But what of metaphysics? You’re now telling me I have no basis for any kind of judgement on any level, physical or metaphysical. Or do I have a physical basis that is invalidated at the metaphysical level, or, at least, renedered equivalent to other metaphysical systems? On what basis do you make this assertion? Logic? You’ve already, apparently, supported the notion that logic is superfluous, at least in metaphysical terms. In the physical realm, perhaps, it is not? Metaphysically, tautology is allowed, then? I thought, in philosophical terms, even metaphysical analyses of the world must follow some logic and avoid tautology to make convincing arguments (metaphysics: The systematic investigation of first principles and problems of ontology). Metaphysical arguments of ontology, or worse, epistemology subsume tautology? Logical systems allow for fallacy as valid means of demonstrating the validity of an argument? I may be wrong, but it seems to me you’re not really arguing a case, you’re telling me that I must accept you don’t have to, because logic does not apply. Either that, or we are not talking about metaphysics, we’re talking about faith that has no metaphysical nor physical component that can be analysed. Faith is, by nature, completely arbitrary then, is that correct?
I think you have stated as much by saying the axiom of faith is faith, a tautology, and yet that’s perfectly valid. I wonder how the faithful would consider the notion, that their faith is in nature, fallacious. Is that less rude, I wonder, than delusory?
That’s just fine. You disagree. You keep calling people of faith “delusional.” We’ll keep calling you an “asshole.”
It’s only your opinion that you are not behaving like an asshole. We disagree. You have not given us any evidence that you are not an asshole, so what are we to do? We will keep considering you an asshole until you provide us with evidence (that is satisfactory to us) that you are not one.
See how nicely that works? We’re all on the same page now.
Well, assuming you’re speaking for Polycarp as he would, and “no” applies to both halves of my question, he does not suffer their imposition in silence, nor does he do so in a manner that demeans them. I could be wrong, but the mere act of denying some or all of the tenents of someone elses faith, by denying their right to impose (and hence act morally, in their estimation) puts him in a position of saying they must at least consider their faith may be wrong. Perhaps he may put this most politely, but in a system that imposes on its very believers the truth of those beliefs, such an assertion is to them a Christian apostacy. They may not wish to trod wantonly on the rights of the apostate, but apostate he remains all the same. Meant respectfully and lovingly, perhaps, as an accurate description, because Christians do not hate the sinner.
I remember reading once, in a GD thread, answers to the question of whether Jews, Christians, and Muslims, worshipped the same God. One argument was yes, it is the same Abrahamic diety. Others put in qualifiers, by saying that while the Jewish and Muslim concept of God is fairly consistent, the Christian concept of the Trilogy is, in fact, in any orthodox sense, a heresy. This assessment was rendered by Jews and a Muslim, if I recall. No one expressed offense. I could say, “I am a Muslim, and my scripture and faith tells me Christians worship a paganized god, and are heretics”. One needn’t even be a literalist to believe that. What more central principle of the Muslim faith is there is No God but God? I’m sure some Muslims relax this, and others do not. The latter are not permanently rude? They can say “heretic”, and that’s OK, and I can say “deluded”, and that’s not? And if heretic is NOT OK, who says so? In my mind, it’s a perfectly valid description of myself. I am an infidel heretic, and an apostate (in terms of my own upbringing) besides. It’s an accurate description.
No: I’m telling you that the principles of logic are accepted on faith, or at least are accepted as necessary rules for playing a particular game. That you find this to be shaking the foundations of your worldview–that’s probably a good thing, means you won’t accept it on faith any more, but rather will recognize that you’re just playing one game, and the literalists are playing another.
IF YOU ACCEPT THE RULES OF THE LOGIC GAME, then of course you can function. Of course you can make judgments about all kinds of things. However, one judgment that you cannot make, according to the rules of the game you’re playing, is that your game is better than the game of the literalists. Because in order to make such a judgment, you have to have tools that allow you to evaluate your tools and those of the literalists, and your own system, logic, forbids you from assuming the answer to the question you’re asking.
Curiously, the literalists are under no such constraint. Their system, based on faith in the Bible’s inerrancy rather than based on such notions as A=A, has no provisos that prevents them from making judgments about how their system’s validity stacks up to that of other systems. They can claim they’re better than you without being inconsistent, even though your claim that you’re more valid than them can only be made through an inconsistency on your part.
That said, I still stick with the rules of the logic game: it’s more satisfying to me, and it certainly seems to have more predictive value than the literalist’s system does. But I can say that, be happy in my decision, without having any evidence at all that they’re wrong on a metaphysical level.
