The Scientific Method & Naturalistic Rationalism

Naturalistic Rationalism or ‘rationalistic naturalism’ The scientific method uses a priori for the nature of reality or rationalistic naturalism. The scientific method assumes a priori about the nature of reality, one is not agnostic about this, the scientific method is using philosophical rationalism as the nature of reality proof or truth by using a priori assumptions. Knowledge can be classified in several ways. Firstly, it can be either explicit (self-conscious) or implicit (tacit, hidden from self-consciousness). Secondly, it can be either propositional or non-propositional (something which cannot be represented by propositions, e.g. knowing how to do something?). Simply the scientific method requires certain a priori assumptions of epistemology and metaphysics in order to even get out of the starting gate. It assumes you are not a brain in a vat. The scientific method means that supernatural entities or concepts that are meaningless or logically contradictory cannot be included in a scientific hypothesis (not least because you can’t put a sample of a god in a test-tube). Consequently, when carrying out investigations scientists assume a position of methodological naturalism. The idea that scientific evidence can disprove the notion of god is scientific realism. Scientific realism is also a priori rationalism about the accepted natural reality of nature. The point is a thing cannot validate itself science accepts what is reasoned, it may forget the philosophy it uses and cannot live without but it is still there. I can reasonably likewise assume a priori rationalism about the natural world that has no rational validity to a supernatural being called god. Scientific knowledge To be scientific the knowledge must be . communicable:...

Rationalist

I like to say I am a rationalist not a skeptic. It’s not that I do not value skepticism but I value methodological skepticism tool to minimize errors not as my main way of being because in that I am a rationalist. Much of epistemology has arisen either in defense of, or in opposition to, various forms of skepticism. The general forms of skepticism question our knowledge in many, if not all, domains in which we ordinarily think knowledge is possible. Philosophical skepticism is distinguished from methodological skepticism in that philosophical skepticism is an approach that questions the possibility of certainty in knowledge, whereas methodological skepticism is an approach that subjects all knowledge claims to scrutiny with the goal of sorting out true from false claims. I see methodological skepticism also called scientific skepticism as a way to protect against or remove falsehoods or errors. I think skeptic whether philosophical skepticism or methodological skepticism a little of both or something skeptic in-between in the unbelief community is so over emphasized from a useful tool to instead a full way of being or a self title. I do not see it as a way of being for me. Skepticism is in no way a method to bring truth or new knowledge it is a knowledge negative not knowledge positive. To me a good use of rationality is to test concepts with skeptical thinking to see if one has errors, then again use rationalism to clarify them and find true belief which is knowledge. Skepticism often holds a position of doubt until proof but rationalism often holds a position of requires...

How Did You Become Atheist

Tell us About You, For Me it Was College. I see becoming an atheist as a realization of reality as it is on realities terms, only natural devoid of any supernatural or magic. Also what does being an atheist mean to you or what king of atheist are you. Atheism: Disbelief in no God(s), or no belief in God(s). From religioustolerance.org: Atheism is a difficult topic Some reasons are: Most people, at least in the U.S., appear to define “Atheist” as a person who absolutely rejects the existence of a God. Most Atheists appear to describe themselves as persons who have no knowledge of a God and/or a Goddess. Some people define Atheism as a religion because it refers to beliefs concerning deities, humanity and the rest of the universe, and because most Atheists have developed a moral code to accompany their Atheism. Others reject classification of Atheism as a religion because they tie the term “religion” to a belief in at least one deity. People have used terms like strong Atheism, negative Atheism, soft Atheism, implicit Atheism, Apatheism, etc. to refer to sub-groups among Atheists. Some consider Agnostics as being within the Atheism fold, because the former have no solid belief in the existence of God. It is doubtful that the terminology involving the term Atheist will be clarified any time soon. From Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy The term “atheist” describes a person who does not believe that God or a divine being exists.  Worldwide there may be as many as a billion atheists, although social stigma, political pressure, and intolerance make accurate polling difficult. For the most part, atheists have...

Explaining Axiological theism, Axiological agnosticism, and Axiological atheism

Explaining Axiological theism, Axiological agnosticism, and Axiological atheism (Video) I am going to roughly offer the understanding how axiological thinking interacts with differing theological beliefs. Axiological theism: is the thinking a god(s) or goddess(es) are real as well as valuable and we are enriched (all value, truth, morality are deity involved) because there is such a being(s) and we should worship it and would be worse off if such a being(s) did not exist (life would have no meaning, worth or value and there would be no way to judge morality) Axiological agnosticism: is the thinking I do not know if a such being as god(s) or goddess(es) exist neither can we evaluate the value and we thus lack the basis to value judge what benefits or harm they may encompass and such would probably not worship such a being(s) as we do not know if we should or should not. Likewise, we cannot form an opinion as to if we are better or worse if such a being(s) existed. Axiological atheism: is the thinking that no god(s) or goddess(es) exist and they lack all worth and value to humans even if they existed. Such myth should be rejected in favor of believing in humanity, seeing secularism and humanism as a kind of “higher absolute” such as humanity, formal axiology, or naturalistic or universal ethical principles. My stating a kind of “higher absolute” is not stating a belief n some absolute morality instead it is meaning nothing but naturalistic human centered morality is used or form of valued good is derived from a rational thinking by humanity  (Ie. humanity as the absolute source...

“You” are religious “You” are in a cult!

A cult is a yet unpopular religious thinking and a religion is a now popular religious thinking. The line between the two is often controversial, but the word “cult” is clearly understood to be pejorative. It often appears in the form of an irregular verb: I have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe, thus “You” are religious “You” are in a...