Continued from part 2.
J: You haven’t really questioned anything I said, but I’ll reply to some of your post.
You’re right. I haven’t questioned anything you’ve said because you’ve been the one asking the questions which have been the framework for the discussion.
A: Your second sentence is exactly it – the theist argues that he does experience god. That’s why testimony can be such a powerful influence on others.
J: And schizophrenics argue that they experience voices in their heads, or whatever else they may see during hallucinations. Modern science calls that a disease…
… and modern atheists tend to call it the “opiate of the masses”. Key word there is “masses”: have you ever heard of a “mass hallucination”?
This point is especially relevant with the genesis of Christianity in the first century.
A: It’s faith because it contains doubt, however small or large. If the computer engineer has one speck of doubt as to who the provider of the materials is he’s building the computer with, then it’s faith. It might be small, but it’s still faith.
Faith involves at least some degree of rationalism, however small.
J: Where is the rationalism in believing in god? Is there any rational “proof” of god?
Yeah. Read the last sentence of my comment on Oct 8.
J: I think the notion of faith has several different contexts, and the definition can vary throughout. I think sometimes it’s used due to custom only… as in when it’s used instead of “trust”
I feel that the empirical evidence suggesting that a TV will work, leads you to believe it will work again… you have also been told by people that it will work (another way that it is possible, yet not always healthy to gain knowledge) and this contributes to you thinking it will work…
There is also scientific evidence of it working.
Define “scientific evidence” in terms of empiricism and rationalism.
Whether you call it faith or not, it differs from faith in the religious sense.
Not really. Being grounded in “science” doesn’t necessarily guarantee 100% accuracy of results unless it’s a law. But even those have been broken at times.
A: I think this means you’re critical of subjective empiricism. I can agree with that. But if you’re offering science (or moreso “objectivity”) as an only method to the gaining of knowledge, I would have to strongly disagree.
J: Obviously it’s possible to gain knowledge through subjective empiricism – people have done it before…
Yep – people like Satre, Kant, Voltaire, Nietzsche, Hume, etc.
Whether or not the knowledge is correct, and whether or not it is safe to accept subjective knowledge is another question…
Which is where “faith” and morality come in.
Reagrdless, I believe that objective and rational knowledge is more credible
Define “objective and rational knowledge”. I believe a rationale exists, but not “rational knowledge”. I believe objectivism exists, but not “objective knowledge”.
What is your rationale for the existence of the two? If you can’t explain it, give it to me in an example.