Atheism And Moral Progress

[Zara]

If you agree with this improve your posts and spelling.

Yeah, attack my spelling. Well done. You're a champ. Meanwhile, why not read some phenomenology - the word transcendence might get a grounding.

Bluntly no, back up and review English and science. empirical findings are not evidence, and they are based on evidence.

Are they? "Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation." It is not the object itself. As you were suggesting, assuming I understand your unclear sentence. I'm not the only one whose posts lack English clarity, fyi.

incoherent.

Explain a non-mechanistic view of science. I was taking the piss though, because my guess is that you actually can't.

[shunyadragon]

Yeah, attack my spelling. Well done. You're a champ. Meanwhile, why not read some phenomenology - the word transcendence might get a grounding.

No

Are they? "Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation." It is not the object itself. As you were suggesting, assuming I understand your unclear sentence. I'm not the only one whose posts lack English clarity, fyi.

It is possible that many posters have problems with English, but one thing is very clear.

Empirical findings are not evidence. Empirical findings are the result of scientific methods and objective verifiable evidence.

Explain a non-mechanistic view of science. I was taking the piss though, because my guess is that you actually can't.

Quantum Mechanics.

[Zara]

No

Ahh, fine, then don't. Have a quote:

"[Heidegger] now explicitly proclaims that the intentionality of consciousness (and indeed the noetic-noematic structure as proposed by Husserl) has to be rethought in terms of the very peculiar transcendence of Dasein which is not simply that a present-at-hand entity has some special quality that raises it above other entities in the world. Dasein is never a present-at-hand object. Heidegger further claims that Dasein asl the manner in which beings have been revealed in the ‘natural attitude’ (Husserl’s ‘die natrliche Einstellung’) has been understood naturalistically—the human being has been interpreted as experiencing itself zoologically as a ‘ζῷον,’ a living being that is part of the world (GA 20, § 12). This itself, for Heidegger, is a tremendous distortion and indeed reduction of the truly radical character of human existence as disclosive of truth, of human existence in its phenomenality."

It is possible that many posters have problems with English, but one thing is very clear.

Empirical findings are not evidence. Empirical findings are the result of scientific methods and objective verifiable evidence.

I just googled "Empirical findings" and it came up with: "Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation." The terms seem interchangeable.

What is 'objective verifiable evidence'? My claim is that some questions are not within the scope of the scientific method. These include those related to human morality, among others. They have to do with intentionality. The scientific method has its own form of intentionality - a scientific one - that distorts a host of ways in which humans relate to each other and other phenomena.

The scientific model of human morality results in a reduction of motivations to those that result in survival - a particular pathetic reduction in my opinion, and very far outside my experience of life. I am of course wrong, while the model is correct - because science ontology.

Quantum Mechanics.

What does this have to do with reductionism? The issue is the leveling of all phenomena to being of the same kind, not the causal mechanism.

[Tassman]

According to whom?

Do you have reason to believe that there IS more to “morality” than that of an evolved survival mechanism for social animals such as us?

Pray tell.

Are you sure you haven't bought into an ontology, whose principles inhibit your ability to reason beyond its rather limited epistemological purview? Methinks you have.

“Methinks” you have “bought into an ontology” that cannot be substantiated.

[Zara]

Do you have reason to believe that there IS more to “morality” than that of an evolved survival mechanism for social animals such as us?

Pray tell.

The Critique of Practical Reason or Mind and World. Have a read, if you can. I suspect, given your background - you can't. So, why bother even talking to you?

“Methinks” you have “bought into an ontology” that cannot be substantiated.

Really, according to what, the one you've bought into? I haven't bought into it, so its force doesn't bind on me.

Enjoy your empty nihilistic world.

[Tassman]

The Critique of Practical Reason or Mind and World. Have a read, if you can. I suspect, given your background - you can't. So, why bother even talking to you?

Merely citing an eighteenth-century philosopher like Emmanuel Kant is insufficient. You need to make a case that there is more to “morality” than that of an evolved survival mechanism.

Really, according to what, the one you've bought into? I haven't bought into it, so its force doesn't bind on me.

Is this why you seem unable to substantiate the ontology that you have bought into.

Enjoy your empty nihilistic world.

I make a point of it.

[Zara]

Merely citing an eighteenth-century philosopher like Emmanuel Kant is insufficient. You need to make a case that there is more to “morality” than that of an evolved survival mechanism.

Mind and World was released in 1997. But what case could be made? You'll demand it is in terms of what you define as evidence - which will always be insufficient. The problem and why we disagree is more fundamental than this question.

Is this why you seem unable to substantiate the ontology that you have bought into.

Nowhere did I say I have bought into anything. Not being trapped by a model seems a much better position than forcing phenomena to be (disclosed) according to the current model of what is true. Fly bottles and all that.

I make a point of it.

Hey, you're the one missing out - and causing considerable harm no doubt. You're of the 'party until the end of the world' stripe? The worst of the worst in my opinion. Ignorance is bliss I'm sure though ;)

[Tassman]

Mind and World was released in 1997. But what case could be made? You'll demand it is in terms of what you define as evidence - which will always be insufficient. The problem and why we disagree is more fundamental than this question.

You have yet to make a case that there is more to “morality” than it being merely the result of natural selection to enable humanity to survive as a cooperative social animal.

Nowhere did I say I have bought into anything. Not being trapped by a model seems a much better position than forcing phenomena to be (disclosed) according to the current model of what is true. Fly bottles and all that.

Well you have clearly “bought into” the notion that there is more to “morality” than that of an evolved survival mechanism. You just don’t say what.

Hey, you're the one missing out - and causing considerable harm no doubt. You're of the 'party until the end of the world' stripe? The worst of the worst in my opinion. Ignorance is bliss I'm sure though ;

“No doubt”.

[Zara]

You have yet to make a case that there is more to “morality” than it being merely the result of natural selection to enable humanity to survive as a cooperative social animal.

What would convince you that it wasn't as you believe it is? Just out of curiosity, what would be sufficient proof for you?

Well you have clearly “bought into” the notion that there is more to “morality” than that of an evolved survival mechanism. You just don’t say what.

Sure, I don't harm what is beautiful to start. But it doesn't flow from a model about what human beings are - 'evolved social animals' - derived from some metaphysical assumptions. For your particular model, why is it even called "morality" it seems odd to me, since it has very much nothing to do with right or wrong, good or bad - those are just empty normative categories surely?

Is rape "bad" or "immoral" in your model, it appears to be a survival and reproductive strategy among many - the only issue is getting caught it seems, although even then, it appears to be encouraged in some societies - particularly against the enemy.

“No doubt”.

;)

[carpedm9587]

I explored my lived experience. Then I read some pretty difficult books.

That's a fairly shallow answer, so let me rephrase. How can you substantiate the claim "What those faculties permit is well beyond any necessary evolutionary reductionism or instrumentalism."

Another book, more lived experience.

Same response. How can you substantiate the claim, "Some people are called to higher forms of life - they make demands on us." And while we're at it, what exactly is this "higher form of life?"

[Zara]

That's a fairly shallow answer, so let me rephrase. How can you substantiate the claim "What those faculties permit is well beyond any necessary evolutionary reductionism or instrumentalism."

I'm sure the world's great artists were just there to pick up chicks, right?

Same response. How can you substantiate the claim, "Some people are called to higher forms of life - they make demands on us." And while we're at it, what exactly is this "higher form of life?"

I'm sure the world's greatest aesthetics and writers, were just there to pick up chicks, right?

[carpedm9587]

I'm sure the world's great artists were just there to pick up chicks, right?I'm sure the world's greatest aesthetics and writers, were just there to pick up chicks, right?

Again, I have no idea how these answers relate to my question, but I AM beginning to conclude that you aren't actually interested in a serious discussion. If that is so, let's just move on, shall we? I mostly post here to engage in discussions/debates about real issues - with a little socializing on the side.

[Zara]

Again, I have no idea how these answers relate to my question, but I AM beginning to conclude that you aren't actually interested in a serious discussion. If that is so, let's just move on, shall we? I mostly post here to engage in discussions/debates about real issues - with a little socializing on the side.

You asked about whether some of our faculties extend beyond evolutionary requirements? I thought that this was an example where they clearly do, unless you reduce all activity to a survival / reproduction story - in which case, yeah, sure, there's no point in discussing anything.

[shunyadragon]

Ahh, fine, then don't. Have a quote:

"[Heidegger] now explicitly proclaims that the intentionality of consciousness (and indeed the noetic-noematic structure as proposed by Husserl) has to be rethought in terms of the very peculiar transcendence of Dasein which is not simply that a present-at-hand entity has some special quality that raises it above other entities in the world. Dasein is never a present-at-hand object. Heidegger further claims that Dasein asl the manner in which beings have been revealed in the ‘natural attitude’ (Husserl’s ‘die natrliche Einstellung’) has been understood naturalistically—the human being has been interpreted as experiencing itself zoologically as a ‘ζῷον,’ a living being that is part of the world (GA 20, § 12). This itself, for Heidegger, is a tremendous distortion and indeed reduction of the truly radical character of human existence as disclosive of truth, of human existence in its phenomenality."

Heidegger speaks for Heidegger, and does not represent science.

I just googled "Empirical findings" and it came up with: "Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation." The terms seem interchangeable.

'Seems' distorts the definition you cited, empirical findings are not evidence. What you cited confirms what I said.

What is 'objective verifiable evidence'? My claim is that some questions are not within the scope of the scientific method. These include those related to human morality, among others. They have to do with intentionality. The scientific method has its own form of intentionality - a scientific one - that distorts a host of ways in which humans relate to each other and other phenomena.

The 'objective verifiable evidence' refers to verifiable evidence concerning the nature of our physical existence.

Methodological Naturalism is defined as hypothesis and theories limited to what may be falsified by objective verifiable evidence. For example: The transcendental nature of human experience is subjective and cannot be falsified by scientific methods. Science is neutral and does not address one way nor the other, nor 'distorts a host of ways in which humans relate to each other and other phenomena, which are subjective in nature (of the mind only.).

The scientific model of human morality results in a reduction of motivations to those that result in survival - a particular pathetic reduction in my opinion, and very far outside my experience of life. I am of course wrong, while the model is correct - because science ontology.

Your opinion does not offer anything of merit offers nothing but your opinion without any verification based on 'evidence.'

What does this have to do with reductionism? The issue is the leveling of all phenomena to being of the same kind, not the causal mechanism.

You asked

if you can explain what part of the non-mechanisic universe is open to scientific enquirery, and by what method, I would be agog.

Quantum Mechanics

[Zara]

Heidegger speaks for Heidegger, and does not represent science.

That's not really the issue though, is it. The question is why are we even agreeing to methodological naturalism as a background assumption for determining what is true and false - here related to moral categories. My point is that that choice already comes with metaphysical baggage, uncritically accepted on your part.

Heidegger offers a different interpretation of the phenomenon. I do not need to pass it through your method for it to have force, particularly when its main aim is to show you that you take an uncritical background metaphysical position.

'Seems' distorts the definition you cited, empirical findings are not evidence. What you cited confirms what I said.

Fine. It doesn't change much around the limitations of the model, which was my point. You end up living inside a model of the world, with interpretations of phenomenon limited to what is permitted by that model.

The 'objective verifiable evidence' refers to verifiable evidence concerning the nature of our physical existence.

What about a priori knowledge? Does it get a showing in the model? What about my subjective experience, does it matter? Or do I need to give myself over to the truth of your scientific conclusions? Bit fash there.

Methodological Naturalism is defined as hypothesis and theories limited to what may be falsified by objective verifiable evidence. For example: The transcendental nature of human experience is subjective and cannot be falsified by scientific methods. Science is neutral and does not address one way nor the other, nor 'distorts a host of ways in which humans relate to each other and other phenomena, which are subjective in nature (of the mind only.).

That doesn't make it subjective only - it could be intersubjective, it could also be objective for reasons a priori. Again, your model has so many limitations - why are you even using it?

Your opinion does not offer anything of merit offers nothing but your opinion without any verification based on 'evidence.'

Urm, sorry, what, you're the one that has an opinion about this model being the true methodological model - which frankly, cannot be verified either. Where's your evidence? Because it's truth tracking, urm, sorry, what 'truth' is that? It gets a bit circular.

You asked

Sure, because I mistook it as a response to my challenge rather than a point that missed the mark and was about as insightful as mud.