Atheists/Agnostics: How Much Sense Does God Make?

[Ana the Ist]

That's not how I would describe science. I would describe science as the study of creation for the purposes of figuring out how to use it for human wellbeing.



It is not possible for a Christian to set aside Christian ideology. That's what makes ideology ideology.

Neither is it possible for an atheist or naturalist to set aside their ideology in doing scientific work.

The lack of belief in a god doesn't really equate to an "ideology"...so in the case of the atheist, there's nothing to set aside.


In fact, I think if you should ever decide to speak with an atheist at length on the topic, you'll find they're an atheist precisely because they were able to set aside any preconceived notions and examine the evidence for god without bias.

 

[Tree of Life]

The lack of belief in a god doesn't really equate to an "ideology"...so in the case of the atheist, there's nothing to set aside.


In fact, I think if you should ever decide to speak with an atheist at length on the topic, you'll find they're an atheist precisely because they were able to set aside any preconceived notions and examine the evidence for god without bias.

"Without bias..." Goodness gracious. Even this is an expression of ideology.

 

[bhsmte]

I am unaware of any differences.

Then why did you say differences could be dissolved with study, instead of saying, there are no differences to dissolve?

 

[Ana the Ist]

"Without bias..." Goodness gracious. Even this is an expression of ideology.

Lol and what ideology would that be?

 

[bhsmte]

"Without bias..." Goodness gracious. Even this is an expression of ideology.

It is an expression of lack of non objective ideology and a focus on objective evidence, that removes subjective ideology.

 

[bhsmte]

"Without bias..." Goodness gracious. Even this is an expression of ideology.

If you were very sick and sought medical care, would you want your doctor to treat you based on objective evidence showing which treatment has produced the best results, or on their religious ideology based on faith based beliefs, which may disagree with the objective evidence?

 

[Tree of Life]

Lol and what ideology would that be?

An ideology that places that kind of confidence in the autonomy of human thinking. Some of the assumptions going into this is that it's possible to understand reality in an objective sense and that the human mind has powers of understanding that overcome personal goals, commitments, pre existing beliefs, and interpretations.

It's the basic scientific, naturalistic ideology that's characteristic of post enlightenment thinking. It has its own set of presuppositions and values just like Christian ideology.

 

[Ana the Ist]

An ideology that places that kind of confidence in the autonomy of human thinking. Some of the assumptions going into this is that it's possible to understand reality in an objective sense and that the human mind has powers of understanding that overcome personal goals, commitments, pre existing beliefs, and interpretations.

It's the basic scientific, naturalistic ideology that's characteristic of post enlightenment thinking. It has its own set of presuppositions and values just like Christian ideology.

I think you're confusing an ideal or an opinion with an ideology.

If I were to ask you what color the letters I'm typing appear as...could you examine the evidence without an ideology influencing you?

When I say that you can, I'm merely stating an opinion...not an ideology.

 

[Tree of Life]

I think you're confusing an ideal or an opinion with an ideology.

If I were to ask you what color the letters I'm typing appear as...could you examine the evidence without an ideology influencing you?

Not by any means. All my sensory datum comes to me pre-interpreted. It's quite impossible to separate fact from interpretation. I don't see the world "as it is". I see the world from my vantage point as a finite individual human being.

By the way, an ideology is simply a system of ideals and opinions.

 

[bhsmte]

Not by any means. All my sensory datum comes to me pre-interpreted. It's quite impossible to separate fact from interpretation. I don't see the world "as it is". I see the world from my vantage point as a finite individual human being.

By the way, an ideology is simply a system of ideals and opinions.

If it was impossible to separate fact from a bias interpretation, it is highly likely, we wouldn't have the knowledge we do to treat disease, you wouldn't have a computer that works, a car to drive, heat in your home a television to watch and I could go on and on. It is precisely, man's ability to determine fact and how things work, that delivers these things to us.

 

[Tree of Life]

If it was impossible to separate fact from a bias interpretation, it is highly likely, we wouldn't have the knowledge we do to treat disease, you wouldn't have a computer that works, a car to drive, heat in your home a television to watch and I could go on and on. It is precisely, man's ability to determine fact and how things work, that delivers these things to us.

