Atheisms and the supernatural

[PureX]

My atheism at age ten originated with the foolish depictions of Adam and Eve and Noah and the Ark. However, as I got older and more knowledgeable, I came to realize the foolishness of the entire spectrum of gods and religions. It is perfectly clear to rational minds that man made god(s) in his own image and not the other way around.

The "mysterious" (eg origin of everything) falls into the honest category of I/We don't know, yet. Secure, rational people are OK with I don't know.

The ones in our ancient history who "knowingly" said GodDidIt were just giving in to their own fears or following their own agenda.

Nonsense. Knowledge creates the majority of atheists. However, if you have statistics to give evidence to your assertion, I'd sure like to see it.

No offense, dude, but if you were so "secure and rational" you would have understood long ago that those religious depictions you found so foolish and irrational are forms of artifice: myth, metaphor, symbolism, iconography, etc., intended to represent those mysteries that you're apparently happy to just remain ignorant about. The arrogance and superiority are not as warranted, here, as you presume.

 

[Mock Turtle]

No offense, dude, but if you were so "secure and rational" you would have understood long ago that those religious depictions you found so foolish and irrational are forms of artifice: myth, metaphor, symbolism, iconography, etc., intended to represent those mysteries that you're apparently happy to just remain ignorant about. The arrogance and superiority are not as warranted as you presume.

And seen as such at the time? I doubt it.

 

[paarsurrey]

I think most of them reject the religious depictions of "God" as being both foolish and destructive. To the point that they reject any use of that term in relation to their thoughts and feelings about existential origin and purpose, or the many mysteries of life as a human being. Religiosity creates the majority of the atheists we encounter.

Does one mean, Atheism is counter-reaction of religiosity, else it would not have surfaced reasonably? Right, please?
Atheism is neither supported by the Scientific Method nor by the Religious Method. Right, please?

Regards

 

[PureX]

Does one mean, Atheism is counter-reaction of religiosity,...

Yes, in many cases it seems to be.

...else it would not have surfaced reasonably? Right, please?

Not all atheists are reacting to religiosity. Some are atheist by simple disinterest, or by logical summation.

Atheism is neither supported by the Scientific Method nor by the Religious Method. Right, please?

Regards

The concept of "God" is not within the purview of scientific investigation. And religions are methodologies for living according to a specific theological proposition, so of course religion does not support atheism.

 

[Skywalker]

But what you think has nothing to do with why atheists are atheists, or what they think about God, or Jesus. Look at it from their perspective. They are hearing people claim that a human was also God, performed miracles, and even arose from the dead. And if that's not crazy enough, they are being told he's some sort of creator and savior of all that is, and he's coming back sort it all out.

Who in their right mind would believe this stuff stated as fact? And then when they say they don't believe it, they are told they're going to burn in hell for all eternity because "God" hates unbelievers that much. Is it any wonder they reject "God" in any form you choose to present it, after that? I would, too, if I had to swallow that stuff as literal fact. And yet that's how religions insist on presenting it. And that's why religions are the main cause of atheism.

God controls and created everything. He could become a human, preform miracles, and rise from the dead. There is a savior because we all know we do things we arent supposed to do, in human laws crimes have punishments, and God who created everything with a design and purpose and blesses us loves us so much that He doesnt want us to have to be punished for our sins. Thats why Christ came.

People go to hell because they reject Christ, not because they are sinners. I dont believe in religion I believe in a relationship with God.

 

[Skywalker]

Well, here we go again. Another god-believer who thinks everyone believes the way he does. Is it an ego thing?

I've got news for you. You are wrong. I realized that god and the ark were in the same category as the characters in my comic books. That was when I was ten.

Nothing in the many years since then has ever led me to question that decision. Quite the opposite, the more I learned about gods and religions, the more I know that decision was valid.

If you want to believe in make-believe, that is your choice. But don't try to drag the rest of us down to that level.

I dont believe in gods, I believe in one God who created everything and died for His creation because He doesn't want us to pay the price for our sins, and He wants us to be reconciled to Him.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

But what you think has nothing to do with why atheists are atheists, or what they think about God, or Jesus. Look at it from their perspective. They are hearing people claim that a human was also God, performed miracles, and even arose from the dead. And if that's not crazy enough, they are being told he's some sort of creator and savior of all that is, and he's coming back sort it all out.

Who in their right mind would believe this stuff stated as fact? And then when they say they don't believe it, they are told they're going to burn in hell for all eternity because "God" hates unbelievers that much. Is it any wonder they reject "God" in any form you choose to present it, after that? I would, too, if I had to swallow that stuff as literal fact. And yet that's how religions insist on presenting it. And that's why religions are the main cause of atheism.

I like your perspective and insight.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

But what you think has nothing to do with why atheists are atheists, or what they think about God, or Jesus. Look at it from their perspective. They are hearing people claim that a human was also God, performed miracles, and even arose from the dead. And if that's not crazy enough, they are being told he's some sort of creator and savior of all that is, and he's coming back sort it all out.

Who in their right mind would believe this stuff stated as fact? And then when they say they don't believe it, they are told they're going to burn in hell for all eternity because "God" hates unbelievers that much. Is it any wonder they reject "God" in any form you choose to present it, after that? I would, too, if I had to swallow that stuff as literal fact. And yet that's how religions insist on presenting it. And that's why religions are the main cause of atheism.

A question for you? How would you interpret those atheists who had no influence over religious ideas of god and definition of it?

Those who don't hate and reject god because they don't believe it exists?

How would you interpret their views in relation to their disbelief in god's existence?

 

[MikeF]

You are confusing reality with physicality, as most philosophical materialists, do.

Because science can only investigate physicality, while existence includes metaphysicality - cognition.

This isn't just about understanding how the universe works. That's the job of science. This is about understanding WHY IT EXISTS, and WHAT ELSE EXISTS, and what our place is within it all, is.

I think it is time to address your premise represented in the quotes above. You express your premise as a self-evident axiom and it is a critical element of what I am calling your philosophical universe. Your axiom that science can only investigate the “Physical World” and “Philosophy” is what is required to investigate all that which is not the “Physical World”, is false.

What we human beings are about, from the moment we are born, is the acquisition of information about our environment and then analysis of that information for the primary purpose of survival, and the secondary purpose of reproduction. This acquiring and analysis of information creates knowledge.

Therefore: knowledge = data + data analysis

The strength, value, or usefulness of knowledge is dependent on the accuracy of the data and the completeness of the data set used for analysis, as well as the accuracy and quality of the data analysis itself.

For the lone human being, using only the biological hardware she/he was born with, acquisition of knowledge is limited to that individual humans biological senses to gather data and its biological computer (central nervous system) to analyze that data. I am confident that you realize how incredibly limited our biological senses are. Other species have more sensitive senses, as well as senses we do not posses. I am also confident that you realize how limited our biological data processor (central nervous system) is. The central nervous system is affected by a variety of factors, such as: the unique pattern in which the nerves are arranged, the fact that nerve patterns can change and adapt over time depending on how it is used, the preset responses to stimuli (instinctual behaviors), the effect of hormones on brain function and response, the effect of chemical compounds on brain function and response, that behavior of an individual, as directed by the central nervous system, can be affected and changed by socialization, conditioning, and indoctrination, and last, the effects of pathology, injury, and degradation over time through the aging process. In short, human beings are flawed, limited, imperfect observers/analyzers of the external world.

The discipline of Philosophy is simply the academic formalization, dare I say professionalization, of this process of acquiring and using knowledge. As you are well aware, the academic discipline of Philosophy started a long time ago, when human society had a smaller base of knowledge than we have today. The academic discipline of Philosophy continued to grow and develop over time, however, it was always stymied, or constrained by a central problem, the individual human observer/analyzer is imperfect and fallible. One cannot really trust the observations and conclusions of any single observer/analyzer for all the reasons I have mentioned above.

To address this central problem of the imperfect observer/analyzer, the academic discipline of Philosophy developed the scientific method of inquiry. The scientific method of inquiry does not solve this central problem, only mitigates it. The premise behind the methodology of the scientific method is that instead of relying on the observation/analysis of a single flawed individual, you compare the observations/analyses of many individuals. Those pieces of knowledge that hold up over the observations of many individuals over time, would then engender stronger confidence in their validity. The greater the number of observations/analyses that corroborate a piece of knowledge over longer periods of time, the better.
This methodology for acquiring, analyzing, and evaluating knowledge applies to all knowledge pursuits. It is not restricted to any one subcategory of Philosophy since its only purpose is to help solve the problem of the imperfect observer/analyzer. Wherever there is observation and/or analysis by human beings, the scientific method of inquiry is required to increase confidence and reliability in the results or conclusions.

Science, therefore, is simply Philosophy that employs the use of the scientific method of inquiry. You can think of pre-science Philosophy as Philosophy 1.0, and the sciences, or scientific disciplines, as Philosophy 2.0, or the new and improved Philosophy, which replaces and supersedes the old.

 

[MikeF]

Yes, and what is amiss is that we humans all too often misuse and abuse language because we are lazy, habitual, and often quite confused, ourselves, about what we're trying to communicate to others.

Yes, I certainly agree, and am most certainly equally guilty of this from time to time. However, this is not the same as explicitly redefining the meaning of a technical term of art, a standardized academic definition.

… I am simply using philosophical principals ...

I am not inventing new definitions for the words I use. I am simply being as precise and honest about what they imply as I can be, and sadly that sometimes doesn't comport with common usage.

Words do not have meaning in and of themselves. Words are simply a collection of letters, shapes, pictures, forms etc. that act as a label to represent things and ideas. The same label can be used for different things, different labels can be used to represent the same thing. Often the meaning of a label must be derived from the context in which it is used. Creative language has less restriction on the meaning of labels and context becomes very important. In academia however, there is a need for a higher degree of precision. As such, academic disciplines will create strict definitions for words or create new words with strict definitions to avoid confusion. Philosophy, Law, Medicine, Sciences all have words with standardized, discipline specific definitions to aid in the clear and concise communication of ideas within those disciplines. When you invoke the phrase “philosophical principles” or “philosophically speaking”, you are restricting yourself to the standardized academic definition of the words you use. If the standard academic definition of a word does not fit with the idea you are trying to convey, then perhaps you should create a new word or label for the definition of your thought or idea.
There is also the issue of whether a label and its corresponding definition represent that which is real or imaginary (standard definitions apply). One can define the impossible just as easily as the possible.

If someone points out that your definition of a word or label does not comport with the accepted standard academic definition, your response should not be that dictionaries are often wrong. It is instead a red flag that something is amiss with your perspective.

 

[Skywalker]

I think it is time to address your premise represented in the quotes above. You express your premise as a self-evident axiom and it is a critical element of what I am calling your philosophical universe. Your axiom that science can only investigate the “Physical World” and “Philosophy” is what is required to investigate all that which is not the “Physical World”, is false.

What we human beings are about, from the moment we are born, is the acquisition of information about our environment and then analysis of that information for the primary purpose of survival, and the secondary purpose of reproduction. This acquiring and analysis of information creates knowledge.

Therefore: knowledge = data + data analysis

The strength, value, or usefulness of knowledge is dependent on the accuracy of the data and the completeness of the data set used for analysis, as well as the accuracy and quality of the data analysis itself.

For the lone human being, using only the biological hardware she/he was born with, acquisition of knowledge is limited to that individual humans biological senses to gather data and its biological computer (central nervous system) to analyze that data. I am confident that you realize how incredibly limited our biological senses are. Other species have more sensitive senses, as well as senses we do not posses. I am also confident that you realize how limited our biological data processor (central nervous system) is. The central nervous system is affected by a variety of factors, such as: the unique pattern in which the nerves are arranged, the fact that nerve patterns can change and adapt over time depending on how it is used, the preset responses to stimuli (instinctual behaviors), the effect of hormones on brain function and response, the effect of chemical compounds on brain function and response, that behavior of an individual, as directed by the central nervous system, can be affected and changed by socialization, conditioning, and indoctrination, and last, the effects of pathology, injury, and degradation over time through the aging process. In short, human beings are flawed, limited, imperfect observers/analyzers of the external world.

