Fair enough. Let me amend my statement to say that science is insufficient to the task of discovering the entire truth.
I’m not at all sure that’s any better, as it will have the same problem with ‘discover’ as previously mentioned by ‘explore’, but I do not wish to labour a point.
No, that is an excellent distinction. Just sloppiness on my part.
Then how do you know they are true?
More specifically, how do you know the “spiritual truths” of Christianity are true and those of conflicting world-views such as Islam or Buddhism are false? If there is no more proof for one faith than another, by what criteria can you choose one and reject the rest?
The first sentence is an out and out denial of logic and reason; you don’t get more irrational than that. The second is an emotional statement of what Siege wants, not one of fact, and is therefore irrational by definition, although not the same way. If there was such a word I’d call it “arational” ( in analogy with amoral ); a statement to which rationality does not apply.
I disagree. Faith is by nature opposed to science, because science questions. Just by doing it’s job science undercuts faith.
All that sounds like a description of something that isn’t true.
“As a devout Christian, I believe X” is a perfectly valid logical assertion.
To use your analogy, are all amoral things immoral by definition? Amoral and immoral are two different concepts. Her statement is not irrational precisely because, as you point out, rationality does not apply. Would it be irrational of me to say “I like butter beans?”
Science does not oppose anything. As Mangetout has noted, it is as system of exploration. It is not the only system, and it cannot answer every question.
I’m not sure that’s what I said at all… My point was this: how can any question be answered meaningfully without exploration?
I’m not sure what meanginfully means, but it’s easy to answer questions and find the answers meaningful from the comfort of your Lay-Z-Boy.
Aristotle…most specifially, Aristotle’s writings and Averroes’s commentaries on them. When Aristotle was reintroduced to Europe, it caused quite a stir, and Aristotle’s philosophy became really well respected by scholars. The only problem with that is that a lot of what Aristotle believed, and tried to logically prove, was considered heresy by the Church…things like “The universe is eternal”, for example, contradicted the Church’s belief that God created the universe. So, because of this, the Catholic Church condemned a lot of Aristotle’s beliefs
So to deal with this, the scholar Siger of Brabant came up with the idea of “double truth”, which is a little different than I think Siege understands it. Siger said that it’s possible for two statements that are contradictory to both be true. So, for instance, “God created the universe” is true, because the Church says so, and so is “The universe is uncreated”, because Aristotle proved it. Even those these two statements contradict, one must believe that both are true.
The concept is, of course, most famously known from George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty Four”, where he called it “doublethink”.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
“As a devout Christian, I believe X” is a perfectly valid logical assertion.[/qutoe]The word was irrational, not illogical.
“Irrational” in the sense that I used the neologism “arational”, yes. That’s why I derived it from amoral and not immoral. I wasn’t criticising that part of her statement, just pointing out that it isn’t, strickly speaking, rational.
Science oppsoees all sorts of things, by it’s nature; nor did I claim that it’s the only way to answer questions or solve problems. Trial-and-error, sheer luck and ( if the problem is simple enough ) straightforwoard perception/reasoning come to mind for the latter.
As for the former, by it’s nature science opposes ignorance and falsehood, within the domains it can explore. You can try to hide things, but “Mother Nature is a blabbermouth; she’ll answer anyone who asks the right questions”. You can try falsification, but you’ll just destroy your credibility when you get proved wrong.
Science opposes faith because science asks questions and faith denies questions. According to faith, you are supposed to just believe; according to science, you must doubt. They mix as well as matter and antimatter.
It can’t; that’s why faith is useless, at best.
Ghetto edit : Sorry, pressed submit instead of preview.
The word was irrational, not illogical.
“Irrational” in the sense that I used the neologism “arational”, yes. That’s why I derived it from amoral and not immoral. I wasn’t criticising that part of her statement, just pointing out that it isn’t, strickly speaking, rational.
Science opposes all sorts of things, by it’s nature; nor did I claim that it’s the only way to answer questions or solve problems. Trial-and-error, sheer luck and ( if the problem is simple enough ) straightforwoard perception/reasoning come to mind for the latter.
As for the former, by it’s nature science opposes ignorance and falsehood, within the domains it can explore. You can try to hide things, but “Mother Nature is a blabbermouth; she’ll answer anyone who asks the right questions”. You can try falsification, but you’ll just destroy your credibility when you get proved wrong.
Science opposes faith because science asks questions and faith denies questions. According to faith, you are supposed to just believe; according to science, you must doubt. They mix as well as matter and antimatter.
It can’t; that’s why faith is useless, at best.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
These are your words, my bolding – “The first sentence is an out and out denial of logic and reason; you don’t get more irrational than that.”
But not irrational, which was the point in contention. Coining a word and attempting to slide the debate over to the new definition is not, strictly speaking, logical. I understand that you are picking up the torch of the anti-religious segment of the SDMB. I have no use for religion myself. I was challenging badchad to prove the irrationality of Seige’s statement using the facts and logic he claims to have in his quiver. Perhaps it would be best to let him respond.
The kinds of questions that faith deals with and the kinds of questions that science deals with do not overlap.
Point taken. Science is not the only way to eplore, however. Some questions are not under the purview of science. That does not make their exploration meaningless.
To the degree that’s true, it’s true because science has repeatedly forced faith to back off. Given it’s head, faith is all encompassing; it eliminates everything but itself, and reduces the faithful to mindlessness. Faith still interferes with such matters as evolution; being faith, it’s nearly always wrong.
That’s debatable; if science can’t be used, it’s arguable whether or not you’re exploring the question or just making things up.
You are missing the point. If a person were to have a revelatory experience, there is no way scientifically to explore it.
Set up an experiment that explores whether my claim to love my mother is an accurate description of the way things are in the world.
Simple courtesy isn’t pandering to your opponents’ feelings; it’s conducting yourself in a civilized, mature manner–one that, incidentally, is more conducive to fostering rational thought and genuine reflection than the repeated insults you find necessary to hurl at the religious. It seems to me that your antagonistic stance and hostile bearing are counter-productive to your own cause. Being being so consistently provocative and rude, you cause persons not to examine their own positions, but to become angry and defensive. What does that accomplish?
Because a “revelatory experience” can’t at present be distinguished from lying or delusion. That’s why they should simply be dismissed as meaningless.
We don’t have a workable truth/lie detector yet. That’s a limitation of modern technology, not an innate limitation on science.
This is a circular argument. Since science cannot at present explore it, it must be meaningless. You are simply re-affirming the premise.
What does a lie detector have to do with anything? If I claimed to be able to bench press 500 pounds you would not need a lie detector. The truth about whether I love my mother is not contingent upon whether I say I do. I could think I love her but be wrong. Whether or not I love her is simply not the kind of question science answers. It is not falsifiable.
I didn’t say anything about science; I simply pointed out that a claim that something was “revealed” to you out of the ether is an empty one.
No, you can’t. Love is an emotion; you either love her or don’t, and you know if you don’t. A reliable lie detector could easily determine if you love your mother or not.
With the right technology, it’s easily falsifiable.
I did, and that is what you were responding to.
I could be delusional. I could be drunk. You may have insufficiently defined “love” in your question. You may be unable to define love. I will go so far as to assert that you are unable to define love.
Appealing to imaginary instruments seems a bit like appealing to imaginary sky pixies.
Go ahead. Set up the experiment. Think of it as a thought experiment. I stipulate the right technology.
You avoided the real point to what Contrapuntal was saying. We have no way of studying or quantifying qualia such as love (and a working lie detector wouldn’t get us any closer to that point). But very few cognitive scientists would dismiss them as irrelevant or nonexistent. I don’t think you can present your viewpoint as being particularly rational or scientific when you’re ignoring the great deal of scientific work that has been done in the field in favor of your own ideology.