So something is not known or true until science confirms it? That is weak.
However, the notion that animals did not feel pain was only an error created by inadequate science. Name any culture prior to the nineteenth or twentieth century West where there was a belief that animals did not experience pain. Why are the rules of kashrut, for example, explicit in their rules to kill with the least pain if the Bronze Age Hebrews were unaware that animals suffered?
It is interesting that you are now trying to dictate to Christians and Muslims what their beliefs are. There are clearly significant differences between their beliefs regarding a god, but your claim was that they were different gods and no reputable theologian of either faith would agree with that claim.
I think you misunderstand me. It’s not about the specific scientific method; it’s about empiricism in general, and ways of understanding. The scientific method is merely the most accurate and reliable form of empiricism that we have yet encountered; it’s far from the only one. Or did the kashrut believe that animals could feel pain on faith?
My point is that our morality is guided by what we know; morality without knowledge is a shot in the dark and by and large a waste of time. Our most meaningful (indeed, to date, our only established) method of gaining knowledge? Empiricism. The precursors of the scientific method, and the scientific method itself.
I don’t suppose you’d count Matt Slick? More to the point, who’s saying that? I dunno, when I google the subject most of what I come upon is various Christians and Muslims rejecting this claim, and giving very good reasons for doing so.
I guess there is a certain analogy to art. Art is essentially irrational. Why the hell make it? What good does it do? Why look at it? What is the exact point, anyway? What is this “knowing” that artists have, where does art come from, how do we know what it is?
These are questions which logic addresses lamely and shallowly, at best.
I have no interest in measuring much of anything, or attaining certainty about any of my ideas, and yet, this does not worry me at all. There is nothing to be argued. There are things which are knowable without being describable, much less measurable. The very sanest people I know would agree with me. People more profound than anyone, I would bet, reading this board. Most of them are monks in some religion or another. They spend their lives seeking to be in the presence of the unmeasurable. And they do not seek to measure it.
That would be a great analogy, if you taught your kids that they would burn in hell forever if they didn’t like Jackson Pollock paintings.
All of these posts about the ineffable and the indescribable ignore the point that the Bible is full of rules and commandments, along with all the promises. Christians seem to feel free to pick and choose which commandments they obey — most liberal Christians no longer think that homosexuality should be a capital offense; most conservative Christians ignore the verse where Jesus says to sell all they have and give the proceeds to the poor.
The Bible is not logic-free. The interpretations of its believers often are.
There’s not really much point to art, other than that we enjoy it. We enjoy making it, we enjoy looking at it, and it’s a part of our culture. Is it “rational” to make art? I don’t know - but I like it. It makes me happy. How would it not be rational for me to do it, then? If it makes me happy and doesn’t harm anyone else, why shouldn’t I?
Hardly. Simply because the human brain is complex and not every single interest it possesses can be boiled down to straightforward evolutionary self-interest does not mean that logic and rational inquiry fly out the window.
I have this magical water. If I send it to you, all your financial woes will go away. All you have to do is place this magical water (blessed by my deity) on your mantlepiece in a plastic baggie. For just $20 plus shipping and handling, I can send you your first dose. Interested?
…Why not? What in your way of viewing the world tells you whether or not what I just said was true?
@TonySinclair: to be fair I’m fairly sure that if there is a hell, there’s a special little corner dedicated to people who bitch and moan about modern art. A corner tastefully decorated with Pollocks and Warhols.
Art is not in opposition to rationality and reason. Many of us received our higher education in colleges of arts and science. And art can certainly be critically analyzed and compared. We can speak of “good” art and “bad” art. Not all art is the same.
Perhaps we create art for the same reason that we feel love. Perhaps the former is the incidental side effect of our capacity to do the latter. We create art not because art is all that important to our survival, but because emotions are. Emotions make us do all kinds of things that don’t make sense, but they are pretty useful to have.
Art is also tangible - like it or dislike it - you can objectively discuss its merits and ‘all’ can view it.
not so with matters of ‘faith’.
The bible as ‘art’ is something that can be objectively discussed and weighed on its merits - the faith that people put into it - not so much.
another way to put it -
You can have a rational discussion about any piece of art - including, but not limited to, the irrational (for no ‘reason’) feelings it may stir- its only when a person allows the irrational to control ones processes that it becomes a problem.
