The Order of Rank (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, April 25, 2012, 23:28 (4593 days ago)

Years ago when I started on this forum, I walked in with a self-admitted materialistic bent. To date, none has really challenged the level of materialist I am, though my old thread on Epistemology definitely laid the foundation for the direction I wanted to go. -We have finally reached the point where we can start discussing what I have always felt was the *only* distinction between theists, agnostics, and atheists. -What kinds of explanations hold more weight?-Directing at dhw's response yesterday:->Sorry to cherry-pick these quotes, but by putting them together, I'm trying to emphasize the distinction that I feel you are still not making. It's discussions "like origins" that I'm focusing on ... and they include the nature of consciousness, of love, of aesthetics, and of all those phenomena that seem to defy material explanations. This is the "trap" and science does NOT give us a way out, and it does not give us an explanation, let alone the BEST explanation.-If I say lightning is -1. caused by a difference in potential between positively charged particles and negatively charged particles, is that explanation better than -2. "Zeus throws lightning from Olympus?"-Now, dhw is right--the ultimate truth is sincerely unknowable. How do we know when we've reached it? My position now--as it has been all along--is that ultimate truth is irrelevant. Only if you become God can you gain it, so that entire avenue is done before it begins. -Well that sucks. We can't know if something's true? -No. But we can look at the world around us, try to draw some conclusions... and if we word things properly... we'll at least be able to make some sense about our surroundings. -So far, I bet everyone is on board with me. So I'll ask again, what is it about statement 1 that is better than statement 2? I have my own thoughts, but I'm interested to hear some responses. Yes, I know that the example is simple, but I'll also challenge that the same logic holds even for explanations that are nowhere near as understood as electricity.

--
\"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.\"