Page 91 of 91 FirstFirst ... 4181899091
Results 901 to 904 of 904

Thread: Atheism And Moral Progress

  1. #901
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,806
    Amen (Given)
    24
    Amen (Received)
    1050
    Quote Originally Posted by Zara View Post
    You asked about whether some of our faculties extend beyond evolutionary requirements?
    No, I asked how you know that this is "beyond evolutionary requirements."

    Quote Originally Posted by Zara View Post
    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.
    That may be possible.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

  2. #902
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Faith
    Unspecified
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    37
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    No, I asked how you know that this is "beyond evolutionary requirements."
    There is no way to know, sure, however, it can be used for activities beyond evolutionary outcomes.

    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    That may be possible.
    Up to you really. I am not particularly interested in methodological naturalism, to me it's a form of religious belief on par with actual believers - although exhibiting a different kind of self-righousness. There's usually not much point discussing it, because it gets to the bedrock.
    Last edited by Zara; Today at 05:48 AM.

  3. #903
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,815
    Amen (Given)
    1462
    Amen (Received)
    944
    Quote Originally Posted by Zara View Post
    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.
    It remains that Heidegger's view is Heidegger's view and not that of science. It is up to you what you want to do with it.

    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.
    Actually no. The example is me personally. Science is science, and I am a scientist, and I DO NOT live within the limits of Methodological Naturalism. I am not a materialist as defined in the English language, and science is NOT a materialist discipline by definition, because it remains neutral to metaphysical beliefs outside the limits of science. The materialist would take more of the position of an Ontological Naturalist and consider our material existence is all there is.

    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.
    Please define 'priori knowledge.' Science DOES NOT make any truth claims.

    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?
    Confusing at best. Intersubjective remains limited by subjective assumptions. Methodological Naturalism is naturally limited to function as it is intended, but does not limit the extent of human knowledge to science only.


    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.
    This response is very confusing and lacks a fundamental knowledge of science, and how science functions.

    Ummmmm, sorry what??? No i did not offer any opinion, I just defined Methodological Naturalism as it is in science. No, 'truth tracking? has nothing to do with science.

    'which frankly? odd, and not meaningful. I explained how 'objective verifiable evidence' functions in science and you still remain clueless. The scientific methods are bsed on predictability, and are always subject to change when new evidence becomes available, and not circular logic, because the results and knowledge of science is always open to change and skepticism when new evidence becomes available.

    Computers function and airplanes fly based on many years of matter of fact application of the predictability of Methodological Naturalism, but nonetheless science cannot deal with transcendental experiences, because of the subjective nature of the experiences.

    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.
    Huh? It was a crystal clear and specific response to your question:

    f 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.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; Today at 06:11 AM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  4. #904
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Faith
    Unspecified
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    37
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    It remains that Heidegger's view is Heidegger's view and not that of science. It is up to you what you want to do with it.
    Yeah, I'll use it to look at you with pity, or love, or confusion. Not measurement and calculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Actually no. The example is me personally. Science is science, and I am a scientist, and I DO NOT live within the limits of Methodological Naturalism. I am not a materialist as defined in the English language, and science is NOT a materialist discipline by definition, because it remains neutral to metaphysical beliefs outside the limits of science. The materialist would take more of the position of an Ontological Naturalist and consider our material existence is all there is.
    Of course you do - since it informs you about the world. Scientific conclusions inform decisions you make and what you think things are, how you related to them, and what actions are meaningful. Whether you apply it just to material, or also the non-material, if you live by its conclusions, then you live in its model.

    I'm actually fine with science, even indebted to it, as long as it keeps within its domain and doesn't start trying to answer questions outside of it - like what ought I do. As long as you're not making claims about what human beings are, based on its method, then, move along-nothing to see here.

    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Please define 'priori knowledge.' Science DOES NOT make any truth claims.
    Necessary for the possibility of experience.

    If it DOES NOT, then why are you acting as if it does when you live by its conclusions? Climate change is real, right, and we should do something about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Confusing at best. Intersubjective remains limited by subjective assumptions. Methodological Naturalism is naturally limited to function as it is intended, but does not limit the extent of human knowledge to science only.
    Naturally limited? How exactly, what questions are outside the scope of this methods domain?

    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    This response is very confusing and lacks a fundamental knowledge of science, and how science functions.
    Ummmmm, sorry what??? No i did not offer any opinion, I just defined Methodological Naturalism as it is in science.
    You did offer an opinion - that science tells us about morality. That is why we are here. It is your opinion that science is the tool set for the job, and it is your opinion that science will give the best results. Why else are you even using it as a method? Saying I am a scientists, I do science - doesn't really change it being your subjective opinion about the usefulness of yourself and your method of investigation.

    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    No, 'truth tracking? has nothing to do with science.
    Then why even bother using science for anything? If it doesn't result in knowledge.

    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    'which frankly? odd, and not meaningful. I explained how 'objective verifiable evidence' functions in science and you still remain clueless. The scientific methods are bsed on predictability, and are always subject to change when new evidence becomes available, and not circular logic, because the results and knowledge of science is always open to change and skepticism when new evidence becomes available.
    This is about method, not results. Why am I motivated to use your method to understand phenomena at all. The models and predictions change, the process - the method itself - does not. Why should I agree to the process at all for questions related to morality.

    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Computers function and airplanes fly based on many years of matter of fact application of the predictability of Methodological Naturalism, but nonetheless science cannot deal with transcendental experiences, because of the subjective nature of the experiences.
    Right, so is this why I need to accept science in all domains - because air planes fly?

    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Huh? It was a crystal clear and specific response to your question:
    But it started somewhere else, didn't it - at incoherent.
    Last edited by Zara; Today at 03:58 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •