George, your diversion into the various meanings of “axiom” is a wookie, along with aqvarivs contention that one cannot discuss stuff one hasn't personally experienced.

Let's get back to the main course, there's plenty of meat left.

The OED definition of empiricism is "the doctrine that regards experience as the only source of knowledge". To understand this, it is only necessary to take on board that experience precedes knowledge.

Fire burns, but to file this away as knowledge you will have to a) know what fire is, and b) what burning is like.

You don't have to "believe" in fire before you experience it. All you need to do is to be able to recognize it, which you will do pretty quickly after you get burnt. Fire, after all, just "is".

And while it is certain that fire burns regardless of whether anybody knows about it - i.e. fire existed before man - it didn't become knowledge until man experienced it.

You are quite at liberty to point out that the same could apply to God, i.e. that his existence pre-dates man. However, bear in mind that the existence of fire, and the knowledge of fire's existence, are quite distinctly separate concepts.

One thing is for certain, man experienced fire before he had knowledge of it. Not every man individually, of course, because once experienced, the knowledge was passed around.

In essence, the empiricist's approach to religion is that because it cannot be experienced, or reproduced in a consistent manner, it cannot fall into the category of knowledge.

This does not of course prevent the religious from protesting "but I have experienced God, therefore he must be real", and using this as the foundation for their belief. That is perfectly acceptable, so long as the individual isn't kidding themself.

As Christopher Hitchens points out, "we (atheists) do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason."

I'm with Chris.

Your experience is your experience. But it ain't science, and it ain't reason.

Dear TR :) not a bad comeback..

Mate.. please have a read of this, as it relates directly to the topic.

Traditionalism vs Modern interpretations of Islam.

http://www.averroes-foundation.org/articles/sex_slavery.html

Look real close at his conclusions, and observations, and see how he 'realizes' what traditional (Quranic) Islam is all about.

More importantly maybe, is to see exactly what this teacher/shaik in America in 2007 is saying to young Muslims.

I am simply not able to process the idea that there can be a renaissance of Islam as there was a 'Reformation' of Christianity.

The Christian Reformation actually took the Church BACK to the true teaching of Christ (in many areas)and away from the 'authority and power of the organized church' whereas the renaissance called for by the author is to take Muslims AWAY from their foundations and fundamental roots and away from the power/Authority of Sharia law.

Can you see this happening ?

No.. I didn't think so.. well.. at least on that I think we are on the same page.. meet you at 55 king street Melbourne next friday around 10.00am we can champion the cause of free speech about important social issues. *Shoulder to Shoulder*... Jews, Christians.. Atheists and TR :)

David
Hi From Taryn. A while ago you said you would be happy to help oversea a letter to the Salvation Army. We also thought others might assist with ideas towards it and you could pick out which you thought might be most suitable and add to it.
All we are asking really is why they wont allow the farmers to have say what type of help is given to them with public donations.
Pluss why they do not consider starving animals worth a mention.
The new ADD on TV says_ Anybody knows how to feed sheep.
That comment in itself is interesting.
When you thnk about how expensive advertsing is David thats about ten seconds waisted.
Thats public moneny being waisted.
At prime time its a huge amount of funds down the drain especially given a national fund raising movement.
Personally I dont think they should take one cent of that money to pay wages.
Why not just pass the funds raised direct to farmers .
The other thread is now open.
Thanks David

This interesting thread has been too much spoilt by us sniping at each other. What the original thesis appears to ask for, or hopes for, is a way out of this terrible religious deadlock between Islam and Christianity.

Surely from an earnest group like ours, something can turn up, besides harping on the same old proclaims of righteousness which do come too much from even our more liberal Christians.

There is an old bush saying to shutup about saying how good we bloody are.

Like Socrates says about searching for Goodness, but in modern terms not to blow our bags when we find it - be humble about it, and feel how fortunate we've found it. Christians used to call it Grace, breaking into tears with their hands clasped together. But when over the gladdening heart, remember to say thank you to that wonderful power within you, and stay humble, and not get that look in your eyes like a Nazi stormtrooper.

