I read a reply by Laura Foster and at the end of the point it said "Beliefs, however, deserve all the criticism they get."
It got me thinking, i know some people don't see atheism as a belief (as such) but supposing we do can we criticise it, do you think it can at times be worthy of criticism?
Atheism to me means the use reason and logic and not blind faith in viewing the world. Atheists take on the responsibility of asking “the big questions” themselves and also looking for the answers. They do not surrender their minds to an invisible and undetectable force to do this. So if you critizise Atheism you are critizing the use of Reason. But you can of course critizise Atheists when it is warranted.
There is only human perceptions of limited data of unknown accuracy blah blah blah...
This is sooo wrong. The only one thing that has to be absolute for a measurement to be deemed 'scientific', 'empirical', whatever, is the upper limit you assign to the margin of error. The lower the better, of course, but since it's always an arbitrary value, the case is closed before it was even opened.
So their argument is that, atheism can be criticized because lacking a belief in god, due to a lack of evidence, is a flawed reason, due to empirical evidence being a myth.
Bullshit. The only point being made here is that empirical measurements can't be 100% accurate. As if scientists weren't aware of that already. Ask them this: there's empirical evidence that the oceans are mostly salt water. Is that a myth too, just because we can't say precisely how much of the oceans is made out of salt water?
I understand the sentiment behind the author's words, and I don't disagree with it in general, but I do think it's poorly written and of marginal value. We have to be pragmatic to a certain degree when it comes to knowledge. I think anyone that has given math and science any real consideration understands that there are certain epistemological issues with trying to pursue 'absolute truth'. Do we really need to constantly provide a caveat for that? It's tiring and senseless.
"There is no such thing as scientific, objective, empirical evidence, [data] or knowledge."
This is a straw man. In order for it to be true, those terms would have to be defined in a useless way to reflect the extreme state of absolute knowledge. It doesn't matter if we can or cannot nail absolute truth square on the head; we can generate a vast body of functional knowledge that aligns with reality as we experience it. Are there limits to our instruments, and to human perception and interpretation? Sure, but that is the very framework with which we experience reality. It's a highly relevant framework to us for defining the universe. Within that framework, we can be objective.
To say that we are merely guessing at physical reality is misleading, if not altogether untrue.
Thank you, Kris, and to everyone that responded regarding the link.
Ken Wilbur may or may not be full of crap but he makes a good demarcation for any belief.
pre-cognitive --- infants and children and some people who post to this forum have not read a book or (apparently) figured out that most of the intersting questions have been answered. A million times. And it's all on the google.
Cognitive ---- teenagers and most of the people who post to T/A. Read a lot. Talks to people who don't agree with them in a condescending manner of know-it-alls. Can define 'belief' and 'faith' without spitting with fury at a believer without a clue that 'belief' can be a provisional attachment to an untested idea and NOT ultimate knowledge.
Post-Cognitive --- I skipped over this part because I was busy. Something about enlightenment...