RE: The difference between ethical atheism and nihlism is that ethical atheists have more faith
March 10, 2013 at 11:28 pm
You have an interesting sense of the word objective. You seem to think that phenomenological perceptions (if they are separated from carnal bias through having no wants and needs associated with them) can yield "objective" knowledge.
I would argue this:
1. Sense perception is ALWAYS tied to wants and needs. The quantity of ones wisdom which informs ones presuppositions is always tied to economics, of the individual and the culture. The quantity and quality of sense perceptions are always related to time and skill, which is always related to economics, funding for specific programs, cultural values, the spirit of the society which takes it as their duty to appreciate the nature of things. It is incredibly naive to suppose that sense perception can be disconnected from wants and needs.
2. Even if every single person in the world, through a rigorous process of science, set out to study the nature of something, and they expended thousands of dollars (perhaps financed through political pro-science campaigns), their sense perceptions would never describe things in themselves (the ding an sich), they would only describe the collective experience. People really have no sense what the intrinsic nature of things are or what their goals are, apart from science.
3. The compatibility between metaphysics and naturalism is debatable. Many philosophers have expressed misgivings about metaphysics, I think they are wrong, but I do not know if you can actually accept naturalism and be consistent with scientism and accept metaphysics or teleology.
4. Hume taught that you could not derive an "ought" from an "is". I think this applies to empirical statements but not teleological statements. People can have knowledge of what the ends of things are, but it is not through science. I think actually it is through appreciating their wants and needs. The material universe has, in part, its essence or its goal in human wants and needs, because the material world is created by God. So people can know what they should do by observing their wants and needs, which relate to their inner sense of human nature and their biological requirements for survival. People are wise to take heed to this. At the same time, science cannot demonstrate that this survival instinct is a goal of human life. If you take the words "human life" and say, by definition, people must life, but there is no reason to think if naturalism is true a human exists as having a greater teleological, goal driven processes to it than a severed human limb. They are just different chemical, material organisms.
Where, in the language of chemistry, biology or physics can you say that a human life has a goal behind it that is different from a severed limb? You could observe some similarities between the two of them. Of course, this becomes very significant when you get into issues like abortion.
If you want to get into teleology, you have to use the language of faith, you have to rely on intuitive perceptions of human nature. It is like when you start talking about other minds, you cannot really prove that they exist using the language of science, but you leave the scientific method when it conflicts with your values. Some Christians are foolish enough to leave the scientific method even when it fails to give them answers about the nature of right and wrong and what the goal of human life is.
I would argue this:
1. Sense perception is ALWAYS tied to wants and needs. The quantity of ones wisdom which informs ones presuppositions is always tied to economics, of the individual and the culture. The quantity and quality of sense perceptions are always related to time and skill, which is always related to economics, funding for specific programs, cultural values, the spirit of the society which takes it as their duty to appreciate the nature of things. It is incredibly naive to suppose that sense perception can be disconnected from wants and needs.
2. Even if every single person in the world, through a rigorous process of science, set out to study the nature of something, and they expended thousands of dollars (perhaps financed through political pro-science campaigns), their sense perceptions would never describe things in themselves (the ding an sich), they would only describe the collective experience. People really have no sense what the intrinsic nature of things are or what their goals are, apart from science.
3. The compatibility between metaphysics and naturalism is debatable. Many philosophers have expressed misgivings about metaphysics, I think they are wrong, but I do not know if you can actually accept naturalism and be consistent with scientism and accept metaphysics or teleology.
4. Hume taught that you could not derive an "ought" from an "is". I think this applies to empirical statements but not teleological statements. People can have knowledge of what the ends of things are, but it is not through science. I think actually it is through appreciating their wants and needs. The material universe has, in part, its essence or its goal in human wants and needs, because the material world is created by God. So people can know what they should do by observing their wants and needs, which relate to their inner sense of human nature and their biological requirements for survival. People are wise to take heed to this. At the same time, science cannot demonstrate that this survival instinct is a goal of human life. If you take the words "human life" and say, by definition, people must life, but there is no reason to think if naturalism is true a human exists as having a greater teleological, goal driven processes to it than a severed human limb. They are just different chemical, material organisms.
Where, in the language of chemistry, biology or physics can you say that a human life has a goal behind it that is different from a severed limb? You could observe some similarities between the two of them. Of course, this becomes very significant when you get into issues like abortion.
If you want to get into teleology, you have to use the language of faith, you have to rely on intuitive perceptions of human nature. It is like when you start talking about other minds, you cannot really prove that they exist using the language of science, but you leave the scientific method when it conflicts with your values. Some Christians are foolish enough to leave the scientific method even when it fails to give them answers about the nature of right and wrong and what the goal of human life is.