[QUOTE=Loopydude]
Well, assuming you’re speaking for Polycarp as he would, and “no” applies to both halves of my question, he does not suffer their imposition in silence, nor does he do so in a manner that demeans them. I could be wrong, but the mere act of denying some or all of the tenents of someone elses faith, by denying their right to impose (and hence act morally, in their estimation) puts him in a position of saying they must at least consider their faith may be wrong.
[quote]
I have qualified myself repeatedly by saying that I could give two shits what people think about the cosmos as long as they don’t try to impose that belief on me. Once someone tries to impose their belief on me, I have no trouble being as rude to them as is necessary to try to get them to stop it.
This distinction–between the imposers and nonimposers–is vital to me. I at my core don’t believe anyone out there is omniscient, and so I’ll thank you and everyone else to not try to impose your beliefs on me. You could be wrong, too.
Please answer my question: do words have denotations and connotations, or denotations only?
Oh? I’ve always held to logic is not so much a matter of faith, but a necessity of any kind of consisten thought, as well as something that can be actually tested with experience. The author here, seems to agree with me. I quote:
“Let’s illustrate it with an example. Suppose I say, “Logic is an arbitrary human invention and could be wrong.” Well, if it is wrong, then the Law of Contradiction (a thing cannot be itself and its negation at the same time and in the same respect) and the related Law of Identity (a thing is itself) are wrong; but then that means the very words that make up my original claim, such as, “Logic is arbitrary” could mean “Logic is not arbitrary” or it could mean both at the same time and in the same respect. In fact, it could mean “I like chunky peanut butter.” If all that sounds crazy and unintelligible, that’s because it is, as are all utterances when the truth of logical principles cannot be assumed. The point here is that without the assumed truth of logic, language itself becomes impossible. So the contradiction is this: For my original statement to have any meaning at all, logic has to be true, but the content of my original statement questions that truth: a self-contradiction. Logic, then, is not accepted on “faith” but as a necessary, self-evident truth, something that is required to speak or think at all. The same can be shown for the concepts of existence, consciousness, and the reliability of our senses.”
Again, if you say “I choose to not regard the world as a meaningless arbitrarynessk but that’s just my oppinion”, are you, in fact, not speaking nonsense? As I’ve been saying over and over again, oppinions are arbitrary, everything is arbitrary without logic. It seems to deny the primacy of logic is to deny any relationship of any kind between anything that must hold. One literally cannot think in such a framework, unless I am mistaken.
You’re mistaken. We may make a similar axiom: “The Bible provides the most accurate reflection possible of the true nature of the cosmos.” This gives us a lot to operate on, and we can build a whole nother worldview based on this statement. We can rely on logic only inasmuch as it doesn’t contradict this axiom, but toss logic when such a contradiction does occur.
You really do put a huge amount of faith in logic, a quasireligious faith in it, from your last post. That’s no good. You should read some Robert Anton Wilson, shake you up a bit.
I think they must have denotations in all instances (though I presuppose words have definite meanings to denote, choosing to play the “logic game” in this instance), but can have connotations that are meant, misconstrued, or simply superfluous, as they are equivalent to the denotation, or do nothing to enhance it. I’m not sure a connotation meant is negated by a connotation miscontruted or misrepresented, nor is it invalidated. Neither has primacy, and both are our right to posit. I suppose one is at an impasse if the other party refuses to recognize you mean to connote one thing, because they insist you connote another.
But if logic is just a game, valid as any other, why do you ask? Why do you impose on or demand consistency of meaning from me, or demand I acknowledge meaning? Peanutbutter is jam, after all. Your words needn’t mean what mine do. I do not have words, because words are grapes, which connotes the Belgian waffle, and denotes the ham sadwich. Actually, my answer is squirrels. I’ve decided logic isn’t necessary, because it’s most essential, which I lovingly loathe, and is the most meaningfully and concisely vacuuos thing I’ve ever not said. Furthermore, quite honestly, I’m lying constantly, and so are you both are and are not, most sincere of sophists.
[QUOTE=faithfool]
As much fun as this is, I don’t know if I’ll stay around for the party we’ll throw afterwards.
I’d like to point out, just for shits and giggles, that I’ve answered the below, repeatedly.
From Contrapuntal:
(Bolding mine.)
I am confused. If “religious beliefs” is subset of “all beliefs” why do I have to take out the word “religious” for you to be able to answer the question with a yes?
My second question is the question about beliefs you referred to above. My first question was “Were the Mayans superstitious?.”
The only answers I have seen are “religious” and “leprechaunism”. The former only applies if the two sides agree to two different meanings. The latter I assume was toungue in cheek.
So human sacrifice is a valid religious belief?
Well religion generally gets a pass in the sense that believing in, oh, I don’t know, good luck or rabbits foot charms or black magic can be called superstitious without fear of insult, and believing in God cannot. As for your false dichotomy, I have not called you or anyone else in this thread delusional. I don’t find it a particularly accurate word to describe religious belief.
Which presupposes its own truth, and is, in fact, a tautology, since it requires only its own existence to be true. Again, another instance where logic is superfluous, as you have just said, and absolutely nothing follows necessarily from that axiom. It is not even an axiom, without logic, which, as you said, one can choose to use, or not, with equal validity, if validity has meaning without logic. I’m not sure it does. Nor can even this statement be used to argue its axiomatic value one way or the other, as it hinges on nothing, and follows from nothing reliably.
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
No word in the world will convey the delusional aspect of religion while being inoffensive to religious folk.QUOTE]
Well I think I am now convinced of that. Do you think it follows, then, that it is impossible for a non-religious person to discuss with a religious person why that person holds a religious belief, given that to do so would necessarily introduce rhe concept of “delusion” (your word) or “superstition” (my word)?
Or am I asserting it’s essential for meaningful discourse and thought, and hence arguing it is unessential is vacuous? I’ve proposed your assertion that logic is not of prime necessity for argument, even in metaphysics, reanders are discourse and argument meaningless. You haven’t addressed that concern, only made an ad hominem and quoted and cited an author, without giving me a hint of what that author says about the necessity of logic for meaningful discourse and thought, yay or nay. Perhaps you deny discourse needs meaning. Again, this renders all points both valid and invalid, which, well, I don’t even know what to do with that. It’s not a matter of faith in logic, so much as a clear demonstration to me that it must be present to think or have any position at all.
It’s just that I thought things were tied up DAYS ago… but people just… caried on.
I thought a consensus was reached that the hamsters should be given a break.
And no I do not mean to be derisive! I am dropping a hint - Isn’t it long past this thread’s bed-time?
How much word-tennis does it take to say Faith and logic are incompatible?
I discuss things with people all the time that could potentially offend one or the other of us.
I guess the real question is this: Is it ever important to establish that the religious are factually delusional as opposed to it being my opinion that they are delusional? In a discussion, it seems discretion is advisable, and I have no quarrel with saying that the delusion is my opinion. It’s certainly not a professional diagnosis.
I’ve participated in too many debates to think that it’s impossible for people to talk without someone’s feelings getting hurt, but the ground rules have to be established.
I think if all parties are honest, the religious will admit that they might be deluded, and the atheists will admit that they might be wrong.
I meant to address a different point earlier. The reason, I’m guessing, religious belief isn’t considered a delusion by the psychiatric community is simply that in most cases, we aren’t talking about something that will hinder a person’s life. I have the superstitious feeling that if I assume something really good is going to happen, it won’t. For example, I’d never say during a baseball game, “The pitcher has a perfect game into the sixth inning!” My rational brain may not believe in jinxes, but I don’t take chances!
That makes me deluded, but it doesn’t really impact any other aspect of my life. It doesn’t interfere with my functioning on the job or my sleep or my marriage. Doesn’t something have to start causing problems before it would be considered diagnosable? I’m not sure of that, but I think it’s a reasonable guess.
Oh and by the way - I do care. It is because I care that I suggest people should agree to disagree and stop trying to destroy eachother’s belief system.
(counting Atheism as a belief system)
It just strikes me as analogous to trying to get a microwave to communicate with a tree.
But, er, Hamsters? Are we torturing them or something? I thought it was only ourselves. Seriously, is there some point where a thread ought to be abandoned because of some practical limit at the SDMB? If so, I’ll cut out.
It renders it logically meaningless–but clearly that’s a tautology. Good God, man, you read like you’re having a mental breakdown over this idea. It’s nothing special.
Peanutbutter may be jam, but you go on living like it’s not and I go on living like it’s not: we both agree that it makes our lives easier to agree that it’s not. As long as we agree on some ground rules for discussion, we can discuss things fine–whether those ground rules are that “A=A” or are “The Bible is inerrant,” we can carry on a meaningful discussion.
The difference is that I realize I’m making some assumptions, and you seem determined to prove that you’re not making an assumption, or that nobody else can possibly have a conversation if they’re making a different set of assumptions. That, my friend, is delusion.
