Baruch Spinoza on Miracles: Ignorance vs. Philosophy in the Study of Gods, Religion

Published 19 July 2011 by lordgriggs

Baruch Spinoza on Miracles: Ignorance vs. Philosophy in the Study of Gods, Religion

Advertisements

One comment on “Baruch Spinoza on Miracles: Ignorance vs. Philosophy in the Study of Gods, Religion

  • We naturalists find only natural causes for miracles- misunderstanding of the cause, trickery and the particular cause of the particular miracle. Statues that emit blood or milk have a natural explanation. Now, to allege that the supernatural works through the natural is an argument from ignorance as it assuming that God uses evolution as His method of creation.That introduces divine teleology, which not only violates the Ockham with the need for convoluted, ad hoc assumptions, but contradicts science rather than complementing it. This is Lamberth's telenomic [ causalism, mechanism] argument against His existence as having that teleological intent at work in the Cosmos. Thus, by nature, we can only know of teleonomic means to effect natural change,so that we know even without further investigation but without any a priori foundation. Investigations just confirm what we already know from previous scientific investigations and thus not a priori. Science, despite the NCSE, prohibits any divine teleology but only notes this teleonomy. It is using a false demarcation betwixt science and philosophy as the NSCE falsely claims this is just a philosophical position.Why introduce the new Omphalos argument that He deceives us with apparent teleonomy when He uses His intent- divine teleology- in a manner that reeks of the John Hick epistemic distance argument that He distances Himself by using ambiguity as to His existence so as not to override our free will. Well, I so appreciate that my parents didn't hide themselves but rather let me know them directly as to their love, and this itself overthrows HIcks and others' free will and soul-making rationalizations for unrequited evil! John L. Schellenberg uses his hiddenness argument against this epistemic idea. This is with what Spinoza probably would have agreed. David Hume's corollary on miracles to the presumption of naturalism does not argue in a circle or by a priori. He describes how people see miracles. One of his objections is that the miracles of one religion cancel out those of others. Now, for people who are inclusivists, regarding all religions essentially on the same footing, would see the matter otherwise. And he notes that miracles appear in remote parts and more superstitious places but no, they appear here in America. Scientists and skeptics affirms his, Spinoza's and Tom Paine's essential points. Why , with all the horrors, would the supernatural favor just a few anyway? Why would any rational person accept the accounts of Muhammad's and Yeshua's and others' miracles in the past when no one could rationally affirm them anyway/ Mere assertions from writers,depending on mere assertions from putative witnesses account for the present day credulousness in those very miracles! To further see how they are ever right, study Robert J.Fogelin's " A Defense of Hume on Miracles.' In ' Atheism: a Philosophical Defense," Michael Martin, also defends Hume,but with a skeptical report.

  • Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

    WordPress.com Logo

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

    Connecting to %s

    %d bloggers like this: