The problem with atheism – No rational connection between the methodology and object

[iceaura]

Now are you contending that such investigations are accomplished by other than "empirical methods" - graduate applications, of a kind, maybe?
”
sure

Whatever "non-empirical" methods dogs use to learn about humans, science can use to learn about whatever is claimed to be greater than humans - agreed ?

 

[Myles]

What exactly is wrong with "clinging to authoritarianism"?

We always cling to one authority or other. We would go mad if we wouldn't - because it is impossible to act, make decisions, live from day to day without believing that one version/interpretation of/doctrine about reality is the superior one, the authoritative one. Whether we consider ourselves to be the authority, or some other person, or scripture, or a scientific theory does not change the fact that we do "cling to authoritarianism".


You are wrong. Many of us believe that knwledge is provisional. We give the best explanation we can at any point in time, knowing that the future will almost certainly prove us wrong. We have learned to live with uncertaint, and get on with life. We do not cling.



Not me, but you perhaps. You seem to think that I (or other people who do) accept certain religious doctrines on account that those doctrines themselves state that they are superior. But this is not the reason I accept them. I accept those doctrines through support of my personal experience and through agreement of pondering views.

I have yet to come across a religious doctrine which makres sense to me. I find the word doctrin e.( teaching ) uncomfortable. If you , however, find one doctrineor another satisfying, then adopt it, live according to its tenets and don't waste time on a science forum.

Given the ingredients, it does not promise something that might be delicious to me. I do have some cooking experience by now.[/COLOR

You are saying in different words whta you have said a number of times elsewhere. You want some form of guarantee of a succesfuk outcome before committing yourself. In other words, you want to arrive at a destination wihout making the journey,

]
And similarly in some religious traditions, I have not encountered a mixture of "ingredients" that would make me doubt the "edibility" of the result. Although this has occured in regard to some traditions/philosophies/wordlviews.


Then , again, why not get on with it. You are free to choose what to believe and how to lead your life. What are you waiting for ?


Then you perhaps have more specific ambitions and goals than I do.My main goal is to be truly happy, a happiness that is beyond aging, illness and death. The only question is how to get there.

You are wasting your time on this one. You are asking for the impossible. See if you can learn contentment, happiness is a vague concept, and let tomorrow take care of itself.



I do not see being religious as a matter of "following someone else's ambitions and goals".It's my own ambition, my own goals. A religious practice only offers a possible way to make proper use of those ambitions and to achieve those goals.

Yet again, who is holding you back ? If you truly believe something, what others think is irrelevant.


Because it is only with concepts like karma and rebirth -and some important others- that life makes sense to me, and is worth livig




As you are still living, I assume you have accepted the dooctrine of karma and rebirth. So get on with a life which is informed by these beliefs and cease to seek assurance from members of this forum

Stop thinking so much and starty living !

 

[lightgigantic]

Unknowable in what sense ?

meaning that they are not known

And what is "superior". Make a list of superior things.

for instance an ants negation of the topography of your arm is not anywhere near complete knowledge of yourself (assuming that you hold there are more essential aspects of your self than the topography of your arm)

 

[Enmos]

meaning that they are not known

So is God unknowable ?

for instance an ants negation of the topography of your arm is not anywhere near complete knowledge of yourself (assuming that you hold there are more essential aspects of your self than the topography of your arm)

Humans are only superior in some ways to ants.
In other ways ants are superior to us.

 

[lightgigantic]

Ice aura

Whatever "non-empirical" methods dogs use to learn about humans, science can use to learn about whatever is claimed to be greater than humans - agreed ?

depends on how greater they are.
For instance the gap of empirical investigation between an ant and a human will never enable an ant to even begin to investigate human affairs (like say recognizing that this arm belongs to a homo sapiens sapiens).

 

[Enmos]

depends on how greater they are.
For instance the gap of empirical investigation between an ant and a human will never enable an ant to even begin to investigate human affairs (like say recognizing that this arm belongs to a human sapien sapien).

As a side note, it's Homo sapiens sapiens.

 

[lightgigantic]

Emnos

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
meaning that they are not known
”
So is God unknowable ?

empirically, yes

“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
for instance an ants negation of the topography of your arm is not anywhere near complete knowledge of yourself (assuming that you hold there are more essential aspects of your self than the topography of your arm)
”
Humans are only superior in some ways to ants.
In other ways ants are superior to us.

sure
every living entity is superior in some unique way
in terms of addressing cognitive issues however, humans are superior

 

[lightgigantic]

As a side note, it's Homo sapiens sapiens.

lol
sorry
my bad

 

[Enmos]

empirically, yes

So how come you know about God ?

