Are Atheists "Philosophically Limited"....?

I have no doubt that there are some that think like that, but IMHO even if they weren't theists they wouldn't be bothered worrying about how things all got started anyway. Personally, and it is my belief that I am in the majority of theists, I am very interested as to just how it was that God created and I the only place that we have to look is science. The Bible says that God created we look to creation itself to see how it was done.

I can only speak for myself, but I think that my views on this are relatively mainstream other than for fundalmentalists of any faith. As a Christian I view science as a second scripture. I love reading what Christian or secular scientists have to say. As I said, I am really interested in seeing how God did it and I don't have fixed views on the answers. I have a hunch you'll find this hard to believe but I contend that the same is true of theology. My favourite theologian is N T Wright as I have pointed out more than a few times. When I read his texts, (the one I'm on now is nearly 700 pages long), he continually references other writers from the earliest writings to today. What he writes today is building on the foundation of work of those who have gone before, and the theologians of the future will build further on what Wright has done. I don't know about creationists, (I dislike that term because in the true sense I'm a creationist that isn't about to suggest that I know how, where or when God did it.) I can say this though. The more I read the more, the more I learn, and as I learn my views change. There are any number of things about my faith that I believed 10 years ago that I don't believe now. In addition there are things I believe now that I had no understanding of 10 years ago.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

As I think I made clear I'm not a creationist in the way it is normally understood on this forum. I'm a creationist in the sense that I believe that all of creation is the work of the God of the Bible. I'm not concerned from a theological perspective how God did it and I'm quite prepared to accept that He created all of present day life utilizing an evolutionary process. I am interested in how it was done as a scientific question.In the end I think that most creationists, (as the term is used around here), would think that I hold too low a view of scripture. In my view it is actually the Christian who tries to read the Bible as a science book or newspaper that holds too low a view of the scriptures, but that is another discussion.To get back to the OP I would have to think that atheists are philosophically limited. Presumably, and correct me if I'm wrong, an atheist would be by definition a materialist. If that is the case then they would have no use for philosophy and would thus be limited in that department.Wouldn't an atheist reject philsophy altogether making the whole question moot?

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This is from wiki:

quote:

---

In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions. In other words, matter is the only substance.

---

I think you're probably right, but it seems to me that if there is nothing else around but matter, then "love of wisdom' depends entirely on how matter interacts with itself and that there is no final wisdom as your wisdom may be very different than my wisdom. Doesn't that make philosophy meaningless?Without hunting for examples I seem to recall atheists on this forum rejecting philosophical evidence claiming that the only evidence that matters is empirical. It seems to me that if one was a materialist that position would make sense.Hopefully this addresses all the answers to my previous post. (Hope no one feels slighted. )

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

From wiki:

quote:

---

The word "philosophy" comes from the Greek (philosophia), which literally means "love of wisdom".

---

I won't try and pretend I'm not out of my depth here, but it seems to me that if we live in an entirely material world then we are all just a collection of atoms and everything is relative and thus philosophy is meaningless. That's a circular argument. It is understood that non-empirical evidence cannot be produced for investigation. You can't have it both ways, but it shows the point I was trying to make. Atheists or materialists don't accept as evidence that which can't be produced through material means, therefore they limit themselves philosophically.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Fine, but then doesn't that rule out the appreciation for anything philosophical? Evidence, whether it be the study of human nature or whatever, is then essentially ruled out, therefore atheists are philosophically limited.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

You said in post 28:

quote:

---

Unless a form of "evidence" can demonstrate that it leads to conclusions that are demonstrably superior to those derived from random chance how can it even qualify as "evidence" at all?

---

I agree that there is no evidence to show that any particular philosophy is "demonstrably superior to random chance, in terms of what you accept as evidence. Let's try the fact that humans have the capacity to exhibit altruism. I see that capacity in our human nature as evidence of something that points beyond ourselves, or if you like, beyond our material world. I do not claim that I can show that my view is demonstrably superior to the materialistic view. It can't be worked out mathematically or put in a test tube.It seems to me then that the atheist in rejecting the possibility that there is something more beyond the material world limits himself philosophically. An agnostic, deist or theist is open to the possibility of something more, or that which can at least be partly discerned philosophically.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

No, and I'm not claiming that. I'm not arguing far any particular theological answer. It's a discussion of whether an atheist is philosophically limited compared to everyone else including agnostics.You liked this quote from Trae. Once again this isn't just about theists but I want to respond to this. As a Theist I also accept an unknown number of possible answers. Yes, I believe God dun it, but I don't pretend to know how He dun it. I am only suggesting that if someone believes that the material world is all there is, they are limiting any answers to things like altruism to material causes. As a theist I can accept that there might be material causes but in the end I do believe that there is an intelligence behind it all. This is dragging things off track but there is always the basic question - why is there something instead of nothing. As far as I'm concerned it is more reasonable to believe that there is an intelligence behind all of this than to accept that everything exists because of random chance. The fact that anything exists is evidence of something and we can all make up our mind as to where that evidence points, but none of us can prove our conclusions.

In trying to understand this I came to this site.HugeDomains.comHere is an excerpt from it:

quote:

---

Materialists have always had the difficult task of explaining how their materialism can account for such psychological phenomena as thoughts, beliefs, desires, intentions, and sensory experiencesor at least for familiar talk of such phenomena. A materialist's options, put roughly, are these: (a) explain how ordinary talk of psychological phenomena ("folk psychology," for short) can, at least for the most part, be reduced to language that does not commit one to any kind of ontological dualism; (b) explain how folk psychology is misguided to such an extent that it will disappear altogether with the advance of science; (c) explain how folk psychology is perfectly compatible with materialism even if the kind of reduction sought by (a) is unavailablein particular, explain either (i) how psychological phenomena actually depend on physical phenomena, owing to nonreductive "supervenience" relations of some sort, or at least (ii) how psychological phenomena are just special relational (for example, causal/functional) features of wholly physically composed systems (see Kim 1992).

---

So, to go back to my point the materialist is always limited to material answers, but for myself as a theist I'm am prepared to accept that there is something beyond the material where we might find answers.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Tell that to Plato and Socrates. Have they added nothing?

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. 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.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

I have been working on the assumption that if someone was an atheist it would also mean that they would also be materialists. I might be wrong. It's happened before. I know this sounds like the "true Scotsman" thing, but are they really atheists? All of these cases have a social or philosophical basis. What would be their explanation for the basis of their belief? I would think that an atheist would be committed to the belief that there is no truth that is external to the physical world. In one sense yes, but on the other hand the moral underpinnings of Christianity and Buddhism are remarkably similar so on that basis I don't reject the teachings of Buddha. The big difference is really all about the person of Jesus Christ. From a philosophical point of view there doesn't have to be a great difference. My understanding is that would be someone who is agnostic. I understand that an atheist believes that there is no god or gods, and for that matter no ultimate truth.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

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.

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.