Burden of Proof - Part 2

[Charlemagne_III]

They DO fear the supernatural, as an idea, because it has caused many people to commit many atrocious acts. (9/11, for example, would not have occurred if the attackers did not believe in the supernatural Allah.)

That is not a motive for fearing the supernatural, but for fearing people who use religion as a weapon.

The fear of the supernatural is really the fear of confronting an Ego bigger than your own.

 

[Lucretius]

Richard Feynman was an excellent educator, and he also criticized philosophers who lose touch with the real world: youtube.com/watch?v=X8aWBcPVPMo

Perhaps the best educators are those who stand up for their beliefs, and the worst are those who are frightened to rock the boat.

I’ve noticed that the best philosophers (cough cough Aristotle and Aquinas) always start in and remain rooted in experience.

They tend to take our experiences, especially our most common and normal ones, in as a whole and then reflect on them, using the normal to understand the adnormal, while modern philosophers tend to start with a conceptual filter to shift through experience, and tend to us the adnormal to explain (or reject) the normal.

Christi pax.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I think many are just unconvinced by the evidence for the supernatural. Don’t you think it’s kind of disrespectful to try to psychoanalyze non-believers? I know I don’t like it when they do it to us.

I do not think it’s disrespectful.

If you do not respect psychoanalysis, fine. But you don’t have to disrespect people who respect psychoanalysis and are willing to use it.

 

[Lucretius]

God gave us brains for many reasons: one reason is to distinguish evidence from fiction.

There is no evidence for absolute empiricism; ergo, it is likely an attractive fiction for those who cannot stand OR FEAR the idea of the supernatural.

What do you think of St. Thomas’ axiom that all that is in the intellect was first in the senses?

Christi pax.

 

[Mort_Alz]

I do not think it’s disrespectful.

If you do not respect psychoanalysis, fine. But you don’t have to disrespect people who respect psychoanalysis and are willing to use it.

I wasn’t aware that I was disrespecting anyone.

Ok. Let’s see how you like it, then. All believers are really doing is making up things about the world that help them to cope with the uncomfortable realities of death and suffering. Belief in the afterlife is wishful thinking, plain and simple. That doesn’t sound disrespectful to you?

 

[Mort_Alz]

I do not think it’s disrespectful.

If you do not respect psychoanalysis, fine. But you don’t have to disrespect people who respect psychoanalysis and are willing to use it.

Also, I don’t lack respect for psychoanalysis, I just don’t think it’s appropriate in this kind of dialogue. It’s sort of… ad hominem.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

There’s nothing of God in superstition. Melville’s character confuses superstition with faith. I doubt he’d find many Catholics who would agree with him that faith is opposed to reason, for as Thomas said, truth cannot contradict truth.

I believe Melville would agree with Aquinas that the methodology of faith is at variance with the methodology of reason, though both can arrive at the same truth.

As to Melville’s comment on the ultimate battle between Atheism and Rome, I think he was quite onto something. The rise of atheism is concurrent with the rise of Protestantism and the dissolution of Christianity into hundred of sects. Indeed, atheism in the Middle Ages was so rare as to be negligible.

To the extent that Rome holds the line of Christian unity by itself (with an occasional rumble within here and there), the ultimate battle very likely will be between Atheism and Rome.

Rome will win because there is strength in unity, as Aesop and Paul rightly preached.

Atheism is too fragmented to be a force for unity, though many atheists will partner up when they see some advantage, as Stalin and Mao did for a while, and as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins did.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

What do you think of St. Thomas’ axiom that all that is in the intellect was first in the senses?

Christi pax.

I used to use it in my intro to logic classes.

*“Nihil est in intellectu, quod not prius fuerit in sensu.” *

 

[PRmerger]

They DO fear the supernatural, as an idea, because it has caused many people to commit many atrocious acts.

And this fear is as illogical as it would be to fear land ownership, because owning land “has caused many people to commit many atrocious acts”.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I wasn’t aware that I was disrespecting anyone. ������

Ok. Let’s see how you like it, then. All believers are really doing is making up things about the world that help them to cope with the uncomfortable realities of death and suffering. Belief in the afterlife is wishful thinking, plain and simple. That doesn’t sound disrespectful to you?

No, it doesn’t sound disrespectful. And these points can be easily answered by a good apologist.

A simple and short reply to the above remarks would be something like this.

“You’re point is only valid if there is no God, which you have failed to prove. And all the signs I observe point to an intelligent and powerful Ego behind the universe, whereas all the signs you observe strangely point to no such Thing. So who is guilty of wishful thinking? The Theist or the Atheist?”

