God and empiricism

Author: 949havoc

Posts

Total: 25
Topic's author
#1
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
"The notion of God and his existence has undergone many changes throughout the history of empiricist philosophy. While the great medieval philosopher Aquinas “felt that the most important concern of the philosopher was with the primary substance or God,” some modern philosophers 'went so far as to say that any reference to things that transcend the senses is cognitively meaningless...'"  https://www.jeffgeerling.com/articles/philosophy/god-and-empiricism

Empiricism is defined as the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience. Stimulated by the rise of experimental science, it developed in the 17th and 18th centuries, expounded in particular by John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume. Locke and Hume, in particular, combated the above notion presented by Aquinas that God was an essential concern of philosophy. Said Hume: "Commit it to flames."

Somehow, Hume seems to believe that we are limited to just five senses to experience reality. Why should that be, considering that other animals of our kingdom experience other senses than these five, which most others also share? I believer faith is [at least] a sixth sense humans can engage and by which experience, and knowledge, is gained. I maintain God is discovered by use of faith, which I maintain is a greater, more powerful concept that mere belief. We can believe anything we choose, correct, or not. But the true effort of faith is realized only in discovery of truth; we cannot have faith in something that is not true; that is the limit of belief.

You may argue that I cannot prove God. By the limited five senses, you  seem to be correct. But I maintain we are not so limited. Prove I am wrong. Argue for your limitations; they're yours, but not mine. I choose to allow greater expansion on senses.
#2
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@949havoc
You haven’t argued for any expansion of the senses, you just asserted faith as a 6th and declared it our obligation to prove you wrong.

Please define faith, and please define knowledge.
Topic's author
#3
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Double_R
You haven’t argued for any expansion of the senses,
Re-read my 3rd paragraph of #1, which contains the argument you missed.

Faith: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11: 1
              "And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true." Alma 32: 21

Knowledge: facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
#4
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
wrong forum
Topic's author
#5
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@oromagi
In the mode this thread is explained, it is in exactly the right forum. We're talking, after all, about empiricism. You're welcome to disagree.
#6
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
disagree
#7
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@949havoc
Faith =/= Knowledge
Faith = argument from ignorance
#8
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@949havoc
Faith: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11: 1
              "And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true."
There is nothing about this definition that fits into an argument that faith is a 6th sense.

 Twice in these two definitions the central word here is “hope” which fits with the main usage of this word. The only other idea provided is “evidence of things not seen” which is really just reiterating the fact that this is based on hope.

I have no idea what case you’re trying to make, other than being really wishful for something to be true to the point that you are willing to call it knowledge to make yourself feel better about it.
#9
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,613
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Atoms prove that there is no faith.
Topic's author
#10
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@FLRW
Atoms prove that there is no faith.
Proof? Where's yours to support that claim? You imply that atoms have conscious thought to demonstrate non-existence of faith.
#11
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,613
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@949havoc
See Consciousness Is Made of Atoms, Too by  Mark Titus

In 1934, the Estonian biologist Jakob von Uexküll published a monograph titled, A Stroll Through the Worlds of Animals and Men (intriguingly subtitled A Picture Book of Invisible Worlds) in which he attempted to show that every animal creates a “world” (he called it its umwelt) from stimuli in the environment to which it responds. Even an animal such as the common wood tick, with which he begins his essay, creates such a world. The wood tick responds to only three stimuli: butyric acid (which is secreted by the skin glands of mammals), which causes the tick to drop onto it from its perch; the shock of landing on its victim, which causes it to scramble among its hairs; and the warmth of the animal’s skin, which causes it to bore into it for its meal of blood.
These three stimuli alone create an umwelt for the tick, “impoverished” as it may be. We can add to his account only that the three stimuli—butyric acid, the shock of landing, and the warmth of the animal’s skin—are analog stimuli, that is, they are undifferentiated gradients in the environment from which the neural system of the tick selects just portions for its response. Those portions, converted into digital form, are the sensations that constitute its tiny world.
There is nothing “mental” or “physical” in this account of sensations. That distinction makes sense only much further down the line in the evolution of neural systems and requires the development of memory and neural plasticity along with a far richer sensory world than the wood tick’s. Sensations are the creation within neural systems of environmental events cast in different form, but still part of the same single material fabric of the universe. They reside in the animal’s central neural system—its brain (as MRI studies reveal)—and can be given a general location for where they occur. They are not “fire atoms,” of course, but they are fully connected to the universe of atoms.
#12
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@949havoc
I believe faith is [at least] a sixth sense humans can engage and by which experience, and knowledge, is gained
Just to be clear:

What is “true” is what is concordant with reality. What we “know” is true is that which we can determine is concordant with reality. 

Empiricism is basically the understanding that to know something is concordant with reality requires observation of reality.


Empiricism is not limited to any particular set of senses or inputs, only senses from which the accuracy of the information can be known, inferred and determined.

