Saturday, December 29, 2012
Monday, December 24, 2012
Sunday, December 23, 2012
Friday, December 21, 2012
Monday, December 17, 2012
Friday, December 14, 2012
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Friday, November 30, 2012
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Why believe in woo?
To believe in the supernatural without benefit of evidence as the previous article suggests means to entertain wishful thinking as true just as Blaise Pascal does with his Wager, William James with his will to believe and Soren Kierkegaard with his leap of faith.
The Wager fails, because of the different faiths, and more importantly,because when the race takes place and horse Faith doesn't appear, then horse Reason wins by default. Faith begs the question and is just another argument from ignorance.James, no real believer himself, just wanting to believe to make happy, betrays reason and - humanity with his plea for woo. Ti's naturalism that is live, coerced by empirical facts and momentous as it makes for that more abundant life realistically.
Kierkegaard's knight of faith is the night of unreason: it is for those who whine that reality is so unfair.
Faith is built on the sands of wishful thinking, whilst naturalism is built on the hard rock of reality.
Reality beckons, whilst the woo of religion has no place in a rational world!Friday, November 16, 2012
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Monday, November 12, 2012
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Friday, October 26, 2012
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Monday, October 1, 2012
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Naturalism for that more abundant life!
We naturalists adhere to Aqunas' superfluity argument as Percy Bysshe Shelley implicitly uses:" To suppose that some existence beyond, or above them [ the descriptions -laws- of Nature,N.G.]is to invent a second and superfluous hypothesis to account for what already is accounted for."
Now, to claim then that no, ti's a category mistake would be to beg the question! It does no good to aver that He as Richard Swinburne and William Lane Craig is the requisite personal explanation begs the question thereof. Nothing suggests a personal explanation,but theists are reduced animists as Lamberth's reduced animism argument notes as they insist on divine intent when none appears per the Coyne-Mayr-Lamberth teleonomic argument. They see the pareidolias of divine intent and design,per Lamberth's the argument form pareidolia when only mechanism and patterns exist.
We naturalists find that natural causes and explanations are the sufficient reason!
Now, to claim then that no, ti's a category mistake would be to beg the question! It does no good to aver that He as Richard Swinburne and William Lane Craig is the requisite personal explanation begs the question thereof. Nothing suggests a personal explanation,but theists are reduced animists as Lamberth's reduced animism argument notes as they insist on divine intent when none appears per the Coyne-Mayr-Lamberth teleonomic argument. They see the pareidolias of divine intent and design,per Lamberth's the argument form pareidolia when only mechanism and patterns exist.
We naturalists find that natural causes and explanations are the sufficient reason!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)