Do You Have a Thinking Problem? by canttakesky

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Now go back and actually read the original posts before posting another reply.

Jebus, it's no wonder I tend to stay away from these discussions.

There is no need to get snippety.

I never accused him of making absolute assertions in his example. But his example illustrates the absolutes in his conclusion. So yes, disassembling his example reflects flaws in his assumptions. But we'll never get anywhere arguing whether his example was misinterpreted. It's tangential and distracting. You want us to address his POINT. Let's move away from the example and address his POINT.

Tell me if his original point was misinterpreted:
that religion and logic are mutually exclusive. Do you think I've misinterpreted him on that?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 6:09 AM

For what it's worth, I haven't felt any anger or hostility directed at me personally and hope the reverse is true.

Anyway, they're making my point for me. As canttakesky wrote, you can have a valid logical belief in the universe and everything in it without the need for the existence of God. You don't need God in the act of creation, the existence of man, even for moral beliefs such as right and wrong. The universe still stands with just logic behind it.

However religion comes along and tries to substitute itself in. "Evolution? Rubbish. God did it all in 6 days. And all the evidence you see otherwise is faked/guided by God where days doesn't mean days" (kinda like Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan in that respect).

Simply stating "I believe it to be so" or "I have faith that it is" doesn't make such a position any more logical. Stating that "It is beyond logic" is invalid too. Logic doesn't mean common sense. Quantum physics is beyond common sense, that doesn't mean it isn't logical. You can argue that you believe in logic for everything where religion isn't concerned but can you tell me how that makes you any more logical than someone who is absolutely logical except for things told to him by Flimsy, the king of the Baggilolo tribe who lives in his little finger?

So, to get back to my point, logical thought is the natural enemy of religion because homo sapiens is an insatiably curious creature and has always asked questions like "Where did we come from? Why is there a big multicoloured arc in the sky when it rains? Why do other people speak different languages? Why was my child born with a disability? What is the value of pi? Why are ostriches so careless with their eggs?"

The Bible and other religious writings came up with answers to these questions. Human curiousity is sated. Then logical thought came along and pop, pop, pop, we suddenly had real answers. Logical answers. The right answers. Suddenly the Church has to back pedal. Granted, it has just recently affirmed that Gallileo was right about the whole Earth going round the Sun thing (they were upset because it contradicted the Bible but instead they just wrote off the relevant passages as "metaphor") and the word on the Vatican streets is that even evolution will be allowed, though under the Intelligent Design banner (I'm guessing "metaphor" again.)

I'm also a little annoyed that people seem upset I'm dismissing their religion. If you believe the Bible, you're dismissing Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, and pretty much every other religion (and vice versa of course). Why the affront when someone dismisses one more religon than you?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 6:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
By definitions of both alogical and illogical they are both described as the absence of logic, they're more or less the same thing worded differently.

And now we cut to the heart of our disagreement.

We have different definitions of logic and of the world. We're not going to change each other's minds. All I'm asking is to please respect other people's world views and not insult them by calling them illogical.

I suppose asking some people not to hurl insults is a lot to ask. But we gotta at least try.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 6:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by CantTakeSky:
We have different definitions of logic and of the world.

I follow the definition of logic, I feel no need to change it to fit my beliefs, it appears you do.

Quote:
All I'm asking is to please respect other people's world views and not insult them by calling them illogical.

It would have helped here if you had read my original post:

Quote:
Faith is not logical, it is the very opposite, this is not a bad thing, and by your framing it as such you set off from a false stand point. From your assumption that saying faith is illogical is a denegation of faith you base your argument on a false foundation.

Like I said, you are framing the illogical nature of faith as a bad thing, not I. I can't speak for SimonWho, but I suspect he doesn't hold this position either. Faith is illogical, Emotions are illogical, but too say it is an insult to say emotions are illogical would be blatantly absurd.

People are illogical, more often than not in fact, guess I'm insulting the entire Human race now

Quote:
I suppose asking some people not to hurl insults is a lot to ask. But we gotta at least try.

I suppose asking people to consider that a fact isn't offensive is a lot to ask. It would be nice if they tried though

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 6:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Faith is illogical, Emotions are illogical, but too say it is an insult to say emotions are illogical would be blatantly absurd.

It is obvious we aren't getting anywhere, so no offense meant, this is my last post to you on the subject.

Some faith is illogical. Some faith is alogical. In my view, to say all faith is illogical is NOT a fact, and can be offensive.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 6:52 AM

Okay then, faith is not logical. Which I believe was the initial point you were arguing against anyway.

A debate of faith can be alogical, but faith itself cannot be. It's as simple as that.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 7:09 AM

CAUSAL

Although I have enjoyed our debate up to this point, I must respectfully bow out. I no longer feel that I will be able to keep my sense of offense out of the equation when making arguments. Allow me to briefly explain.

Logic is "a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration - the science of the formal principles of reasoning" ( definition 1a(1), http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary ). Logic, then, philosophically speaking, concerns the way that arguments are made, and not the actual content of those arguements. As I mentioned in one of my posts above, the actual truth value of propositions is not what the science of logic is concerned with--logic is concerned with the way arguements are put together. That being the case, I can apply the rules of logical reasoning (things like non-contradiction, excluded middle, or De Morgan's rule) to any set of propositions (regardless of their content), and as long as I work with those according to the rules of propositional, predicate, or modal logic, the results are "logical"--that is, they operate validly according to those rules. Hence, a syllogism like, "All humans are contigent beings; all contingent beings are responsible to God for their moral choices; therefore, all humans are responsible to God for their moral choices" is a logically valid argument: it doesn't break any rule of propositional logic, and the conclusion follows by necessity if the premises are true. The content of those propositions is irrelevant, because logic isn't concerned with the content as such, but about the ways that the propositions interact. Take for example the following: 1) All jabberwockies are flibberty-gibbets; 2) all flibberty-gibbets are whatcha-hoozits; 3) therefore, all jabberwockies are whatcha-hoozits. These propositions have litterally no content whatsoever--but they remain in a logically valid configuration (according to the strict philosophical definition of logic) and thus that syllogism is "logical" in spite of the fact that the actual content of the propositions is non-sense.

One problem seems to be divergent definitions of "logic" and "logical". As a philosopher, I've been using the strict philosophical definition of logic as given in the preceding paragraph. On the other hand, those arguing the other side seem to use a more vernacular definition of logic, something like "legitimate: based on known statements or events or conditions" ( http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=logical ). So I can see how, on this definition, religion could be considered illogical, depending upon one's sense of legitimacy, or what one believes to be "known statements or events or conditions". If, on your view, it is a "known statement" that God did not create the cosmos, and I come along and say that He did, then according to the vernacular definition I'm being illogical. If those arguing against me (and CTS) Adhere to this vernacular definition of "logical", then we need not argue any further, because we are not truly talking about the same thing--there's an ocean of difference between the vernacular and philosophical definitions, which our argument will not overcome. If that is the case, if we can agree that we're not actually discussing the same conception of logic, then I wish you well, and hope that we can be civil on these boards in the future. But there seems to be a grimmer option than a disagreement on the defintion of "logic".

The grimmer option is that the argument will persist, that someone will argue, that it is impossible to apply the rules of propositional, predicate, or modal logic if the content of the proposition is concerned with theology. If that is the case (and I have felt, at various times that it is), then I will be deeply insulted. Because I have studied long and hard on the subject of philosophy, and I believe that I have done well at it. I've earned high marks in school (nearly perfect marks, in point of fact) and have been acknowledged as competent enough to tutor students in philosophy (including in logic) and grade their tests and papers. By continually telling me that I don't understand what logic is, and that I am myself illogical, you insult me, because you imply that I am a very bad philosopher indeed, and that makes me angry (because I'm not accusing anyone else of not knowing their own craft, as I perceive is being done to me).

It is because of the emotions attendant to that perception that I must regretably withdraw from this discussion. I do not feel that this debate is proceeding along the lines of open dialectic, but rather along the track of programmatic metaphysical imperialism, which would deny that anything God-related can be thought about it a reasoned way.

Thank you very much for the thought provoking discussion that we have had up to this point. I hope that I have helped illuminate the arts of philosophy and logic in ways that are helpful; you've certainly made me think, and that's the highest compliment a philosopher can bestow.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 7:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
For what it's worth, I haven't felt any anger or hostility directed at me personally and hope the reverse is true.

Good to know, and the reverse is true, for me anyway. I am not as sensitive to being called "illogical" as I am being called "not a scientist." THAT's my pet peeve.

Quote:
but can you tell me how that makes you any more logical than someone who is absolutely logical except for things told to him by Flimsy, the king of the Baggilolo tribe who lives in his little finger?

Well, let's talk about Flimsy. Bob believes in Flimsy. Bill believes in Jesus. And Chuck believes in Science. In all other respects, they use the same amount of logic to answer their questions. Who is more logical? I would answer no one is more logical than the other--but I'm guessing you would disagree. What do you mean by "more logical" anyway?

Let me give an example. Arithmetic is a tool for understanding certain concepts. But there are questions that arithmetic cannot answer. What happens when you add the angles of a triangle drawn on the surface of a balloon that is constantly deflating? So we have to go outside of arithmetic to calculus and trigonometry to answer that question. Now let's say Andy claims arithmetic can answer all problems. And John says no, I use plenty of arithmetic, but I supplement arithmetic with calculus. Does that make John less "arithmetic" than Andy? Arithmetic is not a religion, and while you can use arithmetic more than others, you can't be "more arithmetic" than others.

Let me ask you this, Simon. Do you think, like Citizen, that there is no difference between alogical and illogical?

Quote:
So, to get back to my point, logical thought is the natural enemy of religion because homo sapiens is an insatiably curious creature and has always asked questions ....
The Bible and other religious writings came up with answers to these questions.

Well, there we get back to some people use logic in their religious reasoning, and some people don't. Just because I accept faith-based answers to some questions does not mean I accept faith-based answers to ALL questions. I am a scientist, at heart and by training. I use scientific reasoning and empiricism to satisfy my insatiable curiosity. But I see a world bigger than what science can address (a non-physical world), and I use faith to supplement the answers that science can never solve.

Quote:
I'm also a little annoyed that people seem upset I'm dismissing their religion.

That's not why people are upset. I'm arguing not because you dismissed my religion (you don't even know what my religion is), but because you're dismissing the possibility of logic existing in religion.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 7:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
But I see a world bigger than what science can address (a non-physical world), and I use faith to supplement the answers that science can never solve.

Whether you realise it or not you just agreed with me.

And your framing of debate as "either you agree with me or you are insulting me" is really quite boring, and insulting in fact.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 7:42 AM

DESKTOPHIPPIE

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Being an Irish-American, I tend to think the hard stuff.

More animations available at http://desktophippie.googlepages.com

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 8:21 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The sheer existence of God and many other suppositions in religion are alogical. They fall outside the purvue of logic. This rests on the premise that there exist things logic can know, and there exist things logic can't know.

Most of the arguments I've seen in from the empiricism/rationalism camp come from the following positions: 1. These exists only the physical world. 2. Empiricism and rationalism are adequate for understanding the physical world in its entirety. 3. Empiricism and rationalism can explain ONLY the physical world. 4. Therefore ONLY the physical world exists. 5. Anything that cannot be explained empirically and rationally does not exist.

CTS- I'm with you up until the end. I'm sure there are many thing we will never be able to "explain" empirically and rationally simply because our brains are not structured to encompass certain concepts. It would be like trying to show a sunset to a blind man.

But to say that empiricists say that things don't exist because they cant' be explained... well, that's a lie. And then to insert religion as a tool to explain the unexplainable is just plain hubris.

I find it interesting that you're such an anti-authoritarian in everything except this.

---------------------------------
Remain humble in the face of reality.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 9:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Well, let's talk about Flimsy. Bob believes in Flimsy. Bill believes in Jesus. And Chuck believes in Science. In all other respects, they use the same amount of logic to answer their questions. Who is more logical? I would answer no one is more logical than the other--but I'm guessing you would disagree. What do you mean by "more logical" anyway?

Well, there's your fallacy - science isn't a religion, even if you give it a capital letter. Logic is the driving force behind science. Logic means you don't just make stuff up to suit your needs and previous beliefs. In fact science and logic often require you to destroy your first principles to arrive at the truth.

Case in point - Einstein screwed up. He couldn't make his model of a static universe work so he added a cosmological constant to his theories. Later when it was discovered the universe was expanding, he called this his "biggest blunder".

I include an example of science going awry to illustrate two things - 1) science is fallible because it is produced by human beings and we make mistakes and 2) science tries to correct itself. When science solidifies (as happened with the works of Aristotle and Newton among others), it's generally a bad idea.

So Chuck is more logical than the other two but that doesn't necessarily mean he's going to be right every time compared to them. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Now is there a difference between alogical and illogical? Of course there is but you need to be wary that you don't protect your illogical ideas by claiming they're alogical. Have you ever really asked yourself, truly asked yourself, how likely is it that your religion (whatever it may be) is the one true religion?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 9:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But to say that empiricists say that things don't exist because they cant' be explained... well, that's a lie.

No. you misunderstand me. Things that cannot possibly be explained... Obviously there are plenty of things that cannot be explained now, but empiricists believe that given enough time and effort and the correct instrumentation, a rational and empirical explanation can be achieved eventually for all the physical universe.

Quote:
And then to insert religion as a tool to explain the unexplainable is just plain hubris.

Sigh. I almost died once. I felt something outside of myself gave me the strength to pull through--something as tangible as the chair I'm sitting on. Now that may be psychological, may be subconscious, may be any number of things that can eventually be explained through rational and empirical concepts. But for now, I choose to call that something "God" and believe it was he who pulled me through. Why is that hubris? Why can't I choose to call that something "God" and be a scientist at the same time, as long as I remain open to rational/empirical explanations when they do come forth?

Quote:
I find it interesting that you're such an anti-authoritarian in everything except this.

Oh good grief. Give this up already.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 9:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
Well, there's your fallacy - science isn't a religion, even if you give it a capital letter.

I beg to differ. Science is defintitely a religion for some people. Maybe not you, but I have met people who dogmatically believe in the omniscience and omnipotence of science, to the exclusion of all other possibilities. Science for them is the one and only authority and salvation of mankind. More importantly, this dogmatism requires every bit as much faith in the scientific method and our 5 senses as believing in Flimsy.

Quote:
Have you ever really asked yourself, truly asked yourself, how likely is it that your religion (whatever it may be) is the one true religion?

What makes you think I believe my religion to be the one true religion?

And yes, one has to be always careful that illogical is not camouflaged under the umbrella of alogical. That applies to everyone, not only people of faith.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 12:37 PM

Quote:
Although I have enjoyed our debate up to this point, I must respectfully bow out.