The discipline of Philosophy is simply the academic formalization, dare I say professionalization, of this process of acquiring and using knowledge. As you are well aware, the academic discipline of Philosophy started a long time ago, when human society had a smaller base of knowledge than we have today. The academic discipline of Philosophy continued to grow and develop over time, however, it was always stymied, or constrained by a central problem, the individual human observer/analyzer is imperfect and fallible. One cannot really trust the observations and conclusions of any single observer/analyzer for all the reasons I have mentioned above.

To address this central problem of the imperfect observer/analyzer, the academic discipline of Philosophy developed the scientific method of inquiry. The scientific method of inquiry does not solve this central problem, only mitigates it. The premise behind the methodology of the scientific method is that instead of relying on the observation/analysis of a single flawed individual, you compare the observations/analyses of many individuals. Those pieces of knowledge that hold up over the observations of many individuals over time, would then engender stronger confidence in their validity. The greater the number of observations/analyses that corroborate a piece of knowledge over longer periods of time, the better.
This methodology for acquiring, analyzing, and evaluating knowledge applies to all knowledge pursuits. It is not restricted to any one subcategory of Philosophy since its only purpose is to help solve the problem of the imperfect observer/analyzer. Wherever there is observation and/or analysis by human beings, the scientific method of inquiry is required to increase confidence and reliability in the results or conclusions.

Science, therefore, is simply Philosophy that employs the use of the scientific method of inquiry. You can think of pre-science Philosophy as Philosophy 1.0, and the sciences, or scientific disciplines, as Philosophy 2.0, or the new and improved Philosophy, which replaces and supersedes the old.

Science supports the existence of God. The order and purpose that exists in creation can only be explained by the existence of God. Is creationism scientific? | GotQuestions.org

Is creationism scientific?
Question: "Is creationism scientific?"

Answer: There is currently a lot of debate over the validity of creationism, defined as “the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.” Creation science is often dismissed by the secular community and accused of lacking scientific value. However, creationism is clearly compatible with a scientific approach to any topic. Creationism makes statements about real world events, places, and things. It is not concerned solely with subjective ideas or abstract concepts. There are established scientific facts that are consistent with creationism, and the way in which those facts relate to one another lends itself to a creationist interpretation. Just as other broad scientific ideas are used to lend coherence to a series of facts, so, too, does creationism.

How, then, is creationism—as opposed to “naturalism,” defined as “a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted”—scientific? Admittedly, the answer depends on how you define “scientific.” Too often, “science” and “naturalism” are considered one and the same, leaving creationist views out by definition. Such a definition requires an irrational reverence of naturalism. Science is defined as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” Nothing requires science, in and of itself, to be naturalistic. Naturalism, like creationism, requires a series of presuppositions that are not generated by experiments. They are not extrapolated from data or derived from test results. These philosophical presuppositions are accepted before any data is ever taken. Because both naturalism and creationism are strongly influenced by presuppositions that are neither provable nor testable, and enter into the discussion well before the facts do, it is fair to say that creationism is at least as scientific as naturalism.

Creationism, like naturalism, can be “scientific,” in that it is compatible with the scientific method of discovery. These two concepts are not, however, sciences in and of themselves, because both views include aspects that are not considered “scientific” in the normal sense. Neither creationism nor naturalism is falsifiable; that is, there is no experiment that could conclusively disprove either one. Neither one is predictive; they do not generate or enhance the ability to predict an outcome. Solely on the basis of these two points, we see that there is no logical reason to consider one more scientifically valid than the other.

One of the major reasons naturalists give for rejecting creationism is the concept of miracles. Ironically, naturalists will typically say that miracles, such as special creation, are impossible because they violate the laws of nature, which have been clearly and historically observed. Such a view is ironic on several counts. As a single example, consider abiogenesis, the theory of life springing from non-living matter. Abiogenesis is one of the most thoroughly refuted concepts of science. Yet, a truly naturalistic viewpoint presumes that life on earth—self-replicating, self-sustaining, complex organic life—arose by chance from non-living matter. Such a thing has never been observed in all of human history. The beneficial evolutionary changes needed to progress a creature to a more complex form have also never been observed. So creationism actually holds the edge on evidence for “miraculous” claims in that the Scriptures provide documented accounts of miraculous happenings. To label creationism as unscientific on account of miracles demands a similar label for naturalism.

There are many facts that are used by both sides of the creation vs. naturalism debate. Facts are facts, but there is no such thing as a fact that absolutely requires a single interpretation. The divide between creationism and secular naturalism rests entirely on different interpretations. Regarding the evolution vs. creation debate specifically, Charles Darwin himself made this point. In the introduction to The Origin of Species, he stated, “I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I arrived.” Obviously, Darwin believed evolution over creation, but he was willing to admit that interpretation was key to choosing a belief. One scientist might view a particular fact as supportive of naturalism; another scientist might view that same fact as supporting creationism.

Also, the fact that creationism is the only possible alternative to naturalistic ideas such as evolution makes it a valid topic, especially when this dichotomy has been admitted to by some of the leading minds of science. Many well-known and influential scientists state that the only possible explanations for life are naturalistic evolution or special creation. Not all scientists agree on which is true, but they almost all agree that one or the other must be.

There are many other reasons why creationism is a rational and scientific approach to learning. Among these are the concepts of realistic probability, the flawed evidential support for macro-evolution, the evidence of experience, and so forth. There is no logical basis to accept naturalistic presuppositions outright and flatly reject creationist presuppositions. Firm belief in creation is no barrier to scientific discovery. Simply review the accomplishments of men like Newton, Pasteur, Mendel, Pascal, Kelvin, Linnaeus, and Maxwell. All were clear and comfortable creationists. Creationism is not a “science,” just as naturalism is not a “science.” Creationism is, however, fully compatible with science itself.

 

[Skywalker]

I like your perspective and insight.

The Bible fits together like a puzzle piece. Everyone knows that they do things they arent supposed to do and there is a God. Sin is real. That's why Christ came, to redeem a creation lost in sin. People saw Christ after he ressurected from the dead. It wasnt hallucinations because multiple people saw it and the apostles were persecuted for their faith. Is the resurrection of Jesus Christ true? | GotQuestions.org

Is the resurrection of Jesus Christ true?

Question: "Is the resurrection of Jesus Christ true?"

Answer: Scripture presents conclusive evidence that Jesus Christ was in fact resurrected from the dead. Christ’s resurrection is recorded in Matthew 28:1-20; Mark 16:1-20; Luke 24:1-53; and John 20:1–21:25. The resurrected Christ also appeared in the Book of Acts (Acts 1:1-11). From these passages you can gain several “proofs” of Christ’s resurrection. First is the dramatic change in the disciples. They went from a group of men frightened and in hiding to strong, courageous witnesses sharing the gospel throughout the world. What else could explain this dramatic change other than the risen Christ appearing to them?

Second is the life of the apostle Paul. What changed him from being a persecutor of the church into an apostle for the church? It was when the risen Christ appeared to him on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:1-6). A third convincing proof is the empty tomb. If Christ were not raised, then where is His body? The disciples and others saw the tomb where He was buried. When they returned, His body was not there. Angels declared that He had been raised from the dead as He had promised (Matthew 28:5-7). Fourth, additional evidence of His resurrection is the many people He appeared to (Matthew 28:5, 9, 16-17; Mark 16:9; Luke 24:13-35; John 20:19, 24, 26-29, 21:1-14; Acts 1:6-8; 1 Corinthians 15:5-7).

