Kismet
12 June 2012, 03:59 PM
I'm wondering if anyone (maybe wundermonk) could chime in on this little argument I've cooked up. I won't say it's perfect, and I probably need to retouch it a bit (or a lot), but I'm just curious what anyone here might think. Thanks.
***
1. Religious phenomena can be explained through naturalism.
2. Evidence against religion can be explained supernaturally.
3. Naturalistic explanations of religious phenomena do not constitute positive knowledge. (1,2)
4. Supernatural explanations of religious phenomena do not constitute positive knowledge. (1,2)
5. Evidence against religion is in the form of empirical research.
6. Evidence for religion is in the form of testimony.
7. Testimony cannot be dispensed with without already assuming the naturalist position as the correct one. (6,3)
8. Empirical research cannot be dispensed with without already assuming the religious position as the correct one. (5,4)
9. Testimony and empirical research contradict.
10. The possibility of ascertaining positive knowledge is non-existent regarding either testimony or empirical research (i.e, human speculative endeavor). (7,8,9)
11. The idea of positive knowledge exists and is desirable.
12. Positive knowledge must be derived from a source external to human speculative endeavor if it is to be positive knowledge. (10)
13. Higher authority other than the human is to be preferred as it does not derive from human speculative endeavor (i.e, God). (11,12)
14. Theism is epistemically warranted and to be preferred over naturalism. (13)
***
1. Religious phenomena can be explained through naturalism.
2. Evidence against religion can be explained supernaturally.
3. Naturalistic explanations of religious phenomena do not constitute positive knowledge. (1,2)
4. Supernatural explanations of religious phenomena do not constitute positive knowledge. (1,2)
5. Evidence against religion is in the form of empirical research.
6. Evidence for religion is in the form of testimony.
7. Testimony cannot be dispensed with without already assuming the naturalist position as the correct one. (6,3)
8. Empirical research cannot be dispensed with without already assuming the religious position as the correct one. (5,4)
9. Testimony and empirical research contradict.
10. The possibility of ascertaining positive knowledge is non-existent regarding either testimony or empirical research (i.e, human speculative endeavor). (7,8,9)
11. The idea of positive knowledge exists and is desirable.
12. Positive knowledge must be derived from a source external to human speculative endeavor if it is to be positive knowledge. (10)
13. Higher authority other than the human is to be preferred as it does not derive from human speculative endeavor (i.e, God). (11,12)
14. Theism is epistemically warranted and to be preferred over naturalism. (13)