I really enjoyed your posts, Causal. And if you see anything *I* said that doesn't hold water logicwise, please do not hesistate to correct me, either publically or privately. I'd welcome it.

Most people (I am guessing) have not taken any philosophy or logic classes, so they don't quite speak the same language you do. I have taken one logic class, so I have a passing familiarity with your language, but am not anywhere near fluent. I'd like to practice though. It might be fun to hash it out sometime.

It is not easy to carry long discussions on boards like these because people don't speak the same language. We all have different definitions, different premises, different assumptions, and emotions vested in all of them to boot. So it gets a bit touchy.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 1:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I almost died once. I felt something outside of myself gave me the strength to pull through--something as tangible as the chair I'm sitting on. Now that may be psychological, may be subconscious, may be any number of things that can eventually be explained through rational and empirical concepts. But for now, I choose to call that something "God" and believe it was he who pulled me through. Why is that hubris? Why can't I choose to call that something "God" and be a scientist at the same time, as long as I remain open to rational/empirical explanations when they do come forth?

You postulate several very good, very obvious and very logical explanations for your intense desire to hang onto life - the most basic of all instincts, human or otherwise. You chose to believe that the Almighty decided to tap you metaphorically on the shoulder and say "Keep fighting lad, you're not done yet."

Perhaps people think if you chose one illogical explanation when a logical one is available, you might do the same in other circumstances.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 1:16 PM

Well, it seems CTS has decided that I'm not worthy of being part of this discussion since she believes she can't make me think what she wants. It amuses me she'll be so up in arms about an imagined offence and then be so blatantly offensive to others.

Science is not a religion, this is nonsense. The fact that some people treat it as such doesn't make it so.

The fact that some believe that science will cure all ills given time is religisizing science, a faith in it which is illogical.

Faith is what you have in absence of evidence, saying something is so with no evidence to that is illogical. A logical statement would be too say I don't know.

You could take saying faith is illogical as an insult, in which case you either don't understand what logic and or faith are really all about and you build logic up to something more than what it is, or you're deliberately trying to frame the debate as "either you agree with me or you are trying to insult me" so that you can use statements like "you aren't making a case you're just hurling insults" and then act like a victim while being offensive.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 2:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
You postulate several very good, very obvious and very logical explanations for your intense desire to hang onto life

It is interesting that you find the explanations I suggested as "logical." When I typed them, I just lumped them all together as empirical/rational because these are the explanations the atheist crowd would accept as empirical/rational. Then when you said they were "very logical," it just dawned on me that they really aren't!

1. Psychological feeling. Are feelings "logical"? Understandable, predictable, something we can sympathize with, maybe. But logical--as in following the principles of logical reasoning? Eeeh. Are they empirical? Feelings are indirectly observable--thus making them subject to scientific research, albeit with some difficulty. Ultimately, feelings are subjective, and some degree of "faith" (or if you prefer, assumption) is needed to take someone's word that they are not misrepresenting the feeling, either intentionally or through inaccuracies.

2. Subconscious. Now there is something even less logical and empirical than feelings. Freud invented the concept that we do things without choosing intentionally to do them, and without knowing we are doing them even. But where's the proof? When push comes to shove, psychologists will admit that the entire concept of the subconscious is conjecture. You can't experiment with the subconscious--there is no way to measure it or test it. It is not falsifiable.

3. Biological instinct/will to survive. I think this is like "feeling," indirectly observable but ultimately subjective and inferred on "faith" from self-reports.

When you think about it, all of science relies on assumptions and inferences, some fields more than in others. The difference between these explanations and "God" is that these explanations are observable to some degree, and "God" isn't.

Unless, in my case, I call my biological instinct, psychological feeling, and subconscious motivation part of "God." In this case, it is a definition and language issue, not an issue of logic. [Edit to rephrase: In this case, it is partly a definition and language issue, not entirely an issue of logic.]

[Edited to add: But then, to me, religion, science, logic, and mathematics are all different languages attempting to describe the world around us. These languages sometimes overlap, such as mathematics and logic, or religion and logic. ]

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 2:47 PM

And we go from false definitions to simply making things up, bravo.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 5:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
Perhaps people think if you chose one illogical explanation when a logical one is available, you might do the same in other circumstances.

I've been thinking about this question.

What makes one explanation "more logical" than another? I mean, let's say you have to choose between psychological motivation vs. biological instinct for the "something" that pulled me through. Which one is "more logical"?

Scientists don't talk about which is more logical, but which is more parsimonious. Occam's Razor, or the Law of Parsimony, says to pick the simplest explanation--that is, the explanation where the least concepts have to be invented is likely to be the best. (But of course, this law requires assumptions and "faith" of its own.)

Why didn't I pick the simplest explanation then? Because what I felt was more than psychological or biological. It felt spiritual, and physical explanations don't do it justice. It is as SignyM said, it is sort of like describing a sunset to a blind man. You can use the language of physical sciences, but to do it justice, you really have to resort to poetry.

