Friday, February 22, 2013
Sunday, February 17, 2013
No matter how theists define faith, ultimately it fails. Haughty John Haught warns against blind faith, finding that faith envelopes ones whole being, and Alister Earl McGrath finds that first theists find the requisite evidence for God, using faith as certitude. Both work contrary with the scientific, categorical imperative that we need to use tentativeness in our claims to the particlulars. Evolution is forever true but the relationship of its components can change, and we might learn of new evolutionary forces. Those two would have people not being really tentative but holding firm no matter the evidence with that enveloping and that certitude.
Aquinas finds that faith makes the case for such as the Incarnation ,but reason makes the case for God. The Aquinas- Shelley superfluity argument boomerangs on his five ways of reason for God!
Reason removes mountains of ignorance, whilst faith rests on the arguments from personal incredulity and from ignorance. Faith is just the we say so of credulity- certitude. It begs the question of God. As the late, great Sydney Hook notes, science is acquired knowledge, whilst faith begs the question of being knowledge. Theists can aver that why, fait is no tool to acquire knowledge but that is a semantical game.
Faith-healing can harm, whilst science can cure.
Reason contradicts faith. Reason rules. It uses Leucippus' necessity and the no intent of Strato and Thales. It needs no God as the argument from reason is the argument from ignorance in disguise! Read my previous essay about the fallacies involved in the argument from reason- the self-refutation of naturalism.
What is your take? Be a regular source here for information and queries!
Fallibilism ,not faith rules!
" I rest in my Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism." Fr. Griggs
That ignorance rests on no argument from ignorance but instead the desire to know, and naturalism humbles us, yet makes us proud.
"Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning to which neither God nor the future state can further validate." Inquiring Lynn
" God is in a worse state than the Scarecrow, who has a body to which a mind can enter, whilst He has neither. No wonder then that He is ineffable!" Ignostic Morgan
Friday, February 15, 2013
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Saturday, February 9, 2013
Friday, February 8, 2013
That twaddle is part of why I am a gnu atheist! How stupid it would be to require salvation and the Atonement and the Resurrection!
We should do our own expiation.
God would be irrational and immoral to establish Hell. And as no divine right to divine right exists, He'd have no right to judge and punish us anyeay!
Theists blind themselves in maintaining that submission to a divine tyrant is empowerment: no ti's obedience to measly, mean-minded misanthropes who made stuff up from their own imaginations, making false history and- irrational morality.
Wow can we psychologically get their attention that the divine protection racket is not empowerment-salvation but instead slavery to dead fools!