Another proof of the resurrection of Jesus is the great amount of weight the apostles gave to Jesus’ resurrection. A key passage on Christ’s resurrection is 1 Corinthians 15. In this chapter, the apostle Paul explains why it is crucial to understand and believe in Christ’s resurrection. The resurrection is important for the following reasons: 1) If Christ was not raised from the dead, believers will not be either (1 Corinthians 15:12-15). 2) If Christ was not raised from the dead, His sacrifice for sin was not sufficient (1 Corinthians 15:16-19). Jesus’ resurrection proved that His death was accepted by God as the atonement for our sins. If He had simply died and stayed dead, that would indicate His sacrifice was not sufficient. As a result, believers would not be forgiven for their sins, and they would remain dead after they die (1 Corinthians 15:16-19). There would be no such thing as eternal life (John 3:16). “But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep” (1 Corinthians 15:20 NAS).

Finally, Scripture is clear that all those who believe in Jesus Christ will be raised to eternal life just as He was (1 Corinthians 15:20-23). First Corinthians 15 goes on to describe how Christ’s resurrection proves His victory over sin and provides us the power to live victoriously over sin (1 Corinthians 15:24-34). It describes the glorious nature of the resurrection body we will receive (1 Corinthians 15:35-49). It proclaims that, as a result of Christ’s resurrection, all who believe in Him have ultimate victory over death (1 Corinthians 15:50-58).

What a glorious truth the resurrection of Christ is! “Therefore, my dear brothers, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain” (1 Corinthians 15:58). According to the Bible, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is most definitely true. The Bible records Christ’s resurrection, records that over 500 people witnessed the resurrected Christ, and proceeds to build crucial Christian doctrine on the historical fact of Jesus’ resurrection.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The Bible fits together like a puzzle piece. Everyone knows that they do things they arent supposed to do and there is a God. Sin is real. That's why Christ came, to redeem a creation lost in sin. People saw Christ after he ressurected from the dead. It wasnt hallucinations because multiple people saw it and the apostles were persecuted for their faith. Is the resurrection of Jesus Christ true? | GotQuestions.org

I don't see the connection between my comment and yours.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Science supports the existence of God. The order and purpose that exists in creation can only be explained by the existence of God. Is creationism scientific? | GotQuestions.org

Got questions is so bias to the point of insulting everyone that's not catholic.

Is there a non religious site that points to god without anyone needing to know what god is beforehand?

 

[Skywalker]

I don't see the connection between my comment and yours.

I was addressing the details that you agreed with. The information that PureX said. Quoted from him.

But what you think has nothing to do with why atheists are atheists, or what they think about God, or Jesus. Look at it from their perspective. They are hearing people claim that a human was also God, performed miracles, and even arose from the dead. And if that's not crazy enough, they are being told he's some sort of creator and savior of all that is, and he's coming back sort it all out.

Who in their right mind would believe this stuff stated as fact? And then when they say they don't believe it, they are told they're going to burn in hell for all eternity because "God" hates unbelievers that much. Is it any wonder they reject "God" in any form you choose to present it, after that? I would, too, if I had to swallow that stuff as literal fact. And yet that's how religions insist on presenting it. And that's why religions are the main cause of atheism.

 

[Skywalker]

Got questions is so bias to the point of insulting everyone that's not catholic.

Is there a non religious site that points to god without anyone needing to know what god is beforehand?

Lee Strobel researched historical and scientific evidence before he was a Christian.

 

[Nakosis]

Get to know about G-d, it is not out of one's understanding, please. Right, please?

Regards

I don't believe it is possible to know God. Any God that actually exists is beyond human knowledge.

 

[PureX]

If someone points out that your definition of a word or label does not comport with the accepted standard academic definition, your response should not be that dictionaries are often wrong. It is instead a red flag that something is amiss with your perspective.

Dictionaries are often wrong. Homosexuals, for example, are no more or less "gay" than anyone else. And the fact that a lot of people misuse this term to refer to homosexuals does not make that misuse "right". And neither does recording this misuse in the dictionary. Dictionaries are not a repository of logic, or of righteousness. And neither is language. So when I explain, logically, why I define a term in a certain way, I do not respect the response "but it says otherwise in the dictionary".

