:
I don't quite know how, I just don't understand how your counter-objection works against mine. If anything, it's a bigger pile of rhetoric.
The statement people want to say is 'Any statement that isn't a priori significant or backed up by evidence is meaningless' right? That statement is neither significant or backed up by evidence. It's impossible for a need for evidence to justify itself.
Yes, the 'outside' of the empirical world is utterly meaningless to us in the end, as it stands, but that's not the point. The point is there's no good reason to suggest why it couldn't exist without going back inside the sphere.
It's outside the sphere of evidence and thus scientifically meaningless, but it's not outside the sphere of thought and you can't deny the claim that God or other metaphysics could exist without fighting them on their own terms. 'You can't prove God exists' is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.
Ultimately, like I said, God's existence does not impact our everyday lives, and given the sheer number of religions in the world and the nature of faith to begin with, there may not be good enough reason to conceptually deny God, but there is certainly enough reason to not all convert on the off-chance he exists (Fuck you Pascal) and to just get on with things inside our sphere of logic.
|
It's a practical and methodological concern. Ideas and concepts for which there is evidence and ideas and concepts that have emerged from observation have produced real-world outcomes and products the likes of which philosophy can only discuss, and religion can only resist. And here's the awesome part: those discoveries and evidence-based ideas lead on to even more ideas and discoveries. I don't need to tell you how thought and evidence is a positive feedback loop that accelerates science beyond anything philosophy is capable of, being based on just thought. It can't be ignored, the values of evidentialism are its own unmatched accomplishments, and as far as I'm concerned science doesn't need to justify itself to the rest of philosophy at all.
But ideas about the nature of the universe, and lets not kid ourselves, a god's existence, have a very major effect on the nature of the universe, and those are scientific. Not necessarily in origin, but they stumble deep into science's territory and thus can be examined critically and scientifically. And gods fall at every hurdle. It's true that there is no evidence for them, and in a broader sense that is important (and a very good thing too) but that is quite trivial compared with the problems of the idea itself. The term would be "not even wrong". The response would be "go home and do it again". It is beyond the reach of science to deal with as we would anything real
because the idea is so useless and poorly constructed. I've always said, if there are any gods at all then it is science that will discover them, and any resemblance to those of our myriad human religions will be purely coincidental.
On top of that, all the gods we've heard of bear all the gruesome hallmarks of having been invented by a creature half a chromosome away from a chimpanzee. There is really no good reason to take any of them seriously at all.
:
|
Good thing that faith and religion are two different things eh?
|
One's the root of the other. I think both are poisonous.
In before "you have faith in science" and similar nonsense.