CADRE Comments

Now that school's out, I'll be able to blog more! In this post I share some thoughts in kernel form that I hope to flesh out soon in full size posts. Scientism There are two interesting varieties of scientism: epistemological and ontological. The former claims that the methods of the (natural) sciences are the only reliable ones for obtaining knowledge of the world. The latter claims that the only things that exist in the world are those which are transparent to the methods of the sciences. Note that the two must be distinguished, as one could hold to epistemological scientism without ontological scientism (there may be entities other than scientific ones, but we don't know anything about them). Epistemological scientism is vulnerable to at least two objections: 1) the claim that the methods of the sciences are the only reliable ones for obtaining knowledge of the world cannot itself be assessed using those methods, as one would have to assume their reliability prior to mak...

Atheists use this as derision, likening God to an imaginary friend; relating to God is like a child with an imaginary friend. Well is it? In some ways it is. Imaginary friends are said to be positive things by child psychologists. Through the assumption of God's active presence in our lives we can model holy living just as through imaginary friends children are modeling real friendships later for life. It really depends upon the extent to which people take it. I've never been comfortable with "Jesus is here invisibly" idea. I am not comfortable with the way of relating to God that assumes God is saving me a parking place. Some Christians sort of assume they are experiencing God and then letting God step into such occasions. That's actually not all bad really. The sense of God's presence, or what we call "God's presence" is documented over and over again in empirical studies as a valid life transforming experience and something that really cha...

Update: now with 100% more Prisoner Dilemma game theory! {g} "Option A is made of fire!" Some people believe the Golden Rule is that there is no Golden Rule. This kind of person worships the void, rejecting truth (perhaps to serve themselves or else perhaps in despair). And yet in doing so, they only commit intellectual suicide: for if there is no Golden Rule then neither can that be a Golden Rule. Some people believe the Golden Rule is that there is a Golden Rule. This kind of person worships static existence or maybe mere power effect. They do at least acknowledge truth; but typically they expect the truth to be worthlessly simple--or maybe themselves if they have enough power! Some people believe the Golden Rule is "Do not do to others what you'd rather not have done to you." These people worship nothing, not knowing what to worship; but at least they reject the worship of mere power as improper, and might be looking to worship more than themselves if they...

Atheists think it is. I've seen many a knock down drag-out fight, multiple threads, lasing for days, accomplishing nothing. I wrote that dilemma off years ago before I was an internet apologist, so long ago I don't remember when. I wrote it off because at an early date I read Boethius who, in his great work The Consolation of Philosophy (circa 524), puts to rest the issue by proving that foreknowledge is not determinism. In this essay I will demonstrate not only that this is true but the atheist error about omniscience and omnipotence contradicting are actually hold overs from the pagan framework which Boethius disproved. ___________________ Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius (480?-524) Aurthor The Consolation of Philosophy ___________________ For years my debates on the matter were marked by silly repetition. I would constantly argue that just knowing that someone does something is not controlling it. But atheists were always cock sure that it was. I used the follow analog...