Let me ask you a serious question: does it really sound like I'm just pulling all of this out of my you-know-what?
Of course you believe what you're writing, that doesn't make you any less wrong about the universe.
1) How do you confuse "superstitious" with a belief in something due to logical necessity?
You admitted your religious belief in an invisible diety. Religion us a subset of superstition. There's no confusion on my end.
I acknowledge I'm religious to the extent that I believe ID is the mechanism by which realty self-creates (because it is logically necessary). I make exact zero assumptions in formulating my belief. Yes, I know what assumptions are.
You make "no" assumptions? I guess were not counting the big, obvious assumption that the universe has a creator, and that you have some sort of relationship with him.
*Sigh*...really?
Okay, I'm going to keep focusing on one specific point -- one that you continually ignore and have not addressed even once, despite my repetition of it -- until you get it. It's a point that's not in any way novel on my behalf, one that is accepted in academia, and one for which I can provide literally dozens of credible references for. It's a critically important point, because you are forever a hypocrite until you acknowledge it.
Disclaimer: This is going to sound patronizing, but it's not intended to be -- I'm just going to break it down as much as possible until you get it. To your credit, the point is easily overlooked because of the
ad populum opinion that scientific reasoning is the only kind that matters -- but it isn't. It focuses specifically on the reasoning
behind scientific reasoning.
Okay, here we go:
First, I'll start with a couple assumptions I have about your point of view based upon what you've said:
1) You believe only observable things are worth believing in, else it's some form of superstition.
2) You believe that empirical reasoning is the highest standard of (cognitive) knowledge.
Second, now that we have that out of the way, let's lay out a few of my own claims:
1) I know that some abstract things, which are not observable by definition, are worth believing in. For example, a thought is not observable; a mathematical law is not observable; etc.
2) I know logical reasoning is the highest standard of (cognitive) knowledge. For now, I'll just concentrate on showing you that it's a higher standard of knowledge than empirical knowledge.
Now, it's clarification time. Empiricism is an abstract theory:
em·pir·i·cism
əmˈpirəˌsizəm/
nounPHILOSOPHY
the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience. Stimulated by the rise of experimental science, it developed in the 17th and 18th centuries, expounded in particular by John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume.
All theories adhere not to physical structure, but to an abstract mathematical/logical structure. There is zero physical evidence to validate Empiricism. In other words, you are believing in a theory yourself with absolutely zero physical evidence to support that theory. The reason that Empiricism works is because of purely philosophical reasoning.
Specifically, we defer to Philosophy and say, "Okay, if we want to objectively describe objects in terms of each other, then we must assume that observation has zero physical effect on objective reality. So, we will simply control for participant observation and set an assumption that an observer causes no effect on physical phenomena."
This assumption has zero empirical basis, and is empirically unfalsifiable. To empirically falsify this assumption would require that you collect empirical data, i.e. data collected via observation, in a world totally void of any and all observers. Obviously, this leads to an irreconcilable contradiction, as it is impossible to observe something if the rule is there cannot be any observers to begin with.
So, taking your perspective, I can simply say, "Oh, look how irrational you are! You believe in something imaginary! You believe that observation has no effect on physical phenomena, but there's not a single shred of evidence anywhere to support this belief!"
And surely, you would refute this, claiming something to the effect of, "Dude, obviously Empiricism works. Look at the technological advances we've made, and look how much knowledge and understanding we've gained of certain natural processes."
But what your explanation wouldn't include -- because you lack understanding of it -- is that, again, it works because of an underlying, purely philosophical validation. That is, Empiricism "works" because we can simply rely upon inductive reasoning as a result of the limitation we have set (again, that limitation is imposed by simply assuming that observer participation has no effect on objective reality).
This makes you a
hypocrite. You are perfectly content believing in an invisible assumption for which there is no evidence. It is purely abstract, empirically unfalsifiable, and the burden of proof entails deference to -- not evidence, but -- a purely logical argument. And would ya look at that?! Something "invisible" has been validated by -- you guessed it! -- logic.
In other words, you are willing to make a complete and total departure from science in order to validate Empiricism. If you are willing to do such a thing (and you must in order to maintain your belief in its validity, whether you acknowledge it or not), then you are a hypocrite if you maintain that one cannot make a total departure from science in order to validate some other "imaginary" theory.
What matters is if the logical validation is sound. Period.
Edit: Here is your claim in the form of a deductive argument:
Premise 1: God is invisible, and therefore has no physical evidence.
Premise 2: If there is no physical evidence for something, it's stupid to believe in it.
Therefore: It is stupid to believe in God.
Now, referring to Empiricism
Premise 1: The theory of Empiricism, and its underlying assumptions, are invisible, and therefore have no physical evidence.
Premise 2: If there is no physical evidence for something, it's stupid to believe in it.
Therefore: It is stupid to believe in the theory of Empiricism, and its underlying assumptions.