God, for me, is part assumption, part poetry. Religion describes things that the language of the physical sciences can't. So I mix a little of the empirical (my observation of "something") with a little of the poetic to best capture what I experienced.

If I don't claim my explanation to be literally true or scientifically derived, why can't I talk about my experiences with poetry? Why is it illogical to choose to talk about a sunset with poetry when you can choose "more logical" descriptions like light wave frequencies and atmospheric pollutants? (Here is a good example of alogical vs. illogical.)

I think religion has a bad rap because many people use illogical arguments to defend their religion, and they make illogical claims to have a monopoly on truth. I'm trying to say that not all people are like that.

It is possible to hold religious assumptions without holding religious dogma. Everyone, including scientists, has assumptions. What is the difference between assumptions and dogma?

Assumption is holding a position in absence of contrary evidence. ("Unless evidence can prove me wrong, I am going to assume...") Dogma is holding a position DESPITE contrary evidence. ("I don't care what the evidence says, I'm going to believe...") Like the mudders believing Jayne to be a hero, despite revealed evidence that he was no such thing.

My faith is a system of assumptions that is entirely falsifiable. If evidence comes to light tomorrow that all this time, people have been "reaching out" to a telepathic alien who's been orbiting our planet for 6000 years, I'd write a thank you letter to the alien for saving my life. And if it turns out not to be an alien but an electromagnetic signature of the earth that gets interpreted by the brain as a "telepathic sensation", I'd feel grateful that I coincidentally picked up on those sensations at just the right time to save my own life.

Dogma is blind, wherever it is found, whether in religion or science. Dogma rests on the premise that one knows everything there is to know about the world using one certain method, and that premise is, I contend, illogical. But religion is not inherently dogmatic or illogical (anymore than English or Spanish is illogical). And people who subscribe to religion are not inherently dogmatic or illogical.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 9:30 AM

>> What makes one explanation "more logical" than another? I mean, let's say you have to choose between psychological motivation vs. biological instinct for the "something" that pulled me through. Which one is "more logical"?

Of course, I'd actually argue that your mental state makes no difference, your body would survive whatever trauma it went through or it wouldn't. There's some evidence for people "letting go" but it is rather vague and normally ties into things like patients refusing to eat, etc. Do you have a logical explanation for how you thinking "I want to survive" would assist whatever it was you suffered from?

And I'd argue religion always works from a foundation of Dogma. They don't call it The Good Book because it is a snappy read for your holidays - they call it that and label it a divinely authored text. Then they find out huge chunks of it are wrong. Then things get interesting.

If Jesus wasn't the Son of God, Christianity goes out the window. Therefore there is at the heart of the religion, a dogma. His lineage cannot be disputed, challenged or questioned - either he is the Son or the religion is nothing. Most other religions hang on a similar premise - Mohammad is the Prophet, etc.

That's why they're dogmatic - there's an unchallengable assumption at the core.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 10:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
And I'd argue religion always works from a foundation of Dogma.

ALWAYS. I see.

You're painting ALL religions with a broad stroke, despite my telling you my religion is based on falsifiable assumptions. Either you think I'm lying/mistaken, or you're ignoring evidence that contradicts your pet theory of all religions. Is there a third or fourth option I'm missing?

Well, Simon, this has been fun. But in my view, your perception of religion is every bit as dogmatic as you accuse all religions to be. Simonwho says religions are always dogmatic and nothing anyone can explain can change his mind about that. So we'll just disagree.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 1:10 PM

Where did I say that nothing can change my mind on that? It's even clear in the bit you quote that I'm arguing that religions are always dogmatic, not stating it as absolute fact. So don't put words into my mouth and then use them as a basis for running from the argument.

Do you agree that (purely as an example) if Jesus wasn't the Son of God, the whole of Christianity is false? However, there is no room for argument within the Church about Jesus's divinity. It is a non-challengable assumption. That is where the dogma lies.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 1:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
I'm arguing that religions are always dogmatic, not stating it as absolute fact.

Uh, sorry if I misinterpreted you, but to me "arguing" and "stating" are synonyms. "Religions are always dogmatic." That sounds like an absolute fact to me (see the "always"). If it isn't, please clarify what WOULD persuade you that religions aren't ALWAYS dogmatic.

Quote:
Do you agree that (purely as an example) if Jesus wasn't the Son of God, the whole of Christianity is false? However, there is no room for argument within the Church about Jesus's divinity. It is a non-challengable assumption. That is where the dogma lies.

No I don't agree. Religion is extremely diverse. There are variations upon variations.

Let's talk about Christianity. First of all, which "Church" are you talking about? The Catholic church? Lutheran? Mormon? Jehovah's Witnesses? Unitarian Universalist?

Take the UU church for example. They are Christian, but they have no creed. No creed = no dogma. You can believe Jesus was a very inspiring fictional character that you want to pattern your life after, and still be "Christian" in this church. Jesus as the Son of God is NOT a non-challengeable assumption in EVERYONE who calls himself a Christian. Statements like that are factual errors.