Maybe this is the way we should approach our problem in the Middle East, like trying to find what has caused it?

Well, the CIA is pretty honest about it - calling it blowback, which we call payback.

Most of us tend to forget that things we are now ashamed of were done even over here in WA. Old Midgericoo was shot at twenty paces with a big crowd of natives watching. Guess it did help a bit at the time, all about chasing God’s gifts of the colonial Promised Lands. Surely the people we did over, as we are still doing, surely their offspring have a justified excuse to hate us.
Surely if the CIA is honest enough to admit it, why can’t we, just even a little bit try to start a an honest to goodness confab in the Middle East ready to offer apologies, like Mr Howard has refused to do with not just our Aborigines, but The Aboriginal Original Owners.
Come on, it has been courage-full honest apologies that has brought Enlightenment to Northern Ireland

Come on, just give it a go.

David, I think we just have to agree to disagree on what we find “abhorrent”. I don't know what was your personal experience with Islam, but I think we Christians should be able to rise above that. Not for the sake of Muslims - they do not care if we do - but for the sake of ourselves. For instance, I myself had some psychologically unpleasant experiences with (stalinist) atheists, but today I think trying to understand the atheists’, (naturalists’, empiricists’ or what they call themselves), world view - what I can share with them and what not - is better for me (not for them) than to condemn outright their world-view.

Pericles, thank you for responding to my post addressed to goodthief. I commented on the meaning of the term axiom, because you both were using it, and I found goodthief’s understanding of it closer to what is understood by it in mathematics. Anyhow, I heard mathematics called many names (usually by those who could not follow an argument somehow related to math), never “a wookie”, that is a new experience for me. (:-)

This brings me to the crucial term in your “definition of empiricism” as the "doctrine" (dogma?) that regards “experience as the only source of knowledge” or alternatively that “experience precedes knowledge”. You concede later that one can have a personal “experience of God” - say, an old old lady who experienced the presence of Virgin Mary - so it would follow from your doctrine that this experience also precedes knowledge. Indeed, in the old lady’s mind this would reinforce her knowledge of God, and had some electrodes been attached to her brain, they would have measured some activities during her vision. So it would be an experience leading to a knowledge, though one she could not share with you. Neither could you be aware of her vision without those electrodes, unlike in the case of an experience of fire that you mention. Please do not misunderstand me, I do not disagree with what you call your doctrine, I just do not understand it. (ctd)

(ctd) I fully agree with Christopher Hitchens since also we (21st century educated Christians) “do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason." One thing that outrages reason are the non-sequiturs, be it “God exists therefore Darwin was wrong” (the Catholic Church 100 years ago) or “Darwin was right therefore God does not exist”, which in a nutshell is the Richard Dawkins message as I understand it. What is reason, rationality, anyhow? Is it logic, experience or common sense? I can establish many mathematical truths rationally in the sense that I use solely logic with my common sense suspended. But outside mathematics things are not as simple, as I tried to show with my treatise on common sense. Especially, where religion is concerned, because here you cannot separate the observer from the observed — something tacitly assumed in natural science, at least until quantum mechanics, and I presume also by you — and this influences your “doctrine” (if you do not like the word axiom used in math) as well as your “deductions”.

Another thing I did not understand was “the empiricist's approach to religion is that because it cannot be experienced, or reproduced in a consistent manner, it cannot fall into the category of knowledge.” You yourself admitted it could be experienced; the fact that it cannot be reproduced (whatever “consistent manner” here means) applies to many things that science deals with. The pope in a recently published discussion (in German) made an unfortunate statement that evolution could not be scientifically verified because it could not be reproduced in a laboratory, to which the obvious reply was that neither could be thus reproduced facts about dinosaurs, or any historical facts. I think the problem with the pope was that he relied two much on advisers whose thinking about matters pertaining to philosophy of science was stuck in the newtonian, pre 20th century, mindset. And, with all due respect, I think so is yours (and TR’s).