Do You Have a Thinking Problem?
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Friday, April 24, 2026 00:33
VIEWED: 13256
PAGE 7 of 17
Quote:Whether you realise it or not you just agreed with me.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
But I see a world bigger than what science can address (a non-physical world), and I use faith to supplement the answers that science can never solve.
And your framing of debate as "either you agree with me or you are insulting me" is really quite boring, and insulting in fact.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Being an Irish-American, I tend to think the hard stuff.
More animations available at http://desktophippie.googlepages.com
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:CTS- I'm with you up until the end. I'm sure there are many thing we will never be able to "explain" empirically and rationally simply because our brains are not structured to encompass certain concepts. It would be like trying to show a sunset to a blind man.
The sheer existence of God and many other suppositions in religion are alogical. They fall outside the purvue of logic. This rests on the premise that there exist things logic can know, and there exist things logic can't know.
Most of the arguments I've seen in from the empiricism/rationalism camp come from the following positions: 1. These exists only the physical world. 2. Empiricism and rationalism are adequate for understanding the physical world in its entirety. 3. Empiricism and rationalism can explain ONLY the physical world. 4. Therefore ONLY the physical world exists. 5. Anything that cannot be explained empirically and rationally does not exist.
But to say that empiricists say that things don't exist because they cant' be explained... well, that's a lie. And then to insert religion as a tool to explain the unexplainable is just plain hubris.
I find it interesting that you're such an anti-authoritarian in everything except this.
---------------------------------
Remain humble in the face of reality.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Well, let's talk about Flimsy. Bob believes in Flimsy. Bill believes in Jesus. And Chuck believes in Science. In all other respects, they use the same amount of logic to answer their questions. Who is more logical? I would answer no one is more logical than the other--but I'm guessing you would disagree. What do you mean by "more logical" anyway?
Well, there's your fallacy - science isn't a religion, even if you give it a capital letter. Logic is the driving force behind science. Logic means you don't just make stuff up to suit your needs and previous beliefs. In fact science and logic often require you to destroy your first principles to arrive at the truth.
Case in point - Einstein screwed up. He couldn't make his model of a static universe work so he added a cosmological constant to his theories. Later when it was discovered the universe was expanding, he called this his "biggest blunder".
I include an example of science going awry to illustrate two things - 1) science is fallible because it is produced by human beings and we make mistakes and 2) science tries to correct itself. When science solidifies (as happened with the works of Aristotle and Newton among others), it's generally a bad idea.
So Chuck is more logical than the other two but that doesn't necessarily mean he's going to be right every time compared to them. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Now is there a difference between alogical and illogical? Of course there is but you need to be wary that you don't protect your illogical ideas by claiming they're alogical. Have you ever really asked yourself, truly asked yourself, how likely is it that your religion (whatever it may be) is the one true religion?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No. you misunderstand me. Things that cannot possibly be explained... Obviously there are plenty of things that cannot be explained now, but empiricists believe that given enough time and effort and the correct instrumentation, a rational and empirical explanation can be achieved eventually for all the physical universe.
Originally posted by SignyM:
But to say that empiricists say that things don't exist because they cant' be explained... well, that's a lie.
Quote:Sigh. I almost died once. I felt something outside of myself gave me the strength to pull through--something as tangible as the chair I'm sitting on. Now that may be psychological, may be subconscious, may be any number of things that can eventually be explained through rational and empirical concepts. But for now, I choose to call that something "God" and believe it was he who pulled me through. Why is that hubris? Why can't I choose to call that something "God" and be a scientist at the same time, as long as I remain open to rational/empirical explanations when they do come forth?
And then to insert religion as a tool to explain the unexplainable is just plain hubris.
Quote:Oh good grief. Give this up already.
I find it interesting that you're such an anti-authoritarian in everything except this.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I beg to differ. Science is defintitely a religion for some people. Maybe not you, but I have met people who dogmatically believe in the omniscience and omnipotence of science, to the exclusion of all other possibilities. Science for them is the one and only authority and salvation of mankind. More importantly, this dogmatism requires every bit as much faith in the scientific method and our 5 senses as believing in Flimsy.
Originally posted by SimonWho:
Well, there's your fallacy - science isn't a religion, even if you give it a capital letter.
Quote:What makes you think I believe my religion to be the one true religion?