That is where I see your position as dogmatic. You lump all religions together and no matter how many times and how many ways I try to explain it, you refuse to accept that not every religion is equal. So at some point, I gotta say to myself, "CTS, don't try to convince dolphins to fly. You're wasting your time, and annoying the dolphin."

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 5:29 AM

"On the planet earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much — the wheel, New York, wars and so on — while all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man — for precisely the same reasons."

We've already established we have different definitions for the word "religion". For example, I wouldn't consider Unitarian Universalism a religion, mostly because if your members believe what they want to believe, how does that differ from anyone else? This makes them akin to a club, rather than a religion.

>> Uh, sorry if I misinterpreted you, but to me "arguing" and "stating" are synonyms.

No, they're really not. One of the hardest lessons in life (one that many never learn) is that even when you are absolutely totally 100% convinced of something, it isn't necessarily true. Hence, I argue rather than state.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 6:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
I wouldn't consider Unitarian Universalism a religion

I see. You're defining religion as: a system of dogmatic, illogical beliefs in the supernatural.

Word to the wise. Next time you argue with someone, it is best to state your unique, peculiar definitions up front. It'll save everyone a lot of time if you let them know you already have a dogmatic defintion that is not subject to change. I wouldn't have bothered arguing with you had I known.

I'm done.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 9:21 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

CTS- I think that recognizing the vastness of the universe and our inability to grasp it is more like mysticism. It veers into religion when people personalize, describe, limit, wheedle or otherwise attempt to control or mediate the unknown.

I mentioned feelings in the other thread, because your religion (in your case) comes down to a feeling that you once had. Knowing far too much of the "higher" functions of the brain and their correlations to EEGs and seizures, I can tell you that I could replicate that feeling with an electrode and a few milliamps. I hate to be so mechanistic about what was prolly a peak experience but this feeling that you had most likely came from the temporal lobe:

Quote:
Dr. Wilder Penfield did extensive studies of the brain. When he stimulated the left side of the brain he saw involuntary movements of different parts of the body. “But when he stimulated the temporal lobe on the right side, there was no movement of any part of the body. Instead the patients reported a wide variety of significant experiences, perceptions and/or feelings. The phenomena reported were basically the same as the auras accompanying temporal lobe seizures…feelings of great peace, of deep understanding, of consciousness of another being

www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00006973&channel=gulberg&threshold=
1&layout=0&order=0&start=20&end=29&page=1

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 10:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I mentioned feelings in the other thread, because your religion (in your case) comes down to a feeling that you once had.

Well, I gave that feeling as ONE example. But my faith does involve more than just one feeling.

Quote:
I hate to be so mechanistic about what was prolly a peak experience but this feeling that you had most likely came from the temporal lobe

It could very well be. And I am definitely open to exploring this idea. There is never a need to apologize for proposing an alternative explanation. Not to me anyway.

To use your sunset example, I can describe a sunset as a "warm, homecooked dinner" or the "glow of unrestrained contentment." At the same time, I can describe it as varying wavelengths of light in the upper visible spectrum refracted by atmospheric pollutants. To me, the truth isn't an either/or situation. Each description has its specific purpose. That is why I say religion, to me, is a language-- a different language to describe and understand our world. Sometimes it describes the same things as science, sometimes it doesn't. I don't like seeing any of the religious languages (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc....) forbidden as a valid way to express oneself, nor do I like seeing any of them claimed as the ONLY true language to describe our world.

Religion vs. mysticism. There is a lot of overlap. I think what I am sensing from the physicalists and atheists here in RWED is mainly a vehement objection to organized or institutional religion. Maybe the objection isn't as strong to individual mystical experiences?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 10:30 AM

KANEMAN

Amazing thread. It has given me many "What the f's did he say". It is quite painful for me to make the following statement: Citizen makes the most sense to me. When he wrote "Science is not a religion, this is nonsense. The fact that some people treat it as such doesn't make it so." That I believe makes the point that religion is illogical. I agree with that statement, and believe anyone who doesn't isn't being honest with his/her self. Science uses data and evidence to build a foundation for understanding our universe and is fundamentally logical. On the other hand, religion is based on belief, in which there is no test for validity, and is inherently illogical. I am not talking absolutes here. God could one day fill the sky and voice his displeasure in all of us. I wouldn't hold my breath though. And to take the will to live as proof in a god is absurd and illogical in its own right.

*edit* I am not saying you are absurd and illogical...just at that moment is all. I'm sure you are a very logical person most of the time.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 10:39 AM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
And we go from false definitions to simply making things up, bravo.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

That depends on what the definition of "is" is!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 12:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
I wouldn't consider Unitarian Universalism a religion
I see. You're defining religion as: a system of dogmatic, illogical beliefs in the supernatural.

Word to the wise. Next time you argue with someone, it is best to state your unique, peculiar definitions up front. It'll save everyone a lot of time if you let them know you already have a dogmatic defintion that is not subject to change. I wouldn't have bothered arguing with you had I known.

Hang on. You redefined words earlier to suit your needs and now you're once again putting words into my mouth and insulting me.

