Saturday, July 28, 2012
Monday, July 23, 2012
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Friday, July 20, 2012
Rationalism for that more abundant life!
We rationalists plead for using reason to obtain that more abundant life. Now, reason is no goddess. It is only a function.
John Haught finds faith as enveloping the whole being, and Alister Earl McGrath finds that first one gets evidence for belief, then use faith for certainty. Thomas Aquinas separates matters into matters of reason and faith. He finds that reason can vouchsafe God whereas it takes faith for the Incarnation, the Trinity and so forth. All counter what we rationalists find true: we note that the conservation - baccground- of knowledge goes forth with tentativeness: evolution is true, but as we learn new things about its components, we realize that their strengths can vary from what we thought and so forth. That faith rushes to judgment! Whether enveloping, making for certitude or restricted, people are encouraged to ignore evidence that would trump their belief in God.
Reason is acquired knowledge whilst faith begs the question of being knowledge as Sydney Hook new. Faith is the we just say so of gullibility! To urge have faith means either to have trust or else stifle doubts, yet both imply rusty judgment.
Reason removes mountains of ignorance whilst faith rests on the argument from ignorance. Reason delivers the goods whereas faith is a parasite. When people say that their faith in Him gets them through life, they overlook that their inner resources did that, perhaps with others aiding them, but not He. Theists rationalize about prayer: answered prayer is mere post hoc- coindicence whereas theists rationalize about unanswered prayer. Natural causes account for miracles, so faith in miracles is parasitic on reality.
Faith in God as the Ultimate Answer is parasitic on the real causes - the natural ones, yet denying their full powers! Faith reifies the argument from ignorance for Him! Edward Feser rightly pleads that Leibniz's query touches the something, not the nothing in his why is there something rather than nothing? That again reifies that argument. Ti's an argument from personal credulity to query that, because we now know that the eternal fields as the law of conservation describes matters are that. Ti's obscurantism to demand a supernatural explanation for the eternal!
Feser notes that Aquinas assumes from faith in the Tanakh that the Metaverse had a real origination, but left that aside, assuming an eternal Metaverse that nevertheless needs an explanation. But that is just an argument from ignorance to instantiate Him!
God serves as no kind of real explanation, just as a mystery,surrounded by still others ostensibly as the Primary Efficient Cause - Explanation and as the Ultimate Explanation- the Sufficient Reason.
God would be therefore a parasite on natural causes and be a secondary cause under them to act in the Metaverse! Lamberth's argument from inherency claims that chaos, order and regularity inhere in Nature. The Flew-Lamberth the presumption of naturalism claims that natural causes are the primary, efficient cause, the necessary being and the sufficient reason. That begs no questions but instead demands evidence. Both then find the supernatural a bombastic means of distorting reality! Ostensibly, God is that Explanation but in reality is no more than a mystery, surrounded by still more mysteries and therefore, can be no sort of an explanation!
He counts then no more than demons and gremlins and can act no more than can perpetual motion machines! He ends up as that circle that theologians never will square!
God works as neither the scientific god of the gaps, neither as the one of the explanatory gap!
Viewers, what do you think?
John Haught finds faith as enveloping the whole being, and Alister Earl McGrath finds that first one gets evidence for belief, then use faith for certainty. Thomas Aquinas separates matters into matters of reason and faith. He finds that reason can vouchsafe God whereas it takes faith for the Incarnation, the Trinity and so forth. All counter what we rationalists find true: we note that the conservation - baccground- of knowledge goes forth with tentativeness: evolution is true, but as we learn new things about its components, we realize that their strengths can vary from what we thought and so forth. That faith rushes to judgment! Whether enveloping, making for certitude or restricted, people are encouraged to ignore evidence that would trump their belief in God.
Reason is acquired knowledge whilst faith begs the question of being knowledge as Sydney Hook new. Faith is the we just say so of gullibility! To urge have faith means either to have trust or else stifle doubts, yet both imply rusty judgment.
Reason removes mountains of ignorance whilst faith rests on the argument from ignorance. Reason delivers the goods whereas faith is a parasite. When people say that their faith in Him gets them through life, they overlook that their inner resources did that, perhaps with others aiding them, but not He. Theists rationalize about prayer: answered prayer is mere post hoc- coindicence whereas theists rationalize about unanswered prayer. Natural causes account for miracles, so faith in miracles is parasitic on reality.
Faith in God as the Ultimate Answer is parasitic on the real causes - the natural ones, yet denying their full powers! Faith reifies the argument from ignorance for Him! Edward Feser rightly pleads that Leibniz's query touches the something, not the nothing in his why is there something rather than nothing? That again reifies that argument. Ti's an argument from personal credulity to query that, because we now know that the eternal fields as the law of conservation describes matters are that. Ti's obscurantism to demand a supernatural explanation for the eternal!
Feser notes that Aquinas assumes from faith in the Tanakh that the Metaverse had a real origination, but left that aside, assuming an eternal Metaverse that nevertheless needs an explanation. But that is just an argument from ignorance to instantiate Him!
God serves as no kind of real explanation, just as a mystery,surrounded by still others ostensibly as the Primary Efficient Cause - Explanation and as the Ultimate Explanation- the Sufficient Reason.
God would be therefore a parasite on natural causes and be a secondary cause under them to act in the Metaverse! Lamberth's argument from inherency claims that chaos, order and regularity inhere in Nature. The Flew-Lamberth the presumption of naturalism claims that natural causes are the primary, efficient cause, the necessary being and the sufficient reason. That begs no questions but instead demands evidence. Both then find the supernatural a bombastic means of distorting reality! Ostensibly, God is that Explanation but in reality is no more than a mystery, surrounded by still more mysteries and therefore, can be no sort of an explanation!
He counts then no more than demons and gremlins and can act no more than can perpetual motion machines! He ends up as that circle that theologians never will square!
God works as neither the scientific god of the gaps, neither as the one of the explanatory gap!
Viewers, what do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)