|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 09/02/2005 : 22:50:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
However, as soon as you commit to a universal belief, such as there is a real god and he really did make the universe, now we aren't talking personal opinions. Science is the tool we use to discover what reality is and how it operates.
And science is completely the wrong tool to use to attempt to probe someone's admittedly-unevidenced faith. Since when is "I believe that God created the universe" not a statement of personal belief. Yes, it's about the whole universe, but then statements like "strawberry is the best flavor ever" suddenly become "in conflict" with reason.
This was something I wanted to come back to because I think I wasn't clear enough. "Strawberry is the best flavor ever" is a stand-in phrase for "Strawberry is my favorite flavor." It is still a statement about subjective tastes. "In my world, strawberry is the best flavor ever" is more or less how it reads. I don't think you would find anyone who would actually presume to know what the best flavor is for everyone else.
However, "God created the Universe" is a statement about objective reality. It is true for everyone or it isn't. I don't know of a single theist who would claim, "In my world, god created us, but in your world he didn't."
Now, many theists are open-minded enough to admit that you have every right to disagree with them, however--and this is key--the claim itself is not a subjective opinion. They are making an objective claim, even if they immediately back off when asked to provide proof for it.
Since it is a claim of fact, it should be subject to "skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic." The person making the claim that "God created the Universe" cannot simply refuse to have his claim examined because he knows he won't like the results. Or he can, but he cannot pretend that he isn't being unreasonable at that point.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/02/2005 23:01:43 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2005 : 00:11:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
The rest of your post seems to rest on the presumption that I consider any claim without empirical evidence bunk...
Not "bunk" (positively discredited clap-trap), but "beliefs which conflict with reason." I am, after all, attempting to make such a distinction. While it's easy to see that the gods of the fanatics are absent, I've yet to see an argument which could thoroughly disprove the existence of more-liberal deity concepts - even Christian ones.
In other words, I'm an atheist because the positive, pro-god evidence doesn't add up to a hill of beans, not because I find any "god definitely does not exist" argument compelling (especially when they're applied to non-traditional ideas about god).quote:
And I can't see anything in the Mission Statement that would run contrary to anything I said unless for some reason you do not consider "God exists" to be a statement of fact.
I don't - it's a statement of faith. As with your "favorite flavor" discussion, to a liberal theist, "God exists" is nothing more than a shorthand for "to me, there exists a spiritual realm apart from measurable reality, and in this realm I have faith in my heart that a deity exists." It is nowhere close to a statement of objective fact - no more than "ours is just one universe among many" is.
There is no way to objectify these statements. There is no way they can be demonstrated to be true (or false) for all observers. They are currently both unprovable and unfalsifiable. The idea that one can apply the tools of science to them is what I find to be in conflict with reason.
As far as our mission statement goes, it expresses a belief in a goal for which we have no evidence, nor are we seriously attempting to gather any. To be completely honest, I've got very little idea of whether anything I might do will actually promote skepticism or not, so professing the attempt seemed to me to throw that ideal into your "unjustified belief" category.quote:
So most of what makes a theist's belief unreasonable is not only the absence of empirical evidence, but the total conviction with which the belief is held despite that lack.
As I said before, the believers believe they do have evidence. It's just of a personal nature ("I felt the Spirit move into my heart"), and nothing which can be probed by science.quote:
The deficiency of any compelling logical or philosophical arguments only emphasizes how utterly irrational their position is.
I think many would agree with you that their faith is necessarily irrational, in that it's based upon emotion rather than logic. But you're telling me that such beliefs are not only "not rational," but "in conflict" with rationality. That's what I'm disputing. Not the idea that "reasonable" is a binary character (either something is reasonable or it's not), but that certain unreasonable beliefs are in conflict with reason itself.
"2+2=5" is not, in and of itself, in conflict with reason unless the person making the claim also agrees to the same definitions of 2, 5, + and = as yours. Simiarly, I believe that there exist theists who define god in such a way as to remove conflicts between that concept and any science they might do. That doesn't make their god-concept rational, it simply places it so far outside what science can get at that there is no clash of ideas or ideals. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2005 : 00:38:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
As I said before, the believers believe they do have evidence. It's just of a personal nature ("I felt the Spirit move into my heart"), and nothing which can be probed by science.
I'll have more to say later (which might be awhile as I'll have guests in town), but I just wanted to post this now while I'm thinking about it.