Is it a fact that you're looking at a computer screen and touching a key pad at the moment? Yes (I'm guessing). But it's also an interpretation of the facts. Your brain is interpreting the sense datum in a way that you can understand and interact with. You're having a subjective experience of the world. How can you possible separate "the world" from your experience of the world?

Any time you talk about the world you're simultaneously talking about your experience of the world (which is, by definition, subjective).

Therefore it is quite impossible to separate fact from interpretation.

 

[bhsmte]

Is it a fact that you're looking at a computer screen and touching a key pad at the moment? Yes (I'm guessing). But it's also an interpretation of the facts. Your brain is interpreting the sense datum in a way that you can understand and interact with. You're having a subjective experience of the world. How can you possible separate "the world" from your experience of the world?

Any time you talk about the world you're simultaneously talking about your experience of the world (which is, by definition, subjective).

Therefore it is quite impossible to separate fact from interpretation.

You didn't answer my question.

How did medical science advance to where it is today and all the technologies we have advanced to the point we have today, if man was not capable of identifying the evidence and facts properly?

 

[Tree of Life]

You didn't answer my question.

How did medical science advance to where it is today and all the technologies we have advanced to the point we have today, if man was not capable of identifying the evidence and facts properly?

Man is capable of understanding the world in such a way that he can cultivate it and use it for human wellbeing. He can learn how to live in the world.

But this is far from understanding the world in an objective sense, free from all ideology.

 

[bhsmte]

Man is capable of understanding the world in such a way that he can cultivate it and use it for human wellbeing. He can learn how to live in the world.

But this is far from understanding the world in an objective sense, free from all ideology.

A good deal of objectivity is required, to review the empirical evidence that leads to scientific discovery and this would include, being able to cultivate knowledge appropriately, to use science for human wellbeing.

 

[Tree of Life]

A good deal of objectivity is required, to review the empirical evidence that leads to scientific discovery and this would include, being able to cultivate knowledge appropriately, to use science for human wellbeing.

Well perhaps our disagreement is semantic. What do you mean when you say "objectivity"?

 

[Eudaimonist]

But this is far from understanding the world in an objective sense, free from all ideology.

All objective understanding is ideological. It just turns out to be the correct ideology.

There is no such thing as non-ideological understanding.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[bhsmte]

Well perhaps our disagreement is semantic. What do you mean when you say "objectivity"?

Objectivity in this sense would mean, the ability to accept empirical evidence, vs allowing tightly held preconceived beliefs to cause one to ignore or deny empirical evidence.

Empirical evidence and the reality of it, don't just disappear because someone doesn't like where it points.

 

[Tree of Life]

All objective understanding is ideological. It just turns out to be the correct ideology.

There is no such thing as non-ideological understanding.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I think I agree. But what do you mean when you say "objective", especially since you agree that ideology is always present?

 

[bhsmte]

I think I agree. But what do you mean when you say "objective", especially since you agree that ideology is always present?

One can have an ideology that "objectivity" is of paramount importance and take steps to assure objectivity, such as the mechanisms of the scientific method provide.

 

[Tree of Life]

Objectivity in this sense would mean, the ability to accept empirical evidence, vs allowing tightly held preconceived beliefs to cause one to ignore or deny empirical evidence.

Empirical evidence and the reality of it, don't just disappear because someone doesn't like where it points.

This is fraught with many difficulties. Let me ask for some clarifications.

By "the ability to accept empirical evidence" do you mean "the willingness to accept what our senses tell us?" But this, of course, is subjective. Empiricism is entirely subjective.

By "tightly held preconceived beliefs" would you include the belief "our sense organs produce reliable representations of the world"? This is a tightly held, preconceived belief that every scientist brings to the table. Does that compromise their objectivity?

I think what you're getting at is that if evidence that already fits within our ideological framework ever contradicts our ideology then we have to make some decisions. If enough evidence presents itself that's continually contradicting ideology then we need to be willing to change our ideology (but, alas, even this is ideology).

For instance, within my ideological framework might be the propositions:

1. Dinosaurs never existed.
2. What my eyes tell me is reliable.

All of the sudden some evidence of the existence of dinosaurs comes to me. Now some contradictions arise within my ideology. If enough of this arises I've got to be willing to change my ideology.

This, I think, is the closest we can come to making sense of "objectivity". But even here ideology is always present.