Reason removes mountains of ignorance whilst faith rests on the argument from ignorance.Reason elevates humanity whilst faith, the we just say so of credulity ensconses humanity in superstition.

   Faith begs the question of its subject the supernatural. Science, as Sydney Hook notes, is acquired knowledge whilst faith begs the question of being knowledge.

  To aver that faith encompasses ones being means that despite facts one remains in faith whatever the changes. To aver that first one has evidence, then uses faith to confirm it means that one had certitude rather than provisional knowledge that we rationalists applaud.

   Provisional knowledge means that we have the best knowledge at this time but we can alter it when new evidence arises. We have conclusive evidence for evolution, but its components remain open to new knowledge and thus can change. We know that creationism is spurious and will ever be so. Some matters stay in doubt like the origin of language. This is skepticism at work.

  William Kingdon Clifford admonishes us to proportion our beliefs to the evidence, William James and Keith Ward notwithstanding, this does not hamper us from ever acting.Extraordinary claims require much evidence. The God-claim should have mountains of evidence, as Victor Stenger notes, and in line with Charles Moore’s auto-epistemic rule; but after millennia, none arises! We rationalists thus commit no argument from ignorance in declaring no God exists! Supernaturalists ever use the arguments from personal incredulity and from ignorance in making claims.

  Why doesn’t nothing exist rather than something rests on incredulity as how could nothing ever exist? This is the Leibnizian colossal blunder.He answers with God, and has only the argument from ignorance for that.

  [3]  Aquinas uses his contingency argument that things appear and disappear such that we have to acknowledge [1] God as the Sustaining and Primary Cause, but science presents no reason to ever think that as the quantum fields, whence arises universes are eternal in line with the law of conservation.

   [1] He claims that Existence requires a Prime Mover to explain changes, but natural causes explain that: why do things rust? What causes the planetary movements?

   [5] He claims that as a bowsman shoots an arrow, so God directs matters. No, that means that people put  a ring after the arrow of divine cause by begging the question of directed outcomes the atelic argument. Science presents only teleonomy – causalism- mechanism- no wanted outcomes- such that not only does directed evolution violates the Ockham with convoluted, ad hoc assumptions but also contradicts science instead of complementing it! This is Lamberth’s teleonomic argument [ Google that.].

    To then aver divine teleology then does indeed not only contradict science and the Ockham, it makes for the new Omphalos argument that rather than deceiving us with apparent ancient ages of things, He deceives us with apparent teleology!

   Yes, from the side of religion, people can have both faith and reason but from the side of science, no!

   Theistic evolution reeks of obscurantism, by using a useless redundancy, Alister Earl McGrath notwithstanding!

   [4] Aquinas then makes his own ontological argument whilst he deplores Anselm’s: he claims that as there are degrees of heat, there are degrees of perfection.  This begs the question of  perfection.

   These are Aquinas’s five failed ways- his clues to God as Timothy Keller^- would state. I’ll  explore these ways again and again!

  No a  priori or dogmatic matter involves itself here but the demand for evidence. Supernaturalists interpret natural matters rather than give evidence for their beliefs.This is John Hick’s epistemic distance argument;

: God makes the evidence ambiguous so that it won’t overwhelm our free wills. No! No ambiguity exists but rather the arguments from incredulity and from ignorance!

  Reason helps humanity to progress. However, miscreants can use its results to harm others. That isn’t its fault!

  It, however, isn’t  special pleading, to acknowledge that faith can lead to unrequited disasters by its very nature! Without the bounds of reason, people can create horrors. The faith of the more reasonable equates with that of the fanatic resting on  certitude.

      Reason is the foundation for that more abundant life!

      ^ Keller “The Reason for God “

      Any rebuttals or additions?

Posted on 18 July 2011, in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. 1 Comment.

  1. Aquinas’s fourth argument also reifies as God the continuum of degrees!
    Please put interesting,thoughtful comments here!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: