Preface
I replied to tinko's comments.
tinko: link provided
Cited
Maybe this post can be used as a reflections of how you deal with logic and faith (unlogic). After that, let people know of what you think. Just see how you react to this post.If you're very religious people (almost fanatic) then I guess your reaction will be very different to those who think more logical in response to various occurrence in these universe or even to your daily life.
Reply
Hi tinko,
Blessings to you and family. There are religious people and non-religious people that can be thinking logically or illogically and use logic or illogic. In every worldview there are ignorant, uneducated persons that do not rely significantly on logic and reason.
Science, Theology, Philosophy of Religion/Philosophy, Biblical Studies, Archaeology, Psychology, Medical Science, Law, Mathematics, are all examples of college and University level academic disciplines that require the use of logic and also reason, to be reasonably, successfully understood to even achieve even a passing grade.
To achieve a degree or level of achievement in any of these academic disciplines requires the significant use of both logic and reason.
As only God is infinite, only God has infinite knowledge. As all things created, and all rational entities are finite, there is an aspect of faith with knowledge for human beings in each and every worldview, religious or not.
Human beings and all angelic beings, angelic/demonic would be finite. To disobey God, and therefore oppose God through a corrupt nature, consciousness, desires, will, acts/actions is not just the difference between being positive and negative. It is sin (Genesis 1-3, Romans 1-6, Galatians, Ephesians 1-2, Hebrews) as examples. There is no salvation for fallen angels, but there is salvation for those that through regeneration (John 3, Titus 3) trust in the applied, salvific, atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ.
To quote you tikno
At least that's my personal understanding as ordinary people.
I appreciate the humility. I am ordinary and average in many ways. But, by God's grace and by God's will, I have been able research, write, edit and revise within certain, often difficult, academic disciplines. Here are some links for you to ponder on and some citations:
Scientism
Cited
Scientism
Blackburn:
Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy
Scientism:
A pejorative term for the concept that only the methods of natural science and related categories form the elements for any philosophical or other enquiry. Blackburn (1996: 344).
From The Concise Oxford Dictionary
Scientism: 1 a a method or doctrine regarded as characteristic of scientists b the use of practice of this. 2 often derogatory, an excessive belief in or application of scientific method. Oxford (1995: 1236).
Oxford Science
Empiricism: 'Denotes a result that is observed by experiment or observation rather than by theory.' (287). I view empiricism as a legitimate academic approach in reasonable contexts, but academia overall, does also require the use of philosophical approaches to gain knowledge and truth.
Immanuel Kant
SZUDEK, ANDY & TORSLEY, SARAH (2018) The Little Book of Philosophy, Landau Cecile (Ed), London, DK Publishing
The text under review (SZUDEK) explains that Kant argues that empiricism and scientific knowledge provides vital answers but is not 'the whole answer' (104). The text explains: 'That a true empiricist would argue against Kant that all acquaintances come from experience, in other words, nothing is apriori.' (104-105).
The idea of God creating the world, is an apriori concept. (105).
The Nature of God
First Cause: Philosophy of Religion &Theology
Even if the Hebrew Bible and New Testament documents could be proven historically false (not my academic or personal, position), this in my mind would in no way by default demonstrate the likelihood of secularism, atheism or agnosticism as correct views.
First cause is a major philosophical problem. As matter is time, space, finite and cannot be their own cause as this would cause a vicious regress, it requires a cause beyond matter and time and space, which are also finite. As example, one also cannot have a vicious regress of time or the present time would never be arrived.
A vicious regress never solves its own problem...(logical or not).
Philosophical arguments for first cause do not prove the existence of the Biblical God but can serve as parallel truth to the creation story of Genesis 1. I use arguments for God being philosophically and theologically the first cause and this parallels the Genesis (1-3) creation account without being explicitly biblical. Deism or a related theism, in my mind is a far more likely alternative to Christianity than a non-theistic view, although I fully believe in the Biblical texts.
Although Deism, and related theisms, do not accept a God that reveals self it still accepts the God of first cause.
First cause provides premises which prove, philosophically and theologically, in a sense, the existence of God.
God: Biblical Studies & Theology
It is also Biblical and reasonable to deduce that God creates human beings with certain innate understanding of reality that will be assisted by experience.
Romans 1:19 explains that God made human beings with a natural understanding of his existence. Perhaps this would be a priori knowledge and would not exist entirely on human presuppositions. The existence of natural knowledge of God does not necessarily mean that human beings worship or obey God.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth [a]in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Footnotes: Romans 1:18 Or by Romans 1:19 Or among
Within a biblical Christian worldview and Christian theology, the Scripture is legitimate, well-documented with manuscript evidence, religious history. God through Jesus Christ has revealed himself to finite humanity in an effective, limited, empirical fashion, and this would be considered a posteriori knowledge of God, although God as pure spirit remains beyond the physical senses as a priori.
Jesus Christ as God’s key supernatural representative (yet God-man), was preceded by Hebrew Bible, prophets and writers and John the Baptist in the New Testament, and followed by the disciples of Jesus Christ and the apostles and scribes in the New Testament era. Post-New Testament era, followed by the Church Fathers, forward.
The Scripture provides religious history, via supernatural and human sources, which in a sense, proves the existence of God.
Logic
A main text used
LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).
Fallacies
A main text used
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
---
AMERIKS, KARL (1999) ‘Kant, Immanuel’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
BONJOUR, LAURENCE. (1996) ‘A Priori’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
EDWARDS, PAUL AND ARTHUR PAP (1973) (eds), ‘A priori knowledge: Introduction’, A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.
GUYER, PAUL AND ALLEN W, in KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
HUME, DAVID (1739-1740)(1973) ‘A Treatise of Human Nature’, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.
HUME, DAVID (1779)(2004) Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Digireads.com/Neeland Media LLC, Lawrence, Kansas.
KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by Norman Kemp Smith, London, Macmillan. http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/cpr/toc.html.
KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1997) Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Mary Gregor (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1898)(2006) The Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, London, Longmans, Green, and Co. http://philosophy.eserver.org/kant/critique-of-practical-reaso.txt
KANT, IMMANUEL (1791)(2001) ‘On The Miscarriage of All Philosophical Trials in Theodicy’, in Religion and Rational Theology, Translated by George di Giovanni and Allen Wood, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
OXFORD DICTIONARY OF SCIENCE (2010) Oxford, Oxford University Press.
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).
POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.
SZUDEK, ANDY & TORSLEY, SARAH (2018) The Little Book of Philosophy, Landau Cecile (Ed), London, DK Publishing
THE CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY (1995) Della Thompson (ed.), Oxford, Clarendon Press.