 

[PureX]

I think it is time to address your premise represented in the quotes above. You express your premise as a self-evident axiom and it is a critical element of what I am calling your philosophical universe. Your axiom that science can only investigate the “Physical World” and “Philosophy” is what is required to investigate all that which is not the “Physical World”, is false.

Not just philosophy, but art and religion, as well. Each discipline offers a unique set of tools that we can use to explore and investigate metaphysical realm of existence as we experience it. A realm that science cannot explore or investigate beyond the physicality from which it springs. Science, for example, cannot explore or investigate beauty, or justice, or 'God', because these are metaphysical phenomena.

What we human beings are about, from the moment we are born, is the acquisition of information about our environment and then analysis of that information for the primary purpose of survival, and the secondary purpose of reproduction. This acquiring and analysis of information creates knowledge.

Yes, we seek to understand physical functionality so as to use it to our own benefit. But we also seek to understand the metaphysical possibilities being offered to us by way of consciousness, conscious awareness, and cognition. We also seek an understanding of our value, origin, and purpose in life, and within existence. To deny this is to deny a fundamental aspect of humanity, and to reduce us to being just clever animals. An ideal that I find both insulting, and horrific in it's implications for our future.

Therefore: knowledge = data + data analysis

Effective knowledge (data+data analysis) without wisdom is a loaded gun in the hands of a monkey.

The strength, value, or usefulness of knowledge is dependent on the accuracy of the data and the completeness of the data set used for analysis, as well as the accuracy and quality of the data analysis itself.

And ultimately on the wisdom required to know when and why, or why not, to apply it.

For the lone human being, using only the biological hardware she/he was born with, acquisition of knowledge is limited to that individual humans biological senses to gather data and its biological computer (central nervous system) to analyze that data. I am confident that you realize how incredibly limited our biological senses are. Other species have more sensitive senses, as well as senses we do not posses. I am also confident that you realize how limited our biological data processor (central nervous system) is. The central nervous system is affected by a variety of factors, such as: the unique pattern in which the nerves are arranged, the fact that nerve patterns can change and adapt over time depending on how it is used, the preset responses to stimuli (instinctual behaviors), the effect of hormones on brain function and response, the effect of chemical compounds on brain function and response, that behavior of an individual, as directed by the central nervous system, can be affected and changed by socialization, conditioning, and indoctrination, and last, the effects of pathology, injury, and degradation over time through the aging process. In short, human beings are flawed, limited, imperfect observers/analyzers of the external world.

The discipline of Philosophy is simply the academic formalization, dare I say professionalization, of this process of acquiring and using knowledge. As you are well aware, the academic discipline of Philosophy started a long time ago, when human society had a smaller base of knowledge than we have today. The academic discipline of Philosophy continued to grow and develop over time, however, it was always stymied, or constrained by a central problem, the individual human observer/analyzer is imperfect and fallible. One cannot really trust the observations and conclusions of any single observer/analyzer for all the reasons I have mentioned above.

To address this central problem of the imperfect observer/analyzer, the academic discipline of Philosophy developed the scientific method of inquiry. The scientific method of inquiry does not solve this central problem, only mitigates it. The premise behind the methodology of the scientific method is that instead of relying on the observation/analysis of a single flawed individual, you compare the observations/analyses of many individuals. Those pieces of knowledge that hold up over the observations of many individuals over time, would then engender stronger confidence in their validity. The greater the number of observations/analyses that corroborate a piece of knowledge over longer periods of time, the better.
This methodology for acquiring, analyzing, and evaluating knowledge applies to all knowledge pursuits. It is not restricted to any one subcategory of Philosophy since its only purpose is to help solve the problem of the imperfect observer/analyzer. Wherever there is observation and/or analysis by human beings, the scientific method of inquiry is required to increase confidence and reliability in the results or conclusions.

Science, therefore, is simply Philosophy that employs the use of the scientific method of inquiry. You can think of pre-science Philosophy as Philosophy 1.0, and the sciences, or scientific disciplines, as Philosophy 2.0, or the new and improved Philosophy, which replaces and supersedes the old.

What you are proposing, here, is called "scientism". That is the belief that science is the only pathway to truth. And it is based on the false premise that physical functionality equals truth. And it does not. Physical functionality is a part of the truth of existence, and our place within it, but so is metaphysicality. And the scientific method is not able to investigate that realm of existence. As any scientist will gladly and openly attest.

Science cannot investigate the cognitive phenomenon of 'God'. Or the cognitive phenomenon of beauty, or of justice, or of mathematics. It can only study the physical mechanics involved in the cognition of these. But the physical mechanics cannot address the new, existential possibilities that these phenomena make available to us, and therefor cannot address their value to us beyond biological survival. And we humans clearly seek more than just biological survival. We seek the meaning, and value, and purpose of survival. So much so that without some semblance of these, we tend not to survive at all, even when the means are at hand. We are more than just clever animals. And it's why we humans have engaged in the arts, and in religion, since the beginning. It has never been enough to just achieve dominance via our knowledge of physical functionality. We needed the wisdom of value, and origin, and purpose to govern and control that knowledge. And we still do, perhaps now more than ever.

Throwing a box of loaded pistols into a cage full of hyperactive monkeys is not going to end well for the monkeys. And yet this is what industrialized science is doing to humanity. And it's not going to end well for humanity if we don't step up our acquisition of wisdom, to control our increasing physical functionality. And your (and others) 'scientism' is an ideology that moves us in exactly the wrong direction in this regard.

 

[MikeF]

Dictionaries are often wrong. Homosexuals, for example, are no more or less "gay" than anyone else. And the fact that a lot of people misuse this term to refer to homosexuals does not make that misuse "right". And neither does recording this misuse in the dictionary. Dictionaries are not a repository of logic, or of righteousness. And neither is language. So when I explain, logically, why I define a term in a certain way, I do not respect the response "but it says otherwise in the dictionary".

I freely admit that I can be wrong about things. I can form an opinion or hold an idea that is incomplete, inaccurate, or just down-right not true. It is my earnest desire to change or correct my opinions and ideas when in error; the trick of course is to be able to recognize the error when that is, in fact, the case.

I humbly suggest that a dictionary of the English Language is a compendium of words used in English-speaking societies, words used both in the past and present, and that a dictionary attempts to present all the ways in which a particular word is used, including formal and informal use, sometimes including slang. A dictionary is not wrong if it accurately presents the many ways in which a word or label is used in English-speaking societies, as that is the goal and purpose of a general dictionary. I'm not sure anyone is asserting that dictionaries are repository of logic or righteousness. And why would you even use the word "righteousness" in relation to a dictionary or the definition of words or labels? Righteousness is a theological and moral concept. Perhaps its use was an error in logic?

While the general dictionary tries to show all the ways in which words are used, this is not the objective of a technical dictionary. A medical dictionary or a law dictionary provide very specific and precise definitions of words used in their respective academic and professional disciplines. I submit that the disciplines of Philosophy also use very specific definitions for terms related to that field of study. If you are suggesting that the academic definition of Philosophy terms are inaccurate or wrong, I strongly encourage you to think deeply about why you feel that way. If academic Philosophy terms need to be redefined to enable your Philosophical Universe to work, then that conflict needs to be carefully reconciled.

As a side note, if the word "gay" cannot be a label applied to the same thing or idea as the word "homosexual", then you are essentially eliminating Poetry and Creative Literature from the English Language. You are eliminating metaphor, simile, personification, and well, all figures of speech frankly. Think carefully about what you are saying. Think about how language actually works; how it changes and evolves over time. We do not speak in the same manner as William Shakespeare, or more strikingly, the way Geoffrey Chaucer spoke and wrote. Again, if the reality (standard definition applies) of Language does not fit with your Philosophical Universe, it may be time to re-work your Philosophical Universe.