The real discussion: Values (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, January 02, 2016, 00:45 (3247 days ago) @ dhw

For me epistemology concerns the nature and boundaries of knowledge - not what we think we know, but whether and how it is even possible to know anything. Knowledge to me implies something absolute, and so we have to draw a distinction between knowledge and belief. That's why the common definition of agnosticism (“the impossibility of knowing whether God exists or not”) seems to some of us to be obsolete: nobody KNOWS - though people may BELIEVE they know - so we are all agnostics. In everyday life, we tend for practical reasons not to think in absolute terms, but if I remember rightly, we agreed that the nearest we can get to “actual” knowledge is a general consensus on what is true among those who are aware of the matter in question. For instance, there is general consensus that the Earth goes round the sun, but not that God exists.
> -This ties into to ideas further down the road from this regarding assumptions. I know you jumped on romansh for using this word, but we use assumptions daily and in the things we discuss here. Even the statement "I don't believe we can have knowledge about God," makes assumptions, even if you don't think about them. An implied assumption here is that even if the supernatural exists, we can't access it. But this is an assumption, not a fact. -Assumptions are as important as values in the broader subject. -I assume materialism, because I am required to in order to accept scientific theories and data. If I don't make that assumption, then I have to take quite seriously the idea that the sun won't rise tomorrow. Assumptions in all of this *is* necessary. And we did reach an agreement: -"we agreed that the nearest we can get to “actual” knowledge is a general consensus on what is true among those who are aware of the matter in question."-To me, that's exactly what science does, but for science to even function, there are a series of assumptions that everyone who uses the method or its results *must* make. You might recall me drilling similar points home in the past, but you can't say that you trust a scientific cure for an ailment without assuming that an omnipotent deity can't swoop in and turn it into a poison before you receive it. -
> I'm not sure how one can test any claims relating to the divine versus chance origin of the universe, life and consciousness, but in any case I would put it the other way round. It seems right to me that human beings are allowed to adopt whatever view they like, so long as it does not harm other people. Society consists of individuals and should not adopt any single ”encompassing view” of origins - that is the route to oppression and persecution.
> -I've often said that I find the "divine vs. chance" a false dichotomy. The ancients provide some insights here: Everything that the Gods do to us is a product of fortune. Read Diogenes of Sinope, and the Stoics to see this line of thought in action. We'll have to revisit this, clearly, but my direct question to you: How would you tell the difference between something created divinely or created by chance? I've probably asked this in the past, but we seem to be stirring up lots of basic conversations since my return. -
> My own and every other generation I have known has always been deeply divided on matters pertaining to religion and origins. What you call ”baggage” may still be valid for millions of people, and since there is no general consensus on any of the theories, ultimately we fall back on subjective values. We draw comfort from intersubjectivity, but that is not the same as truth.
> -In my experience, growing up here in the midwest, supposedly the epitome of work ethic and Christian values, is that atheism and materialism in my generation are more or less assumed. I'm 36 now, and I've met three adults in my age cohort or younger that believe in God in the way my family does back where I grew up. The current generation doesn't have much of a split in their minds at all: Religion and all of its trappings are hogwash, end of story.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"