tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post8827276087806277275..comments2023-06-24T01:15:34.627-07:00Comments on The Skeptic Zone: im-skepticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-69056595065475177282015-08-04T17:47:10.609-07:002015-08-04T17:47:10.609-07:00"So he declares that it is unreasonable to li...<i>"So he declares that it is unreasonable to limit ourselves to objective, visible evidence, but we should consider our inner feelings as valid reason to believe what we can't see."</i><br /><br />Of course he does. Because the whole Christian edifice is predicated on the mythos of ethereal impregnation, virgin births, post mortem revivification, and physical levitation into the blue beyond. How would one justify these nonsense claims without recourse to 'feelings', to the 'inner witness of the holy spirit', and a whole raft of other shamanic ideas, with accompanying incantations and sacrificial rituals, used to summon up that 'spirit' as and when needed, most particularly on Sundays.<br /><br />The bizarre nature of religious content and belief is becoming increasingly apparent as science and reason ineluctably chip away at its phantasmic foundations.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-26181492228066843562015-08-04T08:54:38.336-07:002015-08-04T08:54:38.336-07:00One wonders how they can take this approach to phi...One wonders how they can take this approach to philosophy and still be considered serious scholars. To me it seems infantile. Take this comment from Kairos: "All hangs on what evidence is. I think we'd all agree that if 'evidence' just means 'empirical evidence', then that's going over-board. But CE can apply to non-empirical evidence as well. ..." <br /><br />So he declares that it is unreasonable to limit ourselves to objective, visible evidence, but we should consider our inner feelings as valid reason to believe what we can't see. Talk about rigging the rules of the game. It's no wonder there are calls to<a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2014/07/28/an-end-to-philosophy-of-religion/" rel="nofollow"> abandon the teaching of Philosophy of Religion</a>. I think that at least they should reform the academic field. They desperately need to carefully examine their silly biased approach, and start listening to serious philosophers who have rightly criticized their philosophical methods.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-53985575252573871992015-08-03T22:36:47.934-07:002015-08-03T22:36:47.934-07:00"By cleverly concealing these fallacies in th...<i> "By cleverly concealing these fallacies in their arguments, theists can manage to take a statement that is practically self-evident and turn it into an apparent logical absurdity."</i><br /><br />Of course it's deliberate. A person with a bona fide PhD as Victor appears to have, and not one from a religion sponsored institution, would simply not be able to plead ignorance to cognitive bias. <br />Christians have been desperately attempting to justify belief in supernatural superstition, a thoroughly epistemologically-free zone, for millennia. Supernatural superstition by its very character, equally, has no ontologically-grounded, let alone any epistemologically-grounded basis for genuine intellectual scholarship. That is why apologetical-driven biblical studies is being routed from legitimate institutions and schools of higher learning right across the country.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.com