why empiricism only fails

[drat16]

JD-
I would really ask you to consider the science (that is what it is called) of textual criticism. It is a way to determine if ancient documents are reliable or not. I think your skepticism of documents (even newsreels) from the past is unwarranted. If you want, I can offer text criticism evidence on why the gospels are reliable documents. I think you would be surprised: they are actually more widely attested than all of the sources from which we get our knowledge of Roman history, and are much earlier (closer to the dates that they describe) than any other documents we consider to be reliable from the ancient world (such as works of philosophy, history, drama, etc.). 

Regarding faith= History and such disciplines are very important on this issue of faith. I think once again you are assuming that faith is some sort of irrational belief against all odds. Christianity has never defined it that way. Remember faith must be reasonable in Christian theology.  Christians are claiming that a man actually lived 2,000 years ago, died, and rose again.  It seems we should test that historically to find out if it is true or not. A man raising from the dead, surely there is evidence for it?!?
It is interesting that the theist is the one here asking for faith claims to be tested and not the atheist. If Jesus did not rise, then Christianity is a lie and should not be believed. I would not believe it if that were the case.  However, if an accurate and reasonable argument can be constructed demonstrating that he did resurrect in our history, then we should accept it and place our faith in Christ. 

[JDBLACK]

Sure, post your text criticism if you like.  I'll read it, but I may not be inspired to discuss it.

Drat, I wish you would stop arguing about "faith".  You are arguing one thing while I'm arguing a different thing and I've accepted that but you don't seem to.  I've stated time and time again that the religious traditions that I was raised in and the vast majority of those I've known and come into contact with in my 41 years are based entirely on blind faith.  You don't have to believe that if you don't want to.  I understand that you don't agree with this position of faith and that's fine with me.  I also agree that not every one has the same definition and idea of what faith is.  But you really should stop arguing that all of Christianity, past and present, holds your view of faith.  It just isn't so and it makes you sound kind of foolish to argue so when I know so well that it is false.

[JDBLACK]

It occurred to me that the basic premise behind this thread is intellectually bandrupt, so I revived the original post and a better response.

I.   Quick History of Empiricism
John Locke is obviously a well known name connected to empiricism. However, while Locke’s system used empirical data and he believed the mind to be a blank slate (tabula rasa), on some issues it appears Lock attempted to have it both ways. Locke did state that some information is known to the human mind intuitively (such as God’s existence). Intuitive knowledge would counter his empiricism and blank slate theory. It seems Locke was afraid of where his empiricism might lead him (and rightfully so as we will see in a moment).
Hume was at least honest with his system. While he was a pure empiricist, his empiricism brought him into complete skepticism (as is the natural outgrowth of strong empiricism). Hume’s empiricism can also damage science. For example, Hume denied the law of causation. Causation is a backbone principle of the scientific method and scientific research. However, Hume points out that causation cannot be proven empirically, and so his pure empiricism directed him to reject it. In earlier posts, I asked JD to prove causation empirically and to do it with Hume’s criticism in mind. While this caused considerable confusion, my point was simply to show JD that he had a belief (that he strongly held) that could not be proven empirically.  Why can causation not be proven empirically?  Because only the probability of causation can be proven using empirical methods.  For example, when I hit an apple a visible sign does not appear that states ‘causation occurred.’ Rather, I see the event occur and my mind infers that causation took place (this is Hume's argument).  If one still disagrees with this argument, perhaps it is helpful to note that it what I am saying cannot be disproved empirically either. Probability and inference play an important role in the thought of human beings (many arguments for the existence of God rest on probability). Interestingly, at the end of his life Hume spoke against his own view by stating, “"if he [the skeptic] will acknowledge anything, that all human life must perish, were his principles universally and steadily to prevail" [David Hume, Enquiry Concerning Human  Understanding in 18th - Century Philosophy, ed. Lewis Beck (New York: Free Press, 1966), 121].  So, both Hume and Lock attempted to avoid the full conclusions of their empiricism.
When talking to JD, he does not accept arguments concerning the metaphysical, the religious, etc. because they cannot be ‘proven’ (he means empirically proven). So, let us see how this issue was handled in the past. Strong empiricism came full circle with the movement of logical positivism. The positivists constructed what was called ‘the verification principle.’  According to this principle, anything that is not empirically verifiable (or analytical) should be automatically considered nonsensical. This cut out theology, ethics, metaphysics, etc. However, logical positivism failed because according to the rules of the verification principle, the verification principle itself is nonsensical! This is similar to the point I have been attempting to press with JD. I continue to ask him to demonstrate to me empirically why empirical evidence is all that should be trusted. It cannot be done, and the statement is circular. Here is an example:

Person 1: “I only accept something empirically proven. It is how I determine what I will accept and what I will reject.”
Person 2: “So, demonstrate to me empirically why you only accept something that is empirical.”
Person 1: “What?”
Person 2: “Well, the central thesis of your epistemology cannot be demonstrated empirically. You accept and reject information with a thesis you yourself would have to reject.  It is a fallacious statement.”

Before you think I am splitting hairs here, this has been a long standing argument against strong empiricism. Also, I am not arguing against empirical evidence but merely the belief that only empirical evidence is valid.

II.   What instead?
Space is limited, so I must be brief. So, if pure empiricism is logically fallacious and problematic, what do we replace it with. What should we do? First, an acceptance of the rules of probability. For example, a Christian (I think) can demonstrate the existence of God to high enough degree of probability that one is justified in believing in God- and it is with probability, not pure empiricism,  where most human beliefs are formed. Second, a consideration of critical realism. I think critical realism, a movement that does involve people involved in the hard sciences, offers a better epistemology. I wished to write about it here further but have run out of room. However, if you google critical realism you will surely find results.

First and foremost, for any argument about the value of empiricism to be worth the effort, you must first define what it is you are discussing.  Drat makes this mistake routinely in various posts.  He argues vehemently for the logical, reasonable probability of god's existence, yet from the other side of his facial orifice, he acknowledges that there is no and can probably be no empirical evidence for such a god.  Talk about your logical fallacies...

You must pick what it is you are talking about first, then move forward with any argument on any basis you choose.  If you are interested in arguing about the existence or value of morals, there is ample empirical and philosophical and logical grounds to make such an argument.  If one is interested in discussing the efficacy of some medical treatment on some sort of disease, then quite clearly, empirical evidence is all that matters.  You can philosophize till the cows come home and it won't tell you anything pertinent about the matter.  Logic, of course, will be the primary constraint by which all of that empirical data is evaluated.  Logic is not a tool or even a methodology, it is a framework.

You could imagine an almost limitless number of topics that can all be cut in this same manner.  Some will yield valuable points to be argued from philosophical grounds, some emprical grounds, some on both.  There is no universal law that states that one is "better" than the other, or that one trumps the other, or more complete than the other, as drat seems to think.  Philosophy is not a substitute for empiricism, nor the vice versa.  They essentially deal with different questions.  To ask if something behaves in some certain way is asking an empirical question, not a philosophical one.  To ask if something should be a certain way, or perhaps to explain the intricacies of some human interactions is more of a philosophical question and evades empiricism.  Drat's concept of the two seems twisted in obtuse ways.  He seems to equate empiricsim with some kind of incomplete view of the universe, while philosophy is a more complete picture.  This is a warped view of reality.

