|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2008 : 12:42:47 [Permalink]
|
Yes, she was making a statement about reality. As you translated, she was saying "that she has, through personal experience, come to appreciate the complexities and frailties of the human body." That is a flat-out assertion of fact. Whether or not she really appreciates anything more or less because of her experiences is actually true or false (or somewhere in between).
It is - again, in principle - testable, through simple observation. For example, we can falsify it by observing her doing something that, if she really did appreciate the complexities and frailties of the human body, she would not do. Just like we can falsify someone's asserted strict pro-life stance by hearing them say that his ex-wife should be shot in the head. |
I agree.
| of course moral statements are subjective, but that doesn't remove them from reality. |
Again, I agree that anything could be said to be in some way or anther about reality, but my point is it about objective truth or facts about reality. | "Killing sheep is good" is false from the shepard's point-of-view but true from the wolf's. Once again, whether something is objectively measurable is beside the point. |
No, it is not false or true in terms of reality. It is subjectively agreed with or disagreed with based on individuals capable of having an opinion. Opinions, unlike facts, cannot be objectively evaluated as true or false.
| BINGO! She's actually testing people's professed beliefs against the literal reality of their actions! You've made my point for me, marf! |
People not living their beliefs doesn't mean they don't mentally have those beliefs.
| And there you are, following in the nun's footsteps by also testing people's subjective beliefs against reality. Yet you seem to have been arguing that such an action is inappropriate. |
What do you mean I've been arguing that such an action is inappropriate?
I also think I have to backtrack again and re-state something in a different way. It is not so much that peoples' actions are a better indicator of their true beliefs, but rather, they are a better indicator of their dominant beliefs. Beliefs which conflict with actions are still beliefs being held.
| But so long as one can get to an "I believe..." statement, even if it requires "translation" (as did your three examples), we can still assume that whatever they believe is what they think is true - in reality. As I said before, whether it's vague or not is irrelevant. |
But I'm asserting that whether it's vague or not is relevant. I think people are vague for good reason. There is a kernel of truth about reality in most belief statements, even if the literal and specific claims of religious doctrine are demonsratably false, and if a person cannot find other words articulate enough, or if the particulars of what they are trying to express is not clear in their mind in a way which can be put into words, if it is more like an impulse, a gut feeling, an intuition, that seems clear in their mind but not in words, they use vague but powerful words to communicate what is on their mind. I think that's why we have vague but powerful words like "spiritual" and why they are useful.
| No, it's rationality doesn't at all depend on whether or not the belief claim has anything to do with "external reality," it has to do with the thought processes used to reach the belief. |
I totally agree. | As an extreme example, "I have an intense sense of awareness of existence and overall meaning of life because my dog explained calculus to me," the entire claim becomes wholly irrational and perhaps psychotic. |
Yes, but there is no because following that statement. The statement is a statement about an internal observation. I have an intense sense of awareness of existence and overall meaning of life. The thought process used to reach that belief is contained in that sentence; they have just made an internal observation about their own thoughts and feelings, just like if they said "I am happy!"
| Again: whether or not a belief is rational or not depends entirely on the route taken to get there. Let's use "I believe the sky is blue" as an example. "The sky is blue because Rayleigh scattering affects blue light more than red" is a rational basis for the belief. "The sky is blue because God wanted it to balance the green of the trees" makes "I believe the sky is blue" an irrational belief. Same true belief, but different (rational and irrational) means to reach that conclusion. |
Huh? I think you need to use another example. People believe the sky is blue because they observe the sky being blue. The Rayleigh scattering vs. God's aesthetic preferences is a process for answering the question WHY is the sky blue.
| Again: they're making a claim about reality (we can falsify it by observing that after the person prays, she is highly agitated or schizoid). |
In that case I would not say it is falsified, I would say that this individual describes feelings of agitation as a deep sense of solace. That's possible. Saint Theresa's ecstasy was described as being stabbed repeatedly by an arrow. If we scientifically evaluate what is happening when the person prays, we're trying to answer the question what happens to them physiologically during that activity. We would not be evaluating whether the person's personal description of the experience is true or not. Again, I assert that that can only be tested by testing the person's honesty.
