Fourth in a series of questions for athiests.?

Question

The first principle of Christian philosophy is that reality truly exists in objects we can sense, and that this realty is intelligible. This is different from (1) phenomenalism, which treats the appearance of things as the last end of philosophy; (2) psychologism, or a philosophy of perception through self (viz. "reality is a mere projection of my consciousness").

It is really a philosophy of essence. In an analogy I recently used in a letter, I compared this to a little girl who tastes ice cream, knowing through her sense the coldness and sweetness of it.

She now knows the "intelligible reality" of coldness and sweetness, and her intellect understands immediately their opposition to their opposites, an opposition expressed by the principle of contradiction: cold is not warm, sweet is not sour.

This applies to being as well: Being is not non-being. Fundamental to useful dialog is a way of approaching reality. Do you, as atheists, find the above an agreeable way to begin?

"Diminati" You are correct in saying that sour is not the opposite of sweet. That was poor wording on my part. Sourness is only in opposition to sweetness in the sense that sourness is not sweetness.

"Eleventy" You are correct in saying that these are just opinions. But building that philosophy, I could easily arrive at psychologism, or human immanentism, which states that reality is simply a projection of my mind onto the canvas of the unknowable world. Even scientific "objectivism" would fall, since we could never really divorce the experiment from the unknown variable of the experimenter's experience therof.

"Lew" see above.

"EvolvedKW" You are unfortunately correct that most Christians are unfamiliar with Christian philosophy; it is no longer a part of the Catechesis of the Faith.

"This is babbling nonsense and has nothing to do with the bible, which is the only real source of Christianity." This statement must be tested by itself. The Bible does not claim that this is babbling nonsense, or that it is the only real source of Christianity. I should hope you recognize that the source of Christianity is Christ, the "Logos"--a Greek word used in the Bible with a very philosophical meaning. For an introduction, check out the dictionary definition:

http://www.answers.com/logos&r=67

Answer 1

I am an atheist.

I'm not sure what you're getting when you say "an agreeable way to begin". I see this is your fourth question and I haven't seen the other ones.

I do believe in the substance of reality. In other words, what we perceive really exists. This applies to all the mundane objects of life, but not sensations or emotions. "Sweet" for instance is a word we use to describe a qualitative experience. I do not believe there is a cosmic standard for "sweet". Emotions, as well, are qualitative experiences we assign labels to. We can be assured that most of us feel about the same when we say love or hate or jealous. However, once again, there is no cosmic norm for these terms.

Physical reality is real, but our experience of is unique. We assign terms so we can talk about these experiences, but the are arrived at by convention.

Answer 2

This is babbling nonsense and has nothing to do with the bible, which is the only real source of Christianity.

I sincerely doubt you could find a Christian who knows that "The first principle of Christian philosophy is that reality truly exists in objects we can sense, and that this realty is intelligible."

Answer 3

I'm also not sure I understand your question. But I think you are trying to make the point that what we can know through our senses is the only means of knowing something and saying that it is real.

I sort of agree here and would say that (with caveats) what we perceive through our senses is the best means of knowing something and saying that it is real. But it does not mean the senses are perfect (or even good in some cases) because we know the senses can deceive us.

Intuitions are notoriously faulty. Though we perceive though our senses, what is most important is how we interpret those sensations through our brains. Sir Frances Bacon knew this all too well in his "idols."

Answer 4

In paradox lies the truth. I agree about opposites, but this idea should not be misused or misunderstood. Assumptions should not be made about it.

On being and non-being:

We join spokes together in a wheel,
but it is the center hole
that makes the wagon move.

We shape clay into a pot,
but it is the emptiness inside
that holds whatever we want.

We hammer wood for a house,
but it is the inner space
that makes it livable.

We work with being,
but non-being is what we use.
--Tao Te Ching

And, on opposites:

When people see some things as beautiful,
other things become ugly.
When people see some things as good,
other things become bad.

Being and non-being create each other.
Difficult and easy support each other.
Long and short define each other.
High and low depend on each other.
Before and after follow each other.
........
Thus it is said:
The path into the light seems dark,
the path forward seems to go back,
the direct path seems long,
true power seems weak,
true purity seems tarnished,
true steadfastness seems changeable,
true clarity seems obscure,
the greatest art seems unsophisticated,
the greatest love seems indifferent,
the greatest wisdom seems childish.
--Tao Te Ching

Answer 5

Rubbish.

Your little girl has had prior experience of hot and cold, of sweet, sour, bitter, etc.


She instinctively likes ice cream because - cold things are refreshing on a hot day. Evolution has taught her to crave sweet and fatty foods, because these are rare and calorie dense.

She will not like bitter foods because evolution has given us taste buds that make may poisons taste bitter. As adults we can enjoy bitter foods as we have learned that coffee, olives, etc. will not kill us.

She probably also enjoys ice cream because she has been conditioned to associate it with good behavior or a special treat.

Your post is just philosophical pontification.

Answer 6

I agree that ice cream tastes sweet and cold. This is measurable, and testable.

I agree that cold is not warm and sweet is not sour. These are largely opinions, with little factual information.

I agree that being is not non-being.

Answer 7

I believe in an objective reality.

Sour is not the opposite of sweet. It is a different quality.

Answer 8

no, people has different reaction to senses, different level. reality is reality whether your senses tells you to believe or not.
reality should be based on general view of the system of life, not just human senses.
IF ITS LIVING ITS IN THE STATE OF BALANCE AND TRUE.

Answer 9

I'm trying to understand but I'm not sure what you're asking. "being is not non-being". Wordplay is not helping. Cold is not non-cold. Funny is not non-funny. I don't understand.

Answer 10

You are way over complicating things. Jesus came to Earth and died for our sins. You either believe it or you don't. It's up to you.
This is a simple thing.
.