Have you ever really asked yourself, truly asked yourself, how likely is it that your religion (whatever it may be) is the one true religion?
And yes, one has to be always careful that illogical is not camouflaged under the umbrella of alogical. That applies to everyone, not only people of faith.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I really enjoyed your posts, Causal. And if you see anything *I* said that doesn't hold water logicwise, please do not hesistate to correct me, either publically or privately. I'd welcome it.
Although I have enjoyed our debate up to this point, I must respectfully bow out.
Most people (I am guessing) have not taken any philosophy or logic classes, so they don't quite speak the same language you do. I have taken one logic class, so I have a passing familiarity with your language, but am not anywhere near fluent. I'd like to practice though. It might be fun to hash it out sometime.
It is not easy to carry long discussions on boards like these because people don't speak the same language. We all have different definitions, different premises, different assumptions, and emotions vested in all of them to boot. So it gets a bit touchy.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I almost died once. I felt something outside of myself gave me the strength to pull through--something as tangible as the chair I'm sitting on. Now that may be psychological, may be subconscious, may be any number of things that can eventually be explained through rational and empirical concepts. But for now, I choose to call that something "God" and believe it was he who pulled me through. Why is that hubris? Why can't I choose to call that something "God" and be a scientist at the same time, as long as I remain open to rational/empirical explanations when they do come forth?
You postulate several very good, very obvious and very logical explanations for your intense desire to hang onto life - the most basic of all instincts, human or otherwise. You chose to believe that the Almighty decided to tap you metaphorically on the shoulder and say "Keep fighting lad, you're not done yet."
Perhaps people think if you chose one illogical explanation when a logical one is available, you might do the same in other circumstances.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, it seems CTS has decided that I'm not worthy of being part of this discussion since she believes she can't make me think what she wants. It amuses me she'll be so up in arms about an imagined offence and then be so blatantly offensive to others.
Science is not a religion, this is nonsense. The fact that some people treat it as such doesn't make it so.
The fact that some believe that science will cure all ills given time is religisizing science, a faith in it which is illogical.
Faith is what you have in absence of evidence, saying something is so with no evidence to that is illogical. A logical statement would be too say I don't know.
You could take saying faith is illogical as an insult, in which case you either don't understand what logic and or faith are really all about and you build logic up to something more than what it is, or you're deliberately trying to frame the debate as "either you agree with me or you are trying to insult me" so that you can use statements like "you aren't making a case you're just hurling insults" and then act like a victim while being offensive.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It is interesting that you find the explanations I suggested as "logical." When I typed them, I just lumped them all together as empirical/rational because these are the explanations the atheist crowd would accept as empirical/rational. Then when you said they were "very logical," it just dawned on me that they really aren't!
Originally posted by SimonWho:
You postulate several very good, very obvious and very logical explanations for your intense desire to hang onto life
1. Psychological feeling. Are feelings "logical"? Understandable, predictable, something we can sympathize with, maybe. But logical--as in following the principles of logical reasoning? Eeeh. Are they empirical? Feelings are indirectly observable--thus making them subject to scientific research, albeit with some difficulty. Ultimately, feelings are subjective, and some degree of "faith" (or if you prefer, assumption) is needed to take someone's word that they are not misrepresenting the feeling, either intentionally or through inaccuracies.
2. Subconscious. Now there is something even less logical and empirical than feelings. Freud invented the concept that we do things without choosing intentionally to do them, and without knowing we are doing them even. But where's the proof? When push comes to shove, psychologists will admit that the entire concept of the subconscious is conjecture. You can't experiment with the subconscious--there is no way to measure it or test it. It is not falsifiable.
3. Biological instinct/will to survive. I think this is like "feeling," indirectly observable but ultimately subjective and inferred on "faith" from self-reports.
When you think about it, all of science relies on assumptions and inferences, some fields more than in others. The difference between these explanations and "God" is that these explanations are observable to some degree, and "God" isn't.
Unless, in my case, I call my biological instinct, psychological feeling, and subconscious motivation part of "God." In this case, it is a definition and language issue, not an issue of logic. [Edit to rephrase: In this case, it is partly a definition and language issue, not entirely an issue of logic.]
[Edited to add: But then, to me, religion, science, logic, and mathematics are all different languages attempting to describe the world around us. These languages sometimes overlap, such as mathematics and logic, or religion and logic. ]
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME