reasoning that has come about from this process? For that matter, why on earth would we ever even care about any of this?If however there is intelligence at the root of what appears to us as random chance then there is reason to have some confidence in our ability to reason.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Well empirical study has produced a vaccine for polio as well as the hydrogen bomb so it isn't a perfect answer. On the other side of the coin though, I think that we have made huge spiritual strides. There are now only a few places in the world that practise genocide whereas it used to be pretty much the norm, unless the defeated people were simply taken into slavery. Public executions for entertainment and to maintain control over societies was common in the more civilised nations. We have evolved away from that and that was not due to science.AbE Well at least we see that one atheist agrees that he is philosophically limited. Does then then apply to other atheists?Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

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.

Probably a bad example but my point was that we know things from historical accounts. These accounts can't normally be attested to through scientific testing. We still believe them to be true in most cases.

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.

You are wrong. Why not look up several definitions of atheism and articles on atheism. Try to avoid the ones by creationists. That would be a Physicalist. If you substitute any particular philosophy for the word "atheist" in the question asked in the O.P., and assume that atheists must limit themselves to it, then of course it will appear to you that atheists must be philosophically limited.Atheism is really just the natural default position towards all god concepts. It describes your position towards them all except the one you happen to believe in. It's easy not believing in Odin, isn't it? You are not really narrowing your philosophical view in any significant way in not believing in him, but you certainly would be narrowing your world view if you did believe that he and his brothers created us.