• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is Atheism based on Logic or Faith?

Tassman said:
Correct. If ‘subjective belief’ conflicts with empirically verified evidence the later will displace the former every time.
Click to expand...
The latter should displace the former. Unfortunately there are many people who do not realise how unreliable the former is compared to the latter - who are under the erroneous impression that their personal experiences are actually the most reliable source of information there is - which is why there is still so much belief in proven nonsense like astrology, homeopathy etc.
 
Pixel42 said:
The latter should displace the former. Unfortunately there are many people who do not realise how unreliable the former is compared to the latter - who are under the erroneous impression that their personal experiences are actually the most reliable source of information there is - which is why there is still so much belief in proven nonsense like astrology, homeopathy etc.
Click to expand...

Very true, regrettably! Thanks for picking it up.
 
Now the "fun" starts or rather it has never stopped, because we are in effect in part, but not just "playing" subjective versus objective. Of course it is not limited to the words subjective and objective, but here is one angle.

When ever I do this, I try to connect the words I use to the rest of reality. So here is what I assume about reality - You, I and every other human share reality (no solipsism) and we are not a case of brains in a vat. In other words reality is fair and the computer screen you are reading this on is there as the computer screen.

So the rest of this post is not about what reality really is, but rather a case of methodological naturalism. I.e. I will as a part of philosophy try to explain one in practice here and now everyday limitation to science. But before I do that, I will explain what I have learned about science. Because I am philosopher, I don't know what science is and I can't use science.
It goes like this - I will ask someone who claims science as a positive what science is about and get the following words; repeatable, observation, verify/falsify, measurable and some other words. But what stands out is the overall demand that for something to be covered by the word science, it means that is something we can do. We (that is a part of it being repeatable) can observe what happens (thus we can use verify/falsify) and we can measure what happens.

So for the following exchange -
Someone: "If the two conflict scientific methodology will trump personal subjectivity every time."
Someone else: "Yes."
Yet someone else: "No."
- we end up playing a "game" of how to explain this exchange using science depending on how we understand science. So here it is first person(subjective) from me - We can't as as we and as observe observe the meaning of the word no. In other words you can't see the meaning of no and you can't point to the meaning of no. The word no has no objective referent like e.g. the words - the computer screen in front of you - rather this is not just the word no, but all words for which the referent is subjective. In other words science as we observe can observe that humans use the word no, but science as we observe can't observe the meaning of no. Or any other subjective word for that matter; i.e. remember subjective as to the referent - what the word is about.

Now if it is so that least some people confuse subjective, inter-subjective and objective when claiming science it is a way of making sense of e.g. claims like this - Someone: "We, the scientists, only accept non-subjective evidence." The problem is that we, the scientists, is a case of inter-subjectivity and not a case of we, the scientists, observe.
So not just in this debate, but in general the moment we start "playing" the meaning of life, we can observe without bias that humans make sense of reality, but we can't without bias as individuals make sense of reality. Of course we can share how we make sense inter-subjectively but that is not a case of we observe and it is not objective.

So for -
Me: "If the two conflict scientific methodology will trump personal subjectivity, if it is objective and personal subjectivity will trump the scientific methodology if it is subjective."
Someone else: "Yes."
Yet someone else: "No."
So what you do, is that you ask for evidence for that claim of no as per we observe.
Of course I have "cut some corners", but the point remains - science only works indirectly on subjective and inter-subjective and you can't use science in the strong sense on the meaning of life, because the meaning of life is not something we observe.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Now the "fun" starts or rather it has never stopped, because we are in effect in part, but not just "playing" subjective versus objective. Of course it is not limited to the words subjective and objective, but here is one angle.

When ever I do this, I try to connect the words I use to the rest of reality. So here is what I assume about reality - You, I and every other human share reality (no solipsism) and we are not a case of brains in a vat. In other words reality is fair and the computer screen you are reading this on is there as the computer screen.

So the rest of this post is not about what reality really is, but rather a case of methodological naturalism. I.e. I will as a part of philosophy try to explain one in practice here and now everyday limitation to science. But before I do that, I will explain what I have learned about science. Because I am philosopher, I don't know what science is and I can't use science.
It goes like this - I will ask someone who claims science as a positive what science is about and get the following words; repeatable, observation, verify/falsify, measurable and some other words. But what stands out is the overall demand that for something to be covered by the word science, it means that is something we can do. We (that is a part of it being repeatable) can observe what happens (thus we can use verify/falsify) and we can measure what happens.

So for the following exchange -
Someone: "If the two conflict scientific methodology will trump personal subjectivity every time."
Someone else: "Yes."
Yet someone else: "No."
- we end up playing a "game" of how to explain this exchange using science depending on how we understand science. So here it is first person(subjective) from me - We can't as as we and as observe observe the meaning of the word no. In other words you can't see the meaning of no and you can't point to the meaning of no. The word no has no objective referent like e.g. the words - the computer screen in front of you - rather this is not just the word no, but all words for which the referent is subjective. In other words science as we observe can observe that humans use the word no, but science as we observe can't observe the meaning of no. Or any other subjective word for that matter; i.e. remember subjective as to the referent - what the word is about.

Now if it is so that least some people confuse subjective, inter-subjective and objective when claiming science it is a way of making sense of e.g. claims like this - Someone: "We, the scientists, only accept non-subjective evidence." The problem is that we, the scientists, is a case of inter-subjectivity and not a case of we, the scientists, observe.
So not just in this debate, but in general the moment we start "playing" the meaning of life, we can observe without bias that humans make sense of reality, but we can't without bias as individuals make sense of reality. Of course we can share how we make sense inter-subjectively but that is not a case of we observe and it is not objective.

So for -
Me: "If the two conflict scientific methodology will trump personal subjectivity, if it is objective and personal subjectivity will trump the scientific methodology if it is subjective."
Someone else: "Yes."
Yet someone else: "No."
So what you do, is that you ask for evidence for that claim of no as per we observe.
Of course I have "cut some corners", but the point remains - science only works indirectly on subjective and inter-subjective and you can't use science in the strong sense on the meaning of life, because the meaning of life is not something we observe.
Click to expand...

Life has no meaning in any cosmic sense, you might just as well ask what's the meaning of water.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
So everything is covered by "in any cosmic sense"?
Click to expand...
Tommy Jeppesen said:
I don't know what usage of cosmic you are using :)
Click to expand...
If I may intrude on this exchange, I feel that I can help somewhat. tsig said "[l]ife has no meaning in any cosmic sense...." I interpret that as the (b) definition that you provided. tsig's statement does not preclude 'meaning' in any other sense, however, except for a 'cosmic' one.

I hope that clarifies.
 
The Norseman said:
If I may intrude on this exchange, I feel that I can help somewhat. tsig said "[l]ife has no meaning in any cosmic sense...." I interpret that as the (b) definition that you provided. tsig's statement does not preclude 'meaning' in any other sense, however, except for a 'cosmic' one.

I hope that clarifies.
Click to expand...

If that is the case, then I can agree, but from there doesn't follow that there is no meaning to life as such :)
 
John Jones said:
1: Please define 'silly harrassment' for the sake of 'the lurkers'.

2: Better yet, report my posts if you think I am violating some part of the MA. That's a fair counter-proposal, don't you think?

3: Barring that, please tell us

4: why you think I shouldn't challenge your claims.


5: You don't think this is a private drop-box, do you?
Click to expand...

1: Your posts in relation to mine. Your comments regarding my person.

2: I think the better thing is to allow you the opportunity to consider your behavior and adjust accordingly. I do not think an annoying fly requires notifying pest control. The better thing for me to do in relation to your behavior is what I have been doing.

3: Who is 'us'? You are one personality are you not?

4: What claims? You claim I am making claims. Why not actually provide some evidence and we can look at that and see where the misunderstanding may be.

5: No. I don't think it is a place to pester individuals by assuming silly attitudes either. What it is is quite obvious. A forum for the discussion of religion and philosophy.

Now I have answered your impoliteness politely. You have opportunity to tweak your attitude to better reflect maturity. I have nothing more to say to you about this.
 
Last edited:
dafydd said:
I was wondering about the meaning of the word meaning in this context.
Click to expand...

Good observation :) I don't know if serial killers have a good life as individuals, but I do believe that they attribute some meaning to and make sense of what they do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom