"Then you have no support for your claim that people of faith should be marginalised."
Sure I do. Marginilizing the faithful will keep serious issues in the hands of people that use /always/ strive to use logic and that can successfully communicate with each other. Moreover, it will take ideas that are baseless out of the debate, saving everyone time. Finally, it will force some of the faithful to understand their irrational ways.
"Was not an attack."
Okay. I'll take your word or it.
"This is to prove a point. Prove to me that you are not a figment of my imagination and that I'm not in a coma somwhere dreaming this whole exchange. That's not possible. So according to your argument, I should not believe that you exist because I have no proof. Likewise, you have no proof that I exist."
If you want to argue that there is no absolute reality, then fine, for the sake of argument, I can accept that. There is still a spectrum of observation. Some things can be recorded and sensed, like physical objects, and somethings cannot, like gods. It still remains that faithful are so far to one side of the spectrum that they lack a basic common ground to communicate on. It's one thing to say you don't believe pluto is out there, it's another to say there's a bright light in the sky.
"The claims I present as yours follow logically from the words and phrasing you chose."
No, they really do not. Let me give you one example:
"So no-one who has faith has ever benefitted humanity? "
Okay, read my first post again. I am saying the faithful can't be communicated with. I am saying the faithful should be brushed aside. That does not mean the faithful have not benefitted humanity. I simply never said that. On the whole, I think they've done more disservice than service, but I'm not going to deny the positive things they have done in specific circumstances.
"Just because a very small minority of people who contribute to problems that would exist anyway in one form or another does not make them the cause, and it certainly does not mean that everyone with faith is a problem."
Everyone with faith is a problem. Some are bigger problems than others. I'm not saying one faithful person is responsible for these problems, but they add up. And even if they are not, it is easier just to brush all the faithful aside. Also, the faithful tend to form dangerous groups. So one faithful might be relatively benign, but the group of them are dangerous. Finally, this reminds me of the guns don't kill people, people do argument. The fact is, you get rid of guns, there will be no more shootings. Sure, they'll be murder, but no more shootings. If you get of religion, you'll have no more israel/palestinian osama/waco problems. Yes, hutus will still kill tutsis (or vice versa), but you will not have israelis and palestinians claiming god gave them right to land.
"I notice further that you choose to ignore my rebuttal to your abortion example."
I can't find this? Can you paste it again? Sorry.
I strongly believe there can be no meaningful communication between faithful and reasonable people because we have different bases of thought. I also think that all faithful are fundamentally unreasonable, by definition. You believe in something for which there is no reason to believe. If you are willing to do that you could be willing to believe anything and do anything.
Sure I do. Marginilizing the faithful will keep serious issues in the hands of people that use /always/ strive to use logic and that can successfully communicate with each other. Moreover, it will take ideas that are baseless out of the debate, saving everyone time. Finally, it will force some of the faithful to understand their irrational ways.
"Was not an attack."
Okay. I'll take your word or it.
"This is to prove a point. Prove to me that you are not a figment of my imagination and that I'm not in a coma somwhere dreaming this whole exchange. That's not possible. So according to your argument, I should not believe that you exist because I have no proof. Likewise, you have no proof that I exist."
If you want to argue that there is no absolute reality, then fine, for the sake of argument, I can accept that. There is still a spectrum of observation. Some things can be recorded and sensed, like physical objects, and somethings cannot, like gods. It still remains that faithful are so far to one side of the spectrum that they lack a basic common ground to communicate on. It's one thing to say you don't believe pluto is out there, it's another to say there's a bright light in the sky.
"The claims I present as yours follow logically from the words and phrasing you chose."
No, they really do not. Let me give you one example:
"So no-one who has faith has ever benefitted humanity? "
Okay, read my first post again. I am saying the faithful can't be communicated with. I am saying the faithful should be brushed aside. That does not mean the faithful have not benefitted humanity. I simply never said that. On the whole, I think they've done more disservice than service, but I'm not going to deny the positive things they have done in specific circumstances.
"Just because a very small minority of people who contribute to problems that would exist anyway in one form or another does not make them the cause, and it certainly does not mean that everyone with faith is a problem."
Everyone with faith is a problem. Some are bigger problems than others. I'm not saying one faithful person is responsible for these problems, but they add up. And even if they are not, it is easier just to brush all the faithful aside. Also, the faithful tend to form dangerous groups. So one faithful might be relatively benign, but the group of them are dangerous. Finally, this reminds me of the guns don't kill people, people do argument. The fact is, you get rid of guns, there will be no more shootings. Sure, they'll be murder, but no more shootings. If you get of religion, you'll have no more israel/palestinian osama/waco problems. Yes, hutus will still kill tutsis (or vice versa), but you will not have israelis and palestinians claiming god gave them right to land.
"I notice further that you choose to ignore my rebuttal to your abortion example."
I can't find this? Can you paste it again? Sorry.
I strongly believe there can be no meaningful communication between faithful and reasonable people because we have different bases of thought. I also think that all faithful are fundamentally unreasonable, by definition. You believe in something for which there is no reason to believe. If you are willing to do that you could be willing to believe anything and do anything.
"Why do you waste your time baiting people?"
I am not baiting people in any negative sense. Do I want reactions? Of course. Why else would I post?
"Grow up OP"
Instead of attacking me personally, why don't you follow the example of some other posters and contribute to the discussion? It would be more constructive.
I am not baiting people in any negative sense. Do I want reactions? Of course. Why else would I post?
"Grow up OP"
Instead of attacking me personally, why don't you follow the example of some other posters and contribute to the discussion? It would be more constructive.
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
That's not sufficient support. You offer absolutely no proof that religious people are, as you claim, not capable and commonly supremely logical and rational in every other aspect of their lives. I again point to Lincoln's example.
They are on one end of the spectrum in only one specific are. Any claim that people with faith are on the irrational end of the spectrum in any area other than their faith is nothing more than a statement of faith on your part because you cannot prove that your assertion is true.
You say that the faithful should not benefit from the "fruits of reason" because they do not contribute to the "fruits of reason". You further say that the "fruits of reason" benefit society. It logically follows from this that you believe that religious people do not benefit society. You don't get to have it both ways.
No, they would come up with some other justification for having the land they want. Religion is almost never a root cause of anything, it is simply used as a justification for doing what people would otherwise do. Even the crusades were not initiated by a religious feeling, religion was warped and co-opted because the rulers of Europe saw that there was great monetary gain in the crusades. Furthermore, you still fail to offer proof for this assertion of yours. Prove to me that without religion there will be no more problems with people like Osama or occurances like Waco. Religion is an excuse for these people. It is not their root cause. Also, prove to me that people like Albert Schweitzer, Abraham Lincoln, and George Washington are problems. All three had extremely strong faith. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle had faith in the Greek gods. Prove to me that Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are problems. I can go on, but I think my point is made.
It's in the post I made listing the proofs I requested.
Prove it. All you have done thusfar is repeat the phrase, "If you are willing to do that you could be willing to believe anything and do anything." ad nauseum like someone praying a rosary without offering proof of your position. You seem to believe that by repeating it often enough people will believe you.
ZV
I think we should cut to the chase for the sake of time. Before we debate Abraham Lincoln, we should see if we agree on the basics of reasoning (in other words, if we can even communicate effectively).
You are using a strawman definition of proof. Proof does not always have to be some absolute 100% concept. Proof is a synonym of evidence. Evidence is something that makes a fact more likely than not. You asked me to prove I exist. Well, I will give you evidence I exist. Humans exist. Only humans can post to forums. I'm posting to a forum, so I must be human and therefore I must exist. This is a reasoned argument. it's evidence. Now you can claim challenge the facts, that humans do not exist, but again I could show you photographs of humans. On the other hand, the faithful cannot construct a similar argument for the existence of god. That is the difference between reason/evidence/proof and faith. You do not have any facts that make the existence of god more likely than not.
Here's an example of your strawman concept of proof:
"That's not sufficient support."
My argument could theoretically be wrong. But here's the thing. I have offered a reasoned argument for what I believe in. You are simply claiming it's not 100% enough for you. That's not the point of reason. Merriam-Webster: Proof: "the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning."
One can offer proof that global warming occurs or doesn't occur. One cannot offer evidence or a reasoned argument that god exists. That's the crux of our sub-debate.
Again, you are manipulating the dictionary defintions of proof and reason. You seem to claiming one cannot give proof/reasons for anything, but maybe I'm wrong. I also suggest you go straight to the point and present your worldview instead of engaging in a socratic debate-- it will make our discussion go faster. Do you accept reason? Do you accept evidence? Or do you not believe they exist?
