In Reply to: Re: Berg & Manson posted by Stats Nerd on January 19, 2006 at 14:53:29:
SN:
Thanks! Got a reference for that? I read TF webpages sometime, but am a little wary of phishing software on them, and avoid going there as a result. I was pretty sure I read it ON an exer board. Hmmm. I’m sure I’ve seen it several times on MovingOn, but thought it was also mentioned on ExFam. Anybody else know?
First, congratulations on getting out of the TF cult—shall I assume you are an exmember? If so, I am happy for you that you, first, got out by any means and, secondarily, are OUT, regardless of what you now may or may not profess to believe, at this time.
Your second paragraph strikes me as very odd. Did I ask you the question you seem to be trying to answer as a declarative statement about all reality?
Could you explain your reason for your statement? I have some questions, since it feels like you are either:
•Attacking my beliefs as inferior to your own (you’re “rational”,I, inferentially could not possibly be), and unworthy of a polite approach on your part in broaching the subject (I’m a fool , and you do not “suffer fools gladly”), or
•You have something to say, and have created a platform here to say it (not directly to ME, but more as a putdown of me and others like me) in front of others, or
•You actually ARE asking me what I believe, and your intentions are respectful, honest and polite, here on the Journeys Board (NOT GeneXers or MovingOn).
Hmmm—I’ll try to cover all three possibilities, you “Stats Nerd”, you! I’m one, too!
Perry—d’atchoo?
So—what makes you a "rational" empiricist? What KIND of "rational" empiricist? How do you define rational—since I DI D NOT USE THAT TERM—I said rationalist--there’s a world of difference.
How do you define empiricist/empiricism? That’s a little tricky, dependent upon whom one talks to; I’ve observed—definitions are variable.
I’ve observed that most self-professing atheists don’t like to be pinned down on definition of these terms in particular. Are you currently atheistic? If not, what is the overarching explanatory belief paradigm you currently embrace, and why?
If so, how do you justify atheism?
If a pure ATHEISTIC R.E. were/is possible, within the thinking of that hypothetical individual there could only exist the will to power and its imagined environment limited to those anti-supernatural preconceptions which could only include the survival of the fittest, which could not possibly include a true sense of “good versus evil”, except as social moré constructs, which can and do easily change with the times.
Or, you’re unfairly substituting your own meanings for the words I already used in a completely different sense—that would be a “red herring” argument on your part (“non sequitur” for those requiring Latin).
In other words, within that imagination, whatever COULD come to power SHOULD be in power; bar none. Within the imagination of a universe only able to contain that which could be produced merely by “time plus chance”, only pure determinism within a paradigm of anti-supernaturalism, of an uninterruptible chain of cause-and-effect could even exist. Nice construct—how would it be true, and why?
That’s not the universe we exist in, since time and chance have no creative power, and ANY empiricism MUST be derived ONLY from the observable; n’est pas?
Is there any other kind of rationalist empiricist? I’m sorry—I just cannot “give" you your term “rational” versus “reationalIST”—advantage NOT yours. It could not be a discussion if I did.
Maybe THEY (non-atheistic RATIONALIST EMPIRICISTS) could legitimately come up with a worthy definition of “spiritual”, unprejudiced against Biblical Christians and other theists and/or deists; a priori. How; please?
Have you, if you are not a hard-core atheist? And, can you show legitimately that atheism is not merely a “chronologically conceited” anti-theistic belief system or “religion” itself?
You are aware that atheism has been supplanted as the “acceptable version of reality” by post-modernism among the “inteligencia” in universities; worldwide?
Atheism is now seen as passé, Mr. S. Nerd. The same goes for its "exclusive" claim to all "rational" knowledge; obviously.
Post-modernist beliefs at least acknowledge the experientially available reality of the “spiritual“ experiences of most religions, except for the patently ridiculous ones (e.g.: “The Church of the Sub-Normal”, and other jab-at-Christianity-type parodies).
So, what exactly do you mean by RECOGNIZING “things of a spiritual nature”’ please?
Are you claiming to be able to judge whether such realities exist, or are you merely speaking from the imagined superiority of the atheistic a priori presumptions?
Please justify logically your current chosen position. Thanks. It would help me if you would name it.
Also, why have you bought into, and what are your references for, the idea that Christianity arose FROM Aritotelian thought?
I beg to differ, and challenge you to produce more than politically correct opinion in that regard; please.
Your inability to deal with historic extant manuscript evidence there, if you are aware of the literature on both sides, as well as the arguments, on both sides, would NOT, IMO, prove you to be very empirical at all.
And I DO know my sources--can you say the same?
Empiricicsm requires you let documents speak for themselves, without reading your belief system into them—that would be historical dishonesty and arrogant hubris of the very worst sort; Chum.
CAN you cite irrefutable and philosophically and historically dependable and accurate sources, or are you just being pseudo-intellectual?
So—I get it—you say “I just don't subscribe to Aristotelian metaphysics--i.e., the conceptual model of a supernatural realm--as a way of understanding the consequences of sin and alienation.”
Questions you are begging:
•What metaphysics DO you subscribe to? If you don’t believe in metaphysics,
•What are the believable parameters of ACTUAL physics, and how do you justify your current point of view? If you cannot define them, how do you determine what can or cannot exist—“meta” means “above”—what is real, and what is “above what is real, and is therefore NOT real, and how do you justify claiming to know EMPIRICALLY?
•After you describe to me how it is that you CAN “recongize things of a spiritual nature”, HOW do you do so? Do you have ANOTHER model of metaphysics differing FROM the Aristotelian” If so, what is it, what are its historic origins, and what demonstrates its validity, if it has any; please?
•How are you redefining “sin”, since it is historically ONLY a Abrahamic covenant/”People of the Book”-type of concept? How could something other than a philosophically dishonest re-framing of the idea even exist; COMPARED TO THE HISTORIC CONCEPT AND ITS HISTORICAL MEANING? Do you frequently pull these kinds of stunts in your communications? If so, why; please?
•Same question for alienation, except I would ask you to justify psychology/psychotherapy as a HARD science BEFORE attempting that, Mr, Empiricist—can you do that in an honest manner philosophically, or are you merely going to redefine terms, and assume intellectual superiority over me and my questions simply because I am a Bible-believing Christian?
Can you even do that without an ad hominem attack on me, WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO DISPROVE what you assume to be my beliefs, or my intellectual acuity compared to what you assume about your own?
•What in the world do you think Plato and Aristotle were describing in the first place?
I’ve actually read “The Republic”—have you? What is the scope of your knowledge of either the Greek Sophists, the pre-Sophists, or both?
Respectfully—but COME ON—shouldn’t that be a TWO-way street?
OT2 (OldtimerToo)