To sum up, empirical questions can and most certainly are answered by empirical data all the time.  Philosophy has its place, but it is not to answer empirical questions.  Drat's insistence that empiricism needs some form of objective value-proving is lunacy.

I do reject the supernatural arguments for gods, but not so much on empirical grounds.  Certainly, there is no empirical evidence to support any of the defined supernatural gods.  But I'm willing to enterain philosophical arguments for it adn I've considered them at great length.  I find some of them compelling, but not convincing.  One reason is that most philosophical arguments short circuit virtually all of the narrowly defined "gods" of humankind.  Essentially, it eliminates them.  I can still accept the possibility of a non-defined god, primarily because it evades definition.  The moment one puts a strict definition on god, it begins to look less like any philosophically derrived entity and more like an empirically derrived entity.  So, my grounds for rejecting god are much more logical than anyone's grounds for accepting it.  Every Christian basically subscribes to a very empirical definition of god, and as such it cannot exist because it defies empirical evidence or data.  Stripped of all empiricism, and you get a philosophically derrived god, which is believable, but undefinable.  In essense, it is a paradox and as such beyond the understanding of the human mind.

[drat16]

He argues vehemently for the logical, reasonable probability of god's existence, yet from the other side of his facial orifice, he acknowledges that there is no and can probably be no empirical evidence for such a god

Yes I certainly do that, yet there is no contradiction in this set here. Something can be ‘logical’ and ‘reasonable’ and not be ‘empirical.’ I would strenuously argue that God cannot be empirically tested. By using the term empirical here, I am referring to ‘physically testable’ as the sort of thing done in science.  Oxford dictionary defines ‘empirical’ as something "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic." Basically, God cannot be verified today by 'observation' as he is not physical, but that does not mean the premise is not logical. By stating 'empirical' in these post I am referring to something's 'physical observability,' predominately the 'physicalness' of the evidence. That is also what empirical means to you apparently.
Yet, you know all of this already, and I think what you are arguing against is the fact that I posted an argument for the resurrection that was more evidence based (i.e., texts, witnesses, etc.) and not just all rationalistic in tone. You think I have contradicted myself here. However, first let me state that you yourself argued against my line of argumentation in the resurrection post as it was not 'empirical' enough for you, ex., you said we cannot know that if the texts are reliable for sure, etc.  Basically, you were skeptical of it because it is not 'testable' in the strict sense of the word, i.e., it is not considered normal scientific, ‘empirical’ evidence. Second, you yourself have rejected eye witness testimony-in the Socrates case for example-as it was 'not empirical' enough for you.
I think you see my point- there is no evidence for the existence of God today that is physically testable by pure observation, even with the resurrection argument.  You yourself have recognized this by attacking my resurrection argument for not being up to your liking. So, what is the resurrection argument? Well, at one particular moment in history God did become a man and walked this earth. At that moment, evidence was ‘empirical’ as Christ walked, talked, died, and lived again. I posted it because I wanted to show that there was ‘empirical evidence’ for Christianity at one point and that we can use history to point to that evidence.  What we have today is a historical argument that analyzes events that happened in the past, something not empirical in and of itself. We look back to see if there really was a person named Jesus who lived and died and lived again. IF someone raised from the dead, as I said before, then there should be some historical evidence for it and that would point to empirical evidence for Christianity at one point in history (and I hoped this would be interesting to you).
 Unfortunately, we never really got going on the resurrection,  we could not get to the evidence because you were so skeptical of the historical steps required to get there.
To sum it up, I am right to assert that there is no empirical evidence for God today. There are numerous philosophical (rationalistic) arguments that are very persuasive and an argument via history that empirical evidence was once available. Yet, today that evidence is only available via historical research and you, as a strong empiricist, were even skeptical of that- which proves my point that no empirical evidence is available today.
I would just say this, quickly, as I have been strongly advocating that there is no 'strict' empirical evidence for God available  today.  This does not entail there is NO evidence for God, for belief in God is a very reasonable proposition. All evidences should be considered when weighing the truthfulness of a proposition. This brings us to the next point though.....

If one is interested in discussing the efficacy of some medical treatment on some sort of disease, then quite clearly, empirical evidence is all that matters.  You can philosophize till the cows come home and it won't tell you anything pertinent about the matter.

Yes you are certainly right that no one would need some sort of proof theorem in order to tell if penicillin works in curing a disease. Remember, I have never suggested that empirical is not helpful in total, but I have been strongly arguing this entire time that there is more than just empirical evidence in this world that one should consider. To consider ONLY empirical evidence, as you stated you were doing in our previous discussions, is faulty (and commits a logical fallacy). That is my major concern here. I'm not arguing that one system is 'better' than the other, but I am arguing that when one accepts all evidences, empirical and non-empirical, then that is better. To quickly this: empirical evidence and testing can demonstrate that if you put poison in your grandmother's tea that she will die. However, it cannot ever tell you if such a thing is right or not. For that, we must enter into the metaphysical world of ethics. Neither can it by itself tell you how to define her ‘personhood,’ and for that you need to consider philosophy.
Basically, the issue is not philosophy or other predominately non-physical disciplines in war against science or empirical evidence, rather what I am arguing against is your premise that ONLY empirical evidence is valuable and all other evidences should be treated as extremely suspect or invaluable. As we can see from the example, all have their roles and are helpful- empiricism tells what will happen, ethics tells what is right, and philosophy tells us what constitutes a person.
Now, what I think you are reacting to here though is my assertion of "So, if pure empiricism is logically fallacious and problematic, what do we replace it with?" Yet notice the important word I used here- 'PURE' empiricism. This is not a rejection of empirical evidence, but of your empiricism only view.  I simply wish to replace your view of 'pure' empiricism with a high view of probability.   Yet I am not so sure that this is a bankrupt idea. This probability view would be a major component of critical realism (you can see my views leaking into this) and critical realism is the dominant epistemology in science today, held by theists and non theists alike.

Philosophy is not a substitute for empiricism, nor the vice versa.  They essentially deal with different questions....Drat's concept of the two seems twisted in obtuse ways.  He seems to equate empiricism with some kind of incomplete view of the universe, while philosophy is a more complete picture.

No, philosophy and empirical evidence are not in conflict and I have never suggested that they are. Nor have I stated that philosophy in and of itself is the answer. I think maybe you misunderstand me here. However, I am arguing strenuously that empiricism alone is an incomplete view of the universe, because it is. Therein lies the conflict. You have stated previously that if something is not empirical, then you reject it (you have said it on numerous occasions, especially back in Jan. And Feb.) so I am reacting against this view.  One piece of evidence is not 'better' than the others, but all are important and I just think you should consider them all and not just empiricism.

One reason is that most philosophical arguments short circuit virtually all of the narrowly defined "gods" of humankind.  Essentially, it eliminates them.

