DEDICATED TO JUSTUS
BUCHLER MY TEACHER AND MENTOR
All the graphics
and pictures on this home page were downloaded from the internet and presumed to
be free of copyright restrictions. If anyone knows of copyrighted material
being used here, please communicate with me immediately. It will be
removed.
Pasqual
S. Schievella
1914 - 2011
Newsday:
Audrey
C. Tiernan
SCHIEVELLA'S JOURNAL FOR THE PHILOSOPHY OF CLEAR, CRITICAL, AND
ANALYTICAL THINKING
LANGUAGE AS RELATED TO
TRUTH AND KNOWLEDGE
or
HOW AND WHEN TO ASK THE RIGHT
QUESTIONS
A BEGINNER'S GUIDE TO
CLEAR, CRITICAL, AND ANALYTICAL THINKING
MAIN INDEX OF LINKS
PREFACE
WHY
PHILOSOPHY?
THE STRANGE
WORLD OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF CLEAR, CRITICAL, AND ANALYTICAL THINKING
THE
STUDY OF CRITICAL THINKING
ORDINARY
LANGUAGE
ABUSE
OF LANGUAGE
CLEAR
THINKING
CRITICAL
THINKING
ANALYTICAL
THINKING
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
vs SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
CHURCH AND STATE: EPILOGUE
CRITICAL ANALYSIS vs THEISM
THE GREAT
FAILURE OF EDUCATION
A
STEP TOWARD SOLUTION
PRE-COLLEGE
CONCEPTUAL PRIORITIES
THE
HIDDEN FACE OF INEQUALITY
HEY!
IS THAT YOU, GOD? EPILOGUE
Sources
of Knowledge
PROOF
OF SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS FOR CLEAR THINKING
GOLDEN
RULE
NECESSARY
POINTS OF AGREEMENT FOR RATIONAL ARGUMENTATION
CONCEPTS
TO REFLECT UPON
Assumption
vs Inference vs etc.
(A)
VERIFIABLE CLAIMS
(B)
UNVERIFIABLE CLAIMS
PERSONAL
BEHAVIOR FOR ANALYTICAL THINKERS
LANGUAGE
HUMAN
USE OF LANGUAGE
"Levels"
of Language
ELEMENTS OF
LANGUAGE
Symbols,
Referents, and Inferences
Diversity
of Referents
FUNCTIONS
OF LANGUAGE
ARGUMENTS
TRUTH
KNOWLEDGE
CLAIMS
TO SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE
Uses
of the Term 'Know'
NON-METHODS
OF KNOWLEDGE
SCIENCE
Scientific
Method
MIND
EMERGENCE OF SPECTRUM
OF MINDS:
OPEN-MINDEDNESS
CRITICAL ANALYSIS GLOSSARY
SUGGESTED
READINGS
List
of Works by Schievella
Link to International Youth Congress
For more information: See
P. Schievella:
If
God didn't create the universe, how did it come into existence?
Why
put so much faith in verifiability when the verifiability principle, itself,
cannot be verified?
How
do you know that knowledge is only probable?
How
do you know God does not exist?
Considering
that there is much literature indicating that what we experience and know comes
from outside the brain, on what basis do you claim that mind is a function if
the brain?
Are
there not greater minds than yours that believe in the existence of God?
What
can possibly be wrong in believing in a divine Being Who, we believe, is
concerned with our welfare?
Why
do you disrespect people who hold beliefs different from yours?
You
are obviously a devotee of positivism, that school of philosophy that reduces
all meaningful knowledge to that which can be verified by scientific method.
Among other problems, positivism fails its own test, since it is predicated on
an act of faith that cannot be empirically validated. Where, for example,
do you ground your repeated emphasis on the "moral" and"
immoral"? A world of the merely material is a world bereft of ethical
value. If the existence of God cannot be verified, nor can His non
existence. Your assertion eludes empirical proof. The inability to
verify something is not a sufficient reason for rejecting it. It is
reasoning plus faith that leads to truth. Why, then, are you so opposed to
faith in the pursuit of knowledge?
Why
are you so determined to undermine people's cherished beliefs?
If
God didn't create the laws of the universe, where did they come from?
Contingency
is a property of everything in the universe, as St. Thomas Aquinas wrote drawing
the conclusion that the universe is contingent also.
You
claim that we know there is a universe. At the same time, you claim that
we are never in touch with, i.e., have knowledge of, the ASSUMED physical world
because all we are in touch with are our perceptions. Aren't you
contradicting yourself?
You
have said that "of all the concepts of gods, the biblical God is one that
it is easiest to prove to be linguistic nonsense. . . ." Since the
Bible is the Word of God, doesn't that prove that God exists?
You
seem to advocate the theory of Darwinian evolution, held through the belief
system of atheists, instead of accepting the biblical theory that God created us
in his own image. Why shouldn't people be taught both theories and let
THEM decide which theory to accept?
In
your article, "Critical Analysis vs Separation of Church and State,"
you imply that we should allow teachers on the pre-college level to discuss
religious and theistic terminology and that our constitution does not prohibit
this. Wouldn't such a development cause much more harm than good and
aren't you misreading the First Amendment?
The
title of your book, Hey, IS That You, God?, suggests that you believe in
God or at least are searching for Him. Yet, your home page seems to
emphasize that He does not exist.
NEWSWEEK
published an article entitled, "Science finds God" (July 20, 1998),
written by Sharon Begley. Doesn't this conclusively undermine all your
anti-theistic arguments?
Since
there is no evidential certainty that there is no absolute knowledge, isn't it
possible that there is absolute knowledge?
Why
can't teachers agree on what is CRITICAL THINKING?
In
the 13th ENCYCLICAL ON FAITH AND REASON, according to media reports, Pope John
Paul II is concerned that "modern philosophy has lost confidence in
reason." The Pope fears that ". . . the search for ULTIMATE (my
upper case) truth seems often to be neglected." Commendably the Pope
"urged philosophers, theologians, and people in the pews to keep using
human reason. . . ." Unfortunately, he added, "to seek ultimate
truth -- not just to examine facts and technological data." He
suggested that philosophers should be reasoning about the following
"metaphysical" questions, which have been asked and reasoned about for
thousands of years to no avail. "Who am I?" "Where
have I come from and where am I going?" "Why is there
evil?" "What is there after this life?"
It
is apparent from your anti-theistic arguments you believe that Good and Evil do
not exist. Great minds, such as Pope John Paul The Second, insist God is
responsible for the good in the world, and Satan is responsible for evil in the
world. If so, how do you account for their apparent existence?
You
repeatedly insist that nothing that is incorporeal can exist. How, then,
do you explain the existence of pain, happiness, love, hate, friendship,
democracy, motion, and the like?
Somewhere
in your homepage, you state that theism is the greatest crime ever foisted
against mankind. What evidence do you have to support such an outrageous
claim?
You
have argued that God, because he is not matter, cannot have a brain and
consequently can't see, hear, think, have knowledge, etc. Haven't you
ignored the fact that since He is Perfect in every way, He does not need to be
matter and if he were, it would render Him imperfect?
A
few thinkers concerned with the nature of time have argued that it may be
possible to "travel" into the future. Is time travel really
possible?
You
frequently have said that laws are constructs and do not in fact exist in the
universe. How, then does the phrase, 'the laws of the universe,' make
sense?
You
say, "If God is All Good, He would not have allowed evil to exist."
If He did not, how could we exercise the free will, he gave us, in the absence
of evil to compare with good?
You
seem to insist that science is the most important source of reliable knowledge
and by extrapolation the "wave" of the future. Why have you not
shown that science does not deal with ethical and moral principles that are so
important to the survival of a civilization?
Most
people on Earth including many well-educated people and even scientists, believe
there is a god, and have for thousands of years. On what grounds do you
maintain the rightness of your position and the wrongness of theirs?
Religious
music is an integral part of our musical departments and ceremonies in our
public schools. Considering your apparent antithesis to matters religious,
would you not at least agree that it is an extremely important part of our
spiritual education?
You
have frequently stated that theistic language, as well as some non-theistic
language, is unverifiable nonsense. This is confusing. I contend
that in both cases some such claims can be verified to be false. If you,
as do the Logical Positivists, insist that ALL claims about God are
unverifiable, are you not also declaring them to be meaningless, i.e.,
gobbledygook, gibberish?
Throughout
your homepage you have used the term 'mean' or some version of it. Yet,
you claim that a basic rule underlying clear, critical, and analytical thinking
is "No word or symbol has an inherent meaning." I can only reply
that not only do I not know what you mean but nothing in your homepage means
anything to me.
"GOD"
SPEAKS TO SCHIEVELLA
FAITH
VS CERTAINTY or Blind Faith
LETTERS
TO EDITORS
EMERGENT
EVOLUTION: THE PHILOSOPHY OF CONWY LLOYD MORGAN
EMERGENT
EVOLUTION AND REDUCTIONISM
ARISTOTLE'S
JUSTICE: AND HIS MESOTES DOCTRINE
JOHN
LANGE'S COGNITIVITY PARADOX
THE
ONTOLOGY OF REFERENT
KARL
POPPER'S INDETERMINISM
INQUIRY
WITHOUT DOUBT
RELIGION,
THEISM, AND THE ANCIENT ASTRONAUT HYPOTHESIS
THE
DECLINE OF GREATNESS
THE
METAPHYSICS OF HENRI BERGSON'S DURATION AND INTUITION
PLATO,
THE ARTIST
IN DEFENSE OF LIBERALISM
THE
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF ST. AUGUSTINE
VERIFIABILITY
AND THE ANCIENT ASTRONAUT HYPOTHESIS
OUR
GODS WERE PHYSICAL BEINGS or A MILLION TRILLION GODS
SCIENCE,
PROOF, AND THE ANCIENT ASTRONAUT HYPOTHESIS
LEIBNIZ'S
MONAD
FREE
WILL AND DETERMINISM
THE
NATURE OF EXPERIENCE IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF SAMUEL ALEXANDER
INTELLIGENT
DESIGN
ON
THE TERM, 'EXIST'
CRITICISM
OF THE ANCIENT ASTRONAUT HYPOTHESIS REVISITED
THE
UNBRIDGEABLE CHASM BETWEEN SCIENCE AND THEISM
FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT
THE
WILL O' THE WISP OF PURE ENERGY
THE
TRAIL
THE
ROAD TO LIFE
WEEP
NOT FOR ME
ALPHA
AND OMEGA
MINE
AND THINE
THE
CALL
THE
TURNING STONE
THE
WALL
THE
WALKING DEAD
RIVER
CLIDE
HITLER
ICELAND
I
ICELAND
II
A
TREE
I
HATE THE THOUGHT OF DYING
AURORA
FLAG
OF FREEDOM
AIR
RAID ON SOUTHAMPTON, ENGLAND
LIFE
A
WEE VOICE
I'LL
FOLLOW SOON
ETERNAL
PEACE
MAN
RAIN
TODAY
WE LIVE
TWO
LOVERS' FAITH
THE
SEMINARY
MY
DARLING REBECCA
REBECCA
MY
LOVE IS GONE
TRUTH
DEATH
LANDLORD
NEAR
AN END
MY
PRECIOUS WIFE
NATURE
Without the guidance of my
friends and colleagues, Lowell Kleiman and Jacques VandeKieft, this project
would never have appeared on the internet.
© 1997 -- 6th edition 2010
by Pasqual S. Schievella