Carneades

Carneades

Carneades
31

CARNEADES

My Blog List

Hndsome bloke

Hndsome bloke
ii

Carneades

Carneades
11,31,61

Welcome to Carneades, your resident skeptic [[skeptic griggsy].

Google naturalist griggsy, rationalist griggsy, skeptic griggsy, sceptique griggsy ,skeptiker griggsy and escpetico griggsy.

Ignostic Morgan

' God is in a worse position than Scare Crow who had a body to wich a mind could enter whilst He has neither.

"God is that married bachelor and thus cannot exist. No wonder He is ineffable! " I.M



" Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning to which neither God nor the future state can further validate!"
Inquiring Lynn

Pages

Sunday, August 1, 2010

Yes!

Chatpilot, my friend, you're with it whilst that theologian Alister Earl McGrath claims that Dawkins use of the word as we two use is idiosyncratic; I'm surprise that he didn't claim a straw man! No, faith is indeed blind and deaf! Doesn't it jerk him around when people say just have faith if one cannot fathom the ways of the Ground of Being or what most people see as Sky Pappy!
 Sure, Aquinas does make the distinction betwixt faith in the Trinity as knowledge in the case of Yahweh. However, that won' t escape our skeptical approach. What do you and others say about this one point?
   My friend Articulett notes that faith begs the question. And I ever state that faith is the we just say so of credulity! And furthermore, as Sydney Hook notes, science is acquired knowledge whilst faith begs the  question thereof. A triple whammy,eh?
 Yea, some supernaturalists do like John Hick and Alvin Plantinga acknowledge that the arguments for Him aren't probative but merely suggestive, others the arguments carry great weight and other who like Soren Kierkegaard claim that those arguments are idolatrous, blaspheming Him.
  I find all faith blaspheming reason.
 Reason removes mountains of ignorance whilst faith rests on the argument from ignorance1 Oh, a fourth whammy,eh?
 Chatpilot, thank you! I invite you to be co-owner of this or one of my other blogs!
 Yes, I was born for retirement!

3 comments:

  1. I have always referred to faith as the ultimate equalizer. Unlike science faith has a different methodology of discovering knowledge. They start with what they have already decided is a fact, then declare it as so without requiring any objective evidence whatsoever.

    Science on the other hand starts with an hypothesis/theory and begin to work out means of proving or disproving those theories. If they are disproven then the scientists go back to the drawing board and formulate more theories until we find one that can be proven satisfactorily.

    Religion and beliefs in gods are entirely subjective and therefore only true to those that are willing to accept them without proofs. And I feel that it is an insult to reason in general. The only way religious beliefs make sense is if you are a superstitious person.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I completely agree with you that faith is blaspheming reason. Anyone who dares use their intellect other than for the abandonment of reason will know that the idea or concept of God is and always has been a longstanding traditional myth.

    I like to say that God only exists in the hearts and minds of those that choose to believer in him. There is nor will there ever be evidence for the existence of God because quite frankly God does not exist.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Chatpilot, here is a task that you just might enjoy as a mind exercise: dissect Andre Feser's America, Religion and the New Atheists where he faults us gnu atheists severely and tries to rehabilitate the Aristotelian- Thomistic synthesis in favor of teleology-planned outcomes whilst the scientific weight of evidence reveals teleonomy- causalism- no planned outcomes. Not only that but teleology begs the question of those planned outcomes. He also rebukes PZ Myers for his courtier's reply. Also you might Google atheist critiques of Andrew Feser to discover what others have to say about his views. Or Google his name.
    I thnk that probably his argument relies on lenghthy sophistry.
    Others might comment on Feser's argumentation. I welcome serious,robust commentary!

    ReplyDelete

b
i
a