Asking for a logical reason for atheist/mythicist fear of spiritual revelation

[Chris OConnor]

Geo, I just laughed so hard! I had to bring my wife in here to see Exhibit A vs. Exhibit B.

[ant]

Robert wrote:

But the entire scientific enlightenment, stretching from Hume and Spinoza through to Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein were not fools. They took as a basic premise that we cannot postulate entities for which we have no evidence. And Feuerbach's The Essence of Christianity provided a perfectly good scientific explanation of religion as psychological projection. Science is atheist because it rests on Ockham's Razor, the principles of elegance and parsimony. God just does not help us explain anything more simply than science does.

Scientific Enlightenment?

Hume, Russell, AND Spinoza did NOT practice science. They were philosophers.

In your stretching of the “scientific enlightenment”, you’ve only mentioned one scientist - Albert Einstein.

Einstein rejected the term “atheist”

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." - Albert Einstein

Robert wrote:

“They took as a basic premise that we cannot postulate entities for which we have no evidence.”

The practice of science does not depend on ruling out entities that there is no evidence for, Robert.

Is Einstein on record as saying this during his practice of quantum physics?
How about Copernicus, or Kepler, Galileo, Pascal, Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Descartes, Plank? These men were all scientists.

What evidence are you going to present that demonstrates these men did not postulate entities for which there is no evidence of, and as a result, ruled out the existence of said entity?

Occams Razor is philosophically rooted. It is both argued for and against most notably by Thomas Aquinas.
Occams Razor is a belief that nature itself is simple, and that the simpler explanation of nature is the truest. It has been ascribed by certain PHILOSOPHERS as a claim against the existence of God. It is NOT a scientific claim made by science in it’s quest to discover God.
Science isn’t even searching for God, Robert!!
Stop making garbage up!

What’s at issue here is your intentional intermingling of Philosophy of Science AND Science to fit your atheistic worldview. You’ve conflated philosophy and science to transform science into an atheistic entity.

I’ve taken note of your absurd and feeble attempt at historiography.
What you’ve attempted to accomplish here is to stretch the minds of certain atheistic philosophers and universalize their intellectual and philosophical positions to the minds of men of different intellectual/philosophical positions, in different epochs.
You can not match David Hume’s philosophy to Einstein.
You’re engaging in some sort of simpleminded moralizing

The “entire” scientific enlightenment..,
“Stretching” from Hume to Einstein.
What utter nonsense!

The progress of science. The progress of thought. The movement in time of cerebral positions is filled with cross-connections of human thought and conduct. Men in various places and times throughout history have both thought different things AND have thought them differently (to paraphrase David Hackett Fischer). Your overly simplistic stretching of the historical record of thought is motivated by a strong stench of personal bias, Robert.
Even I can see that clearly.