Position:Home>Philosophy> Atheists: Are we required to have an a priori adherence to logical positivism?

You ask several questions here!. To your first two, I would answer "no!." Logical positivism is a valid way of determining truth, but it is not the only one!. In particular, science nowadays relies on falsifiability rather than verifiability; it is better if something can be verified, but a hypothesis is still useful if it is merely falsifiable--able to be proven wrong, at least in theory!.

The biggest problem with gods and the supernatural is that they tend to be neither verifiable nor falsifiable!. Ghosts and deities are awfully reluctant to appear within a laboratory setting and to be studied and have their existence confirmed!. In fact, in all of human history not one deity or supernatural entity has ever felt the need, or been able to, prove its existence to us mere mortals!.

After the death of his mother, Harry Houdini (the famous magician) became an active debunker of seances and other attempts to communicate with the dead!. He desperately had hoped that there was an afterlife, but as a magician he saw the "tricks of the trade" that were used in seances!. His hope, however, led him to do an interesting experiment with his wife!. After his own death, he would try through whatever means possible to communicate with his wife, using information only known to the two of them!. Needless to say, his wife never heard from him after his death!. While this does not conclusively disprove the existence of an afterlife, it certainly doesn't bode well for it!.

Houdini had the right ideas, though!. He developed a test for an afterlife, and more importantly, he was open to the idea that it might be possible!.

I think most atheists do not "totally disregard the possibility of anything supernatural from the very start and never consider it!." We would certainly be open to any credible, verifiable proof that could be offered!. However, the complete lack of any such evidence to date is taken as a strong indicator that the odds of existence of gods or the supernatural is, at best, negligible!.

One important thing to consider is that in the realm of possibilities, the xtian God is on exactly equal footing with leprechauns, chicken eggs that sprout legs and start dancing, and invisible pink unicorns!. There are, in fact, an infinite number of things which "could, maybe" exist but for which there is no evidence to support it!. All of which are on equal footing!. Out of this infinite number, only a small finite number, such as gods, ghosts, and other pop-phenomena are given any serious belief at all!. But, the only way a supernatural phenomenon could NOT be on equal footing with the infinite other possibilities were if there were something to support its existence--i!.e!., evidence!. The Muslim believes in Allah but is an atheist to Yahweh and Zeus!. The atheist merely recognizes that there is no way to distinguish one from the other in terms of their probabilities to exist, and is thus an atheist to one additional god beyond what the monotheistic believer believes in!.

If an atheist were to concede a meaningful possibility of the existence of some god, then to be logically consistent, he must then concede an equal possibility of existence to every other possible god and supernatural phenomena, even those which to date have never entered the mind of any human!. And if a believer insists that an atheist does this, then to be consistent, the believer too must admit to a meaningful possibility that he believes in entirely the wrong god(s)!.

Well that's more of an essay than a summary, but that's my reasoning!. I actually believe it IS possible to DISprove the existence of a god or gods, based on the inherent logical contradictions contained in their supposed attributes like omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence!. But that's a lot more writing, and not particularly relevant to your questions here!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

too many questions

not beleiveing in god has nothing to do with not believing in the supernatural!.

Truth is not a function of things, but rather a function of the human mind and therefore subjective!. Trying to come up with a definitive proof of truth is a waste of time!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

Logical positivism is not beyond refutation!. In fact, it's self-refuting because it cannot satisfy its own standard for being acceptable!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

no!.
no!.
we don't know!.
no!.
no idea!. no!.
no!. funny that you just refute it!.
yes, are you using a computer right now!? is it possible that i fly over there to see you using a computer!? LP is a way!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

I find the fallacy of the "false dilemma" used in the philosophy forum way too much!. This is a fallacy that limits you to choices which are not necessarily the only choices, let alone the right ones!.

First, atheists don't need anything to be "a priori" any more than anyone else does!. A priori don't even exist in my book!. We all begin tabula rasa!.

Second, why must an atheist be a logical positivist!? Naturalists also begin from a position that denies any credibility to the supernatural, as do other philosophies!. I am not a logical positivist, nor am I a psychological naturalist either, thought in the realm of physics I am a naturalist!.
http://www!.ditext!.com/runes/n!.html

You use another fallacy, whereby you infer we already believe something--the irrefutability of L!.P!.--and then ask why we believe it!. (There are so many fallacies I don't remember half the names http://www!.iep!.utm!.edu/f/fallacy!.htm#top )

You use the fallacy of "traditional wisdom" when you say that if something has no "apparent natural explanation" then the only alternative is to go back to supernaturalism!. Atoms were not "apparent" for more than 2500 years, (see http://library!.thinkquest!.org/13394/angi!.!.!. ) but eventually we had a microscope good enough to see them!.

We cannot "even begin to test for the existence of a God or supernatural things using empiricism!." About that you are correct!. But you fail to understand that every venerable theologian has said in one way or another that God cannot be proved!. Occam said that "neither science nor theological argument" could prove God's existence, and that "faith and ONLY faith" could lead a person to God!. This is the position of all Christian faiths!. Why do you think every minister and priest calls you to "have faith"!?

But if empiricism cannot prove God's existence, neither can Rationalism!. Faith is the abnegation and/or the denial that reason has any force in determining God's existence, and Rationalism is a form of reason!.

Why did you choose L!.P!. to pick on, when most atheists are not L!.P!. to begin with!?Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---