The De-Christianization of America

[PK1]

Okay then what is your scientific evidence that scientism is true?

---
I will answer that vague Q if you clarify it:
1) What is your Hypothesis?
2) What is your Conceptual definition for "scientism"?
3) What is your Operational definition for "scientism"?

Clarification is necessary in science before discussing evidence, unlike dogma in religion.
.

 

[PK1]

being atheist about other versions,.

Makes no sense.

---
Whether it makes sense depends on the definition. I prefer the definition that atheists use:
"Atheism is not a disbelief in gods; it is a lack of belief in a god or gods."
Theism = belief (in a god).
Atheism = no belief.

Christians have no belief in the Quran or Thor or Zeus.

Religious beliefs reflect anthropomorphic & ethnocentric thought patterns.
.

 

[PK1]

Do you doubt the effects of an atomic bomb? Do you believe the moon landings were hoaxes? Antibiotics are ineffective? DNA profiling & genetic engineering are myths?

---
A few hundred years ago, the above scientific achievements would have been interpreted by ignorant religious folks as "God did it" or "Jesus performed a miracle!"
LOL.
.

 

[Thunderbird]

You ask how I know the scientific data are real? Feser says science cannot justify its "presuppositions"?

You guys gotta be kidding!
Do you doubt the effects of an atomic bomb?

Again an outburst instead of an argument.

How do you know observable data interpreted with objective methods is real? Consider the brain in a vat thought experiment.

How do you know there is an objective world external to the minds of scientists?

If you think that this world is governed by causal regularities and the human intellect can uncover and accurately describe these regularities, why is this so?

How do you know this regularity will continue into the future?

 

[Thunderbird]

Do you doubt the effects of an atomic bomb? Do you believe the moon landings were hoaxes? Antibiotics are ineffective? DNA profiling & genetic engineering are myths?

---
A few hundred years ago, the above scientific achievements would have been interpreted by ignorant religious folks as "God did it" or "Jesus performed a miracle!"
LOL.
.

Non-religious people have been as ignorant as anyone.

Even today: Bill Maher gets the Richard Dawkins Award? That’s like Jenny McCarthy getting an award for public health

 

[Thunderbird]

Whether it makes sense depends on the definition. I prefer the definition that atheists use:
"Atheism is not a disbelief in gods; it is a lack of belief in a god or gods."
Theism = belief (in a god).
Atheism = no belief.

This is an illogical and self-serving definition. According to this definition a theist who employs reason and thinks there is a God would be an atheist, which is of course absurd.

How about:
Atheism = belief there is no God
Theism = no belief there is no God
lol

 

[Thunderbird]

Okay then what is your scientific evidence that scientism is true?

---
I will answer that vague Q if you clarify it:
1) What is your Hypothesis?
2) What is your Conceptual definition for "scientism"?
3) What is your Operational definition for "scientism"?

Clarification is necessary in science before discussing evidence, unlike dogma in religion.
.

Look up the definition (there are many websites about philosophy) and stop running from the question. lol

The Folly of Scientism

Science is great but the philosophies of Scientism & Materialism & Logical Positivism are not.

 

[PK1]

You ask how I know the scientific data are real? Feser says science cannot justify its "presuppositions"?

You guys gotta be kidding!
Do you doubt the effects of an atomic bomb?

Again an outburst instead of an argument.

How do you know observable data interpreted with objective methods is real? Consider the brain in a vat thought experiment.

How do you know there is an objective world external to the minds of scientists?

If you think that this world is governed by causal regularities and the human intellect can uncover and accurately describe these regularities, why is this so?

How do you know this regularity will continue into the future?

---
Are you asking how one "knows" one's consciousness reflects information about the "real world"?
If you want to take the epistemology viewpoint presented in the Matrix story, that's a different discussion.
I am discussing the "reality" that multiple human individuals perceive, aka "objective reality", which assumes our brains are not linked to a Matrix, since we have no evidence for that premise.
.

