Atheist Fundamentalism and the Limits of Science

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by lightgigantic, Dec 3, 2007.

  1. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    If you take a closer look and examine the OP you can see how the joke is on you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2007
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    LG,

    I have just read a recent post of yours which supports my view that you are very confused and unable to follow an argument. You don't think for yourself;you let others do the thinking and you then come up with half-baked objections,

    Example: "If we got knowledge from the senses we would not have to go to school."

    The reason we go to school is to acquire knowledge from those who have more of it than we do. Our teachers have obtained knowledge in a similar fashion. So school is a place where we get the benefit of pooled, organized knowledge. It's as simple as that

    Knowledge of the world comes ONLY through the senses. If you disagree, tell me where your knowledge comes from.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
     
  8. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    I think you have missed the point completely

    knowledge, per se, cannot be empirically reduced

    IOW you can't reduce the state of being "in knowledge" to electrons or some other sub-atomic analysis

    thats what the analogy of the forensic scientist and the janitor was supposed to indicate - its not like the janitor's inability to "see" what the forensic scientist can "see" is due to his eyeballs
     
  9. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    What is knowledge per se. as opposed to knowledge ?
    What do you mean when you say " knowledge. per se. cannot be empirically reduced ?
    Your IOW is confusing. Please clarify it
     
  10. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    PS You still have not answered my request to explain how you would show me " whiteness" I asked it in the context of your dismissal of my explanation of justice being demonstrated.

    I have a good reason for asking this question. Answer it and you may learn something to your advantage.
     
  11. SnakeLord snakeystew.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,758
    You are forgiven.

    My question is as empiricsm cannot be used to detect god, what else do we use? What particular brand of non-sense must we utilise?

    Take into account that you assert that god is an object, (an existing thing), and not a mental concept and thus you cannot try and draw a comparison between god and justice.

    I keep asking you to show me this god, using any method you want. You keep evading.

    Because I am unaware of other methods with which to discern levels in envy/wrath other than by empirical means. I have asked you what these methods are countless times. That you haven't answered is hardly my fault.

    Without using my senses? Absolutely.

    Like looking at strands of hair, fingerprints and so on? Yes.

    Yes.

    I'm not. You were the one that brought up forensic whatevers when I asked you to explain how not using your senses works.

    Pay attention.
     
  12. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
     
  13. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553

    I asked you where your knowledge comes from if not through your senses. You have not offered an explanation.. Would you like to do so now ?

    I am giving you an opportunity to show all empiricists where they are going wrong. Take it !
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2007
  14. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    my point is that empiricism falls short of indicating these things, so holding empiricism as the final last word in defining reality offers a narrow perspective

    we can't see "whiteness" any more than we can see what we are seeing with.
    "whiteness" however can be determined by the mind - for instance if we see something white (the phenomena) we can understand that there must be a state of being that causes that (noumena) - hence whiteness
     
  15. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    "knowledge per se" is the state of being in knowledge.
    The reason it lies outside of empiricism is that we cannot (for eg) conduct a brain scan to determine if a person knows 1+1=2

     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2007
  16. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Snakelord
    as I mentioned previously, you seem to be using the word "non-sense" to mean knowledge
    the president is also an existing thing - still, on account of his special position, you have no direct perception of him (you have never - most likely - seen him in the flesh).
    Given that this is a parallel to your question about God (who is deemed as being quite a few times more special than the president) and given that your use of the word "non-sense" seems like another way of saying "knowledge", how would you answer this .... "what must we know in order to directly perceive the president?"

    the purpose of discussing things like "justice" was to show how we can quite comfortably work things that lie outside of empirical verification and still cultivate knowledge.
    For instance there are lots of people researching the nature of justice, despite justice remaining outside of empiricism.
    IOW to flat out reject something because it doesn't fit into existing empirical frameworks is not only impractical but absurd

    from my side it seems like constant reiteration and clarification
    really?
    what are the empirical standards they utilize for determining levels of envy?
    what about using your senses and your knowledge base?
    so given the average knowledge base of a janitor in regards to forensic science, do you think they will "see" these things?
    if both the janitor and the forensic scientist have equal levels of vision, why can one "see" somethings that the other cannot?
     
  17. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2007
  18. superluminal I am MalcomR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,876
    What I would like to get from LG is a better understanding (without BG references, thanks) of his proposed mechanism of "direct perception", i.e. knowledge of reality that is somehow deposited directly in the mind, bypassing the empirical sensory channels.
     
  19. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
     
  20. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    its not that the senses are bypassed
    Its that they are empowered

    empirical discipline only has a jurisdiction on objects that can be observed in a controlled environment - this is part of the reason why psychology relies less on strict empirical standards (there is no way to place human society in a controlled environment, since we - the observer - are the very products of human society)

    If we had a means to "step outside" of that human social context, the way we would "look" at human society would be vastly different. In other words our senses would be empowered to grant a greater vision.

    This "stepping out" of existing "pre-controlled frameworks" (not just human society but the "society" of the entire material creation) is the precise opportunity afforded by religious discipline.

    IOW by (properly) coming into contact with god (or getting the "mercy" of god) one gets pulled out of the frameworks that our mind and senses are products of, and thus one's mind and senses are empowered to work in ways that are otherwise impossible. (much like it is impossible for a janitor to call upon their mind and senses to act in the fashion of a forensic scientist)
     
  21. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
     
  22. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    No. Whitness is a contingent property of some objects. It cannot exist independently of them.
    If you continue to disagree about this then the onus is on you to say in what sense whitness has an independent existence and how it may be perceived
     
  23. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Myles
    So there are brain scans that can detect what people know?
    (I am talking about science and not science fiction)
    how do you know if I am telling the truth about what I know?
    Or how about if I temporarily have amnesia only to recall my knowledge several months later?

    technically no
    knowledge is gained by existing knowledge and the senses.
    If you lack a certain element of knowledge,it doesn't matter how great your senses are (eg a janitor with perfect vision is not even half as effective as a forensic scientist wearing coke bottle glasses)

    yes, there is some special element that is empowering his senses - and that special element (knowledge per se) cannot be empirically reduced
    similarly, if we credit the cynical atheist with coming into line with normative descriptions in scripture, we have a changed situation
    once again, knowledge or the process of receiving knowledge cannot be empirically reduced (educational programs have a strong behavioral element - its no coincidence why kids don't like school) so at the heart of your argument ("everything real is empirical") something is flawed
    I may not know it - after all a parrot can also be trained to say "1+1=2"
     

Share This Page