| And again, whether or not it is rational depends upon how they reached such a belief ("when I pray, I get a sense of deep solace because that's what it feels like" is perfectly rational, but "when I pray, I get a sense of deep solace because that's what my goldfish told me I would feel" is perfectly irrational). |
Yes, I agree. And I can't think of any religious or other woo claims that are based on the structure "I get this feeling because (blank) told me I would." I think you are confusing two different claims often made by people. The first could be: "I get a deep sense of solace when I pray." There is nothing irrational about this statement because it is simply a description of how a person feels during a particular activity. But with many people who pray there is a second statement: "I get this pleasant feeling because the God I'm praying to is making me feel that way." That is the irrational conclusion not based in evidence.
| Rationality or irrationality is not subjective, even if the subject matter is subjective. "Rape is good" is a subjective value. Most people would agree that it's a wholly irrational value to have because it conflicts so obviously with the reality of the act and its aftermath. The rapist, however, might try to find some sort of rational justification for it, although most of those are going to also be rather obviously irrational. |
A serial killer might be a serial killer because of a particular psychological makeup. They genuinely get a deep and profound thrill out of killing people. They may also genuinely value this thrill more than they fear the consequences of getting caught. So if they are eventually caught, punished, perhaps sentenced to death and killed, they have lived a life consistently according to a rational set of ethics. Yes, it would be a set of ethics that is abhorrent to most of humanity and that scares the crap out of most people, but rational, none-the-less.
Again, values themselves cannot be rational or irrational. There is nothing rational or irrational about gaining joy out of causing the suffering of others. It is unusual, but not in-of-itself irrational. Values can be based on irrational beliefs, such as if someone supports the Iraq war because they mistakenly believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9-11. But supporting the Iraq war in-of-itself is not rational or irrational.
| Just because you didn't consciously use a method doesn't mean that you didn't use one (or more). |
If a particular method is not consciously controlled, how can the rationality or irrationality of the method be evaluated? I agree with you that there are some particular brain methods which led to my valuing human beings. But I don't have conscious access to them so I can't choose to keep or drop that value based on whether the method my brain used to arrive at them was rational or not. And I'm sure as hell not going to sit around thinking, "Well, I guess I shouldn't value or not value humans one way or another since I can't fully explain the method behind that value. After all, it might be irrational. Guess I'll just go watch American Idol instead of going to that peace rally." People simply can't explain many if not most of their values. Frankly, many of people who think they can explain them are rationalizing and giving very insufficient explanations because they don't like being in the dark.
| Creationists are deeply affected by cognitive dissonance. They didn't choose to have such an affliction, but it's what makes many of their statements irrational. |
But cognitive dissonance occurs when there is information available that is in direct conflict with one's beliefs. That is different from now knowing the methods by which one came to a value.
Again, if we take my value of humans for our own sake, there are no claims I'm making that could be evaluated as true or false except my own honesty. All I'm saying is that I personally attribute a vague and generalized, but significant (to me) concept of value to people. It is a description of a mental attitude. It is not a claim about how I will behave.
| If you use an irrational premise ("people have souls") to justify a belief ("people have value"), then the belief must be just as irrational - if not more so - than the premise. This is how people create grand conspiracy theories from tiny bits of wrong data. |
No, I disagree. There is the irrational premise: people have souls. And then there is a moral assertion: people should be valued. A moral assertion does not need to have any justification. People do often give them justifications, and those justifications often help in persuading others to adopt the moral assertion, but they do not require any justification because they are essentially a statement of personal want.
For example, a person could make the moral assertion: Abortions should never happen, and never give any justification. People could say to this person: "Do you believe this because (fill in the blank)", and every time the person could reply, "No necessarily. They should never happen because I think it is wrong." People could say to this person, "By wrong do you mean God, or the universe make it wrong?" And the person could answer, "I have no connection to anything like that. I believe abortions are wrong and that's all I'm saying." Is this person being irrational? No. They haven't made any claim which they arrived at through irrational methods. They are simply expressing their own strong desire to see abortions never happen.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 04/08/2008 : 10:17:00 [Permalink]
|
Bits and pieces:Originally posted by marfknox
| As an extreme example, "I have an intense sense of awareness of existence and overall meaning of life because my dog explained calculus to me," the entire claim becomes wholly irrational and perhaps psychotic. |
Yes, but there is no because following that statement. The statement is a statement about an internal observation. I have an intense sense of awareness of existence and overall meaning of life. The thought process used to reach that belief is contained in that sentence; they have just made an internal observation about their own thoughts and feelings, just like if they said "I am happy!" |
There is always a "because." Nature and nurture come together to cause people to have particular beliefs. They don't simply pop into a person's head, uncaused. If you say, "I am happy," it is because something has made you happy.| Again: they're making a claim about reality (we can falsify it by observing that after the person prays, she is highly agitated or schizoid). |
In that case I would not say it is falsified, I would say that this individual describes feelings of agitation as a deep sense of solace. That's possible. Saint Theresa's ecstasy was described as being stabbed repeatedly by an arrow. If we scientifically evaluate what is happening when the person prays, we're trying to answer the question what happens to them physiologically during that activity. We would not be evaluating whether the person's personal description of the experience is true or not. Again, I assert that that can only be tested by testing the person's honesty. |
Oh, good grief. Whenever we deal with tests on humans, the best we tend to shoot for is 95% confidence. Bringing up extreme outliers as objections to my point simply muddies the waters.So if they are eventually caught, punished, perhaps sentenced to death and killed, they have lived a life consistently according to a rational set of ethics. Yes, it would be a set of ethics that is abhorrent to most of humanity and that scares the crap out of most people, but rational, none-the-less.
Again, values themselves cannot be rational or irrational. |
You are contradicting yourself. If values cannot be rational or irrational then a set of ethics cannot be rational, either.| Values can be based on irrational beliefs, such as if someone supports the Iraq war because they mistakenly believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9-11. But supporting the Iraq war in-of-itself is not rational or irrational. |
That's what I've been saying, marf: we need to examine the reasons for belief to determine the rationality or irrationality of the belief.| If a particular method is not consciously controlled, how can the rationality or irrationality of the method be evaluated? |
This would give a pass to uncontrolled schizophrenics, saying that what they think cannot be evaluated as being irrational because they can't control their madness.| Again, if we take my value of humans for our own sake, there are no claims I'm making that could be evaluated as true or false except my own honesty. All I'm saying is that I personally attribute a vague and generalized, but significant (to me) concept of value to people. It is a description of a mental attitude. It is not a claim about how I will behave. |
And again: while assessing the rationality of such values, whether or not you live by them is irrelevant.| If you use an irrational premise ("people have souls") to justify a belief ("people have value"), then the belief must be just as irrational - if not more so - than the premise. This is how people create grand conspiracy theories from tiny bits of wrong data. |
No, I disagree. There is the irrational premise: people have souls. And then there is a moral assertion: people should be valued. A moral assertion does not need to have any justification. People do often give them justifications, and those justifications often help in persuading others to adopt the moral assertion, but they do not require any justification because they are essentially a statement of personal want. |
And that's my point. If a person asserts that people have value because people have souls, she is telling us that she gives her value an irrational justification. I know she didn't need to do so, but she did.| For example, a person could make the moral assertion: Abortions should never happen, and never give any justification. People could say to this person: "Do you believe this because (fill in the blank)", and every time the person could reply, "No necessarily. They should never happen because I think it is wrong." People could say to this person, "By wrong do you mean God, or the universe make it wrong?" And the person could answer, "I have no connection to anything like that. I believe abortions are wrong and that's all I'm saying." Is this person being irrational? No. They haven't made any claim which they arrived at through irrational methods. They are simply expressing their own strong desire to see abortions never happen. |
In such a case, it would be impossible to assess the rationality of the belief because of the person's silence, not because the belief isn't rational or irrational. The person came to such a belief for some reason or other. Because he/she is unwilling or unable to state such reasons doesn't mean that the belief is neither rational nor irrational, it only means that we cannot evaluate it.
If, in the dark, I pick a sock out of a drawer of mixed black and white socks, I will never say that the sock is neither black nor white. I will say that in the dark, I cannot examine the color of the sock to determine whether it is black or white. If I turn on the light, I can then evaluate the sock. If your hypothetical person starts talking, we can evaluate his/her anti-abortion belief. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2008 : 07:40:50 [Permalink]
|
Holy spak! Now this is arrogant!
And if this guy gets treated shabbily on his street preaching tours, he no doubt takes is as a sign that he's doing something right as opposed to being a jackass.
What bothers me? Read the comments of the believers on that blog. They make the rapture ready people look reasonable by comparison.
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Why religious people are so arrogant