Is "I am the king of France" a statement of fact subject to the SFN's mission statement? Does altering the sentence to "I believe I am the king of France" qualitatively change the meaning to such a degree that it isn't any longer?
The arguments of theists might be immune to science, but are they also immune from logic and critical thinking? If a theist relies upon such evidence as personal emotions, alternative explanations for the origin of those emotions can be provided--far more reasonable explanations that do not involve invoking spirit beings.
That's why theism conflicts with reason, because in every conceivable circumstance it involves rejecting the more reasonable explanation.
quote:
But you're telling me that such beliefs are not only "not rational," but "in conflict" with rationality. That's what I'm disputing. Not the idea that "reasonable" is a binary character (either something is reasonable or it's not), but that certain unreasonable beliefs are in conflict with reason itself.
Yes, beliefs are binary, either rational or irrational. It is rational to believe only rational beliefs. It would therefore be contrary to (in conflict with) rationality to believe irrational beliefs. I find this to be self-evident.
quote:
In other words, I'm an atheist because the positive, pro-god evidence doesn't add up to a hill of beans, not because I find any "god definitely does not exist" argument compelling (especially when they're applied to non-traditional ideas about god).
On this I agree. To be completely fair, a strict adherence to everything I've said would mean that "God either exists or he does not" could be the only reasonable conclusion. It would be impossible to reach a determination either way. However, that isn't pragmatic, since to be consistent one must say the same for any idea ever conceived that has no evidence or logical inference in support of it (like Storm's energy). But thankfully we can logically use Occam's razor to select the answer that assumes the least postulates. Therefore, it can be reasonable to conclude that "god does not exist" barring positive evidence.
Basically I'm saying that either atheism or "I don't know" are reasonable options, but not theism.
And as far as the mission statement goes, it is a universal claim on external reality. "I believe everyone (not just me) would be better off using the tools of logic, critical thinking, and the scientific method." On it's surface it sounds like the god claim, but it isn't exactly. It's essentially saying "I think it logical and reasonable for people to use logic and reason." The only alternative would be to reject that idea, making the alternative automatically illogical and unreasonable.
Did that make sense?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/03/2005 01:48:06 |
|
|
|
Dry_vby
Skeptic Friend
Australia
249 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2005 : 08:52:19 [Permalink]
|
Everything you say makes total sense to me, however (and you knew there was going to be a "however") logic and beleif are diametricly opposed concepts.
As Douglas Adams so wonderfully pointed out "Faith precludes belief".
If you need to prove a belieif it is no longer a beleif.
To demand proof of beleif is to question that beleif and beleifs exist beyond questioning. |
"I'll go along with the charade
Until I can think my way out.
I know it was all a big joke
Whatever it was about."
Bob Dylan
|
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2005 : 09:59:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
And whether or not invisible dragons exist, I would say that anyone who believes they do is living in fantasy-land.
How is this fundamentally (no pun intended) different than saying that anyone who believes in a diety is living in fantasy land? |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2005 : 13:55:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
....
In other words, if praying to God for intervention really works, then there's no way to know if any scientific conclusion is actually true, or is instead the result of that intervention. And since there's no way to know how long said intervention will continue (further prayers might change things back), then the practice of science is completely undermined, including for the test which proves prayer's efficacy. After all, what if God only answers prayers made as a part of research which seeks to answer the question "does God answer prayers?"
OK, I get that. I wouldn't have thought of it in that way but you have a very good point. Seems to contradict the usual meaning of 'god'.
quote:
I say yes, one can be a good scientist and believe in God, without any cognitive dissonance or conflicts with reason. And I also believe that your average scientist has a much different view of religion than your average religious person, and thinking about the former as if they were the latter is a mistake.
Doesn't this contradict your statements above? These guys would have to then believe God doesn't intervene in anything at all. So you could believe in life after death, and in an original creator, but what else could you believe in that was more than a god that didn't interact at all with the Universe once set up? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2005 : 14:06:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by R.Wreck
How is this fundamentally (no pun intended) different than saying that anyone who believes in a diety is living in fantasy land?
It isn't. My point is not that religious beliefs are non-fantastic, but only that they aren't necessarily conflicting with a scientific mindset if the two are kept separate. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2005 : 14:32:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
OK, I get that. I wouldn't have thought of it in that way but you have a very good point. Seems to contradict the usual meaning of 'god'.
Well, one of the things I'm trying to get across is that most religious people have small and un-god-like ideas about their favored god, placing limitations on how god can or can't act and all sorts of other nonsense. It is, I think, a method of humanizing god in order to try to understand god, but given the definitions they use, it seems an act of hubris.quote:
Doesn't this contradict your statements above? These guys would have to then believe God doesn't intervene in anything at all. So you could believe in life after death, and in an original creator, but what else could you believe in that was more than a god that didn't interact at all with the Universe once set up?
You could also believe in all sorts of miracles which god "cleaned up after" to leave no imprint upon the laws of physics. For example, so long as he remains undetected, a guy who is cursed to walk the Earth for hundreds of years doesn't impact any scientific knowledge. Even a physical ressurection doesn't make any difference to science, so long as we don't have time machines capable of allowing us to watch it happen.
In other words, god can temporarily suspend or break the laws of nature which science discovers without invalidating science as a whole. The difference with the prayer studies is that those researchers attempt to describe a new law of nature which says that if you pray, god will change the laws of nature.
Of course God, as popularly defined, could completely invalidate all of our scientific knowledge on a whim. Were He to do so, science would need to start over, and many scientists would be highly discouraged - perhaps enough to give up trying. Why God doesn't seem to have done this would be a good question for theistic scientists. Or, "why is it that you study the laws of nature when you know your own god can mangle them without notice?" Perhaps I'll write to a few people, and ask 'em. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2005 : 22:10:08 [Permalink]
|
Dave, I know I said I'd have more to add, but then I wrote much more than I intended and so said pretty much all I needed to say.
You haven't at all responded to my recent post. I'm not sure if that's because nothing was worth responding to, you're still thinking about it, or you're waiting to see if I have anything more to add. I guess I'm more curious to see what else you have to say before I continue any.
I'd also like to add that thus far this has been quite a fun thread for me. You've made me think about this issue more than I have in a long time.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/05/2005 22:11:31 |
|
|
|
Subjectmatter
Skeptic Friend
173 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2005 : 11:47:50 [Permalink]
|
First I'd like to apologize as I will be using arguments that have been covered previously in this thread and pass them off as my own, it is neccessary to rephrase them for the purposes of my argument and I lack the patience to parse the entire thread again in order to give credit where it is due within this forum.
One can characterize god in many different ways, there is the popular, religious image of god which is a living material entity which is immaterial and omnipotent. Needless to say this view of god is not conductive to a healthy, rational mind-set. Such a belief would constitute completely irrational faith and a scientist would be faced with many philosophical problems in his work if she held such a belief.
Secondly there is what I have heard some philosophers call 'serious religion' where the god, while still a living entity, does not take part in the workings of the universe except to cause it. This position is untenable philosophically due to a logical contradiction but is quite acceptable in a scientist as it does not in any way affect the workings of the external world, it does however still require faith. This would be god by Dave's account.
Thirdly there is a philosophical 'god' - which I have always questioned the label 'god' being used to describe - which is related to the 'Prime mover' of Aristotle's. In fact it is similar, but not identical to, Einstein's unified theory of everything. The 'Prime Mover' is not an object as such but can be defined as 'the principle by which reality operates from an epistemological perspective', Aristotle defined it simple as an 'unmoved mover'; but much is lost in translation, which returns - I believe - when put into context. This 'god' is entirely in accordance with science and would most likely be even more prepared to accept the possibility of new scientific paradigms as the position requires the realization that there is no fundamental scientific truth, only ever increasing degrees of accuracy in predicting events in reality.
But frankly, the point is moot. A good scientist is someone who behaves like a good scientist in terms of observing, testing and taking notes. If she at the same time harbours a secret hope that the rapture will come soon, or has already happened and left her behind, this does not in any way invalidate her work.
*Edited for grammar and clarity |
Sibling Atom Bomb of Couteous Debate |
| Edited by - Subjectmatter on 09/06/2005 12:28:15 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2005 : 18:18:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
You haven't at all responded to my recent post. I'm not sure if that's because nothing was worth responding to, you're still thinking about it, or you're waiting to see if I have anything more to add.
None of the above, actually.
I got halfway through a reply, had to save it off to do something else, then got distracted by other stuff (like Doomar, for example). I'll get back on top of this, soon. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2005 : 20:31:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Is "I am the king of France" a statement of fact subject to the SFN's mission statement? Does altering the sentence to "I believe I am the king of France" qualitatively change the meaning to such a degree that it isn't any longer?
No, but we can always ask the French, "hey, is this guy your King?" As soon as you both (A) identify a god, and (B) identify some group capable of confirming or denying that what you've identified is god, then you'll have an analogous situation. Both "I am the King of France" and "I believe I am the King of France" are subject to verification. "God exists," given that 'god' is defined as an entity with powers it can use to escape detection, is not subject to verification at all.
Here's a question for you, H.: can we even posit, for the sake of argument, that such a being exists, and not conflict with reason? If not, then perhaps your own arguments here conflict with reason. If yes, then I would point out that "belief" is not a binary attribute in reality, but more of a continuum, and where does one draw the line between reasonable and not given a sliding scale from "solidly evidenced" to "blind faith?"quote:
The arguments of theists might be immune to science, but are they also immune from logic and critical thinking? If a theist relies upon such evidence as personal emotions, alternative explanations for the origin of those emotions can be provided--far more reasonable explanations that do not involve invoking spirit beings.
A theist who goes looking for a scientific explanation for their beliefs is, yes, likely to be disappointed.quote:
That's why theism conflicts with reason, because in every conceivable circumstance it involves rejecting the more reasonable explanation.
What about the situation in which the theists just doesn't go looking for explanations?
In my own head, there are two categories of "stuff": (A) things for which I am aware of the explanation, and/or would know where to go looking for an explanation, and (B) everything else. Why is blue my favorite color? Hell if I know, and I'm fairly certain nobody would be able to present anything but speculation on the matter. So, how much critical thought should we apply to "blue is my favorite color" until we decide that "it just is"?quote:
Yes, beliefs are binary, either rational or irrational. It is rational to believe only rational beliefs. It would therefore be contrary to (in conflict with) rationality to believe irrational beliefs. I find this to be self-evident.
Is "my favorite color is blue" rational or irrational?quote:
On this I agree. To be completely fair, a strict adherence to everything I've said would mean that "God either exists or he does not" could be the only reasonable conclusion. It would be impossible to reach a determination either way. However, that isn't pragmatic, since to be consistent one must say the same for any idea ever conceived that has no evidence or logical inference in support of it (like Storm's energy). But thankfully we can logically use Occam's razor to select the answer that assumes the least postulates. Therefore, it can be reasonable to conclude that "god does not exist" barring positive evidence.
Basically I'm saying that either atheism or "I don't know" are reasonable options, but not theism.
And I think you're getting more and more into basic epistemologies, since to the solipsist there is no solid evidence upon which to base logical inferences or "pragmatic" ideas. I mean, I will grant that a belief in god is in conflict with a scientific viewpoint, but expecting scientists to be scientific 100% of the time is unrealistic, as they would be incapable of "suspending disbelief" for the sake of enjoying a good story like Star Wars of the Lord of the Rings. However, I don't think a "scientific viewpoint" is the only way to use "reason" (although I'd also say that most non-scientific epistemologies make unreasonable assumptions, but not necessarily all of them). And in fact, I think "scientism" (the idea that every question of import will eventually be answered through scientific means) is a bad thing, and is itself an irrational belief.
For example, no amount of science can answer the question "is what I experience real, or am I stuck in the middle of a massive computer simulation?" The answer that it makes no difference so long as I can't do anything about it, may be "pragmatic," but it is a non-answer from a scientific viewpoint. If the simulation possibility is entertained at all, then no amount of evidence can be brought to bear that I am physically typing this post. Similarly for "Last Thursdayism," wherein we posit a malicious and lying god who created everything last Thursday, implanted all our memories, and created 14 billion years' worth of starlight "in transit." Every possible piece of evidence which might be used to counter such an idea was itself created by the same lying god, and so does nothing to disprove the notion.
Anyway, I know I'm rambling, so my point here is that the ideals of "evidence" and "logic" themselves rest upon assumptions that they cannot test, and so, strictly speaking, might themselves be considered "irrational" in contexts where their boundaries are pushed. In other words, I don't think that the rational/irrational dividing line is as precise as you might think it is.quote:
And as far as the mission statement goes, it is a universal claim on external reality. "I believe everyone (not just me) would be better off using the tools of logic, critical thinking, and the scientific method." On it's surface it sounds like the god claim, but it isn't exactly. It's essentially saying "I think it logical and reasonable for people to use logic and reason." The only alternative would be to reject that idea, making the alternative automatically illogical and unreasonable.
Did that make sense?