And I am still not clear on what you mean by "superior".
Is the moon superior to us ? Or this galaxy ?
What if we meet an alien race, who will be superior ?

 

[lightgigantic]

So how come you know about God ?

well take the example of the successful graduate applicant

They got the position by applying what they understood the persons in charge required of them.

If they displayed a "cognitive attitude" (a strange word, I know, but one that might work just to keep the analogy in tact) of arrogance, disinterest, etc to the assessing body, they wouldn't have got the position.

 

[Enmos]

well take the example of the successful graduate applicant

They got the position by applying what they understood the persons in charge required of them.

If they displayed a "cognitive attitude" (a strange word, I know, but one that might work just to keep the analogy in tact) of arrogance, disinterest, etc to the assessing body, they wouldn't have got the position.

I don't get the point your are trying to make, unless it's "better safe than sorry".

 

[lightgigantic]

Emnos

And I am still not clear on what you mean by "superior".
Is the moon superior to us ? Or this galaxy ?

physically yes
cognitively (working with the assumption that there is no consciousness driving such phenomena .... which is the standard empirical view, so I guess we will ride with it for the sake of discussion) no

Thats why I mentioned in the OP (about the sun) about how somethings we may not be able to control yet, but because they are not conscious they can be controlled in principle (like perhaps one day we will get the technology etc etc).
This is distinct from the two examples of things that cannot be controlled in principle.

What if we meet an alien race, who will be superior ?

depends on cognitive ability- I mean if we are like ants and the aliens are like humans, we probably wouldn't even know if we ran into them

 

[Enmos]

Emnos

physically yes
cognitively (working with the assumption that there is no consciousness driving such phenomena .... which is the standard empirical view, so I guess we will ride with it for the sake of discussion) no

Thats why I mentioned in the OP (about the sun) about how somethings we may not be able to control yet, but because they are not conscious they can be controlled in principle (like perhaps one day we will get the technology etc etc).
This is distinct from the two examples of things that cannot be controlled in principle.

How is being cognitive superior to not being cognitive ? And don't don't give a subjective answer.

depends on cognitive ability- I mean if we are like ants and the aliens are like humans, we probably wouldn't even know if we ran into them

That is an extreme, what if we appear to be more or less the same ? Wouldn't it be strange to want to establish superiority ?
Edit: Hmm I went a bit off course here.
Some people are cognitively better equipped than others, are they superior ?

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't get the point your are trying to make, unless it's "better safe than sorry".

by hearing/reading the graduate learnt something about his assessors (even though hearing/seeing is an empirical sense, it is not strict empiricism since it wasn't simply an issue of sound waves/visual forms that grants knowledge in this case)

By applying what he had heard, he came to appeal to the assessors sense of value and liking.

Having gained their approval, he was granted a status (by the assessors, since they are in a superior position) that he did not have before (in other words it wasn't sufficient for him to upgrade his status by working with his empirical skills of investigation).

So basically, if he went outside what his assessors deemed as acceptable, he wouldn't have got the position.

You could say that he successfully applied the normative descriptions for a successful graduate applicant.

Does this make sense?

 

[Enmos]

by hearing/reading the graduate learnt something about his assessors (even though hearing/seeing is an empirical sense, it is not strict empiricism since it wasn't simply an issue of sound waves/visual forms that grants knowledge in this case)

By applying what he had heard, he came to appeal to the assessors sense of value and liking.

Having gained their approval, he was granted a status (by the assessors, since they are in a superior position) that he did not have before (in other words it wasn't sufficient for him to upgrade his status by working with his empirical skills of investigation).

So basically, if he went outside what his assessors deemed as acceptable, he wouldn't have got the position.

You could say that he successfully applied the normative descriptions for a successful graduate applicant.

Does this make sense?

This is kind off vague to me.
He assessed the situation on the spot, besides everyone knows to behave in a certain way when you are applying for a job.
I don't find this a convincing example.

Also, your premises are wrong. The assessors are completely real and the graduate knows this.
You cannot know whether or not God is even real.
So the analogy is flawed.

 

[lightgigantic]

Emnos

physically yes
cognitively (working with the assumption that there is no consciousness driving such phenomena .... which is the standard empirical view, so I guess we will ride with it for the sake of discussion) no

Thats why I mentioned in the OP (about the sun) about how somethings we may not be able to control yet, but because they are not conscious they can be controlled in principle (like perhaps one day we will get the technology etc etc).
This is distinct from the two examples of things that cannot be controlled in principle.
”
How is being cognitive superior to not being cognitive ? And don't don't give a subjective answer.

cognitive things have the ability to manipulate non-cognitive things- basically control = superior.
For instance I can pick up a ball and I can also pick up a dog.
When I pick up the dog I might be a bit thoughtful whether the dog wants me to pick it up or not, but this issue would never arise for picking up a ball.
Similarly if one was to argue that they could pick up the sun (if only we had the technology) how do you think the doer would go about it?
Like picking up a dog (ie picking up something with cognitive abilities)
Or like picking up a ball (ie something without such abilities)
?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
depends on cognitive ability- I mean if we are like ants and the aliens are like humans, we probably wouldn't even know if we ran into them
”
That is an extreme, what if we appear to be more or less the same ? Wouldn't it be strange to want to establish superiority ?
Edit: Hmm I went a bit off course here.
Some people are cognitively better equipped than others, are they superior ?

 

[Enmos]

Emnos


cognitive things have the ability to manipulate non-cognitive things- basically control = superior.
For instance I can pick up a ball and I can also pick up a dog.
When I pick up the dog I might be a bit thoughtful whether the dog wants me to pick it up or not, but this issue would never arise for picking up a ball.
Similarly if one was to argue that they could pick up the sun (if only we had the technology) how do you think the doer would go about it?
Like picking up a dog (ie picking up something with cognitive abilities)
Or like picking up a ball (ie something without such abilities)
?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
depends on cognitive ability- I mean if we are like ants and the aliens are like humans, we probably wouldn't even know if we ran into them
”
That is an extreme, what if we appear to be more or less the same ? Wouldn't it be strange to want to establish superiority ?
Edit: Hmm I went a bit off course here.
Some people are cognitively better
equipped than others, are they superior ?

Of course it's superior from your point of view..
I said not subjective though.
How is it objectively superior to be able to control other stuff ?
Also, from you example I gather that large predators are superior to us.

 

[lightgigantic]

sorry missed the last bit

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
depends on cognitive ability- I mean if we are like ants and the aliens are like humans, we probably wouldn't even know if we ran into them
”
That is an extreme, what if we appear to be more or less the same ? Wouldn't it be strange to want to establish superiority ?

the superiority is not something cultural (which has driven much of the diversity issues in human society) but cognitive and physical.
For instance an elephant is physically superior - and you recognize it by getting the hell out of the way
Similarly 3 year child is cognitively inferior, so you don't let them pull the television apart to repair it.
If something is superior in a cognitive or physical sense it is self apparent ... and of course much of the (cultural) discourse in human society over who is "superior" has been involved in making gratuitous attempts to mislead (like determining who is more intelligent by weighing how much lead one can cram into the cranial cavity of a skull for example)

Edit: Hmm I went a bit off course here.
Some people are cognitively better equipped than others, are they superior ?

cognitively, yes

 

[lightgigantic]

Of course it's superior from your point of view..
I said not subjective though.
How is it objectively superior to be able to control other stuff ?
Also, from you example I gather that large predators are superior to us.

I'm not sure how you would objectively remove consciousness from the picture, since even the appraisal of how objective a particular issue is requires conscious input.

I mean how would you answer this question in an objective manner "Do you think it matters to the tennis ball whether you put it in your pocket or on the shelf?"

as for predators, sure
even a dog has a superior sense of smell or even a lemon tree has a superior ability to produce citric acid

 

[Enmos]

sorry missed the last bit

the superiority is not something cultural (which has driven much of the diversity issues in human society) but cognitive and physical.
For instance an elephant is physically superior - and you recognize it by getting the hell out of the way
Similarly 3 year child is cognitively inferior, so you don't let them pull the television apart to repair it.
If something is superior in a cognitive or physical sense it is self apparent ... and of course much of the (cultural) discourse in human society over who is "superior" has been involved in making gratuitous attempts to mislead (like determining who is more intelligent by weighing how much lead one can cram into the cranial cavity of a skull for example)
cognitively, yes

Ok, I can agree with this. Although I don't particularly like your choice of words.

How do you know God is cognitively superior to us ?
You can't even tell whether this dude is cognitively superior to you or not.