If “faith” was able to make systematic, reproducible, accurate predictions about reality  that could be independently validated - then faith would be used the same way as an x-ray, or electron microscope.

But it isn’t, so we don’t.

#13
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@949havoc
Instinctive predictions in emotionally heated scenarios that prove themselves correct are good estimations linked with adrenaline rush, it's not a sixth sense because what are you sensing with?

Generally you will experience a lot of the touch-sense during this time as you feel a rush around your body linked to the blood pumping and goosebumps forming potentially too (or alternatively sweat). These are all the sense 'touch' physically. Sometimes this (the adrenaline rush) then leads to you experiencing heightened sight, hearing, smell and taste that's because your brain, while adrenaline pumps through the body, is on high altert to rapidly interpret sensory input.
Topic's author
#14
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Ramshutu
What is “true” is what is concordant with reality.
I completely agree, and I would add that faith is the vehicle by which we expand beyond the limits of what we can perceive as reality by our sensory experience. I also think that the exercise of faith will only yield truth/reality. Otherwise, Paul's definition of faith given in Hebrews would not be valid, i.e., that it is "...the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11: 1  Paul still considers "evidence" to be accessible by faith, meaning that faith is a vehicle that can properly allow us to acknowledge a thing as true/real, even when it is not evident by the typical senses.

That is why I disagree with...

If “faith” was able to make systematic, reproducible, accurate predictions about reality  that could be independently validated - then faith would be used the same way as an x-ray, or electron microscope.

But it isn’t, so we don’t.

#15
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@949havoc
If you have no way of validating the accuracy of faith, how do you know what it produces is true?
#16
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,613
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

I have faith in Amun.
Amun, god of the air, was one of the eight primordial Egyptian deities. Amun's role evolved over the centuries; during the Middle Kingdom he became the King of the deities and in the New Kingdom he became a nationally worshipped god. He eventually merged with Ra, the ancient sun god, to become Amun-Ra.
#17
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
I have faith in Amun.
Amun, god of the air, was one of the eight primordial Egyptian deities. Amun's role evolved over the centuries; during the Middle Kingdom he became the King of the deities and in the New Kingdom he became a nationally worshipped god. He eventually merged with Ra, the ancient sun god, to become Amun-Ra.
I was sceptical but this has convinced me. Faith is the substance of things hoped for and evidence of things not seen and I have definitely not seen Amun or Amun-Ra so if those fellows were not real then how could you have faith in them? That's enough evidence right there... I hope.
Topic's author
#18
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Sum1hugme
Faith =/= Knowledge
No, you are correct, but what you replaced it with is dead wrong, as well. The correct formula is faith > knowledge [that is, faith yields knowledge]. Faith is a process to gain knowledge. A process, not an instantaneous event. I've shown plenty of times how to work the process, but if you cannot dismiss your doubt, nor your arrogance that you already know what is and is not, your attempt at the process will fail. Every time.
Topic's author
#19
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Double_R
I have no idea what case you’re trying to make, other than being really wishful 
Equating hope with  wishing is just the first step off the path. They are not synonymous any more than faith and belief are. Until you get that, enjoy your own path into the wilderness of the unknown.
#20
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@949havoc
None of what you said addresses anything I wrote.

Faith is a process to gain knowledge. A process, not an instantaneous event. I've shown plenty of times how to work the process
 Please point me to where the process is explained.
Topic's author
#21
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Double_R
Please point me to where the process is explained.
Again? How many repetitions needed before you process the information I've already given? Fine, once again, from my #3:

Re-read my 3rd paragraph of #1, which contains the argument you missed.

Faith: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11: 1
              "And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true." Alma 32: 21

Knowledge: facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
Let's add another, which I've already mentioned, as well, which actually pinpoints the steps of the process:

James 1: 2 - 8
My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;
Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.
But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.
A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

And another, which covers much of the same steps:

Moroni 10: 4, 5

And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

#22
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@949havoc
How does faith yield knowledge, if knowledge is justified true belief?
Topic's author
#23
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Sum1hugme
Because faith leads to truth by the application of faith as a sixth sense we have, just as the other five senses we have can lead to empiric knowledge, which we also use as evidence of truth. But I do not mean that faith and belief are wholly synonymous because belief, alone, does not demand action to confirm knowledge as faith does.
#24
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@949havoc
How is faith a sense like touch, taste, or smell? It sound like faith is just your imagination, it's just the belief part of knowledge, and is not necessarily justified or true. Once you have knowledge, it replaces faith. 
#25
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@949havoc
Because faith leads to truth by the application of faith as a sixth sense we have, just as the other five senses we have can lead to empiric knowledge, which we also use as evidence of truth. But I do not mean that faith and belief are wholly synonymous because belief, alone, does not demand action to confirm knowledge as faith does.

If you have no way of validating the accuracy of faith, how do you know what it produces is true?