Yea, I'm pretty sure this is not the case JD. For example, the cosmological argument put forth by Aristotle is perfectly compatible with theism (Christianity and Islam). It does not short circuit the definition of the Christian God, as Christians use it all the time. It is very compatible with both Christianity and Islam (for example, the Kalam cosmological argument was originally created by Muslims and then later employed by Christians). So, there is nothing in the classical 'proofs' that short circuits Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. Now you are correct that these proofs cannot in and of themselves demonstrate the Christian God in particular, as they only point to A god. But remember we must take this in steps. First we must convince someone there is a God and then we can build a case for why the Christian God is the correct understanding. So, the classical arguments are VERY helpful and do not short circuit at all, but instead they can be the 'first point' in a Christian argument.   

The moment one puts a strict definition on god, it begins to look less like any philosophically derived entity and more like an empirically derived entity.  So, my grounds for rejecting god are much more logical than anyone's grounds for accepting it.  Every Christian basically subscribes to a very empirical definition of god, and as such it cannot exist because it defies empirical evidence or data.  Stripped of all empiricism, and you get a philosophically derived god, which is believable, but undefinable.

First, I want to clarify some terms here because maybe there is some confusion. As you know, Christianity would vigorously argue that God is not empirical, that is he exist as spirit- so I am not sure what you mean. At one time in history (for 33 years) Christ took on flesh, but that physical incarnation is not his true nature, i.e.. who he is.  Notice he had to take on flesh, the assumption is that he was not physical before that.
Now, are there great reasons for believing in a philosophically demonstrable God? Yes, you are correct if by that you mean the unmoved mover, uncaused cause, etc.. Yet this sort of God is not is not incompatible with the christian God in the least. So, if a person accepts the fact that a deity exists like the philosophical arguments point to (an eternal, uncaused person, etc.), then it is easy to point them to Christianity.

In conclusion- I would still like you to answer my question. You stated previously that only empirical evidence is reliable, but this statement in and of itself cannot be proven by empirical evidence, therefore following your own system you are advocating a view that you yourself cannot not hold. How is this possible? My point was to show a contradiction in your thought - that when you state that only empirical evidence is reliable, you are making an a philosophical statement and not a scientific one. You have always responded back in the past that 'this is why I hate philosophy' or 'philosophy cannot prove anything so we must have empiricism' but this misses the point. We replace your positivism  with a high view of probability, and an understanding that we are not rejecting empirical evidence here but are instead simply accepting empirical evidence as well as all other evidences. Yet the question remains, how would you solve the contradiction in your system?

Now, JD I am going to have to be away for a week so I will not be able to post for a few days. However, when I get back I will offer you textual evidence for the historical reliability of the gospels as well as an argument as to why science does not entail naturalism (and why naturalism subverts science in the long run). I hope you have a good week.

[JDBLACK]

However, first let me state that you yourself argued against my line of argumentation in the resurrection post as it was not 'empirical' enough for you, ex., you said we cannot know that if the texts are reliable for sure, etc.  Basically, you were skeptical of it because it is not 'testable' in the strict sense of the word, i.e., it is not considered normal scientific, ‘empirical’ evidence. Second, you yourself have rejected eye witness testimony-in the Socrates case for example-as it was 'not empirical' enough for you.

Not exactly.  I wouldn’t use the phrase "not empirical enough", but rather not testable or not solid evidence.  An analogy could be made to big foot sightings.  Numerous people claim to have seen big foot and many have plaster casts of its footprints and samples of its hair.  But all of these bits of potential evidence can be explained by other means, so they are not solid enough to support the claim that big foot exists.

So, what is the resurrection argument? Well, at one particular moment in history God did become a man and walked this earth. At that moment, evidence was ‘empirical’ as Christ walked, talked, died, and lived again. I posted it because I wanted to show that there was ‘empirical evidence’ for Christianity at one point and that we can use history to point to that evidence.  What we have today is a historical argument that analyzes events that happened in the past, something not empirical in and of itself. We look back to see if there really was a person named Jesus who lived and died and lived again. IF someone raised from the dead, as I said before, then there should be some historical evidence for it and that would point to empirical evidence for Christianity at one point in history (and I hoped this would be interesting to you).

Drat, it baffles me that you consider this a satisfying argument.  The fallacies are just so obvious.  You phrased your point in a very creative way, for that I will give you credit.  But this is actually the more appropriate way to phrase it:

We have historical accounts that around 2,000 years ago a man named Jesus performed miracles and claimed to be the son of god.  This man was purported to be crucified by Rome, buried, and rose 3 days later, made himself known to his followers, then vanished from the earth. 

Now, this is the myth of Jesus, it is not actual history.  Your claim is that it is actual history.  But we cannot know it is actual history because we don’t have evidence that is reliable enough to verify these extraordinary events.  If one scales down the assertions of the events, it becomes far less extraordinary and much more believable.

We have historical accounts that a man some 2,000 years ago claimed to be a holy prophet.  He preached a not-uncommon message of love and hope to a world of divisive, tribal superstitious people.  This person so enraged the established powers that he was put to death and yet inspired a group of followers who began to spread his message, often exaggerating his feats in order to inspire others.

Now this claim is far less extraordinary and thus much more believable.  It is still not historically verifiable, but it doesn’t have to be to be accepted.  We know that even today such people exist, so there’s little reason to doubt such an event occurred 2,000 years ago.  This makes this version of the story far more likely to be correct.

Unfortunately, we never really got going on the resurrection, we could not get to the evidence because you were so skeptical of the historical steps required to get there.

And I have every right to be skeptical of a mostly oral tradition that is over 2,000 years old.

To sum it up, I am right to assert that there is no empirical evidence for God today. There are numerous philosophical (rationalistic) arguments that are very persuasive and an argument via history that empirical evidence was once available.

Right and wrong.  Right that there is no empirical evidence today.  Right that there are compelling philosophical arguments.  But wrong that empirical evidence was once available.  As I said above, this is merely an assumption.  Because you believe the story, you place value on the historical accounts, which you assume to be true.  But the historical accounts should be evaluated completely on their own, regardless of one’s belief in Jesus.  And even if one accepts the philosophical arguments for god, those arguments do not necessarily support the Jesus myth.

This does not entail there is NO evidence for God, for belief in God is a very reasonable proposition. All evidences should be considered when weighing the truthfulness of a proposition.

It is this kind of circular logic that confounds me.  You say there is no empirical evidence for god, yet you say it is reasonable to believe in it, but that "all evidences" should be considered.  I counter by saying that there is no empirical evidence for big foot, but because there are good arguments for it both philosophically and conjecturally, it must be reasonable to believe that big foot exists.  This is the very same logic you use.  I stand firmly that there is no empirical evidence for god, all historical evidence is too flimsy to accept as valid and even though the philosophical arguments are compelling, they scarcely support the mythological framework of the revealed religions.  So god could very well exist, but we have no evidence of it; it does virtually nothing and never makes itself known to anyone.

I have been strongly arguing this entire time that there is more than just empirical evidence in this world that one should consider.

Yet when pressed, all you ever offer is flimsy historical traditions of a largely mythical Jesus.  I’m sorry, drat, but your form of logic confounds me.  Where is all this evidence you speak of?  Of what form does it take? 

To consider ONLY empirical evidence, as you stated you were doing in our previous discussions, is faulty (and commits a logical fallacy). That is my major concern here. I'm not arguing that one system is 'better' than the other, but I am arguing that when one accepts all evidences, empirical and non-empirical, then that is better.