Oh please. Let’s take, for example, the idea of the morality of gay rights. People got absolutely no where by saying that it was genetic. Where did gay rights start to gain steam, when people realized that people they knew and loved were gay. It wasn’t science that convinced them, it was the fact that people they knew were gay that did so.
Let’s focus on this. This is complete bullshit. Reason, accurately applied, can and DOES lead to two contradictory positions. People who have similar assumptions can have vastly different positions in the end. Why? Because their reasoning leads them in different positions and then all the argument tends to be “your reasoning is wrong because of X” ad infinitum.
And that’s the main problem - this ridiculous and utterly false belief that reason leads to one proper answer always. While modernist thought may have tried to uphold this idea, the ridiculousness of this and the apparent-ness that it does not actually happen has led to explosion of postmodern philosophy. And recently we have realized that people come to positions emotionally (most likely due to the society and family in which they were raised) and then retroactively reason their way up to that while claiming that reason leads to their point of view - which is exactly what postmodern philosophy indicated.
Religious experiences do not fit within the rational means that they cannot be explained rationally. In many ways the mere existence of something that does not fit within the rational cubby holes we have created tend to explode the idea that rational cubby holes should constrain our world view. In my opinion, not accepting that an experience can be outside the rational is meaningless or misapplied. How do you fit in other non-rational experiences likes love or an appreciation for art?
You may want to try to explain why this is a problem, but it is entirely unconvincing. Though, of course, I do feel that my faith is more valid than yours ;).
It is like y’all have never heard of theology ;). I mean Thomas Aquinas didn’t write 25+ books of nothing in his Summa Theolgiae. Or Karl Barth didn’t write 14 books of nothing in his Church Dogmatics and these views haven’t been debated and poured over for centuries (well not Barth, as he wrote his stuff a bit less than a century ago). There is “good” theology and “bad” theology, but it all starts somewhere emotionally.
Why did you start posting to this thread in the first place, if all you have to contribute is, “You guys just can’t understand,” and “I don’t care what you people think.”?
That’s not why (I think) he’s bowing out. He’s bowing out because those replying to him aren’t really addressing what he’s saying at all. For example, I really enjoy the work of Mark Rothko. I don’t enjoy his work due to art history criticism or rational debate on his work - I enjoy it due to the emotions it stirs in me. And I’d argue that most people enjoy art in this way. Its due to forces they can’t really explain and they have no intention of trying to explain it in a rational way. But the responses have all been, well we can decide rationally what is good or bad art or things like that which really doesn’t address what he’s talking about. In this talking past each other, what’s the point of continuing the conversation?
Actually, it was people noticing, “Hey, I actually know someone who is gay and who is negatively impacted by my opinion. This is actually hurting people.” Once again, it starts with a fact about reality and our inferences from that fact. I’m in complete agreement - it doesn’t matter whether homosexuality is genetic. Discriminating against it is wrong. How do we know this? Answer: because we can see the harm it does. Objective, empirical observation.
Yes, and do you know what the interesting thing about this is? One of the people arguing that their reasoning is wrong is right. Your argument basically boils down to “people apply reason and come to contradictory results, therefore reason is in violation of the laws of thought”. It ignores the simple fact that applying reason and empiricism can be really fucking hard. Often, we’re making assumptions or leaps in logic that, in a syllogism, don’t actually work. And we can find those, and point them out. We make assumptions based on incomplete data, incomplete evidence, and as the picture becomes more clear, we can point those out.
I hold a contradictory position to Richard Gage on what happened on 9/11. We both ostensibly used reason and scientific inquiry. However, it’s trivial for me to point out numerous flaws in his reasoning and evidence. If I cannot find such flaws, guess what: I’m obliged to change my mind. Otherwise, I am not being rational. I’ve ceased to apply rationality. This is how that works. If someone provides a syllogism that is both valid and sound, and I reject that syllogism, I have abandoned rationality. At that point, I will have a contradicting view to the person who presented the syllogism. However, it will not be because of any inherent flaw in rationality. It will be because I have strayed from the path of rationality.
What’s the analogy for faith? Is there any such way to “check” someone’s faith? To make sure that they’re still applying it correctly? If someone presents their faith in a way that is both valid and sound, is there any more reason to take them seriously than if they had simply gibbered like an ass?
If your assumptions about reason are representative of the beliefs of postmodernists, then postmodern philosophy is a load of shite.
And guess what? That leads to bad fucking reason!
This is something we need to train ourselves not to do. Yeah, it’s no big secret that most people adopt positions first (particularly indoctrinated religious positions) and then apply reason later, if at all.
That’s not a good thing. That’s a really, really bad thing. It’s something we need to catch ourselves. Every time we do that, we need to make sure we’re not falling into a hole, because if we don’t, we can make some phenomenally stupid and life-changing decisions. History is rife with people who thought first with their hearts, and not with the organ actually responsible for thinking, and as a result did something that would kill/impoverish themselves or people they loved, or just generally make the world a worse place.
One example, please?
The debate briefly abates,
As my hosts collect plates.
But as they return with dessert,
Storm pertly asserts,
“Shakespeare said it first:
There are more things in
Heaven and Earth,
Than exist in your philosophy
Science is just how we’re trained, to look at reality,
It doesn’t explain, Love or spirituality.
How does Science explain
Psychics, auras, the afterlife,
The power of prayer?” - Tim Minchin
If you’re claiming that love and art appreciation are somehow “irrational” I really don’t think you get what “rational” means. Please, by all means. Explain how they are “irrational”.
If your epistemology cannot determine true from false then it is vapid and worthless. What’s more, if you can’t figure this out, it means you know nothing about what knowledge means or how to go about acquiring it.
Of course, in reality, this isn’t true. Because for all your poo-pooing of rationality, you use it every single day on a near-constant basis.
Okay. Why?
I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor’s boots, nor does he give a moment’s consideration to Bellini’s masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor’s Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor’s raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.
Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.
Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.
Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor’s taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.
Well there’s your answer! Here’s something that makes you happy. That you enjoy. That you derive some pleasure from. Even if the reason for that is not immediately apparent, how is it irrational to seek that out? And how do you even know the reason isn’t rational? Remember, we’re talking about extremely complex machinations here, with far more subconscious than conscious reactions. Your “feelings” may not be immediately obvious in their purpose, but do you really think the most reasonable thing is to assume that they’re completely irrational, simply because you cannot figure out a reason for them that seems rational?
I directly addressed his question, and answered it. And his response? “Yeah, I’m out”.
Which appeals to the emotional feelings of individuals? By people feeling empathy for those individuals they know? People have seen ‘empirically’ that folks were harmed, but it wasn’t until they knew the person closely, such as their son, that they were turned (as in the case of Rob Portman). Why?
Yet people using similar data or evidence may end up in different positions. Do you think that different political positions only are the result of different data or evidence to people there? That sounds very simplistic. Sometimes people reason differently and then argue among themselves where the other people reasoned improperly. It is ALL a game of where the other has flaws in their reasoning, or where the other has abandoned their reasoning. Reason does NOT lead to one final objective position - if anything it leads to an argument of how the other side has reached their position by flawed reasoning and rationality. Multiple sides attack each other on these notions. Most logic based folks I’ve ever met either tend to be moderate right wingers or moderate left wingers and they tend to go after each other on their relative flawed logical leaps involving minutiae in statistical analysis.
One may argue that people who thought first with reason ended up making the world a worse place as well - the aftermath French Revolution being the preeminent example. Saying we need to “catch ourselves” tends to ignore how we actually think. It seems to fit what actually happens into a utopian hole that is not realistic. In addition, once again, elevates the rational over the emotional for no real acceptable purpose. The only reason appears to be emotional is bad, even if it is based on things like empathy, because reason is always superior… just because.
If you’d like to explain the Apostle Paul’s religious experience, you may go ahead. My own religious experience involved its own overflowing of peace and joy - as a friend once described religion, it’s like falling in love. How does falling in love with a particular person fit into a rationalist explanation?
As I use my emotions every single day on a near-constant basis, as do you. I simply refuse to devalue something that is essential to my day to day existence and my idea of what is proper and just and right and wrong.
Science shouldn’t have had to convince anyone that gay people needn’t be executed, or prosecuted and hounded until they killed themselves, like Alan Turing did. The default position regarding what goes on in someone else’s bedroom is, none of my business.
It was the sublime, ethereal Holy Scriptures — which responses in this thread have claimed are on a more refined plane, leading us to higher truths that grubby scientists could never hope to glimpse — that put it in the minds of people that gays had to be persecuted. Christians had no problem taking those verses literally. And in the past, many had no problem using the logic and rationality of the Bible to prove that slavery was God’s will (the fact that abolitionists also quoted scripture only shows that the Bible can be interpreted however best suits one’s goals — as does the now fashionable turning away from the mandate to execute homosexuals.)
And yet you cannot then figure out the reason for religious beliefs? Because it gives meaning and truth to existence for me and many others. It is pleasurable and defines my world in a way more satisfying and, IMO, more true than the ‘rational’ defining of existence. Which (the purely rational defining of existence) was a way in which I understood the world for a number of years prior to my conversion.
And yes, I think it makes sense that they do not fit into a rational framework. If they did, there wouldn’t be such an argument that they are irrational, now would it? Is it because you can’t figure out a reason for them that seems rational?
As pointed out above thread, science had no issues with defining the inferiority of certain races, whether by measuring skulls, or by using Bell Curve type analysis.
Why is the default position regarding what goes on in someone’s bedroom none of your business. That sounds more of a non-scientific moral position rather than something you have backed with ‘science’. I’m not saying that I don’t agree, but I agree fully on emotional moral purposes, not as a result of some scientific inquiry.
Perhaps we’ve strayed from my point. My point was not “all morality is based on rationality”. This is clearly not true. My point was simply “morality without rationality and empiricism is blind.” And this demonstrates it beautifully. Making the well-being of homosexuals into an issue of the “other” is morally repugnant. Acting like it’s fine to discriminate and hate and judge because you don’t know any homosexuals is awful. Emotions helped bridge this gap, but rationality would have closed it to begin with - if people were rational, that is.
Or misapplication of logic. Although, when it comes to politics, it can be very easy to point out these flaws. For example, I wonder how many republicans think the deficit is going up? This may sound simplistic, but I welcome you to find a case where the issue cannot be brought back to this. Just one, that’s literally all it would take. One. Single. Case. Where there’s a difference of opinion that cannot be led back to one side having flawed reasoning or a flawed understanding of the facts.
But again, I ask the simple question. In reasoning, when we come to different results, we can check the pathway. Where’s the analogy in faith?
Care to elaborate on this? What reason were they applying that made the world worse?
This ignores the fact that I do this on a day-to-day basis quite regularly. It’s not utopian, it’s not unrealistic. It’s something anyone can train themselves to do. Not everyone is good at it, but it’s not that hard to get better at it.
For some reason I have yet to see anyone address my miracle water statements, so let me be more blunt.
HEY BUDDY, Y’WANNA BUY A BRIDGE?
The rational can examine that statement and come to the conclusion, “Hang on, that’s a load of crap.” Can the emotional? How? The reason we elevate the rational over the emotional is because only one has the ability to evaluate claims with any degree of success. Indeed, appealing to emotions is one of the easiest ways to get someone to accept a false claim as true. Tell someone the heart-wrenching story of a child with cancer, then explain that only Stanislaw Burzynski can save that child, and you can often short-circuit the part of the brain that would ask annoying questions like “is Burzynski actually able to do what he claims?” (The answer, by the way, is no.)
Why do we elevate the rational over the emotional… Hmm, I don’t know. Maybe because actually thinking about things is better than blindly guessing?
Even when it comes to empathy, guess what? Empathy is great at manipulating us into doing stupid shit. It’s only when we take our empathy, our ability to feel for others, and we check to make sure that what we’re doing is actually in line with that rationally that we get good results. Otherwise, you end up with stupid shit like parents begging the FDA to let them waste hundreds of thousands of dollars on a quack therapy that doesn’t work, and the public standing behind them. Because who else is gonna cure little Suzy?
I’m not aware of Paul’s experience, I’ll have to look that up. But here’s something to ponder - we’re phenomenally complex consciousnesses with most of what is going on buried underground. We’re prone to errors in how we receive information, how we process information, how we recall information, and how we pass on information to others. It is very easy to create an experience for someone that doesn’t seem to conform to anything they know by pushing the right buttons. Or, to put it another way: I had an overflowing of peace and joy once. Then they dropped the beat and the walls started melting.
And it also hurts a hell of a lot of people. It glorifies abandoning rationality and the only functional epistemologies we have. I hope it’s worth it to you, because it’s horrifying to me.
