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.\"
The Order of Rank
MATT: 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? [...] 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. We are in agreement that the commonsense level is the only one that enables us to continue our discussions, though that still doesn't mean that scientific theories are always better than any others. We discussed this issue under Re: dhw ... Epistemological Framework (Order of Rank?), and I quote my response on 1 February 2011 at 20.05, which sums up my position:-"My subjective view of "rank" is that it all depends on the topic under discussion and on the purpose of the discussion. If we're studying how the material world works ... the cosmos, the Earth, the body ... I think it would be foolish not to acknowledge the absolute supremacy of science. For all its inadequacies, it has the tools for examining and testing, and our technological and medical triumphs alone prove that it's possible to gain knowledge, which in these fields is indeed the priority.-However, if the topic is whether the mechanisms of life are too complex to have arisen by chance, whether our mental faculties and emotions are solely the product of chemicals, whether there's a life after death, whether there's some kind of universal intelligence at work, scientific materialism is not equipped to answer. Knowledge is not attainable in such contexts. In my subjective view, our experiences of consciousness, love, artistic inspiration, empathy etc. MIGHT be a reflection of a reality beyond that of the material world as we know it. There is no "order of rank" here, because there is no reliable guide."-(We agreed that knowledge is: "Information which is accepted as being true by general consensus among those who are aware of it.")-MATT: ...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.-Let me now answer your question about Zeus and lightning. Yes, 1) is better than 2), and science has demonstrated over and over again that what seemed like mysteries in the past have a perfectly natural explanation. I don't think even our theists would deny that! Maybe science will one day also solve the mysteries I listed above, and we must indeed go on trying to make sense of our surroundings. But why "try to draw some conclusions" BEFORE we have the explanation? At one stage, because of your materialistic leanings, you refused even to consider NDEs as a serious subject for discussion. Perhaps you still do. In your own subjective hierarchy, they couldn't be studied scientifically and were of no "use". Why can't you keep an open mind until science comes up (if it ever can) with the evidence that Zeus/Allah/God is not required to explain life, consciousness etc.?-Under "How reliable is science?" but directly relevant to the subjectivity of hierarchies
hw: Once again, they do so [i.e. scientists pretend that they can give us explanations of certain mysteries] by imposing their materialist philosophy onto science, which is only equipped to deal with the material world ... hence anything non-materialistic is non-scientific and so cannot be true! It's a blatant distortion of language, philosophy and science, but all too often they get away with it.-MATT: The problem I have with your objection here can be illustrated by asking one question: If science can only study materialistic things, then how can applying a materialistic philosophy to science be anything other than consistent and logical?-Materialists believe that matter is the only reality. Science is meant to be the objective study of the material world, irrespective of personal beliefs. You have castigated the ID-ers for imposing their beliefs on their science, and ID-ers have castigated atheists for doing the same thing. Your question, however, implies that the only "consistent and logical" belief a scientist can have is that matter is the only reality, and I'm sure there are plenty of agnostic and theist scientists who would disagree. Ask David.
The Order of Rank
by David Turell , Thursday, April 26, 2012, 18:29 (4593 days ago) @ dhw
MATT: 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. > > Materialists believe that matter is the only reality. Science is meant to be the objective study of the material world, irrespective of personal beliefs. You have castigated the ID-ers for imposing their beliefs on their science, and ID-ers have castigated atheists for doing the same thing. Your question, however, implies that the only "consistent and logical" belief a scientist can have is that matter is the only reality, and I'm sure there are plenty of agnostic and theist scientists who would disagree. Ask David.-This entire discussion is held at the level of consciousness. Where is the materialism? A construct of consciousness. Matt???
The Order of Rank
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, April 27, 2012, 03:18 (4592 days ago) @ dhw
dhw, I'm going to answer you here in small chunks. -> MATT: 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? [...] > 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. > > We are in agreement that the commonsense level is the only one that enables us to continue our discussions, though that still doesn't mean that scientific theories are always better than any others. We discussed this issue under Re: dhw ... Epistemological Framework (Order of Rank?), and I quote my response on 1 February 2011 at 20.05, which sums up my position: > -To throw your own question back at you, how do you decide what question is and is not answerable by science? What criteria can you use?-> "My subjective view of "rank" is that it all depends on the topic under discussion and on the purpose of the discussion. If we're studying how the material world works ... the cosmos, the Earth, the body ... I think it would be foolish not to acknowledge the absolute supremacy of science. For all its inadequacies, it has the tools for examining and testing, and our technological and medical triumphs alone prove that it's possible to gain knowledge, which in these fields is indeed the priority. > > However, if the topic is whether the mechanisms of life are too complex to have arisen by chance, whether our mental faculties and emotions are solely the product of chemicals, whether there's a life after death, whether there's some kind of universal intelligence at work, scientific materialism is not equipped to answer.-I will then argue, that if scientific materialism isn't equipped to answer them, than neither is any alternative form of inquiry.