Drat, you seem to just go round and round on this.  You continuously state that something other than empirical evidence is both available and valuable.  The only thing other than empirical evidence that I now of is philosophical arguments, and I’ve given you my opinion on that already.  So, what else is there?

Empirical:  hard, testable evidence
Philosophical: arguments based on logic & beer
Other: 

To quickly this: empirical evidence and testing can demonstrate that if you put poison in your grandmother's tea that she will die. However, it cannot ever tell you if such a thing is right or not. For that, we must enter into the metaphysical world of ethics. Neither can it by itself tell you how to define her ‘personhood,’ and for that you need to consider philosophy.

On this I actually agree.  What you are really talking about are value judgments, and empirical data is not useful there.  Perhaps you misunderstood my insistence on empiricism to incorporate all manner of human existence.  You are mistaken.
 

Basically, the issue is not philosophy or other predominately non-physical disciplines in war against science or empirical evidence, rather what I am arguing against is your premise that ONLY empirical evidence is valuable and all other evidences should be treated as extremely suspect or invaluable. As we can see from the example, all have their roles and are helpful- empiricism tells what will happen, ethics tells what is right, and philosophy tells us what constitutes a person.

Yes, you have most definitely misunderstood my position.  The concept of value judgments has never come up in our discussions, so there was never a need to discuss how it relates to empiricism.  You’ve just extrapolated what you think I believe, and you’re mistaken.  We can put that straw man to rest now, thank you.

Now, what I think you are reacting to here though is my assertion of "So, if pure empiricism is logically fallacious and problematic, what do we replace it with?" Yet notice the important word I used here- 'PURE' empiricism. This is not a rejection of empirical evidence, but of your empiricism only view.  I simply wish to replace your view of 'pure' empiricism with a high view of probability.   Yet I am not so sure that this is a bankrupt idea. This probability view would be a major component of critical realism (you can see my views leaking into this) and critical realism is the dominant epistemology in science today, held by theists and non theists alike.

I’m not sure I understand most of this babbling.  But to address a more salient point, I only claim that empiricism is the way we deal with solving problems in the real world, of making sound determinations about our universe.  Probability itself is bound to empiricism, if you are talking about statistics, that is.  You cannot separate statistics from empiricism because statistics is merely a framework of evaluating empirical data and nothing more.

Nor have I stated that philosophy in and of itself is the answer. I think maybe you misunderstand me here. However, I am arguing strenuously that empiricism alone is an incomplete view of the universe, because it is. Therein lies the conflict. You have stated previously that if something is not empirical, then you reject it (you have said it on numerous occasions, especially back in Jan. And Feb.) so I am reacting against this view.  One piece of evidence is not 'better' than the others, but all are important and I just think you should consider them all and not just empiricism.

Right, you have stated that there is empirical evidence of a man named Jesus who died and was reborn, but I reject that as false evidence, or non-evidence, because it cannot be verified or tested.  You have argued that there is a good philosophical argument for god, and I agree that there are compelling philosophical arguments, but that they are simply not convincing to me.  I stated that if someone makes claims about the universe, then they must back up their claims with empirical evidence, and I stand by that, as virtually every scientist and critical thinker does, and so should you.  Would you believe my claims that an invisible pink unicorn lives in my garage?  But if you want to discuss whether dark chocolate is better than milk chocolate, then we are talking value judgments and not empiricism and I’m fine with that. 

And again, you keep saying there are “other” pieces of evidence.  So what are they?

Empirical:  hard, testable evidence
Philosophical: arguments based on logic & beer
Other: 

Yea, I'm pretty sure this is not the case JD. For example, the cosmological argument put forth by Aristotle is perfectly compatible with theism (Christianity and Islam). It does not short circuit the definition of the Christian God, as Christians use it all the time. It is very compatible with both Christianity and Islam (for example, the Kalam cosmological argument was originally created by Muslims and then later employed by Christians). So, there is nothing in the classical 'proofs' that short circuits Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.

I said “most”, not all, philosophical arguments, drat.  I did not mention any specific argument.  You just cherry picked one that you like and then argued that I specifically pointed to that one, which I did not.  That is a logical fumble.

Now you are correct that these proofs cannot in and of themselves demonstrate the Christian God in particular, as they only point to A god.

Thank you, thank you, thank you!  Finally an admission of reality!

But remember we must take this in steps. First we must convince someone there is a God and then we can build a case for why the Christian God is the correct understanding. So, the classical arguments are VERY helpful and do not short circuit at all, but instead they can be the 'first point' in a Christian argument. 

 

Sure, I agree with this approach.  But, sadly, there is a divide that is impassable.  You may convince someone that “god” exists through philosophy, but to get from generic “god” to a resurrected Jesus would require…drum roll, please…empirical evidence!  Why?  Because you have now claimed that god has intervened in our universe and if you make that claim, you have to back it up with empirical evidence, and that you do not have.  Philosophy just can't prove that Jesus existed at all, or that he was god incarnate.  In fact, even if you were successful in providing evidence that Jesus existed, performed miracles, died and was reborn, you would still be hard press to show that it was god and not “something else” that was behind this feat.

Christianity would vigorously argue that God is not empirical, that is he exist as spirit- so I am not sure what you mean.

What I’m saying is that the vast majority of Christians believe in a god that interacts with the universe, and if that were true, it would be empirically testable.  Because all such tests are false, such notions are also false.  For example, since tests of the efficacy of prayer healing are not positive, then either god does not exist or Christians are wrong and god does not heal people who are prayed for.  Either way, I am right.  Either god does not exist or it does exist but does not intervene in our universe.

So, if a person accepts the fact that a deity exists like the philosophical arguments point to (an eternal, uncaused person, etc.), then it is easy to point them to Christianity.

No, I totally disagree.  This is just a non sequitur.  If you do prove that a “god” exists, then you have to do the work to prove that this god is the Christian god.  There is no evidence that just points to this being true.

I would still like you to answer my question. You stated previously that only empirical evidence is reliable, but this statement in and of itself cannot be proven by empirical evidence, therefore following your own system you are advocating a view that you yourself cannot not hold. How is this possible?

Basically because your statement is nonsense.  If you rephrase your question, it might make some sense.  It is not appropriate to ask if empiricism is reliable for everything in the universe.  That would mean that I would have to use some form of empiricism to decide if I want to listen to Judas Priest or R.E.M. in my stereo right now.  But I don’t need empiricism for that.  Right now I just “feel” like listening to R.E.M., so I think I’ll put it in.  Ah, that’s better.  Now, if I unscramble your question to sound more like this, it might make sense:

Question:  what is the best method to answer questions of how our universe works?
Answer:  the scientific method.

Question:  what is the best method to determine what makes people happy?
Answer:  philosophy.

How do I know these things?  Simple.  In order to know the answer to something about the physical universe, one needs information.  To get it, one must observe the universe, test it, and observe the reaction.  There is simply no other way to get information, or at least no way that we are aware of.  One cannot learn the size or age of the universe by discussing it; one must take some kind of measurement.  If you want to argue that we cannot know for certain that what we observe is really the universe and not some virtual simulation, then you are in another realm entirely.  Sure, I agree that it is not possible to know this, but short of assuming that nothing is real and we are all just brains in a jar, such notions are of no value.  So far as we “know” the universe is real and we were not just created 10 minutes ago.  From that basic assumption everything else flows.  If I am mistaken about that basic assumption, then I really don’t care because absolutely none of our ideas or thoughts mean what we think they do, including all of your philosophical ideas.

My point was to show a contradiction in your thought - that when you state that only empirical evidence is reliable, you are making a philosophical statement and not a scientific one. You have always responded back in the past that 'this is why I hate philosophy' or 'philosophy cannot prove anything so we must have empiricism' but this misses the point. We replace your positivism with a high view of probability, and an understanding that we are not rejecting empirical evidence here but are instead simply accepting empirical evidence as well as all other evidences. Yet the question remains, how would you solve the contradiction in your system?

Again, what other evidence?  This is getting annoyingly repetitious by now.  This is your contradiction, that you continue to assert that empirical evidence is not available.  I've acknowledged your philosophical arguments as compelling, yet not convincing.  But you continue to assert that there are "other" forms of evidence.  So, what are they?

Empirical:  hard, testable evidence
Philosophical: arguments based on logic & beer
Other: 

Again, probability is an empirical exercise.  There is no contradiction in my “system”.  You simply view it as a contraction because you have constructed a framework of your own.  My view of the world is no different than virtually every scientist.  If you want to answer a question about how the universe works, you have to use empirical data.  Even theistic scientists, such as Francis Collins and Ken Miller, agree with me on this.  If you want to discuss value judgments, then philosophy is fine.  The two cannot be crossed over to answer a question for the other.  You have not defined any situation that defies this logic.  Until you do, I will rest on it.  But I do have to acknowledge that some situations require both empiricism and philosophy to arrive at an answer.

The reason I make statements like “I hate philosophy” is because it just seems like any philosophical discussion eventually becomes long winded and bloated with pomposity.  And anyway, I rarely encounter questions that require anything more than a cursory foray into philosophy.  I’m completely happy to exist within the empirical world, where what we can know is usually testable and objective.  I’ve read many books on philosophy and afterward I usually wish I’d just watched a good movie instead; their application seems so often to be remote.  Understand that I’m not knocking the value or usefulness of philosophy as a discipline; but I simply get frustrated with the mental gymnastics required to get into a full on debate on it.  Mentally, I’m just not up to it.  But I feel that I understand it well enough to know when I’m getting the B.S. routine.

[drat16]

Your claim is that it is actual history.  But we cannot know it is actual history because we don’t have evidence that is reliable enough to verify these extraordinary events.

Okay I need to ask which area you are having trouble with here, why do you find the historical evidence to be reliable? I need to know which direction to go in because, probably like you, I am getting tired of all this typing I can't respond to you like I want to when I am not sure where your problem lies.
Sometimes it appears you doubt the validity of eyewitness testimony, other times you appear to doubt all historical documents in general as they are not ‘empirical’, other times you doubt the ability of documents to be passed down in history reliably, and then other times you doubt the reliability of the statements recorded in the historical documents. Please tell which, if all, of these concerns are troubling you and we can seek to answer the objections. I've tried to do this in a few places (ex. offering text criticism evidence) but it helps to get this situation focused. Basically, offer evidence as to why the documents are unreliable (not just make assertions) and then allow me to respond before you state the entire thing is fallacious.  The empty tomb, life and death of Christ, etc. are all accepted by the majority of both liberal and conservative historians (even full blooded naturalists),and you are one of the few I have met who denies such things. So, offer evidence why such things are unreliable is all I am asking, and I will try to offer a defense that will hopefully at least be interesting to you. However, to claim unreliability yet not offer evidence for it is fallacious.
Regarding extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence- Remember that in the 18th and 19th centuries naturalists were attempting to offer competing theories of Jesus’ resurrection that would be less ‘extraordinary’ and still fit with the evidence given of the event? All these theories proposed failed and today the search has ended. Remember I offered Baye's theorem in one place and stated that even with a high level of generosity, the resurrection is still the most probable option compared to all competing views when one deals with the historical evidence honestly. I agree the resurrection is an incredible claim, but if something fits the evidence we can't reject it simply due to an a priori philosophical commitment to naturalism.

And I have every right to be skeptical of a mostly oral tradition that is over 2,000 years old.

Skeptical at least until evidence is offered. If evidence is offered that the NT texts are in fact preserved reliably, then one's skepticism is unwarranted. See my text criticism post as the gospel tradition. Regardless of whether you think it is inspired or not, is very accurately preserved and this can be demonstrated easily.

You say there is no empirical evidence for god, yet you say it is reasonable to believe in it, but that "all evidences" should be considered.

Certainly 'all available evidence' would include the historical and philosophical, you are correct. However, at least offer reasons as to why the historical evidence is 'flimsy' before you discard it simply because it is old. Also, there is on contradiction between the classic philosophical arguments for God and Christianity in particular as you suggest here. Basically I am asking this- you state that big foot does not exist and you are correct, but to demonstrate your claim you would need to offer evidence to someone as to why you are justified in not believing in bigfoot. It also works here- you are claiming that historical data is not reliable, and you need to at least offer evidence in order for your atheological claim to be justified. Otherwise, it is conjecture.

Where is all this evidence you speak of?  Of what form does it take?

Historical (which you need to at least deal with) such as resurrection of Christ. Philosophical arguments such as cosmological argument (my favorite especially when coupled with big bang), etc. Also, the fact that consciousness, the existence of DNA, etc. are more probable in a theistic world than in a non-theistic world (they have yet to be satisfactorily explained by atheists BTW). The anthropic principle of fine tuning coupled with the low probability of the occurrence of life itself in an atheistic world (Dawkins doesn't handle this one well, he cracks me up with multi-verse theory). Arguments from the rationality of the human mind, the intelligibility of language. The argument from morality. Less persuasive and I'm not arguing this  here, but at least it is interesting- claims to Holy Spirit involvement in a person's live. Also, arguments from beauty and the objective nature of aesthetics.. Here's just a quick list, we can' discuss any of these you find interesting, there are many more but this is just coming off the top of my head and I am hungry lol.

What you are really talking about are value judgments, and empirical data is not useful there.  Perhaps you misunderstood my insistence on empiricism to incorporate all manner of human existence.

Yes value is not empirical, that is a metaphysical discipline incorporate in philosophy. I know you are not positing value as 'empirical' I was simply incorporating that as an example of things people hold to be important and true that are not empirically provable. Here's the situation: you claim to only believe empirically observed things. I am still stating that this is a fallacious position to hold. Do you believe in cause and effect, law of noncontradiction, of Einstein's theory of relativity? Remember that none of these are proven empirically. The first two are first principles, the last one Einstein derived from mathematics and he admits MOST of it (especially his theory on 'gravity' and curved space) could not be empirically tested. In fact, Einstein later in his life left empirical science and explicitly stated that he preferred rationalism. When the eclipse helped to convince several people of one component of his theory (this was one of the parts that was testable empirically) he took the news calmly, having such a strong preference to rationalism and not caring about the empirical discoveries that proved his own system. Basically, I am suggesting that you believe in theory of relativity and in the first principles due to rationalism, NOT empiricism and I think you are passionate about these issues.
Here’s another quick example- do you believe in gravity (as defined by Newton or redefined by Einstein, it does not matter for this example)? Surely you do. But one cannot empirically prove gravity, as this is a concept emerging from abstract thought processes and certain philosophical presuppositions. You went crazy when I mentioned this on another post earlier, so let me explain. As you know, Aristotelian metaphysics dominated the western world and science for centuries. Newton's law of gravity was a complete break from this. Aristotle said that all things have a natural telos, that is for example (to make this quick and simple) that the intrinsic nature of the rock is to simply fall down. Empirically, that is actually a rational thing to conclude as rocks naturally fall down to the ground and there is no empirical evidence to demonstrate Aristotle's theory is wrong. Rocks fall down to the ground and so by inference one concludes they perhaps have an intrinsic telos that makes do so (this was NOT supernaturalism mind you, Aristotle just believed everything had an ‘end.’)  Newton came about the subject a different way. He was a Christian (actually very devout) and believed that because there was a universal lawgiver there were universal laws of nature. This presupposition of lawgiver allowed him to postulate that Aristotle's theory was wrong and that instead there is actually an outside law (not an inside telos so to speak) that causes objects to fall to the ground. Hence, looking at the same evidence, both men inferred different conclusions. [Newton actually believed his writing was apologetic, that his discoveries would help demonstrate the existence of God- that his how strong his presuppositions impacted his writing. Ironic that Christianity actually HELPED Newton infer the law of gravity considering so many today say that faith is wholesale dangerous to science. But all of this is beside the point.] The point is that empirical evidence is NEVER enough and people ALWAYS use other philosophical presuppositions to come to their conclusions even for such bedrock things as gravity.
You sound like a positivist by stating that you only accept empirical evidence as they naively believed that it was somehow 'objective' and 'certain' compared to other fields. Positivism, as I have stated numerous times, is dead and hardly anyone argues it in philosophy of science- they recognize that it is too naive and that it is self-contradictory.
One more final example, there is no empirical evidence (i.e., observable, repeatable, testable) for macroevolution. All evidence for this is based on inference (as all origin science must be) and you believe in this macroevolution. There is no purely objective, certain evidence for evolution just as there is no purely objective, certain evidence for gravity- probability and inference and presuppositions always play a part even for the most careful scientist. Empiricism is where someone makes gathers information you are correct, but this information always must be interpreted and that is the more difficult part.

I stated that if someone makes claims about the universe, then they must back up their claims with empirical evidence, and I stand by that, as virtually every scientist and critical thinker does, and so should you.

Yes, empirical evidence is available and should be considered, but I am suggesting that it be understood properly as I have outlined above. I am not lowering the value of empirical evidence here, I am just being honest with what it can and cannot do given our epistemic situation. It gives new information, but is not completely objective or certain because the minds that process it are not.

You may convince someone that “god” exists through philosophy, but to get from generic “god” to a resurrected Jesus would require…drum roll, please…empirical evidence!  Why?  Because you have now claimed that god has intervened in our universe and if you make that claim, you have to back it up with empirical evidence, and that you do not have.  Philosophy just can't prove that Jesus existed at all, or that he was god incarnate.

Yes I am not arguing that philosophy proves Jesus’ resurrection or anything like that. Your points are correct here and I agree completely. I am suggesting that philosophical arguments are convincing for God's existence. But then, how do we know what God exist? The historical evidence for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus should be considered. If someone claimed to be God incarnate, predicted his death and resurrection, and then actually rose from the dead-  I think we can start to nail down 'which' God exist. Notice the boldness of Christianity as it places itself in our space/time. If someone can disprove the resurrection, then the entire religion is destroyed (and even Paul admits this in 1 Cor.). So, the early Christians evidently were pretty confident in the resurrection. All that I ask, considering this bold claim, is that you interact honestly with the historical situation (give evidence why text is not reliable or where it has been corrupted, and then I can interact with those charges). Christianity is amazing to me because it meets someone in a way where they can test its claims out historically to find if it is truthful or not.

Again, probability is an empirical exercise.  There is no contradiction in my “system”.  You simply view it as a contraction because you have constructed a framework of your own.  My view of the world is no different than virtually every scientist.  If you want to answer a question about how the universe works, you have to use empirical data.  Even theistic scientists, such as Francis Collins and Ken Miller, agree with me on this.

No JD you misunderstand.  Collins is not a positivist as you seem to be, you two would disagree here. Collins would not accept ONLY empirical evidence. He may prefer it, and study it (as he should, he is a scientist and that is what science does) but he would never state, along with most other scientists, that ONLY empirical evidence is valuable. (No, I am not discussing things such as values, etc. here either.) He understands that positivism has failed and is willing to take a more moderate approach today than you frequently take. You still sound like the enlightenment to me- assuming that objective relativity is possible and that only empirical evidence is reasonable. Collins would not say that. I can't commit on Miller.

Basically because your statement is nonsense.  If you rephrase your question, it might make some sense.  It is not appropriate to ask if empiricism is reliable for everything in the universe.  That would mean that I would have to use some form of empiricism to decide if I want to listen to Judas Priest or R.E.M. in my stereo right now.

Okay, here is the problem- positivism (the belief that only empirical evidence is acceptable) is self-refuting. That is someone cannot demonstrate empirically that empirical evidence only is valuable. Therefore, it is a philosophical statement and not a statement emerging from science. This is why positivism failed by the 1950s and early 60s and is no longer the dominant theory. It basically collapses in on itself.
Now, let's analyze this claim of preference- empirical evidence is a preference like one's taste in music? No, that does not fly either because that is not how you have been using it on me in these post. You keep claiming, rather dogmatically, that only empirical evidence is reliable. By this 'preference' you are judging what is true or not in the world. Someone can have a preference as far as music goes, but you are not simply 'preferring' empirical evidence here. Rather, you are making a philosophical value statement and are using it as an absolutist criteria to determine what is true and what is not. So, if you simply want to say you 'prefer' empirical evidence that is one thing. But when you act as an absolutist, then this is more than a mere preference. It is an absolute value judgment that you are incorporating completely into your epistemology.

Again, probability is an empirical exercise.

No, probability is not empirical evidence. There is a huge difference between constructing something through rationalism and empiricism. Inference and probability are certainly always present in our thinking, but they are not empirical. Can you see probability (remember empirical has to do with the 5 senses)? No, but you INFER probability in the mind and that is rationalism. You could plot out the probability of something on a paper, such as with Baye's, but the visible data on the sheet emerged from rationalism, not empiricism. It takes all kinds of evidence to make a discovery and rationalism, like Einstein preferred, is valuable as well.

I said “most”, not all, philosophical arguments, drat.  I did not mention any specific argument.  You just cherry picked one that you like and then argued that I specifically pointed to that one, which I did not. 

No JD I am claiming that there is not a single classical philosophical argument that contradicts with Christianity. I offered cosmological argument as an example, that is all. Perhaps since you are claiming that it is possible that philosophical arguments contradict with Christianity you should provide one as this has NEVER been stated anywhere to my knowledge.

Understand that I’m not knocking the value or usefulness of philosophy as a discipline; but I simply get frustrated with the mental gymnastics required to get into a full on debate on it.