Such remarks as these get one to thinking about why we think the way we think. If these are not valid points to consider in an apologetics forum, one can only consider that maybe some people should avoid apologetics altogether?

But it seems to me that since psychology is a legitimate branch of philosophy, and we are in a philosophy forum, we should not carp at exploring psychological motivations on either side.

 

[Mort_Alz]

And this fear is as illogical as it would be to fear land ownership, because owning land “has caused many people to commit many atrocious acts”.

Hey. You see my religion listed as “Catholic.”

 

[Aloysium]

I wasn’t aware that I was disrespecting anyone.

Ok. Let’s see how you like it, then. All believers are really doing is making up things about the world that help them to cope with the uncomfortable realities of death and suffering. Belief in the afterlife is wishful thinking, plain and simple. That doesn’t sound disrespectful to you?

It is a reasonable assertion. The person is telling me what they think of my beliefs to which I can reply. It is also very helpful in the building of self-awareness and growing in faith to be challenged.

My response might address the questions the assertion brings to mind regarding human nature. They would include:
Since sleep is peaceful, why is death a bad thing, if oblivion is the ultimate end of everything?
How does the imagining of a situation cause pain or relief? What is our connection to reality?
Why does suffering really hurt, if it is merely a bunch of chemical reactions? I might wish to change the chemistry of my brain to cope with suffering that comes with even boredom, but why does it truly feel good and bad?
Who is it that can hurt so bad?
And how is it that there exist others who feel pain which I cannot?
How do we communicate?

If people are open and genuine, a lot can be accomplished in our journey to the truth.

 

[Mort_Alz]

No, it doesn’t sound disrespectful.

Fair enough. That’s all you had to say.

 

[PRmerger]

Hey. You see my religion listed as “Catholic.”

I got it.

My response was to those illogical atheists who say: religious people commit atrocities, therefore religion is bad.

If that’s their paradigm, then they need to say: landowners commit atrocities, therefore owning land is bad.

 

[Mort_Alz]

It is a valid assertion. The person is telling me what they think of my beliefs to which I can reply. It is also very helpful in the building of self-awareness and growing in faith to be challenged.

My response might include answers as to the questions it brings to mind about what constitutes human nature, and would include:
Since sleep is peaceful, why is death a bad thing, if oblivion is the ultimate end of everything?
How does the imagining of a situation cause pain or relief? What is our connection to reality?
Why does suffering really hurt, if it is merely a bunch of chemical reactions? I might wish to change the chemistry of my brain to cope with suffering that comes with even boredom, but why does it truly feel good and bad?
Who is it that can hurt so bad?
And how is it that there exist others who feel pain which I cannot?
How do we communicate?

If people are open and genuine, a lot can be accomplished in our journey to the truth.

Which are all red herrings to the original topic.

 

[PRmerger]

I got it.

My response was to those illogical atheists who say: religious people commit atrocities, therefore religion is bad.

If that’s their paradigm, then they need to say: landowners commit atrocities, therefore owning land is bad.

Heck, they even should say: scientific people commit atrocities, therefore science is bad.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Heck, they even should say: scientific people commit atrocities, therefore science is bad.

As in, “Nuclear bombs are wicked, therefore science is bad!”

 

[Mort_Alz]

Heck, they even should say: scientific people commit atrocities, therefore science is bad.

I’m quite certain atheists can demonstrate why this would be no obstacle to an atheistic philosophy being the truth. Although, most just try to deflect and re-define “religion” and “atheism” so that they don’t have to own the great atheistic states of the 20th century who killed an unfathomable amount of innocents. I know that Hitchens tried to do this, at least.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m quite certain atheists can demonstrate why this would be no obstacle to an atheistic philosophy being the truth.

How would they do this, logically?

If religion is bad because religious people commit atrocities, then how can it not be true that science is bad because scientific people commit atrocities.

(And, of course, we can certainly wait for the atheists here to weigh in here).

Perhaps they will acknowledge that the premise is gaga, lala nonsense, and we can then move on.

 

[Mort_Alz]

How would they do this, logically?

If religion is bad because religious people commit atrocities, then how can it not be true that science is bad because scientific people commit atrocities.

(And, of course, we can certainly wait for the atheists here to weigh in here).

Perhaps they will acknowledge that the premise is gaga, lala nonsense, and we can then move on.

Actually, Bradski, one of the most active atheists in this sub forum has, for the most part, refrained from using the bad things done in the name of religion as an argument for the validity of his position.