Atheists, quit confusing the two.

[dafydd]

OK, well when you use a word in a different way than every other speaker of English on the planet, you're going to run into confusion.

You'd think that a child could understand that. Are we dealing with an elaborate troll?

 

[Complexity]

I think it is a chatterbot.

 

[kerikiwi]

It's Humpty Dumpty

 

[dafydd]

It's Humpty Dumpty

We all know what happened to him. I think they made a mistake there,they shouldn't have let the king's horses try and put him together again before giving the king's men a go. That was asking for trouble.

 

[yy2bggggs]

It seems the athiests have abandoned their attempts to claim they don't continuosly confuse the two.

Are you attempting argumentum ex silentio?

 

[RandFan]

But they forget that Theology is outside of the realm of Science. Science doesn't tell us what is moral, or ethical, or anything else that may happen to be outside the realm of what science is capable of telling us

Why do you think religion can tell us? Different religions have many different views about is moral, ethical or anything else not scientific.

Religion is just a means for some people to control a lot of other people.

 

[RandFan]

I really think some of the people in this thread need to brush up on the philosophy of science^WP. Here's a simple exercise: If you were to explain why science is a valid method of investigation, you would have to use something other than science to prove your point (lest you engage in circular reasoning). Since you're not using science, what are you doing?

Thanks, I make this point often. It can't be made too often. People often attempt to use logic to appeal to my reason to argue against logic and reason. The irony burns.

 

[Robin]

Science is a philosophy of skepticism and empirical evidence, and as such has no ability to explore metaphysical questions, which have nothing to do with skepticism or empirical evidence, and everything to do with subjective experience. They are simply two different, separate, and exclusive realms of knowledge and thought.

This is an interesting one. Unless I am reading it wrongly the OP says that metaphysical questions have nothing to do with empirical evidence and everything to do with subjective experience. So apparently empirical evidence and subjective experience are different, separate and exclusive realms of knowledge. So go to Dictionary.com and get the definition of empiricism:

empiricism: the doctrine that all knowledge is derived from sense experience​

So apparently we are confusing sense experience with subjective experience.

 

[punshhh]

This is an interesting one. Unless I am reading it wrongly the OP says that metaphysical questions have nothing to do with empirical evidence and everything to do with subjective experience. So apparently empirical evidence and subjective experience are different, separate and exclusive realms of knowledge. So go to Dictionary.com and get the definition of empiricism:

empiricism: the doctrine that all knowledge is derived from sense experience​

So apparently we are confusing sense experience with subjective experience.

Yes that sounds about right.

 

[Robin]

Yes that sounds about right.

OK, so tell me the difference between sense experience and subjective experience.

 

[punshhh]

OK, so tell me the difference between sense experience and subjective experience.

sense experience is experiences known through the activity of the sensory apparatus.

Subjective experience is experiences known through and consisting of intellectual concepts.

For example when I view a Dali painting, my sensory experience informs me of the appearance of the painting. Whereas my subjective experience informs me of how the contents of that appearance relate to my critical stance on Dali as an artist among other considerations.

 

[Robin]

sense experience is experiences known through the activity of the sensory apparatus.

Subjective experience is experiences known through and consisting of intellectual concepts.

For example when I view a Dali painting, my sensory experience informs me of the appearance of the painting. Whereas my subjective experience informs me of how the contents of that appearance relate to my critical stance on Dali as an artist among other considerations.

So you are saying that the first is not subjective?

That we have an experience that is not subjective?

It seems to me that you are not describing the distinction between metaphysics and science - you are describing the difference between art and science.

 

[RandFan]

Science doesn't tell us what is moral, or ethical, or anything else that may happen to be outside the realm of what science is capable of telling us.

It's arguable as to whether science (or philosophy for that matter) can tell us. However one thing is pretty obvious, if science can't tell us then nothing else can. Oh, religion can tell us but it has no basis to do so other than to claim divine authority. Prove the divine authority? Can't do it? Oh, well, **** off. Okay, if a bunch of people want to believe you have divine authority then that is their right but don't pretend that the rest of us have to accept that your claim is somehow better than science and/or philosophy to inform us about morality.

 

[Robin]

And it seems to me that the OP is confusing theology with metaphysics.

 

[Robin]

It seems the athiests have abandoned their attempts to claim they don't continuosly confuse the two.

Having comprehensively rebutted the claim there is little point in further rebutting.

 

[RandFan]

And it seems to me that the OP is confusing theology with metaphysics.

Yep. People tend to learn some little bit of philosophy that seems to align the planets and justify their world view and they latch on to that and STOP learning. Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[punshhh]

So you are saying that the first is not subjective?

when it is known by the thinker it becomes subjective.

That we have an experience that is not subjective?

I have just experienced rainwater running down my neck from a leaking gutter. Initially it wasn't subjective, it was a sensation. Followed shortly afterwards by a subjectively induced lurch to the side to stop the flow.

It seems to me that you are not describing the distinction between metaphysics and science - you are describing the difference between art and science.

I'm commenting on the distinction between sense experience and subjective experience. I am not commenting on metaphysics as such as I have not studied it.
If you would like to provide a definition of metaphysics I will comment on it.

 

[RandFan]

I'm commenting on the distinction between sense experience and subjective experience. I am not commenting on metaphysics as such as I have not studied it.

There is a type of blindness (perceptual) where lack of sight is the result of brain damage and not damage to the eye or optic nerve. Most of these people have a seemingly odd ability to navigate a maze or accurately grasp a pen held out in front of them to either the left, right or center. They can do so far better than chance or control subjects who are simply blindfolded. This ability is called blindsight and is believed by some cognitive scientists to be the result of our reptilian brain. In other words, we can sense things, via sight, that we can't consciously see.

SEEING WHAT YOU DON'T SEE?

Thought that would be a cool example.

 

[punshhh]

There is a type of blindness (perceptual) where lack of sight is the result of brain damage and not damage to the eye or optic nerve. Most of these people have a seemingly odd ability to navigate a maze or accurately grasp a pen held out in front of them to either the left, right or center. They can do so far better than chance or control subjects who are simply blindfolded. This ability is called blindsight and is believed by some cognitive scientists to be the result of our reptilian brain. In other words, we can sense things, via sight, that we can't consciously see.

SEEING WHAT YOU DON'T SEE?

Thought that would be a cool example.

Yes, I would agree, our bodies have a life and awareness of their own, irrespective of the mind.

 

[RandFan]

Yes, I would agree, our bodies have a life and awareness of their own, irrespective of the mind.

Not the point I was trying to make but I suppose. We could remove the brain and test the body to see how much it can respond to external stimuli. But my point was exactly about the mind. Just not the subjective part of the mind.