RE: The difference between ethical atheism and nihlism is that ethical atheists have more faith
March 10, 2013 at 3:37 pm
(This post was last modified: March 10, 2013 at 3:38 pm by jstrodel.)
genkaus, prove to me using your methods that there is some absolute way in which a tree can be differentiated from the air that it lives in, and that people should accept that concept of a tree as opposed to seeing a tree as being some common unity of things understood through physical and chemical relations and biological order, that a tree based on the way that the unity of biological, and chemical elements has a kind of unity to it that can be described such that a tree has an end that is different from the physical, chemical and biological relations between air and a dead patch of dirt.
I think what you will prove is that I am an idiot because I can't see that your opinion of a tree is different from appreciating what a tree is. In religious circles, that is considered pride, but if you accept the epistemology and ethics of someone like Nietzsche I suppose you could redefine pride to be a virtue that allows you to have absolute knowledge of a subjective world.
I would still call it pride though.
Religious belief is not phenomenological, although experience plays a role in grounding religious belief. It is certainly not limited to that pathetically insufficient method.
You are stuck in a skeptical worldview, and the only way to elevate yourself above it is to artificially elevate your opinions. That is what you call "reason" and "evidence".
I think what you will prove is that I am an idiot because I can't see that your opinion of a tree is different from appreciating what a tree is. In religious circles, that is considered pride, but if you accept the epistemology and ethics of someone like Nietzsche I suppose you could redefine pride to be a virtue that allows you to have absolute knowledge of a subjective world.
I would still call it pride though.
Religious belief is not phenomenological, although experience plays a role in grounding religious belief. It is certainly not limited to that pathetically insufficient method.
You are stuck in a skeptical worldview, and the only way to elevate yourself above it is to artificially elevate your opinions. That is what you call "reason" and "evidence".
