say what? (The atheist delusion)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, January 31, 2012, 21:53 (4681 days ago) @ scoobypoo

I said I'd get to that other bit later.-The ultimate root of problems between theists and non-theists relies not on claims about the material world. -What the root of the problem is a difference in a philosophical problem detailed by Nietzsche in the late 1800's--The Order of Rank.-At root for many theists--especially those of Hinduism, and to a lesser extent famous Catholic mystics such as St. John of the Cross--is a feeling of "holiness" (for lack of a better word) when performing some act analogous to my own meditation. For some people, this feeling is God. And many of them are perfectly willing to admit--that it could just be the firing of neurons in their head--but due to that nature of "the odds" I alluded to in my earlier post, they are willing to go beyond a suspension of belief (the only correct mode for an agnostic) and to believe. -What's at stake between a theist and a non-theist, is partially an argument over the order of rank of evidence. The direct experience of these mystics is the only evidence they need. But to a staunch materialist, the only evidence they accept is something that can be grokked by the 6 senses, but defined by components available to 5. (The mind can take itself as input, hence 6.) Non-theists always claim they win when a claim is presented that can only be experienced, yet I MUST point out that as an everyday fact, nearly EVERY experience we have as a human being is something that falls into the category of "must be experienced." Explain the color green to someone who is color blind. Can you do this? The best you can do scientifically is to give an abstract numerical value, a wavelength of light between 520...570nm. But we're no longer talking about the color green... not really... we're talking about light. -The other part is the order of rank over epistemology. What is "The Order of Rank?" It is that subjective piece that we all have in our own mental frameworks, that informs us as to what types of information we place the most reliance upon. Where I diverge from David, for example, is that for me, an explanation must be predictable and reliable, where reliability is essentially dictated by the scientific method. (I only make claims upon those things that I can study.) -But I recognize that this is a personal distinction, that I devalue direct experience when compared to a good scientific model. I don't have (and am not allowed to have) any say over what someone else's "Order of Rank" should be. -Dawkins often makes arguments akin to, "Theists use logic on everything but their own beliefs." However he misses the point that these theists probably view their experience as surpassing and beyond what logic is capable of describing. It is human nature to be irrational.

--
\"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.\"