--
\"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.\"
The Order of Rank
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, April 27, 2012, 00:22 (4592 days ago) @ xeno6696
> 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. > > > > 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.--Um, statement one is not better than statement two, nor is statement two better than statement one. They are answers to different questions. Lightning is the what, number one is the WHO and the other is the HOW, and there is nothing mentioned about the WHY. The WHERE is transitional from sky to earth and mainly a dispute about the origin :P Science can ONLY answer WHAT & HOW. Nothing else. Ever. Never Ever. -That is where I get pissy with both science, religion, and even philosophy at times. They try to say that they are experts in each others fields and that they can prove/disprove/falsify each other. Science can NEVER tell us if "God did it" they can only tell us WHAT happened and HOW. Origins are beyond the scope of the scientific realm, and scientist should leave them alone(at least professionally)
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
The Order of Rank
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, April 27, 2012, 03:14 (4592 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> > 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. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > Um, statement one is not better than statement two, nor is statement two better than statement one. They are answers to different questions. Lightning is the what, number one is the WHO and the other is the HOW, and there is nothing mentioned about the WHY. The WHERE is transitional from sky to earth and mainly a dispute about the origin :P Science can ONLY answer WHAT & HOW. Nothing else. Ever. Never Ever. > Really? -Why does lightning happen? -Either your claim that science doesn't answer "why" questions is false, or the question "Why?" is faulty in the first place!-Other "why" questions science answers:-Why is the sky blue?-Why are plants green?-Why does helium only have one electron?-Why do I bleed when I'm cut?-Why do I fly into my seatbelt when I slam on the brakes? -Why does an anchor sink?-Why do I see double when I cross my eyes? -Why do I run out of breath when I climb stairs?-Why does my computer feel hot when I turn it off?-Why do stars twinkle?-Why do I walk into a room, and then forget what I was doing?-Why does my dog pant?-Why does oil float on water?-Why is Pepto Bismol pink?-Does Tony want me to keep asking why questions? -Why?-> That is where I get pissy with both science, religion, and even philosophy at times. They try to say that they are experts in each others fields and that they can prove/disprove/falsify each other. Science can NEVER tell us if "God did it" they can only tell us WHAT happened and HOW. Origins are beyond the scope of the scientific realm, and scientist should leave them alone(at least professionally)-I disagree with you here. Even if life is caused by a creator, at some point, inanimate matter becomes animate: It is precisely at such a juncture that science can shed answers. David disagrees with me on this, but even if there is a supernatural cause, there is a corresponding material explanation. God *must* coexist with science. (That part he WILL agree with.)
--
\"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.\"
The Order of Rank
by David Turell , Friday, April 27, 2012, 05:00 (4592 days ago) @ xeno6696
Even if life is caused by a creator, at some point, inanimate matter becomes animate: It is precisely at such a juncture that science can shed answers. David disagrees with me on this, but even if there is a supernatural cause, there is a corresponding material explanation. God *must* coexist with science. (That part he WILL agree with.)-I'm not sure I follow you. I think material explanation and supernatural cause are quite separate. Of course God coexists with science. Science is attempting to find out how God did it, and He wants the scientists to try. Materialism seems to avoid recognizing that the universe is filled with consciousness. Not that rocks are sentient but why is anything sentient?
The Order of Rank
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, April 27, 2012, 13:03 (4592 days ago) @ xeno6696
> Really? > > Why does lightning happen? > > Either your claim that science doesn't answer "why" questions is false, or the question "Why?" is faulty in the first place! > > Other "why" questions science answers: > > Why is the sky blue? >-No, science answers HOW light is Again, it only explains how light is absorbed/reflected/refracted. > Why are plants green? > -Again, it only explains how light is absorbed/reflected/refracted.-> Why does helium only have one electron? > -> Why do I bleed when I'm cut? > > Why do I fly into my seatbelt when I slam on the brakes? > > Why does an anchor sink? > > Why do I see double when I cross my eyes? > > Why do I run out of breath when I climb stairs? > > Why does my computer feel hot when I turn it off? > > Why do stars twinkle? > > Why do I walk into a room, and then forget what I was doing? > > Why does my dog pant? > > Why does oil float on water? > > Why is Pepto Bismol pink? > > Does Tony want me to keep asking why questions? > > Why?-All of these are really how questions, not why, but perhaps that is just the way that I look at the question why. Though, I guess we could extend my original statement to say Science can only answer material causes for material events, which to my mind is still HOW in the terms of HOW one process begets another or HOW one set of properties interact with another, since you are being pedantic.-> > > That is where I get pissy with both science, religion, and even philosophy at times. They try to say that they are experts in each others fields and that they can prove/disprove/falsify each other. Science can NEVER tell us if "God did it" they can only tell us WHAT happened and HOW. Origins are beyond the scope of the scientific realm, and scientist should leave them alone(at least professionally) > > I disagree with you here. Even if life is caused by a creator, at some point, inanimate matter becomes animate: It is precisely at such a juncture that science can shed answers. David disagrees with me on this, but even if there is a supernatural cause, there is a corresponding material explanation. God *must* coexist with science. (That part he WILL agree with.)-I disagree with both statements here. Because you are assigning a materialist idea to consciousness which has so far proven itself beyond the keen of scientific examination.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
The Order of Rank
by David Turell , Friday, April 27, 2012, 13:27 (4592 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
I disagree with both statements here. Because you are assigning a materialist idea to consciousness which has so far proven itself beyond the keen of scientific examination.-Thank you. When we find materialistic consciousness we will know it all.