You are using a strawman definition of proof. Proof does not always have to be some absolute 100% concept. Proof is a synonym of evidence. Evidence is something that makes a fact more likely than not. You asked me to prove I exist. Well, I will give you evidence I exist. Humans exist. Only humans can post to forums. I'm posting to a forum, so I must be human and therefore I must exist. This is a reasoned argument. it's evidence. Now you can claim challenge the facts, that humans do not exist, but again I could show you photographs of humans. On the other hand, the faithful cannot construct a similar argument for the existence of god. That is the difference between reason/evidence/proof and faith. You do not have any facts that make the existence of god more likely than not.
Here's an example of your strawman concept of proof:
"That's not sufficient support."
My argument could theoretically be wrong. But here's the thing. I have offered a reasoned argument for what I believe in. You are simply claiming it's not 100% enough for you. That's not the point of reason. Merriam-Webster: Proof: "the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning."
One can offer proof that global warming occurs or doesn't occur. One cannot offer evidence or a reasoned argument that god exists. That's the crux of our sub-debate.
Again, you are manipulating the dictionary defintions of proof and reason. You seem to claiming one cannot give proof/reasons for anything, but maybe I'm wrong. I also suggest you go straight to the point and present your worldview instead of engaging in a socratic debate-- it will make our discussion go faster. Do you accept reason? Do you accept evidence? Or do you not believe they exist?
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
The "proof" you are speaking of and the definition you are using is a stunted definition of a subset of the word "proof" that is used almost exclusively in entry-level logic textbooks as a means of differentiating the logical concept of a "proof" with the philosophical and absolute "proof"; the definition of the latter is also given by Meriam Webster, though you conveniently ignore it despite the fact that it is the most common use of the word "proof":
Proof: "something that induces certainty or establishes validity"
That is the definition from which I am arguing. Now, you're obviously intelligent enough to realise that this is the definition that would most likely be grasped by anyone opposing you. This leaves a few possibilities: You intentionally gave the impression of using that definition in order to give yourself a "back door" out of any substantive argument, or you are changing definitions in the middle of your argument because you find it advantageous. Of course, there's also the possibility that, being human your zeal for the argument simply overtook you and you didn't give a thought to establishing the definition beforehand and there is neither duplicity nor ignorance on your part. This last seems to me to be by far the most likely.
What you have been asking for is not that people of faith provide "proof", but that they provide "a proof" in the sense of the sort of proofs used in logic texts. There is a difference between "proof" which exists as a concept nowhere other than in a person's head, and "a proof" which is a defined entity that can be replicated and analysed.
Finally, I have already admitted several times over that a faith in God is not rational and that it cannot be supported by reason. What I have been challenging all along (and what you have thufar completely avoided answering) is your premise that one single instance of a belief is sufficient cause for the assumption that a person will therefore be impervious to reason in all other areas and is therefor necessary to marginalise. Time and again I have asked very bluntly for your reasons behind that belief of yours. You have offered none. I say again, offer proof that a belief in God (or whatever higher power) necessarily leads to the inability to form rational and logical arguments.
Regarding the straw man; I can only say that based on my reading up until now, and supported by the readings of others, my argument was not a straw man until you clarified the definition you were using for "proof". In other words, I am far from the only person who read your words and honestly saw you as using the argument that I present you as using. As I said once before: Inability on your part to clearly convey your position does not imply malice on my part when I attack the position your words express rather than the position you actually hold. I am many things to many people but I am not a mind-reader.
I'm curious as to your bias against the Socratic method, but as that's not relevant, I'll let it pass.
Regarding your questions:
I accept reason insofar as is provides useful guidance (e.g. I denounce the "reason" that leads to restrictions on personal freedoms such as the "reason" that leads to the birth restrictions in China on the governmental level). I believe that all practical aplications of faith and any manifestations of faith need to have rationality underlying them and that such applications need to be reasonable. I do not believe that the faith itself as an abstract concept needs to have rationality as a precursor.
I accept evidence insofar as it is logical and rational to do so. I.e. I do not accept "evidence" on the order of the creationist "evidence" against evolution, but I accept strongly evidence on the order of the biological and fossil evidence that supports the theory of evolution.
ZV
Proof: "something that induces certainty or establishes validity"
That is the definition from which I am arguing. Now, you're obviously intelligent enough to realise that this is the definition that would most likely be grasped by anyone opposing you. This leaves a few possibilities: You intentionally gave the impression of using that definition in order to give yourself a "back door" out of any substantive argument, or you are changing definitions in the middle of your argument because you find it advantageous. Of course, there's also the possibility that, being human your zeal for the argument simply overtook you and you didn't give a thought to establishing the definition beforehand and there is neither duplicity nor ignorance on your part. This last seems to me to be by far the most likely.
What you have been asking for is not that people of faith provide "proof", but that they provide "a proof" in the sense of the sort of proofs used in logic texts. There is a difference between "proof" which exists as a concept nowhere other than in a person's head, and "a proof" which is a defined entity that can be replicated and analysed.
Finally, I have already admitted several times over that a faith in God is not rational and that it cannot be supported by reason. What I have been challenging all along (and what you have thufar completely avoided answering) is your premise that one single instance of a belief is sufficient cause for the assumption that a person will therefore be impervious to reason in all other areas and is therefor necessary to marginalise. Time and again I have asked very bluntly for your reasons behind that belief of yours. You have offered none. I say again, offer proof that a belief in God (or whatever higher power) necessarily leads to the inability to form rational and logical arguments.
Regarding the straw man; I can only say that based on my reading up until now, and supported by the readings of others, my argument was not a straw man until you clarified the definition you were using for "proof". In other words, I am far from the only person who read your words and honestly saw you as using the argument that I present you as using. As I said once before: Inability on your part to clearly convey your position does not imply malice on my part when I attack the position your words express rather than the position you actually hold. I am many things to many people but I am not a mind-reader.
I'm curious as to your bias against the Socratic method, but as that's not relevant, I'll let it pass.
Regarding your questions:
I accept reason insofar as is provides useful guidance (e.g. I denounce the "reason" that leads to restrictions on personal freedoms such as the "reason" that leads to the birth restrictions in China on the governmental level). I believe that all practical aplications of faith and any manifestations of faith need to have rationality underlying them and that such applications need to be reasonable. I do not believe that the faith itself as an abstract concept needs to have rationality as a precursor.
I accept evidence insofar as it is logical and rational to do so. I.e. I do not accept "evidence" on the order of the creationist "evidence" against evolution, but I accept strongly evidence on the order of the biological and fossil evidence that supports the theory of evolution.
ZV
I thank you for your contributions to this thread. They have made me think. (As of now, I still do not concede my point though). A lot of what you say is true, but I will not point out all of it. For example, I did not think about establishing the the definition of proof when I started.
"I'm curious as to your bias against the Socratic method, but as that's not relevant, I'll let it pass."
I think it has its place, but with this mode of communication I believe just cutting straight to the chase, as you did very nicely in your last post, was more efficient.
"The "proof" you are speaking of and the definition you are using is a stunted definition of a subset of the word "proof" that is used almost exclusively in entry-level logic textbooks as a means of differentiating the logical concept of a "proof" with the philosophical and absolute "proof"; the definition of the latter is also given by Meriam Webster, though you conveniently ignore it despite the fact that it is the most common use of the word "proof":"
I admit I am talking about the logical concept of proof here and that there are other meaningss of proof.
"Proof: "something that induces certainty or establishes validity. That is the definition from which I am arguing. "
That is not the definition I am using. I know I did not set it out in my original argument, but I am not using it as a back door-- that's just what I had in my mind when I started. I am willing to admit I was wrong if it comes to that.
"I believe that all practical aplications of faith and any manifestations of faith need to have rationality underlying them and that such applications need to be reasonable."
Just to clarify, would you disagree or agree with the following view: "I believe in god because it makes me happy." Semantically, that could be a rational for believing in god, but it is not a reason I am talking about. Do you agree?
"You have offered none. I say again, offer proof that a belief in God (or whatever higher power) necessarily leads to the inability to form rational and logical arguments."
I re-read dealmonkey's post and I agree with a lot of it. I cannot absolutely say that someone could have faith in god and not use reason in every other place in their life. I do not think that is inconsistent with my original post. At the risk of repeating myself, I think fundamentally we cannot communicate however. That is because they do not fully accept the tools of logic. That one act of faith means they are not really accepting logic (it's not good enough to just accept it in 99.99% of the cases). I do not want to have to guess how much they are using logic and how much they are using faith. An important aspect of my original post is that I am making a policy decision. I think it is prudent to brush aside the faithful because it will save the rest of society time on the whole. It is true a faithful could bring a logical argument to a discussion, but I do not want to waste my time when, as dealmonkey said, because they could be really using some faith. There is an element of trust in there too (as dealmonkey said).
"I'm curious as to your bias against the Socratic method, but as that's not relevant, I'll let it pass."
I think it has its place, but with this mode of communication I believe just cutting straight to the chase, as you did very nicely in your last post, was more efficient.
"The "proof" you are speaking of and the definition you are using is a stunted definition of a subset of the word "proof" that is used almost exclusively in entry-level logic textbooks as a means of differentiating the logical concept of a "proof" with the philosophical and absolute "proof"; the definition of the latter is also given by Meriam Webster, though you conveniently ignore it despite the fact that it is the most common use of the word "proof":"
I admit I am talking about the logical concept of proof here and that there are other meaningss of proof.
"Proof: "something that induces certainty or establishes validity. That is the definition from which I am arguing. "
That is not the definition I am using. I know I did not set it out in my original argument, but I am not using it as a back door-- that's just what I had in my mind when I started. I am willing to admit I was wrong if it comes to that.
"I believe that all practical aplications of faith and any manifestations of faith need to have rationality underlying them and that such applications need to be reasonable."
Just to clarify, would you disagree or agree with the following view: "I believe in god because it makes me happy." Semantically, that could be a rational for believing in god, but it is not a reason I am talking about. Do you agree?
"You have offered none. I say again, offer proof that a belief in God (or whatever higher power) necessarily leads to the inability to form rational and logical arguments."
I re-read dealmonkey's post and I agree with a lot of it. I cannot absolutely say that someone could have faith in god and not use reason in every other place in their life. I do not think that is inconsistent with my original post. At the risk of repeating myself, I think fundamentally we cannot communicate however. That is because they do not fully accept the tools of logic. That one act of faith means they are not really accepting logic (it's not good enough to just accept it in 99.99% of the cases). I do not want to have to guess how much they are using logic and how much they are using faith. An important aspect of my original post is that I am making a policy decision. I think it is prudent to brush aside the faithful because it will save the rest of society time on the whole. It is true a faithful could bring a logical argument to a discussion, but I do not want to waste my time when, as dealmonkey said, because they could be really using some faith. There is an element of trust in there too (as dealmonkey said).
ZV - I agree with your premise that one act of faith does not mean an individual necessarily gives up all reason and logic in the rest of their lives. In practice it most likely doesn't happen. What I'm saying however, is that this one act of faith means they have a tendency to accept other beliefs on faith as well. It's not an absolute, but at the same time their decision-making process is suspect.
Here's an analogy: Think of it in terms of the journalist. He may fact-check his articles for years on end. If one day, he deliberately fails to fact-check an article that he personally believes in strongly, and later it is revealed that he has done so, his journalism from that point on would be suspect. How can you trust that the journalist has done his due-diligence?
Here's an analogy: Think of it in terms of the journalist. He may fact-check his articles for years on end. If one day, he deliberately fails to fact-check an article that he personally believes in strongly, and later it is revealed that he has done so, his journalism from that point on would be suspect. How can you trust that the journalist has done his due-diligence?
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
Name one single person who has never bypassed logic and reason in at least one decision. Not possible. If you say that one must marginalise people of faith because they have once gone outside reason, then you have to marginalise every person who has ever lived.
The journalist issue is, at best, a very weak analogy. If a journalist fails to fact-check, the consequence is that his readers suffer. If a person chooses faith in the abstract, no-one outside that specific person is affected in any way. Now, if reason is not used when applying that faith, people get hurt and that's bad. Reason and logic must absolutely be used in the application of faith, but the choice to believe in and of itself, as an abstract choice, needs no precursor. Nobody suffers from the irrational choice of faith unless the application is likewise irrational. If the irrational faith is applied in a rational manner (which happens far more often than your availability heuristic fallacy claims) then there is no downside.
Using faith as a determinant of a person's rationality is confusing small correlation with causation. Of course, it's much more difficult to evaluate people on an individual level so it's convenient for many people who lack the drive to make that effort to take the lazy way out and irrationally generalize about a heterogenous group.
Your statement, "I do not want to have to guess how much they are using logic and how much they are using faith." is nothing more or less than laziness. That's not rational you know.
ZV
"Name one single person who has never bypassed logic and reason in at least one decision. Not possible. If you say that one must marginalise people of faith because they have once gone outside reason, then you have to marginalise every person who has ever lived."
To err is human. Everyone makes mistake in reasoning. But those who have faith are choosing not to reason in one situation. For me that triggers a lack of trust and signals that any discussion will be fruitless because they could refuse to accept reason whenever they want to.
"If you say that one must marginalise people of faith because they have once gone outside reason, then you have to marginalise every person who has ever lived.""
That is not true. I could marginilize people of faith because they do not accept reason, but I could accept people who have made mistakes of reasoning. This is not inconsistent. In one case, people are refusing reason in one situation, and in another, they have not applied reason (they are not refusing it, they just made a mistake).
"Your statement, "I do not want to have to guess how much they are using logic and how much they are using faith." is nothing more or less than laziness. That's not rational you know."
I don't think it's lazy. It's a heuristic response. I have a limited time in life. It is reasonable to cut down on unfruitful discussion by eliminating all faithful, even if some of them might lead to fruitful discussions. Many of society's rules are based on such responses. Is it lazy to not do an in depth background check on all airline passengers who have guns and delve deep into their lives to see if they might actually use those guns? No, as a general rule, no gun- no bording, even if it is possible for someone to have a gun on a plane and not use it.
To err is human. Everyone makes mistake in reasoning. But those who have faith are choosing not to reason in one situation. For me that triggers a lack of trust and signals that any discussion will be fruitless because they could refuse to accept reason whenever they want to.
"If you say that one must marginalise people of faith because they have once gone outside reason, then you have to marginalise every person who has ever lived.""
That is not true. I could marginilize people of faith because they do not accept reason, but I could accept people who have made mistakes of reasoning. This is not inconsistent. In one case, people are refusing reason in one situation, and in another, they have not applied reason (they are not refusing it, they just made a mistake).
"Your statement, "I do not want to have to guess how much they are using logic and how much they are using faith." is nothing more or less than laziness. That's not rational you know."
I don't think it's lazy. It's a heuristic response. I have a limited time in life. It is reasonable to cut down on unfruitful discussion by eliminating all faithful, even if some of them might lead to fruitful discussions. Many of society's rules are based on such responses. Is it lazy to not do an in depth background check on all airline passengers who have guns and delve deep into their lives to see if they might actually use those guns? No, as a general rule, no gun- no bording, even if it is possible for someone to have a gun on a plane and not use it.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Your position is illogical. You have a belief unsubstiantated by data. You have faith in it. I know many scientists, some of which are Christians (although I expect it would hold for any religion I am familiar with). Their data or conclusions are not in any more or less suspect than any others. They do the job and do it rationally. More often, when something is bogus happens it's a matter of ego. When errors happen it's is often do to an experimental bias or mistakes in analysis. Never have I know a problem to be due to faith.
What you have done is state a belief completely unencumbered by data. Unless you can provide data as to the unreliability of those who posess faith vs. those who do not, you have no argument at all. You present a view as you think it OUGHT to be, rather than how it is.
You have presented a thesis, but your research does not allow for a defense.
Also, why do you think the the totality of existence is amenable to reason? What if the most basic levels of reality are either too complex or too simple to comprehend? Why is human reason sufficient? How could you understand? Gödel wants to know.
You may want to reconsider that assertion in light of President Bush and his general "appointed by God" mentality, and specifically his statements that God factored into his decision to go to war with Iraq. Furthermore, how can we be sure that an individual's decision-making and perceptions aren't being skewed by their faith? If they're willing to establish belief in a vacuum of facts, how can we be sure they're acting in everyone's best interests. Much is at stake when considering the relative power of the President.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
The topic was about religious faith. What about faith in any "ism" though? Communism? What about Conservatism, or Liberalism for that matter. I maintain it isn't the presence of faith, but the lack of doubt. People can have faith in a thing or idea, but yet ask themselves if they are doing the right thing. Most do. In Bush's case, I begin to wonder about basic sanity. IMO Bush co-opted religion to validate his view not that religion told him what to do. The often maligned question "What would Jesus do?" is a very important for those who do have faith. Would Jesus pick up a gun and don a helment? I think not. I think so called Christians have ignored the most basic tenets of their own religion which they believe came from the author himself. That is a fault in character. WWJD? Not what Bush is doing. Many Presidents had faith. Unfortunately faith and insanity are not mutually exclusive.
