The Order of Rank (Humans)

by dhw, Thursday, April 26, 2012, 14:36 (4596 days ago) @ xeno6696

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 hierarchieshw: 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.