Scientists create artificial life form - another nail in the coffin of religion?

antiskeptic · 31-05-2010 10:00AM

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't really the point. Everyone makes judgments but it would be rather silly to think that that therefore makes every judgment equally valid.

Do you agree that someone can make a stupid judgment?

For example thinking that their wife isn't cheating on him despite seeing her having sex with another man? Or thinking that God has spoken to them and their child dying of a very treatable disease doesn't need medical help?

If you think there is no such thing as good judgments and stupid judgments, that every judgment is equally valid so long as you make it, then there really isn't much more to discuss because we are at two sides of an uncrossable abyss.

I agree that people can make good judgements and bad judgements. And in the measure our ways of evaluating good and bad judgements agree we both would says such and such judgement by another was silly. In the measure we agree, I stress.

This conversation isn't about jumping straight into the "colour is empirically blue" vs. "colour is subjectively blue" debate. It's sat further back: at how it is we decide on the nature of reality and how it is that the nature of reality isn't really verifiable ultimately. What we're left with is the way reality appears to be and all we can do is conclude as best we think how regarding it.

We're subject to the nature of reality - not masters of deciding what it is. We cannot transcend ourselves to make it otherwise - no matter how hard we howl.

robindch · 31-05-2010 11:38AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

What I try to point out (somewhat unsuccessfully given the nature of the responses) is that at root, I'm making the same class of assumption as you

As I said above, your position of epistemological nihilism starts off well enough, then stops after one step. It goes nowhere. It is a philosophical dead end as you have explained it.

Can you explain how you develop this nihilism into something that has a use?

Zombrex · 31-05-2010 12:00PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I agree that people can make good judgements and bad judgements. And in the measure our ways of evaluating good and bad judgements agree we both would says such and such judgement by another was silly. In the measure we agree, I stress.

This conversation isn't about jumping straight into the "colour is empirically blue" vs. "colour is subjectively blue" debate. It's sat further back: at how it is we decide on the nature of reality and how it is that the nature of reality isn't really verifiable ultimately. What we're left with is the way reality appears to be and all we can do is conclude as best we think how regarding it.

Agreed, but that is the bit you are ignoring

We cannot ever know something for certain, nor prove it is true using empirical study or not.

So it becomes even more important that we look at how we arrive at judgments about reality. As you admit there are good and there are bad ways of doing this, people can make good judgments about reality and bad judgments about reality.

Judging that God exists based solely on you thinking he does is a bad judgment. There is almost nothing to support a confidence in holding that position.

You may not care, but to say that it is as valid as any other judgment people make is just silly, particularly when you admit that there are good and bad judgments.

kiffer · 31-05-2010 12:36PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Off the point

*looks at thread title*
*looks at how the thread meandered to its current topic*
I think it's not that far off topic at all... or off the point for that matter.

31-05-2010 02:44PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Maybe you should do the same thing.

Before you launch into a homily regarding the wonders of empirical verification, can I remind you that you are not permitted to use the assumption of the existance of an empirical realm as evidence of your belief that there is such a realm.

Which brings us back to the assumption you make. And why you make it.

That's the point where you need to start off from - not at some convenient point further down the road where the assumption is taken to be fact.

Over to you..

So dodging the question entirely?

Without empirical evidence I would not know how to distinguish truth from fiction.
I cannot think of a way that would exclude the possibility of being fooled.

That is why I am asking you.

But since you have dodged the important questions as usual, I can assume you can't answer the question honestly.

Waking-Dreams · 31-05-2010 03:01PM

It's the same story each time regarding the whole evidence argument. People say, “well, there's different kinds of evidence,” or “what is evidence anyway?” etc. I think it's just quirk in the brain trying to make sense of the world that fits the person's current paradigm of what they want to be true because it brings them comfort on some level. It seems some people are impervious to self-correction and will go on and on spinning their tyres in the mud, avoiding any real questions that might seriously challenge or contradict what they're saying. It's a kind of confirmation bias and operates below conscious level so the person is rarely aware that they're filtering data through a lens of distortion.

Even the absence of any evidence is evidence for some irrational people, “The world didn't end on the doomsday, therefore, our praying to God must have played a part in saving humanity!”

It doesn't matter what we say to antiskepctic at the end of the day; I find these discussions only result in each “side” becoming more committed to their own argument.

Scientists create artificial life form - another nail in the coffin of religion?

Comments