The real discussion: Values (Humans)

by dhw, Saturday, January 02, 2016, 18:19 (3246 days ago) @ xeno6696

Dhw: 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.
MATT: 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. -No disagreement here. I merely objected to Romansh's use of ”assumption” where I felt “hypothesis” was a more suitable term. As an agnostic I regard David's explanations of a God-directed evolution as a hypothesis and not an assumption, and I defined the difference. You go on to list various types of necessary assumptions, and I agree with most of those too, but as regards materialism, I think we need to be careful. You say: “I assume materialism, because I am required to in order to accept scientific theories and data.” There are many fields in which I think it is perfectly correct, not to mention practical, to assume materialism, and the result is indeed that we reach consensus. But there are others where materialism becomes a hypothesis, by which I mean an idea that has been suggested as an explanation, as opposed to an idea we believe to be true. These are areas that include the origin of life, the nature and products of consciousness (such as emotional, aesthetic, and psychic experiences), and the values which both David and I have called “immaterial”. There is no consensus here, and the assumption of a materialistic explanation seems to me (of course I can only make a subjective judgement) just as blinkered as the assumption of a supernatural explanation.-Dhw: 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.
MATT: 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. -I can't. That is why we have a never-ending discussion on the subject! One person sees divine purpose, and another sees chance. I do not see it as a false dichotomy, regardless of what the ancients say, but we are not talking here about what the gods “do to us”. Our context is “the origin of the universe, life and consciousness”.-Dhw: 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.
MATT: 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.-I expect David will also distance himself from the established religions and their trappings, so it might be better to stick to theism versus atheistic materialism. I suspect you're right about your own generation in the predominantly Christian West, though there is certainly no general consensus, and there are other regions where I'd advise you not to repeat such antireligious views out loud, even (especially?)among 36-year-old men! I trust, however, that you are not claiming your generation in the Christian West knows that materialist atheism is the “truth”, while any other belief is hogwash.