An interesting play on words, goodthief, but it doesn't wash, I'm afraid.

You describe empiricism as:

>>A thing exists or a phenomenon occurs, or a statement is true, IF AND ONLY IF the existence of the thing, or the occurrence of the phenomenon or the truth of the statement is proved empirically. And they might exist or occur or be true if they are provable empirically.<<

Of course, you are fully aware that this definition breaks down under examination, by deliberately building it in a circular fashion.

The OED definition is far more concise and apposite.

"the doctrine that regards experience as the only source of knowledge"

This is satisfyingly non-circular. Before knowledge can occur, there has to be experience.

The key to this is that we continue to gain experience through life. We don't simply stand still at a given point in time and say "right, that's it, that's the answer".

In fact the empiricist is far more likely to admit to a lack of knowledge or understanding, being aware that experience (that word again) tells us that there are always far more answers than there are questions. Particularly, that today's truth (the sun revolves around the earth) will soon give way to another (the earth is simply a planet, and the sun just one of billions of stars in billions of galaxies).

The egocentric attitude of the Christian is, in the broader sphere, quite anomalous. It demands a belief that we are somehow made in God's image, when all the evidence (experience) leads inexorably to the conclusion that it has always been the other way around.

The key difference between empiricism and religion, which takes it fully outside your circular argument, is that empiricism can encompass religion, but religion cannot encompass empiricism.

An empiricist can examine and comprehend all the variables that can lead to someone taking up a religion. Historically, he can examine all the religions, and place them in context as to their utility within society.

Religion, on the other hand, both fears and forbids intellectual scrutiny.

Pericles, you have it ass backwords :-) (play on words).Your, "... that empiricism can encompass religion, but religion cannot encompass empiricism." Is all wrong. A individual bound by empiricism can not discuss anything outside of the personal experience or observation. Unless an empiricists has a religious experience he/she can not honestly discuss the issue. Doing so with out the experience is a lie, a fabrication that in itself disavows the empirical. Since those individuals on OLO who decry religion and base their thesis on adhering to empiricism, and say that religion is superstition and egotism and other negatives, they then can not say that they understand nor can honestly debate any other thesis beyond their personal experience. Observation is not enough to form a hypothesis. One needs knowledge and experience material to the subject matter for their observations to be interpreted accurately.
I posit that it is more likely that these said empiricist are not free of an experience with religion and that they're defining their arguments as being empirical thesis is a bald lie to exonerate themselves and to separate them from their past personal experience rooted in anger and or hatred.
I have arrived at this thesis from experience, observation and education in human psychiatry and discussions with stated non-believers. Myself being a spiritual person using empirical thinking in my everyday life.
Empiricism fails miserably when any discussion turns to the unseen otherness of being. The not being. Empiricist can no longer contribute, and therefore they attempt to dominate an area of thought that their limited philosophy prohibits any reasonable engagement. Ridicule and staunch denial is all they have, a la Dawkins. Which is also why Dawkins is so defiantly defended as the last bastion of right thinking by the God haters.
The unbelievers have elected their Priest. Their pope. And Dawkins The God Delusion has become their ipso facto bible. Scientology may face it's first real competition. The God Delusion vs. Dianetics.

Pericles, Okay, we'll use the OED: "the doctrine that regards experience as the only source of knowledge”. Or your own rendering.

You believe the following statement is true:

“Before knowledge can occur, there has to be experience.”

However, the truth of this statement cannot be experienced. You simply believe it.

Believing it, you are then stuck in the way Aqvarivs describes (in a way I cannot improve on).

In fact, your looser definition presents you with a further difficulty. There is now room for people of my persuasion to say they have "experienced" God. And, when they say that, you are no longer permitted to deride them as irrational.

As for views encompassing each other, I begin by saying that for practical purposes I am an empiricist. That is, I rely on my senses to get me by. However, I am not a mere empiricist. I know that “seeing is believing”, and I also say “there is more to this than meets the eye”. I am free and open to other things, because I have not decided to limit my thinking by subscribing to empiricism.

While evolution theory might be able to explain how belief in God develops, this doesn’t mean there’s no God. And theists are perfectly capable of studying science and delighting in its revelations.

There’s nothing “egocentric” about the view that humans are made in God’s image - because the belief is that all humans are so made, not just believers. If fact, (if true) it’s a far better basis for humanism that the belief that we are just the latest chimp-upgrade.

If you really think religion “forbids intellectual scrutiny”, then your experience of religion has been narrow. In many quarters of Christianity, intellectual inquiry and critical thinking are not just encouraged but insisted on.

Boaz, I have straddled the RC and Protestant worlds most of my life. I have seen wonderful and ordinary things in each, but I have never seen anything that would make me think either group is not devoted to Our Lord. And no hat-tipping please.

Pax,

Dear Aqvar
I didn't mean to sound disparaging of Roman Catholicism. I thank you for that refreshing perspective, it sounds more like I would 'want' Catholicism to be :)

There is no 'my' Christianity, I reflect 'reformed, conservative, fundamental, evangelical thinking, and that encompasses many current traditions.

I still have to differ though about the possibility of Islam having a renaissance. It already did that, and it's called 'Wahabism'.

Islam by nature does not allow much by way of theological 'innovation'. Theres more scope for such inventiveness in the West, but it would not last long in Egypt or Saudi Arabia. I think most (even Pericles) would agree there.

It might be possible to speak of a 'Western Islamic Renaissance' where it re-invents itself to bit better into our cultural/political clothes, but thats as far as I'd go. The greatest challenge for Muslims is recognizing that 're-interpretation' of certain Quranic texts is tantamount to blasphemy and apostasy in strongly Muslim countries.

Goodthief...thanx for temporarily being a more juicy morsel for Pericles than me :) the rest is enjoyed. We can 'tag' team on him.

I've scheduled a 3 session/week therapy session and increased the medication for Pericles, who, based on his responses to my 'you're paranoid' thread, he clearly needs :) No offense Pericles.

'Empiricism fails miserably when any discussion turns to the unseen otherness of being. The not being.'

The unseen what aqvarivs? Oh I get the it. The not seen thingamy bob that is not anywhere but way over there called gobbledegook next to the being that goes "bing". Honestly. I don't think an empiricist could be bothered with such purile stupidity.

But even worse than this type of nonsensical theology is the tone of absolute certainty that theologians consistantly use. And indeed monotheists are the arch offenders when it comes to turning mere philosophical speculation into supposed absolute certainty.

Which brings me back to the Muslim Shahada. Somebody should sue for false advertising.

But to keep George happy I have reworded my first draft of the Shahada to be less agnostic. In fact I have taken a more theistic stance but added some much needed qualification. Here it is;

"We believe that there is no god but God and that Mohammad could be the Prophet of God."

Objectively speaking I think that either of my versions of the Shahada is far more truthful than the original. At least they accounts for the fact that Mohammad's prophethood is founded on subjective history and therefore mere speculation.

Scientists and empiricists don't make outlandish claims, I don't see why monotheists should.

So, in conclusion - I have no problem with Muslims and other religious people making theological pronouncments but PLEASE qualify them accordingly. It is dishonest and misleading not to do so.

'By any reasonable measure of achievement, the faith of the Enlightenment thinkers in science was justified. Today, the greatest divide within humanity is not between races, or religions, or even, as widely believed, between the literate and illiterate. It is the chasm that separates scientific from prescientific cultures. Without the instruments and accumilated knowledge of the natural sciences - physics chemistry, and biology - humans are trapped in a cognitive prison. They are like intelligent fish born in a deep, shadowed pool. Wondering and restless, longing to reach out, they think about the world outside. They invent ingenious speculations and myths about the origin of the confining waters, of the sun and the sky and the stars above, and the meaning of their existence. But they are wrong, always wrong, because the world is too remote from ordinary experience to be merely imagined.

Science is neither a philosophy nor a belief system. It is a combination of mental operations that has become increasingly the habit of educated peoples, a culture of illuminations hit upon by a fortunate turn of history that yielded the most effective way of learning about the real world ever conceived.'

E.O. Wilson, 'Consilience' p48

To me it seems obvious, if Islam wishes to undergo a renaissance then it will have to place the 'accumilated knowledge of the natural sciences' on a par with the Koran. If this does not happen then Islamic societies will be held back and never reach their full potential. Some of them may even remain violent back-waters.