 

[Thunderbird]

Are you asking how one "knows" one's consciousness reflects information about the "real world"?
If you want to take the epistemology viewpoint presented in the Matrix story, that's a different discussion.
I am discussing the "reality" that multiple human individuals perceive, aka "objective reality", which assumes our brains are not linked to a Matrix, since we have no evidence for that premise.
.

How do we know one way or the other?

 

[PK1]

Okay then what is your scientific evidence that scientism is true?

---
I will answer that vague Q if you clarify it:
1) What is your Hypothesis?
2) What is your Conceptual definition for "scientism"?
3) What is your Operational definition for "scientism"?

Clarification is necessary in science before discussing evidence, unlike dogma in religion.
.

Look up the definition (there are many websites about philosophy) and stop running from the question. lol

The Folly of Scientism

Science is great but the philosophies of Scientism & Materialism & Logical Positivism are not.

---

You are the one who asked for "scientific evidence". However, you don't seem to understand the rigor behind science.
It starts with clarification; which hypothesis & specific definitions do you want to investigate?
If you can't or are lazy to clarify your question, there's no need for my time to be wasted.

Scientific questions & evidence don't deal with sloppy thoughts.
.

 

[PK1]

Are you asking how one "knows" one's consciousness reflects information about the "real world"?
If you want to take the epistemology viewpoint presented in the Matrix story, that's a different discussion.
I am discussing the "reality" that multiple human individuals perceive, aka "objective reality", which assumes our brains are not linked to a Matrix, since we have no evidence for that premise.
.

How do we know one way or the other?

---
If you want to pursue that line of reasoning, then the answer is "we don't know".
Therefore, you must also be an agnostic.
.

 

[Correll]

Can anyone name me a Secular Society that rose up and became great?

 

[LittleNipper]

Well, we will see how an atheistic nation will celebrate Christmas, Easter, Mother's Day, Thanksgiving, and Memorial Day (among other holidays). Perhaps they will be mostly concerned with having a paid holiday where they don't have to work --- rather than a moment for reflection on what blessings they may have.

 

[Thunderbird]

Are you asking how one "knows" one's consciousness reflects information about the "real world"?
If you want to take the epistemology viewpoint presented in the Matrix story, that's a different discussion.
I am discussing the "reality" that multiple human individuals perceive, aka "objective reality", which assumes our brains are not linked to a Matrix, since we have no evidence for that premise.
.

How do we know one way or the other?

---
If you want to pursue that line of reasoning, then the answer is "we don't know".
Therefore, you must also be an agnostic.
.

So you don't know that "objective reality" is in fact real. Your faith in scientism seems to have collapsed.

Before you were so sure that "the scientific data are real". Now you don't know.

 

[PK1]

Are you asking how one "knows" one's consciousness reflects information about the "real world"?
If you want to take the epistemology viewpoint presented in the Matrix story, that's a different discussion.
I am discussing the "reality" that multiple human individuals perceive, aka "objective reality", which assumes our brains are not linked to a Matrix, since we have no evidence for that premise.
.

How do we know one way or the other?

---
If you want to pursue that line of reasoning, then the answer is "we don't know".
Therefore, you must also be an agnostic.
.

So you don't know that "objective reality" is in fact real. Your faith in scientism seems to have collapsed.

Before you were so sure that "the scientific data are real". Now you don't know.

---
In my opinion, your philosophy of mind is not very practical. I already mentioned my doubt about your proposed Matrix scenario (no evidence), although I professed agnosticism.

I can only be "sure" about my own direct experiences thru my physical & psychological senses, and their memories retrieved by my conscious activities. So far, those behavioral patterns have been very reliable, and I effectively predict cause-effect relationships that i learned.

My experiences also assume you & everyone else have similar/basic cognitive functioning, although I'm aware of significant variation within & esp between species.
That's my subjective reality.
My objective reality reflects my experiences in conjunction with others in my natural environment.
Together, we live in a social-cultural "reality" that appears to work for us.
THAT IS PRACTICAL.

A fantasized "god" is not needed.
As Casey Kasem used to say:
"Keep your feet on the ground and keep reaching for the stars."
The first part is most practical.
.