There are classier ways to admit you've lost an argument you know.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 12:26 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

CTS- What I think I'm hearing is that for you, religion is a subjective experience. The examples that you bring to the discussion: contentment, a feeling of warmth, awe that comes from looking at a star-filled sky or contemplating a complex problem... they are all feelings.

Not that I'm dimissing feelings, but they don't stack up to me as a "religion", "supernatural" or even particularly unexplainable. So why don't YOU tell us your defintion of religion.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 1:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So why don't YOU tell us your defintion of religion.

I looked it up in the dictionary. Here's my definition of religion, copying and pasting from Merriam-Webster. (#2 is an amalgam from the definitions of religion and religious.)

1. The service and worship of God or the supernatural OR
2. A personal set or institutionalized system of attitudes, beliefs, and practices that are faithfully devoted to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity OR
3. A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

MY personal religion is a mixture of #2 and #3. I am not so much into the "service and worship" or the "practices" aspect. My religion is more of a personal set of attitudes, beliefs, and principles devoted to an acknowledged ultimate reality/deity. Other people's religions could be any one of the above 3, or any mix of the above 3.

Depending on the religion, this ultimate reality or deity can be either supernatural or simply a principle / cause. For example, Gandhi's self-professed religion, his God, was the principle of Truth. Truth was his ultimate reality that he sought, served, and pursued (from Gandhi's autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth).

Please note that attitudes, beliefs, and principles are not the same thing as dogma. Depending on the religion, the system of beliefs can be immutable or dynamic. Some religions ARE dogmatic (Christian, Muslim, and Jewish fundamentalists come to mind). Other religions are responsive to the journey of individuals, society, and the church itself (e.g. Unitarian Universalists or Zen Buddhists). Some attempt a mixture of both dogma and self-correction (mainstream Christian denominations). Some are so subjective (like mine or say, Gandhi's) that it doesn't fit well in any existing institution.

If I can make one point about what religion is, it would be this: religion as a whole is extremely diverse. It is unfair and inaccurate to judge all religious systems based on one single model.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 2:16 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

My comment.

Quote:
Although obviously logical thoughts are the natural enemy of nearly every religion.

If we took the word logical and substituted rational (meaning from the common parlance, as in 'not crazy'); then took the word religion and substituted faith, would that make the religious people feel better?

Reworded: Rational thoughts (based in observable phenomenon) are the natural enemy of faith (which exists in the absence of, or in opposition to, observable phenomenon.)

Waiting for the firestorm ....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 2:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Rational thoughts (based in observable phenomenon) are the natural enemy of faith (which exists in the absence of, or in opposition to, observable phenomenon.)

No firestorm, Rue.

Just my opinion, of course. But this whole pitting rationalism vs. faith (or logic vs. religion) feels like an artificial, forced division to me. Take intelligent design for example. I can blend both rational study of evolution AND faith in a Creator that started this evolution (in absence of convincing evidence of how it all started).

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 3:16 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

This is what I see:

Science (the study of observable phenomenon) seeks a rational, self-congruent explanation for everything observable - from the most commonplace to the entire universe. If it did not, it wouldn't be science, it would be dogma. It's goal is to nibble away at the unexplained and eventually consume it all.

Faith is what exists in the absence of a rational explanation. If faith is what exists in the absence of explanation, then to increase faith one must decrease the explanations.

The two are exactly mutually exclusive. Even more, they are in a zero-sum relationship. The increase of one causes the decrease in the other.

You can't be both a scientist actively seeking rational explanations for the universe, and a person of faith, actively seeking to maintain unquestioned beliefs.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 3:23 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

You know, I looked up the definition of "religion" too and it sucks. Apparently religion is whatever anyone chooses it to mean. It could be having an invisible friend (like Harvey) or finding awe in mathematics or convincing everyone that I am the one true GOD and therefore you should GIVE MONEY!! So if it's all the same thing why do we have words like "philosopy", "ethics", "science", "mysticism""beauty", "hope", "delusion" and "faith"? Ghandi's "truth" is a philosophy (of course, we'd have to get into a discussion of what he means by "truth"... which, in my book, is not the same as "honesty").

Quote:
MY personal religion is a mixture of #2 and #3. I am not so much into the "service and worship" or the "practices" aspect. My religion is more of a personal set of attitudes, beliefs, and principles devoted to an acknowledged ultimate reality/deity. Other people's religions could be any one of the above 3, or any mix of the above 3.

So, aiming for more precision and description, how is your reality different from your deity? (You use two words so I assume you're trying to describe two different things.)

I think I asked this before in a different form.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 3:24 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
This is what I see:

Science (the study of observable phenomenon) seeks a rational, self-congruent explanation for everything observable - from the most commonplace to the entire universe. If it did not, it wouldn't be science, it would be dogma. It's goal is to nibble away at the unexplained and eventually consume it all.

Faith is what exists in the absence of a rational explanation. If faith is what exists in the absence of explanation, then to increase faith one must decrease the explanations.

The two are exactly mutually exclusive. Even more, they are in a zero-sum relationship. The increase of one causes the decrease in the other.

You can't be both a scientist actively seeking rational explanations for the universe, and a person of faith, actively seeking to maintain unquestioned beliefs.

Very well said, rue.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 3:30 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yeppers.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 4:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Science (the study of observable phenomenon) seeks a rational, self-congruent explanation for everything observable - from the most commonplace to the entire universe. If it did not, it wouldn't be science, it would be dogma. It's goal is to nibble away at the unexplained and eventually consume it all.

I agree. That is my goal as well, as a scientist.

Quote:
Faith is what exists in the absence of a rational explanation.

Again, I don't think it is either / or. Going back to the sunset example (see my posts above), does poetry exist only in absence of scientific language? Can't we use both at the same time to describe the same thing?

See, I keep hearing this from you guys. Science vs. Not Science. Let me toss out another perspective. All science in one layer. All faith on the next layer. 200% in a manner of speaking. Imagine that.

Quote:
If faith is what exists in the absence of explanation, then to increase faith one must decrease the explanations.

You can increase faith in DEPTH in the small area in which it exists. You don't have to increase it in BREADTH. Think multi-dimensional. It isn't just the x-axis, where the more positive one is, the more negative the other is. There is the y-axis and z-axis and time to boot. Think calculus, not arithmetic.

Quote:
The two are exactly mutually exclusive. Even more, they are in a zero-sum relationship. The increase of one causes the decrease in the other.

Only if you see science vs. non-science in a single dimension.

BTW, this was a good, well-worded post Rue. It helped me understand better where you guys are coming from.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 4:28 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

It's by definition.

FAITH is what exists in the absence of proof. Faith is what you choose to believe in when there is no rational reason to do so. By definition faith and science ARE mutually exclusive.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 4:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You know, I looked up the definition of "religion" too and it sucks.

LOL. Now what is that saying....oh yes. Reality sucks, especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas. (

and a hug, Sig)

Quote:
Apparently religion is whatever anyone chooses it to mean. It could be having an invisible friend (like Harvey) or finding awe in mathematics or convincing everyone that I am the one true GOD and therefore you should GIVE MONEY!!

LOLOL. Isn't that what I've been saying all this time?

Quote:
So if it's all the same thing why do we have words like "philosopy", "ethics", "science", "mysticism""beauty", "hope", "delusion" and "faith"? Ghandi's "truth" is a philosophy (of course, we'd have to get into a discussion of what he means by "truth"... which, in my book, is not the same as "honesty").

Same reason Eskimos have 39 words for snow, or something like that, and Africans don't. Same reason the Chinese have a words for "external grandchild" (child of a daughter) and "internal grandchild" (child of a son) and American's don't. These are nuances that reflect our cultural value system. (I know zip about economics, but languages is a hobby of mine.)

Quote:
So, aiming for more precision and description, how is your reality different from your deity? (You use two words so I assume you're trying to describe two different things.)

Oh, that will take a little time, and my daughter is nagging me. Let me get back to you on this.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 4:50 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

SignyM,

I'm going to post my guesses, which I hope CTS doesn't read first, 'cause you asked a really vital question that I'd like to see the answer to.

so CTS - PLEASE DON'T READ FURTHER until you post - OK ?

THANKS!

Select to view spoiler:

From the posts, I gather CTS had a transforming event, in which she experienced a presence that was both grand and intimate and clearly personal. Since then, everything has been framed in that reference. I'm not sure faith or religion are the correct words. Awe and trust in the being she experienced might be better words.

I just read through another thread where this was said, just in different words. :NEVERmind:

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 5:38 PM

Hey guys, I'm not going to be able to post like I hoped tonight. I'm also going to be traveling this weekend (moving back to the States from Peru!). I'll get back to you next week, ok? Have a good Labor Day Weekend.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 31, 2006 7:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Just my opinion, of course. But this whole pitting rationalism vs. faith (or logic vs. religion) feels like an artificial, forced division to me. Take intelligent design for example. I can blend both rational study of evolution AND faith in a Creator that started this evolution (in absence of convincing evidence of how it all started).

Intelligent Design is the result of that blend of science and faith. And it is even more reprehensible for it.

If there are gaps in your scientific theory, you either try to explain them with rational guesses but label them as such or you state that these areas are uncertainties. That is the scientific way, the logical way. You do not state "We don't know what caused this, therefore it was God."

ID is the perfect example of why religion should be kept firmly out of science - it has no place there, it has no reason to be there and its presence only makes the science worse.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 31, 2006 9:28 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

CTS- Holding till you return.

Hope you have a good trip.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 31, 2006 9:34 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
If there are gaps in your scientific theory, you either try to explain them with rational guesses but label them as such or you state that these areas are uncertainties. That is the scientific way, the logical way. You do not state "We don't know what caused this, therefore it was God."

Yeah, I agree with you on that. But apparently CTS is working on a different definition of religion. "God" is apprently not a required part of the definition of religion, and this definition appears... alas... in Miriam Webster.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 31, 2006 10:25 AM