Empiricism describes any philosophy which claims that all knowledge originates in experience, denying the validity of both deductive reasoning and divine revelation.
Keywords: Empiricism, Philosophy, Knowledge, Experience, False, Contradictory.
Empiristic claims are false .
Any worldview that does not allow for its own foundation is deductively false.
Premise 1: Empricism is false if one must have prior knowledge to make sense of experiences.
Premise 2: One must have the prior knowledge of universal non-contradiction to make sense of experiences.
Conclusion: Therefore, empiricism is false.
Empiristic claims, when adhered to, deny the possibility of making sense of experiences, all the while claiming that making sense of experiences is the only way to know things. This contradictory denial of knowledge makes empiricism deductively false.
In Printed Form
Along with numerous other authors including Don Landis, Bodie Hodge and Roger Patterson, Timothy McCabe contributes analyses of various world religions and cults in this volume from Master Books.
"Why does the bible, supposedly the perfect inerrant word of god, claim that bats are birds (Lev 11:13-19)."
Here are the relevant texts in the NASB: Leviticus 11:13-19 These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard, and the kite and the falcon in its kind, every raven in its kind, and the ostrich and the owl and the sea gull and the hawk in its kind, and the little owl and the cormorant and the great owl, and the white owl and the pelican and the carrion vulture, and the stork, the heron in its kinds, and the hoopoe,...
"What do you think of the new book "The Godless Delusion" by Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley?"
The subtitle of "The Godless Delusion", released June 30th of 2010, is "A Catholic Challenge to Modern Atheism". Based on the subtitle, I was expecting that the book would attempt to make two cases: 1. Atheism is clearly false. 2. Roman Catholicism is clearly true. While reading the book, I quickly realized that making these two cases was not at all the intention of the authors. Rather, they were attempting to establish a different set of conclusions: 1.
"If there is a God, but there is no evidence to be found for his existence except subjective experiences, is it not reasonable to assume that if he does exist, he does not want us to know about it?"
The conclusion does not seem reasonable to me. First, the premise is very unclear, and I will explain what I mean. Second, in the only way I can see that the premise could be considered true, the conclusion does not seem to be reasonably based on it. AN UNCLEAR PREMISE First, the premise seems unclear in that it seems to suggest that evidence is the only way to justifiably be convinced of something. But note that rational thought cannot exist without reason behind it.