Month: July 2010

  • Re-evaluating the value of religion

    Re-evaluating the value of religion

    This essay was written on August 13th, 2003 and edited slightly for this post: Is religion a value to mankind? Some alleged benefits which have been attributed to religion include: scientific and philosophical principles, technologies such as the printing press, the colonization of the new world, great works of art such as Michelangelo’s David and…

  • Are philosophical claims scientifically provable?

    This question makes the logical fallacy of the stolen concept.  The question of what is “scientifically provable” is derived from our metaphysics and epistemology.  We use our basic philosophy to derive the epistemological standard by which to investigate the specific aspects of reality (e.g. physics, chemistry, mathematics, and economics).  To demand that philosophical statements be…

  • What if we took religion seriously?

    What if we took religion seriously?

    Virtually no one in the West takes religion seriously.  This is fortunate, because if people did, there could be no such thing as “Western civilization.”  With 82% of Americans professing a belief in God, does this sound like a silly statement?  Let me explain. The Origin of Religion The definition of “religion” varies between cultures…

  • Faith is emotionalism, Part 2: Perception versus Emotion

    (This is the second part of selections from a Facebook debate.  Part 1 is here.) Introduction: The key to my disagreement with the theist hinges on the question of “Can we know God?” or “Can have knowledge of the supernatural?”  The theist says yes, we use both experience and the “sensus divinitatus” to acquire knowledge…

  • Faith is emotionalism, Part 1: Epistemology

    (In the next few posts, I’m going to re-post selections from a Facebook debate:) Many apologetics claim that their faith is based on reason and evidence. In fact faith is just a kind of emotionalism. Two analogies: Suppose you decided to base your knowledge of reality on the result of dart throws. Whenever you have…

  • "Free-speech" is for collectivists

    Image via Wikipedia It is a serious mistake to use the term “free speech” as a noun – as if it were an entity distinct from “non-free” speech. This error comes from the premise that certain (politically-correct) ideological speech should not be regulated, but other kinds of speech may.  The origin of idea is the…