Thanks JD, that makes me fell better!  Yes I think we can all get frustrated by it from time to time  

[JDBLACK]

Hey, Drat.  I'm not going to try to keep up with your volume of discussion; it's just too time consuming.  But since this thread is about "empiricism" I thought I would address one statement you made because it is at the heart of that question.

You said: 

Here’s another quick example- do you believe in gravity (as defined by Newton or redefined by Einstein, it does not matter for this example)? Surely you do. But one cannot empirically prove gravity, as this is a concept emerging from abstract thought processes and certain philosophical presuppositions. You went crazy when I mentioned this on another post earlier, so let me explain. As you know, Aristotelian metaphysics dominated the western world and science for centuries. Newton's law of gravity was a complete break from this. Aristotle said that all things have a natural telos, that is for example (to make this quick and simple) that the intrinsic nature of the rock is to simply fall down. Empirically, that is actually a rational thing to conclude as rocks naturally fall down to the ground and there is no empirical evidence to demonstrate Aristotle's theory is wrong. Rocks fall down to the ground and so by inference one concludes they perhaps have an intrinsic telos that makes do so (this was NOT supernaturalism mind you, Aristotle just believed everything had an ‘end.’)  Newton came about the subject a different way. He was a Christian (actually very devout) and believed that because there was a universal lawgiver there were universal laws of nature. This presupposition of lawgiver allowed him to postulate that Aristotle's theory was wrong and that instead there is actually an outside law (not an inside telos so to speak) that causes objects to fall to the ground. Hence, looking at the same evidence, both men inferred different conclusions. [Newton actually believed his writing was apologetic, that his discoveries would help demonstrate the existence of God- that his how strong his presuppositions impacted his writing. Ironic that Christianity actually HELPED Newton infer the law of gravity considering so many today say that faith is wholesale dangerous to science. But all of this is beside the point.] The point is that empirical evidence is NEVER enough and people ALWAYS use other philosophical presuppositions to come to their conclusions even for such bedrock things as gravity.

Your question read like this:  "Do you believe in gravity?"  Then you stated that "gravity cannot be proved"

The question is inappropriate.  "Gravity" is not a philsophy to be "believed in", no more than we should say we "believe" in sunspot activity.  You can believe in concepts, but you don't believe in physical laws or objects.  For those things you must demonstrate that they exist empirically.  Next, you stated that gravity cannot be "proved".  I avoid this word when possible because too many different connotations are applied to it.  To determine if gravity is a real physical phenomenon or not, all one must do is demonstrate that something acts in a particular way that is repeatable and predictable.  In this case it is that bodies are attracted to one another.  That's it, that's all gravity really says, that bodies are attracted to one another and that attraction is a function of their mass and distance from one another.  That's "Gravity".  It can be demonstrated to incredibly precise values and repeated over and over.  This is empirical.  This is science.

Now, to demonstrate that I know what I'm talking about, I'll offer you an analogy.  What about psychic mind powers?  Is this something to be believed or something to be demonstrated?  Well, if it is a physical phenomenon, we should be able to test it's efficacy and repeatability, right?  Well, this has been done.  So far, no known human being has shown a the ability to do things such as read minds or move objects with their mind or predict the future.  We can all guess at things, and these so called psychics can do no better than the average person.  These are not real, physical phenomena.  You can choose to believe in them, and many people do, but they have no empirical evidence to support them.  As far as we know, they do not exist.

Now, it doesn't matter where Newton got his inspiration from.  For that to be relevant, you would have to demonstrate that only Christians are able to produce valid science, and we know that isn't true.  I don't mind you claiming that Christianity "helped" Newton make his discoveries, but I reject the notion that Christianity plays any crucial role in describing or determining the validity of science.  Actually, in the early days of science, most men were Christians, so it would have been difficult to find an atheist scientist anyway.  And the church was also the primary source of education at that time.  That these men sought to explore the world is fantastic.  If given today's religous phobia for science, I wonder if men like Newton would have been allowed to pursue such fanciful notions.  For in Newton's time science was regarded as optimistic, as the hope of the future.  Today, it seems, Christianity would rather it just go away.

[drat16]

Yes I think you misunderstood my gravity example, so let me offer a clarification to help our discussion along. I always strive to be clear, and apologize if it is not.

My contention is that Newton’s concept of 'gravity' was an abstract concept formulated in his mind. Empirically, we can demonstrate that objects fall to the ground.  That is certainly true and I am not minimizing such empirical evidence at all. Now, to offer an explanation as to why they hit the ground (such as a force called gravity) one has to enter into abstract thought.
My purpose was to offer a comparison of Aristotle and Newton. I wanted to demonstrate how their presuppositions played a part in how they interpreted the empirical evidence they saw. Both saw the exact same empirical evidence, objects hitting the ground, but each came to radically different conclusions. Aristotle said things hit the ground because their intrinsic telos drives them to hit the ground. Such a conclusion is actually within reason given the empirical evidence. Aristotle’s theory was the dominant scientific opinion until Newton (literally it was held for centuries).
Newton, because he believed in an eternal lawgiver outside of nature, understood that nature must have laws within itself as it operates. Therefore, eventually he rejected Aristotle’s internal telos argument and appealed to a force outside of the object that is at work. He called this the law of gravity.
Obviously the theory of gravity and evidence for it has been further developed since the time of Newton and Aristotle. However, I wanted to show that both men saw the exact same empirical evidence, but two totally different theories were born. Both theories eventually appealed to something BEYOND the empirical evidence- either an invisible, external force of gravity for Newton or an invisible, intrinsic telos for Aristotle. Empirical evidence tells us things hit the ground, and so to explain why requires using things not completely empirical, i.e., abstract thought. Newton's gravity is a brilliant display of abstract thinking, he simply was a genius.

I offered this example to demonstrate two things:
1) That presuppositions always play a part even in the seemingly most 'empirical' examples (such as gravity). Aristotle and Newton interpreted the same empirical data here in two completely different ways. Empirical data is great when we have it, but the assumption that empirical data is somehow completely objective or unbiased is not true. No fact is self-interpreting. Empirical data offers facts, but then scientists with presuppositions have to interpret these facts and they do so according to some of their presuppositions. Newton and Aristotle saw the same empirical data but disagree because of these presuppositions. If great men like Newton and Aristotle were influenced by their presuppositions, there is not much hope for the rest of us. Unbiased research is not completely possible as we are all human. We should strive for objectivity, but the enlightenment proposal that empirical data is completely 'objective' or 'flawless' is wrong. Hence, the rise of critical realism in the field of science today.
2) Christianity played a positive role in the formation of science. Because of the assumption of a lawgiver, the world was understood to be rational and orderly to early scientists. The concept of rationality was the spark that ignited the flame of science. Major advances, such as theory of gravity, were made possible because of the Christian milieu popular at the time. If not for the Christian insistence on a rational world, Newton’s rather abstract proposal of gravity would have never been proposed.

I am not suggesting that someone must be a Christian to do science, as that would be foolish and dangerous. However, I am suggesting that, contrary to the Enlightenment, objective facts are not possible from empirical data. I am also suggesting that Christianity, rather than hindering science as Dawkins contends, actually helped it get started and Newton is a great example of this.

