Is it Wrong to be an Empiricist? (no religion) Description below.....?

Question

In philosophy generally, empiricism is a theory of knowledge emphasizing the role of experience in the formation of ideas, while discounting the notion of innate ideas.

In the philosophy of science, empiricism is a theory of knowledge which emphasizes those aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely related to experience, especially as formed through deliberate experimental arrangements. It is a fundamental requirement of scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world, rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. Hence, science is considered to be methodologically empirical in nature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

Answer 1

It is only through careful testing of ideas that we get somewhere besides in the hell hole of "it's writ right here in this sacred book, so shut up!"

Experience, experiment, and either accept or reject the conclusion of your senses. Somebody tells you that God is a great big camel, ask them to produce the camel or at least let you feel the hump.

Someone insists that there is a God, ask them to show you. All apriori reasoning does not establish the presence of the Ineffable. The only way one can have it proved is to have someone say, "This is the way I experienced God; do it this way and you will see God, too."

Too many people praying to too many local deities to believe just because someone tells you so.

BTW, I have experienced The Light and am a believer, but it was only after I experienced that I believed. And no, I have no religion, The Light I experienced did not seem to need one.

Answer 2

The time for empiricism has largely passed. Though there are still areas where it is important (even critical), these can only be a minority now. And I'll tell you why:

Think about all the things you know. Go ahead. It's not like I'm really waiting here. Okay. Got it? Now, what proportion of those things do you know because you personally performed experiments or gained the information from your senses? I would be surprised if it was even a significant minority.

Have you been to Mars or measured its distance from the Earth? Do you visit France continually to demonstrate that it still exists? Have you personally seen the Mona Lisa or measured the effects of gravity by dropping weights from towers? More likely you know of and about all these things not empirically, but because you were simply told about them.

To empiricially experience all of scientific knowledge, you would be required to repeat or witness every experiment ever performed. As our scientific knowledge grows and grows, this becomes a more and more ridiculous proposition. Nor is science alone - we live in an age of information, and information of all kinds are growing faster than any human is likely to be able to keep up with it even in a non-empirical sense.

Nor should non-empirical knowledge be given the cold shoulder. Consider how many things can't possibly be considered empirical, largely because they are constructs of the mind and not of reality: law, math, ethics, and logic just to name a few. Though there may have been a time in the past when one could safely ignore such things, I think a person doing so would have a hard time living well today.

Ironically enough, even the empiricism itself is a non-empirical concept. You can't 'observe' the concept of empiricism... you just decide it, have it explained to you, or read it somewhere. The most ardent empiricist must, by definition, acknowledge that empirical knowledge cannot be all that is important or he can't even say what he is!

Answer 3

As an atheist, my immediate answer is "What? Of course it's not wrong!" But that's from an angle dealing with personal opinions; and I suppose you're asking if it seems factually incorrect.

Still, my answer is "No." In a world that is ever-changing, very literally when considering quantum physics, the most reliable way to be sure of something is direct experience. The only way to truly understand something is to directly and wholly find out for yourself and gain a fundamental understanding of a subject. To believe in science as an Empiricist is completely logical, and I could not agree more.

Answer 4

Empiricism an atheism are not the same thing. You probably ought to refine the question a bit.

Answer 5

no longer something is incorrect. that's the tube (urethra) that consists of the urine from the bladder to the hollow interior the top of the penis. only squeeze close an element of it it rather is interior the shaft once you're peeing. Your urine will provide up popping out. which will harm. a similar tube additionally consists of the ejaculate that has sperm in it. it rather is the white thick stuff that comes out as you end masturbating (the sexual climax). Any extra epidermis close to the glans of your penis is probable a number of your foreskin or of your shaft that became left over out of your circumcision. It makes it available for you once you have an erection to escalate the size of your penis with out having it harm.

Answer 6

well this is coming from i an atheist. I dont belive its wrong at all. you dont need a god or superior person to give you faith or a reason... what you need is your mind and your heart....instead of believing in god... believe in yourself...nobody is in control of you but you ...you set your own little boundaries and laws foryourself.... you dont need anyone except yourself to survive in life... you dont need a god to tell you that.

I do belive in philosophy and i consider myself a mini- philosopher.... i like things that can be proven...god is nearly a legend

Answer 7

No philosophy is wrong or right, do whatever you want. Just be ready to handle the consequences.

Answer 8

Try this article on the works of Hilary Putnam. It outlines refutations to pretty much everything. :)