Yes, it did, but I think you're ignoring the fact that some of us here also think that we can actually make a difference. That is what I was really getting at by bringing up the mission statement. Is the idea that I can spread my belief that "using logic and reason is a good thing" itself "in conflict" with that belief? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Subjectmatter
Skeptic Friend
173 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2005 : 05:52:24 [Permalink]
|
Not entirely relevany, I know, but I found this by the author of 'The Blind Watchmaker' which was mentioned at some point. Lucid, logical and as close to exhaustive as I have ever seen on the subject. Enjoy:
One side can be wrong
[Copyrighted article snipped and replaced with this link - Dave W.] |
Sibling Atom Bomb of Couteous Debate |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2005 : 12:00:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
In my own head, there are two categories of "stuff": (A) things for which I am aware of the explanation, and/or would know where to go looking for an explanation, and (B) everything else. Why is blue my favorite color? Hell if I know, and I'm fairly certain nobody would be able to present anything but speculation on the matter. So, how much critical thought should we apply to "blue is my favorite color" until we decide that "it just is"?
No, "it just is", in not an adequate answer. There is a scientific explanation for why blue is your favorite color. The fact that we cannot currently give you the detailed explanation is due simply to our own limitations (ignorance). There is also a scientific (and therefore reasonable) explanation why people "fall in love" with particular individuals and not others. Even "religious experiences" have been linked to particular areas of the brain being stimulated.
quote:
Yes, beliefs are binary, either rational or irrational. It is rational to believe only rational beliefs. It would therefore be contrary to (in conflict with) rationality to believe irrational beliefs. I find this to be self-evident.
Is "my favorite color is blue" rational or irrational?[quote]
Your favorite color being blue is completely rational and can be explained....period.[red/]
[quote]I mean, I will grant that a belief in god is in conflict with a scientific viewpoint, but expecting scientists to be scientific 100% of the time is unrealistic, as they would be incapable of "suspending disbelief" for the sake of enjoying a good story like Star Wars of the Lord of the Rings. However, I don't think a "scientific viewpoint" is the only way to use "reason" (although I'd also say that most non-scientific epistemology's make unreasonable assumptions, but not necessarily all of them).
We have already covered this. Suspending disbelief for the sake of entertainment is not the same as suspending disbelief when referring to objective reality. Can you give me an example of a non-scientific epistemology that does not conflict with reasonable assumptions?
[quote]And in fact, I think "scientism" (the idea that every question of import will eventually be answered through scientific means) is a bad thing, and is itself an irrational belief.
[red]And I would disagree with you here. Why is it a bad thing? Why is it irrational? It's only a bad thing if you think that "reality" not meeting your expectations is a bad thing. If, and I do say if, Free Will is only an illusion, and the reality is that there is only cause and effect, then I do not consider that to be bad thing, it's simply our reality and nothing more. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2005 : 12:39:29 [Permalink]
|
To paraphrase Daffy Duck:
Transitive verb troubles.
When we say something like "I believe [proposition X]." What we mean is that we consider [proposition X] to be true.
Being a rather strict empiricist, I consider it unreasonable to assign a value of "true" to propositions for which no evidence exists.
quote:
"God exists," given that 'god' is defined as an entity with powers it can use to escape detection, is not subject to verification at all.
Of course it isn't. Which is why it is unreasonable to assign a value of "true" to the proposition as stated.
quote:
Here's a question for you, H.: can we even posit, for the sake of argument, that such a being exists, and not conflict with reason? If not, then perhaps your own arguments here conflict with reason. If yes, then I would point out that "belief" is not a binary attribute in reality, but more of a continuum, and where does one draw the line between reasonable and not given a sliding scale from "solidly evidenced" to "blind faith?"
Speaking for myself only; Yes, you can hypothetically posit that such a being exist. You can also posit, hypothetically, that I am such a being and am just here to mess with your head. You can, for the sake of argument, hypothetically posit anything you can imagine. But so what? Reality doesn't give a shit what you can imagine.
And yes, there is definitely a range for "true". Based on how good our evidence is.
quote:
Anyway, I know I'm rambling, so my point here is that the ideals of "evidence" and "logic" themselves rest upon assumptions that they cannot test, and so, strictly speaking, might themselves be considered "irrational" in contexts where their boundaries are pushed.
Yes, of course. Everything (and I mean everything) rests upon two basic assumptions. External objective reality exists and we can detect it.
Every statement about the universe ever made, from atheist scientists to hardcore religious fundies, assumes at a minimum those two things.
But our discussion is about a higher level of epistemology. Within the context of those required assumptions it is certainly reasonable to assign a value of rational or irrational to propositions.
But we are way off topic here.... hehe.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