[JDBLACK]

My contention is that Newton’s concept of 'gravity' was an abstract concept formulated in his mind. Empirically, we can demonstrate that objects fall to the ground.  That is certainly true and I am not minimizing such empirical evidence at all. Now, to offer an explanation as to why they hit the ground (such as a force called gravity) one has to enter into abstract thought.

You are correct so far, but your "why" question is going to get you in trouble.  Science doesn't ask why some law of nature exists; it just asks how it works, what are the parameters.  Oh, and you are not including the planetary motions.  Newton used that data as well, which was crucial to his ideas.

My purpose was to offer a comparison of Aristotle and Newton. I wanted to demonstrate how their presuppositions played a part in how they interpreted the empirical evidence they saw. Both saw the exact same empirical evidence, objects hitting the ground, but each came to radically different conclusions. Aristotle said things hit the ground because their intrinsic telos drives them to hit the ground. Such a conclusion is actually within reason given the empirical evidence. Aristotle’s theory was the dominant scientific opinion until Newton (literally it was held for centuries).

You are forgetting that Aristotle did not have the astronomical data that Newton had.  The two men were not working with the same empirical evidence.  So, it's quite inappropriate to assert that they were or that Aristotle might not have made the same conclusions of gravity had such data been available to him as well. 

Newton, because he believed in an eternal lawgiver outside of nature, understood that nature must have laws within itself as it operates. Therefore, eventually he rejected Aristotle’s internal telos argument and appealed to a force outside of the object that is at work. He called this the law of gravity.

Drat, the functional difference between telos and law is virtually none.  All you are saying is that Newton figured out that there was something universal going on and he attributed it to god.  Aristotle did the same thing, he just attributed it to the object, not god.  The far more important concept is that there is some universal force, and that force was gravity.  So, both men were actually wrong.  And if Newton were truly believing that gravity was existing in god and not the objects, then he would be wrong.  Gravity exists within the bodies, not without.  Mass causes gravity.  So in that respect, Aristotle is actually more correct than Newton.

Obviously the theory of gravity and evidence for it has been further developed since the time of Newton and Aristotle. However, I wanted to show that both men saw the exact same empirical evidence, but two totally different theories were born. Both theories eventually appealed to something BEYOND the empirical evidence- either an invisible, external force of gravity for Newton or an invisible, intrinsic telos for Aristotle. Empirical evidence tells us things hit the ground, and so to explain why requires using things not completely empirical, i.e., abstract thought. Newton's gravity is a brilliant display of abstract thinking, he simply was a genius.

Actually, seeing objects fall to the ground is merely an observation, not evidence.  You have to do more with it to call it evidence, some experimentation is needed.  And falling objects are only a small part of gravity.  The planetary motions were far more of a curiosity and buggered more men than why apples fall to the ground.  And as I said before, it does not matter what inspires one to suppose that there are universally given laws or behaviors; it's the idea that counts.  There are too many scientists before Christianity for you to claim that one must suppose that god created the universal laws.  And virtually all other gods would have worked just as well.  So, I give your argument a C - .  It has some style, but virtually no substance.

1) That presuppositions always play a part even in the seemingly most 'empirical' examples (such as gravity). Aristotle and Newton interpreted the same empirical data here in two completely different ways. Empirical data is great when we have it, but the assumption that empirical data is somehow completely objective or unbiased is not true. No fact is self-interpreting. Empirical data offers facts, but then scientists with presuppositions have to interpret these facts and they do so according to some of their presuppositions. Newton and Aristotle saw the same empirical data but disagree because of these presuppositions. If great men like Newton and Aristotle were influenced by their presuppositions, there is not much hope for the rest of us. Unbiased research is not completely possible as we are all human. We should strive for objectivity, but the enlightenment proposal that empirical data is completely 'objective' or 'flawless' is wrong. Hence, the rise of critical realism in the field of science today.

This is NOT how science works at all.  Data is objective, period.  If it is not, it's useless.  I never said it was flawless.  Flawless and objective are two completely different things.  Objective just means the observer has not been selective or skewed the data in some way.  Flawless means it has no errors or mistakes.  You can have either one without the other.  Why do you assert that we cannot have empirical data that is objective or unbiased?  We do it all the time in science. 

Oh, and then you asserted that when scientists "interpret" data, they do so under presuppositions.  That's a different step.  Collecting data can be objective.  Interpreting it objectively is certainly more difficult.  It is impossible to totally forget our own presuppositions, no argument there.  But this is two steps removed from your "god caused science" assertion.  If a guy has already laid down a hypothesis, conducted objective tests, now he's interpreting the data, he's already doing science.  BUT, if he allows his religion to bias his interpretation, he's breaking the rules and he's going to fail.  Case in point: Newton.  If, as you assert, Newton was truly relying on god to explain gravity, then all he needed to do is stop when he had determined that planetary objects orbit one another.  God is the answer.  That's subjective, religious science.

2) Christianity played a positive role in the formation of science. Because of the assumption of a lawgiver, the world was understood to be rational and orderly to early scientists. The concept of rationality was the spark that ignited the flame of science. Major advances, such as theory of gravity, were made possible because of the Christian milieu popular at the time. If not for the Christian insistence on a rational world, Newton’s rather abstract proposal of gravity would have never been proposed.

Christianity's role in science was educational institutions, and that was it.  The assumption of a lawgiver is irrelevant.  Inspiration for a new idea is not something you can say caused science.  Many men before Christianity were doing science.  How were they doing it, drat?  I gave you a list of men.  Didn't you read it?  HOW WERE THEY DOING SCIENCE?

I am not suggesting that someone must be a Christian to do science, as that would be foolish and dangerous. However, I am suggesting that, contrary to the Enlightenment, objective facts are not possible from empirical data. I am also suggesting that Christianity, rather than hindering science as Dawkins contends, actually helped it get started and Newton is a great example of this.

No, you ARE arguing that Newton had to be a Christian in order to figure out gravity, are you not?  And please, take a moment to explain to me what empirical data is and why you think it cannot be objective.  Objective to what?  Do you even know what objective means?

Dawkins is saying that religion is hampering science because it keeps dismissing scientific theories on nonsensical basis.  Religion in the U.S. tried to oppress evolution and big bang science.  They don't' want children taught it in school.  They don't want the age of the earth and universe taught in school.  They don't want plate tectonics taught.  They don't want ancient human migration to the Americans taught.  Anything that contradicts the strict fundamentalist reading of the bible, they want thrown out.  But these things are all part of consensus science.  And you can't argue that just the small fringe groups are involved.  You, drat, argue endlessly that evolution is flawed.  It may not be perfect, but it is consensus science.  It is the best scientific explanation for diversity of life on earth.  No other theory exists, only the religious nonsense of creationism, of which there are many.  And none of those have any objective evidence to support them.  So, yes, Dawkins is absolutely right when we says that Christianity is causing problems for science.  We don't allow anyone's religion to influence our scientific conclusions and that's how it has to be.  When you demonstrate to me how science can incorporate supernaturalism, I'll give you credit.  So far you haven't even attempted to answer that question.

[JDBLACK]

When you demonstrate to me how science can incorporate supernaturalism, I'll give you credit.  So far you haven't even attempted to answer that question.