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
So no-one else has ever continued a mistake? Sorry, you're not getting out of it that easily. An instance is an instance. Refusal of reason is refusal of reason, whether it be corrected soon, after a long while, or never.
Weak analogy. The downside potential of messing up once and letting a person on a plane with a gun who should not have one is almost infinitely worse than the downside potential of not marginalising people of faith even if one accepts your warped worldview.
ZV
For an idea to be logical, it does not need to have "data." You need reasons. Again, I have evidence (and again, evidence does not need to be a spreadsheet or a bloody glove) for my thesis. Hence it is reasonable, it is logical. On the other hand, a faithful cannot present evidence for the existence of Allah. Not only can they not provide a bloody glove, they can't even provide a logical, reasonable, argument for his existence.
I never said religious people can't make fine scientists so I'm not sure why you are arguing that point.
"Also, why do you think the the totality of existence is amenable to reason?"
Who said I believe that? You are making assumptions.
"What if the most basic levels of reality are either too complex or too simple to comprehend?"
What if? Are you suggesting that is proof for Allah?
"Why is human reason sufficient?"
Sufficient for what?
"How could you understand?"
Understand what?
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
How do you know what is in everyone's best interest. I'd love to hear it because that topic has been hotly debated since the dawn of time and minds wiser than anyone in this forum (myself certainly included) have been unable to figure it out.
"The downside potential of messing up once and letting a person on a plane with a gun who should not have one is almost infinitely worse than the downside potential of not marginalising people of faith even if one accepts your warped worldview."
Here's why I disagree. Letting a person on a plane could lead to thousands of death. Even let the causal chain go nuts and blame wars on an act caused by a plane flying into a building, then it could reach millions (and note 9/11 had a lot of faith involved)." History shows hundreds of millions of deaths because of faith.
Even if the gun is more dangerous than faith, that does not mean faith is not dangerous or not useless.
The point of the analogy was that heuristics and simplifications are legitimate tools to use in society. Are you saying that I am not using such a tool? Or that such tools are unreasonable?
Here's why I disagree. Letting a person on a plane could lead to thousands of death. Even let the causal chain go nuts and blame wars on an act caused by a plane flying into a building, then it could reach millions (and note 9/11 had a lot of faith involved)." History shows hundreds of millions of deaths because of faith.
Even if the gun is more dangerous than faith, that does not mean faith is not dangerous or not useless.
The point of the analogy was that heuristics and simplifications are legitimate tools to use in society. Are you saying that I am not using such a tool? Or that such tools are unreasonable?
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
You say that people should never operate on anything aside from reason. If you believe than then you must logically believe that reason is capable of making sense of any and all situations which will ever be encountered. Otherwise, to abandon reason would have to be acceptable in certain instances and therefore you could not make the claim you are making, namely you could not make the claim that to abandon reason marks a person as being incapable of communication.
No, but if they are then it throws one gigantic monkey wrench into this little logical house of cards that you've built up.
Sufficient for the work you purport it to be able to do, i.e. everything.
ZV
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
Wrong. Sorry. You're making the freshman mistake of confusing correlation with causality. In almost every instance the impetus for so-called "religious" wars has been secular. Religion has been pasted on top of conflicts that would have occured with or without the presence of faith.
ZV
Well, like I said Winston, I'm not making some hard/fast rule, I'm merely suggesting it brings questions to the forefront. Although, if someone doubts their own faith, then are they faithful? Are they not agnostic at that point? You've raised an interesting point.
Additionally, your statements about Bush and "What would Jesus Do" intrigues me -- for example, do you think Jesus would simply turn the other cheek after 9/11? I think he would. However, what president would ever get away with that kind of response? I don't think the American people would stand for it. I often wonder how Bush's "faith" comports with his more violent war-like tendencies.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter