Looking below the surface
Moderator:Metacrock
Yes Jim is right, Science can;t choose our axioms,ut can;t tell us we should value The fallacy of Harris;s ethical argument is he assets that knowing that doing x is less pain causing for the greater nunnery but he assumes we have an automatic lock on greatest good for greatest number, science can't prove that as an axiom.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Re: Looking below the surface
So your position is that there is a deeper level than science, but we do not know what it is? I would agree with that.Jim B. wrote:No, because these things that I listed are better related to value and meaning, to epxerience. Science can't account for the laws either, at least now. Maybe eventually science may be able to explain what mechanism is responsible for the distribution of just these constants in this universe, assuming a multi-verse. But there would always be a level that is unexplainable by science. Of course, IF there is God, God would be a 'deeper' explanation for the laws than any such mechanism, being more on the order of an explanation of 'why' than 'how,' altho that fact alone doesn't weigh for or against there being God.
Now let us go back to what Metacrock said:
"Because you are only looking at the bits that are on the surface, that's the natural it's empirical. This is what Tillich means when he links atheism with "surface level of being." You are only thinking of what you can see. If you want to deal with morality or meaning or anything below the surface then you do need SN."
So this "surface level of being" that Tillich links to atheism, that is science, right? And the deeper level, that is the unknowable? I.e., the conclusion here is that we cannot know if God is the explanation or not.
Re: Looking below the surface
In what way is that value "deeper"?Metacrock wrote:Yes Jim is right, Science can;t choose our axioms,ut can;t tell us we should value The fallacy of Harris;s ethical argument is he assets that knowing that doing x is less pain causing for the greater nunnery but he assumes we have an automatic lock on greatest good for greatest number, science can't prove that as an axiom.
Re: Looking below the surface
Not necessarily. It depends on what we're talking about. If Mary asks "What is experiencing red like?" we can answer by giving her neuroscientific data or we can answer by allowing her to actually experience red. the latter is the "deeper" explanation, I would say. As far as God goes, granted no human mind could ever understand God, but it's possible that humans can "experience" God; If that were to happen, that would provide a 'deeper' understanding or explanation of God than reading a book or attending a lecture, even tho aspects of God would always remain unknowable.The Pixie wrote: So your position is that there is a deeper level than science, but we do not know what it is? I would agree with that.
Joe knows more about Tillich than I do. I think that the surface level takes beings for granted; it never questions beneath this level at which things simply are, altho it may systematically question how things came to be the way they are, which would include science.Now let us go back to what Metacrock said:
"Because you are only looking at the bits that are on the surface, that's the natural it's empirical. This is what Tillich means when he links atheism with "surface level of being." You are only thinking of what you can see. If you want to deal with morality or meaning or anything below the surface then you do need SN."
So this "surface level of being" that Tillich links to atheism, that is science, right? And the deeper level, that is the unknowable? I.e., the conclusion here is that we cannot know if God is the explanation or not.
Re: Looking below the surface
that's the point, that;s what makes it deeperThe Pixie wrote:Metacrock said recently:Can anyone give any example of looking below the surface, or deeper thinking?Because you are only looking at the bits that are on the surface, that's the natural it's empirical. This is what Tillich means when he links atheism with "surface level of being." You are only thinking of what you can see. If you want to deal with morality or meaning or anything below the surface then you do need SN.
Why should we think this deeper thinking matches reality?
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief