Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge

[robvalue]

I would say (sceptic) atheists would value life more if anything, as they think this is probably all they are going to get. This is 100% as far as a sceptic is concerned, but 0% as far as someone who believes in an everlasting afterlife is concerned.

To who is it going to be more valuable?

If I kill someone, I've taken their entire existence away, not just sped them along to the "real life". That's enough of an incentive in itself to respect the life of others.

[Vincent]

Are we justified in believing in human value?

I'm confused by your use of the word "justified". Just because we are "justified" to believe whatever the hell we want (i.e. believing that the universe was created by a unicorn simply because that's what you think happened), doesn't always mean it's objectively true. Human life has value only to humans. Objectively speaking, it doesn't have value. In fact, the entire concept of "value" is subjective. In the eyes of other animals and life forms with whom we share this planet, we have no value at all, and most of them would be pleased to see us wiped off the Earth. Human life has value to us because we are humans. The planet and the universe do not care if we are here or not here. No tears would be shed if every one of us were to die tomorrow. From an objective standpoint, human life is rare, since this is likely the only place we exist in the cosmos, but it contains no actual or greater significance. 

But it does to us. Because we feel, and we experience emotion, empathy, and connection to other humans. We care deeply for our lives and for the lives of our fellow man. Because of these things, we attach a great degree of significance to human life. We think it's valuable. Atheists such as myself especially stake value in it, because we understand this is probably the only life we get. But that's our bias. That's not objective. It exists within the realm of our subjective human experience and nothing more. Actual knowledge, and the truth that science seeks out, is objective. It is objective because that understanding exists regardless of whether or not we are dead. Take our knowledge of gravity or mathematical systems for example. Those things are objectively true, and even if we died tomorrow, they'd still be true. Our value, if we died tomorrow, would not be. Because the value of human life is contingent on us being around to say that it's valuable,and it ceases to exists when we do. That's why I do not see spirituality as knowledge. Because it's not. God exists as a figment of imagination in the minds of theists, but not on an objective, measurable scale of real knowledge (at least, none that has ever been proven). Claiming that God exists because you have subjectively and personally experienced him does not prove he exists. When have we ever, in all of human history, gained knowledge of something using this "evidence" and nothing else more concrete and palpable?

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Now we are getting somewhere. I imagine that with just a little better understanding of definitions, perhaps I can persuade you that maybe, just maybe, what you call my ‘pompous blustering’ may actually point to a somewhat defensible position, one that even an atheist could hold. As I see it, dicohotomies like natural/supernatural and scientific/spiritual serve more as terms of art than precise distinctions. In my preceding posts, I made a clumsy efforts to reveal these ambiguities.

I see, so there's nothing wrong with your idea, and nothing which a better (more spurious, more devious, and more subtly misleading) argument can't fix.

The OP’s author appears to be ignorant of this. I don’t blame anyone from using terms of art. I use them all the time. It is only natural that many errors and misunderstandings follow when the same word can covey multiple meanings. ‘Natural’ is itself one such adjective. Some people think that natural and reality are the same. I do not. Nature refers only to physical objects, their features and attributes. Reality includes both physical and non-physical objects, like circles and triangles. Nor does non-physical necessarily mean magical, depending of course on what you mean by magic.

Can I get some blue cheese, and perhaps a little red wine with that word salad?

The position of OP is that knowledge is either scientific OR spiritual. Now anyone can see that ancient civilizations had knowledge of mathematics even without the benefit of the scientific method. According the OP’s way of classifying things the mathematical truths know from antiquity are ‘spiritual’.  In the West defining knowledge as “Justified True Belief” goes back at least as far back in time as Plato

I don't think either of us should speak for the OP, and I did skip a few pages, but I know the opening post said nothing of the sort. It's the bullshit of the believer to insist there is a actual knowledge without scientific inquiry, and this is what I saw her complaining of. You need to stop calling it "knowledge", because that is an unjustified claim, and when framed in an intellectual context it's very insulting! The attempts to compare your beliefs to non-sequitors such as math are also BS. Math is a reality which is not itself science, but the developed methods for using it depended on science. Your beliefs are not knowledge because they hide from the light of scientific inquiry and fade away screaming whenever the light shines on them. Yes, scientific inquiry is the only valid path to knowledge, even when you're trying to do math, so get over it!

Modern science, as a means of acquiring knowledge, is only about 500 years old.

So what? In 500 years more of our species, other life forms, the history of our planet and the universe has been learned than the 7000 years of organized religions combined have to show for themselves.

My rudeness reflects my impatience with the inane notion that only empirically verified facts count as knowledge. Mathematical facts, like the value of pi, are certain and perfectly accurate. Empirical facts, like the speed of light, are tentative and approximate (though they may be very very precise). The value of pi is not an average based on measurements of roughly circular objects.

Try looking up that word "inane" - if the definition consists of "irrational", then you should know there is no such thing as any case you can make for your position through any form of rational inquiry. What then is really inane?

This attitude invariably degrades to insults on top of insult, on account of the believer who brings to the discussion his pre-conceived notion that he MUST be correct on what he believes, therefore he cannot play by the rules when he sees they don't favor his side.

[Excited Penguin]

This is off-topic, but your avatar makes me bark, Vincent.

[LadyForCamus]

You could get angry over scepticism I suppose. But you're right, getting mad over atheism (or even plain theism) doesn't make sense.

You're welcome.

I'm not too sure what you were referring to in my post, but it seemed like a lovely compliment!

Rob, your posts have a knack for hitting the sweet spot between great intelligence and plain old common sense! [emoji106]

[Red_Wind]

You could get angry over scepticism I suppose. But you're right, getting mad over atheism (or even plain theism) doesn't make sense.

You're welcome.

I'm not too sure what you were referring to in my post, but it seemed like a lovely compliment!

The neat way it's laid out, your posts are both easy to understand and very informative.
I made a post with the same points but it was all over the place.

[brewer]

Yes. You can have a knowledgeable belief. No one is trying to stop you.

Do I have to prove I have this knowledge via scientific method or evidence or philosophical arguments to claim it?

If not, then the next questions:

Why treat the belief of God differently? Is it simply because you don't have it or don't believe it's the similar with that respect?

Even if so, if believers believe they have that and that it is similar or even a greater type knowledge, why keep emphasizing on proving it via scientific method or evidence or proofs like the OP is doing?

You can't prove it through scientific method or evidence that will satisfy me, maybe it will satisfy you. No philosophical arguments will convince me but you can go ahead and try. Knock yourself out. Science knowledge and spiritual/belief knowledge will never be the same.

You're welcome to believe in god, all you want. Don't expect me to. You said it yourself, it's a belief.  From my point of view, a belief in a fantasy that does not exist.

Why proof? Because your belief claims that god exists.

If your belief is so sound and true why are you on an atheist forum trying to defend it? If it were that true of a belief it would need no defense.

[Nay_Sayer]

Lets see, Scientific knowledge got us to the moon and Spiritual nonsense flew planes into buildings.

FSM is all about science.

[robvalue]

Camus and Red Wind: Thank you so much! I really appreciate the kind feedback

That's started my day off with a big smile! It's good to know my posts are getting my messages across.

[LadyForCamus]

Now we are getting somewhere. I imagine that with just a little better understanding of definitions, perhaps I can persuade you that maybe, just maybe, what you call my ‘pompous blustering’ may actually point to a somewhat defensible position, one that even an atheist could hold. As I see it, dicohotomies like natural/supernatural and scientific/spiritual serve more as terms of art than precise distinctions. In my preceding posts, I made a clumsy efforts to reveal these ambiguities.

I see, so there's nothing wrong with your idea, and nothing which a better (more spurious, more devious, and more subtly misleading) argument can't fix.

The OP’s author appears to be ignorant of this. I don’t blame anyone from using terms of art. I use them all the time. It is only natural that many errors and misunderstandings follow when the same word can covey multiple meanings. ‘Natural’ is itself one such adjective. Some people think that natural and reality are the same. I do not. Nature refers only to physical objects, their features and attributes. Reality includes both physical and non-physical objects, like circles and triangles. Nor does non-physical necessarily mean magical, depending of course on what you mean by magic.

Can I get some blue cheese, and perhaps a little red wine with that word salad?

I don't think either of us should speak for the OP, and I did skip a few pages, but I know the opening post said nothing of the sort. It's the bullshit of the believer to insist there is a actual knowledge without scientific inquiry, and this is what I saw her complaining of. You need to stop calling it "knowledge", because that is an unjustified claim, and when framed in an intellectual context it's very insulting! The attempts to compare your beliefs to non-sequitors such as math are also BS. Math is a reality which is not itself science, but the developed methods for using it depended on science. Your beliefs are not knowledge because they hide from the light of scientific inquiry and fade away screaming whenever the light shines on them. Yes, scientific inquiry is the only valid path to knowledge, even when you're trying to do math, so get over it!

Modern science, as a means of acquiring knowledge, is only about 500 years old.

So what? In 500 years more of our species, other life forms, the history of our planet and the universe has been learned than the 7000 years of organized religions combined have to show for themselves.

My rudeness reflects my impatience with the inane notion that only empirically verified facts count as knowledge. Mathematical facts, like the value of pi, are certain and perfectly accurate. Empirical facts, like the speed of light, are tentative and approximate (though they may be very very precise). The value of pi is not an average based on measurements of roughly circular objects.

Try looking up that word "inane" - if the definition consists of "irrational", then you should know there is no such thing as any case you can make for your position through any form of rational inquiry. What then is really inane?

This attitude invariably degrades to insults on top of insult, on account of the believer who brings to the discussion his pre-conceived notion that he MUST be correct on what he believes, therefore he cannot play by the rules when he sees they don't favor his side.

Hanky,

THANK. YOU. This Chad fellow gets me all riled up, and you just explained why better than I usually can. Instead of actually laying out his specific world view for all of us to see, he resorts to insults and philosophical history lessons in an attempt to make people feel like the reason they don't believe in god is because they simply aren't educated enough. An insulting position to take, indeed. But he will abandon this thread like he does all the others where someone calls him on his bs. Thanks for trying though! [emoji4]