| Interesting. > The assertion that the world must be internally consistent is quintessential rationalism, not materialism or empiricism at all. Science's core value is empiricism, NOT rationalism. I don't assert that the world must be internally consistent. I merely believe that it is, for the entirely boring reason that there's a mountain of evidence that seems to say so. Empiricism may be the core value of science, but I think it's fair to say the scientific method also assumes the world to be consistent – that's the property that makes it worth hypothesising about. If the external world isn't consistent, we will at some point run into some phenomenon that the scientific method simply can't accommodate, and there'll be no way to know when that's happened. Maybe it's happened already and consciousness is that problem. In any case, overall I think that puts me on the empiricist side of the fence, right? > This is one of the weakest epistemic arguments I've ever heard. But also very honest. > If you can't describe the position of the authority (PoA) that you trust in > most fans of science have no idea what science is actually saying and couldn't survive a brief cross-examination of their "scientific" worldview I do okay, but literally nobody could survive a brief cross-examination of their "scientific" worldview if you pick the right questions. I believe that the world exists outside my mind, so I have to accept that there are truths about the world that I don't know. All I'm saying is that I believe that other people know more of them than I do. You have used quantum physics to justify your position elsewhere in this thread, so I take it you can justify this kind of belief-delegation as well. > So now you see why philosophers like me think "New Atheists" are anti-intellectuals ... having the same religious ignorance and fervor that is common among Christians. This is only superficially true. The whole "because science!" meme is annoying and a bit cultish. But although you've clearly thought about it in much more detail, the same logic that allows you to use quantum physics to support your arguments is what affords these people their beliefs. Even the most unthinking atheists grasp the structural difference between religious faith and so-called faith in science, that "God" is an empty expression whereas "Max Planck" refers to a human being not unlike themselves, etc. (My source of frustration is that many people on the science train don't apply the mindset to themselves at all – generally giving their personal perceptions and intuitions, particular concerning causal relationships, far more weight than can be justified.) |