It seems Mr. Pecebre was too eager to give a lecture on the benefits of post modernism that he seems to skip the premise of the article. When you are into writing the first thing you have to consider is the premise.

A premise is the purpose why you wrote the article. Premise is a proposition antecedently supposed or proved; a basis of argument. A proposition stated or assumed as leading to a conclusion.

So what is the premise of this article?

According to Ferdinand Brunetiere, the premise is the goal. John Howard Lawson says it is the root idea of the theme.

The article starts with the coming baranggay election, so basically it has something to do with the premise. That is where the article is going.

So after the premise we go to a clash on something. In the case of this article it is not between science vs. faith but faith vs. faith.

Faith vs. Faith?

The article compares two types of faith. But since the article is supposed to be polemic in nature, it didn’t consider too much technical arguments.

But for the sake of Mr. Pecebre.

There are two types of faith…eh 3 actually: Rational faith, Kierkegaard Fideism and Wittgensteinian Fideism…But the article considered only two. Rational faith and religious faith.

Rational faith is faith guided by reason. According to Thomas Aquinas, faith finds support in the evident and irrefutable motives of credibility which assure us of the objective truth. That means faith on something must be first demonstrated by rational arguments. For rational theists this is possible with the use of logical statements known as “self-evident principle” – those statements that cannot be denied without assuming that it is true in the process of the denial.

Now let see…since I suffer hypertension I always take the food supplement “Alivio” as a daily maintenance. The product is said to be effective in lowering your BP. So how did I arrive in that conclusion?

Well…because the product is being indorsed by Dr. Gary Sy.

Technically speaking, that is faith.

I took it for granted because I have “faith” that Dr. Gary Sy is speaking the truth about “Alivio”. I don’t need to set-up a laboratory just to see if the claim is true. All I need to do is to accept that Dr. Gary Sy is a doctor that I always hear speaking on radio and that he knows what he is saying – that’s rationality for you. Rationalism says that we can determine all truth by logic.

a. Doctors who speak on radio programs know what they are talking about.

b. Dr. Gary Sy is a doctor who speaks on radio.

Conclusion: Dr. Gary Sy knows what he is talking about.

Remember, in rationalism we assume but we don’t prove. Self0evident proposition doesn’t require justification.

Now we go to the next kind of faith.

When Dr. Jose Rizal was debating about faith and reasoning to Fr. Pastell he said, “Mas’ que perfe, por raciocinio y por necesidad creo firmament el la existencia de un Ser creator.

(Though reasoning and by necessity rather than through faith; do I firmly believe in the existence of a CREATIVE Being.)

Fr. Pastel answered that his faith is blind as it knows nothing.

This is the other kind of faith I was talking about.

Technically speaking what I meant of religious faith is ‘Existential Faith’ (or what we now call Kierkegaard Fideism). This is base on Soren Kierkegaard view of faith. According to Kierkegaard, faith is higher than human reason (he calls this “religious faith”) and this faith will never be known by reason. So rather than focusing on objective truth, faith (as assumed by Augustine and Kierkegaard) is to believe on things that cannot be demonstrated by any means (whether empirical or rational). That’s why we don’t explain the concept of the Trinity, the resurrection of Jesus and the dedication of the Qur’an by Angel Gabril to Muhammad in any rational explanation.

We also don’t rationalize why:

a.) If I blew myself together with a dozen Infidels I go straight to heaven.

b.) That Popes are infallible

c.) And that Jesus was born in a virgin.

These are statements of religious faith and Paul Tillich calls this as “idolatrous faith.”

So now you know the element of this article. Rational faith is what you use when riding a taxi or an airplane. It is the faith we use when choosing products on commercials. Religious faith is the one that create gods.

We now go to the connection of the premise with the ideas. Where do Filipino politicians come in?

In the last baranggay election have you noticed how some candidates used Bible verses or the word “maka Diyos” and “madasalin” in their campaign slogans and banners with gusto? Now that is not rational faith is it? Honesty is not self-evident with Filipino politicians.

Are we electing them because we assume God fearing people to be good and honest or are these politicians using these paraphernalia so voters will blindly vote them because these politicians reflect their religious faith?

And what will be the outcome?

Then the clerics that these politicians supported will have a good ground to meddle with the laws of the land…thanks to “utang na loob.”

You now have a good idea about the article.

So now I leave Mr. Pesebre’s post modern world and enter the world of Saussure and Levi-Strauss so I can answer his criticism in the comforting bounds of rationality.

Since he’s talking about scientific inquiries then I have to answer him on the hehehe…paradigm of science and not faith (That Thomas Kuhn for you guys).

In science, empirical evidence means an inductive approach that bases its explanation on which can be directly observed in a repeatable manner or that can be analyzed for statistical significant. Remember, when we talk about empirical evidence…this is not internal to science. Evidence for scientific claims and theories are not simply data, sense perception and rational evidence but of experiential evidence and reason working together. But keep in mind that such evidence must be objective not subjective or context-dependent and it must also not be pure logical (they must be worldly). So science is a combination (note the word “combination”) of empirical evidence and reason.

Now, there are no modes of inference in science and there are no scientific method “exclusive” to science that guarantee to produce true result (NO TRUE TEST).

Observation is a part of the process, but we need to use a combination of induction and deduction…why? So we can form a hypothesis and a theory NOT a construct?

Construct?

Construct are non-testable statements to account for a set of observations.

And what does positivism has to do with my article?

I dunno.

Positivism holds that any proposition which cannot ultimately be reduce to a simple statement of fact, special or general, can have no real or intelligible sense. Does this apply on my article or my state of mind when I wrote this article as Mr. Pesebre suggested?

No…because the article is dealing with faith which according to Auguste Comte can’t be used in scientific method.

Remember, the article is a polemic on the relationship between Filipino politicians and religious faith and not an article for Scientific America.

It is quite nice for Mr. Pecebre to use his time to lecture me about scientific method, induction, proposition, scientific inquiry and being a freethinker.

Thank John Philip…but…

Mr. Pecebre should realize that what I wrote was a social criticism article. So that means (borrowing Mr. Pesebre’s own idea) the article is in the paradigm of a social critic and not a scientist.

There is a difference between social criticism and science. When we talk about science and its methods it is in a process (though not rigid) that we call hypothetico-deductive method so every word that Mr. Pesebre was whining about falls to this paradigm, while in social/political criticism there is a personal interpretation. In the sex, race or religion of the subject; Let us just say that in social criticism if the premise is true the conclusion obviously doesn’t follow.

Mr. Pesebre started his critique of my article on stating some advantages in a post modern world…ah…OK.

Frankly I don’t buy this. Post modernism doesn’t built, it pull things apart.

If I will submit my rationality on Mr. Pesebre’s suggestion and post modern outlook, then everything becomes arbitrary as what author/ theistic philosopher/scholar David L. Haberman says, “Everything falls into linguistic nihilism, making all philosophical statements worthless before it begin.” That means the word “freethinker”, rationality, faith, atheist, falsified, modus podens, proposition – all of them are…well…means nothing.

In a post modernist view, there is no absolute truth. Philosophical discourses are merely illusions. So that means even Mr. Pesebre’s 46 meaning of the word “run” are nothing but ‘jiggery-pokery’ (borrowing Jacques Derrida’s term).

So base on Mr. Pesebre’s post modernist world…eh…every word he wrote as comments are well…meaningless.

Mr. Pesebre is now facing a dilemma. He wants me to define what is “scientific inquiry” and “empirical evidence” while employing post modernism. Damn! How will I do that? How will I define something if truth and reality has an equal opportunity of being legitimate due to personal or cultural circumstances?
If I will define “empirical evidence” as an animal with four legs that howls every night, am I’m wrong? Weh? Remember, according to post modernism, truth is a personal choice.

And how can we use falsification in a post modern world? There is no such thing as scientific method in a world where truth is relative. According to Paul Feyerabend rationality and evidence are no more than rhetorical bullying. Perception? It is just a bias conformity to one’s paradigm. Rational evidence? Feyerabend says that “rationality” rest on certain dogmas that cannot be justified (Against Method p. 295)
So what does Mr. Pecebre’s post modernist world offers? You got it…MORE QUESTIONS!

Ganyan lang talaga ang buhay @ PinoyHeathen. Nobody's perfect...but a small cup of hot coco can sometimes makes wonder.

Yep...I remember that. Nice meeting y7ou again @ Decard.

I'm talking about Dr. William Lane Craig not Dr. Craig Russel.

Have a nice day.

Gosh! Don'e tell me you're...sino ba yun? If my memory serves me right your name has something to do with a certain video game...was it Decard Cain...right?

Ah...nice meeting you again @ Decard. Pasensya muna ha...medyo maikli pisi ko ngayon. My mom is in the hospital kasi eh. Ok naman na sya kahit papaano...but alam mo naman what stress can do.

Sabi ko nga, tatapusin ko lang lahat ito and I will be again indulge myself sa issues that you posted. Until then.

Oh and by the way, is this a comment without malice or not @ Pinoy? Let see..."And to think that Pinoy Atheist belongs to a group that champions "rational" thinking, I wonder why he's forgetting that rational evidences are required also of modern scientific inquiry. "

So what "rational evidences" I forgot to say when I made an article about religious faith and what does it have to do with my membership with FF? What serious response should I give a man intoxicated with hate and pre-judgement against me? Did I cast the first stone? Is that comment not really out of line with the article? I dunno, do you have a better idea?

To PinoyHeather,

The posts were a little pangit na so I have to remove them since Una, it really has nothing to do with the article.

Sinabi ko naman po, if the posts were about the article, I will gladly respect and answer them. Mr. Pesebre was asking about scientific inquiry. Pinoy...may I call you Pinoy? We know for a fact that when speaking of religious faith, we are not talking about any type of empirical facts not even a glitch of scientific inquiry.

Second, let me indulge with his statement, " it is empirical evidence that gives a true test of the scientific inquiry." Now tell me @ Pinoy, what does this have to do with religious faith? Is JC saying that religious faith is the same as scientific inquiry? I don't think that when we talk about religious faith, we are dealing with scientific inquiry.

Maybe if we can make an article about scientific inquiry..JC's questions and comment will suit it better.

Third, what about those statement of me looking for some er...what? Leadership in FF? Gosh, it never even entered my mind @ Pinoy. To indulge in some kind of showbiz intrigues is really not my cup of tea. I don't even have any idea where in my article did I seek leadership in FF? Kuntento na po ako sa mga leaders dito like Redtani, Geric ang Jong (Innerminds) and yes I DON"T INTEND TO BE ANYONE HERE IN FF. Satisfy na akong maging follower when it comes to the Filipino Freethinkers.

That's why I erased those following comments and I just save the first comment that JC have posted @ Pinoy.

No problem @ JC,

1.Sabihin na natin na naniniwala ka na person ang isang diyos. Now…if we say that God is both timeless and spaceless, that will betray his being a person. So sa madaling salita, whether God is a person (that he cannot be time-less and space less) OR a God person that is also timeless and space less can’t exist.

2.Kalam is an argument use to prove that God exist. Now bakit naging special pleading yan? Well that’s because God is already excluded in premise (1). In your statement “god is in the CAUSE category because he is not an EFFECT of something. “ The question will be why will God be the cause? Well according to you, because God is the “necessary” cause? Tama ba? Again, why is God the necessary cause?

Remember, before we can assume that God is the cause category, we have to establish first that God exist. Until you can give me a good explanation how Kalam predicts only one necessary causal agent which is God…well I still can’t give a good reason to accept your opinion @ JC.,

On the issue ni Richard Dawkins, I think ang issue lang po dito is that he's just asking, " why it is more logically defensible to claim that for the rule that everything (or at least things that begin) must have a cause, an exception is made for God but not for the natural universe as a whole?"

To say na ang answer po dito is that God (by default) is necessary being because if, ontologically, reality at one point is nothing, how can we have something...now...well...this will then just fall to the same point that before we say that God is the necessary being, we have to produce God first. To say that God is an ontological necessity is just making Him exist by definition. It really doesn't make much of an answer po.

By the way, ah medyo abangan mo na lang @ JC at gagawa ako ng supplement sa article na ito. I'm going to make something about the First cause and necessary cause.

I hope I did satisfy you today Mr. Pesebre. Uhhhh...and since I am expecting you to post more comments, I would like to inform you po na baka hindi ako kaagad makasagot muna ang mga posts mo sa mga darating na araw. Medyo busy ako sa work (I have to work...) and since malapit na ang Holiday Season, medyo mati-tie muna ako sa trabaho.

Now don't worry, babalikan ko po ang susunod na mga post nyo. Hoping for your patience and consideration.

ciao!