say what? (Epistemology) (The atheist delusion)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, February 05, 2012, 17:15 (4676 days ago) @ dhw

dhw,
> Matt, your recognition of the subjective arbitrariness of hierarchies is indeed a welcome change of direction, and the only section of your post I'd like to comment on ... not as a criticism but as an extension of the argument ... is the following:
> -I had to ponder this for a bit... I must have been speaking Gibberish last year as I started that Epistemological Framework thread... because I recall that it was exactly that subjectivity that I had set out to squash, and realized near the end that it wasn't possible. In fact, I know you were disappointed to see it end... but subjectivity is precisely why I ended it. -> "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.)"
> 
> I don't actually understand your first sentence, but any hierarchy has to suit the subject under consideration. I'm sure there would be a consensus that the scientific method is best for unravelling the complexities of the purely material world. But every subject one can think of will entail different "types of information" and, as you've indicated, the scientific method will be of little assistance in many of those that matter most to us (e.g. love, human relations, ethics, aesthetics). As I see it, there simply cannot be a clear epistemological hierarchy when it comes to questions concerning the source of the universe or of life, or the nature of consciousness in all its manifestations. This is a category all on its own. To give the scientific method priority is tantamount to saying that there is nothing beyond the material world as we know it, which is already a decision. That is not meant as a devaluation of science, but David Attenborough's recognition of Darwin's claim that evolution (which we can extend to science generally) is not incompatible with religion is acknowledgement of the need for a balanced perspective as opposed to a hierarchy. And so for me (I can only speak for myself), any belief should remain compatible with those scientific findings on which there is a general consensus, but at the same time it must take into account all those phenomena that science is not able to cover. Among these I would include the long history of psychic experiences, with special emphasis on those that have resulted in the acquisition of information corroborated by independent witnesses (NDEs being only one form). There is no hierarchy, because a hierarchy is itself a judgement. "Taking into account" does not, of course, mean jumping to conclusions, but by now it should be pretty clear that I am not one for jumping to conclusions!-Nietzsche is often considered the beginning of Postmodern thought, precisely, I think, for the reason that he's the first philosopher (I'm aware of) that kept hinting at this "Order of Rank" problem in all his writings, and of course, when people figured it out, they got it all wrong. The bottom of any dispute is in most cases boiled down to this problem of rank--an atheist values rational logic above all else, but doesn't realize he/she adopts just as rigid a position as Bertrand Russell... who's program of axiomatically uniting all of mathematics failed when Godel ushered in his amazing incompleteness theorem.-The fundamental flaw if this line of thinking--one I shared until around the time I joined this forum--is exactly the fact that by not confronting the fact of this *lack* of understanding there is a strong tendency to paper over this weakness by appeals to some mystic future when all will be revealed, logically. A faith as strong as Christ, though not recognized as such by its own believers. -David might even still think that some remnant of this thought underpins my views, considering that I'm willing to wait however many lifetimes it takes to solve these problems. -I think there will be a fundamental shift of mysticism coming to our culture soon, as there will undoubtedly have to be a backlash for the utter dominance of materialistic thinking over the last 100 years...

--
\"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.\"