Do You Have a Thinking Problem?
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Friday, April 24, 2026 00:33
VIEWED: 13256
PAGE 8 of 17
And we go from false definitions to simply making things up, bravo.
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:I've been thinking about this question.
Originally posted by SimonWho:
Perhaps people think if you chose one illogical explanation when a logical one is available, you might do the same in other circumstances.
What makes one explanation "more logical" than another? I mean, let's say you have to choose between psychological motivation vs. biological instinct for the "something" that pulled me through. Which one is "more logical"?
Scientists don't talk about which is more logical, but which is more parsimonious. Occam's Razor, or the Law of Parsimony, says to pick the simplest explanation--that is, the explanation where the least concepts have to be invented is likely to be the best. (But of course, this law requires assumptions and "faith" of its own.)
Why didn't I pick the simplest explanation then? Because what I felt was more than psychological or biological. It felt spiritual, and physical explanations don't do it justice. It is as SignyM said, it is sort of like describing a sunset to a blind man. You can use the language of physical sciences, but to do it justice, you really have to resort to poetry.
God, for me, is part assumption, part poetry. Religion describes things that the language of the physical sciences can't. So I mix a little of the empirical (my observation of "something") with a little of the poetic to best capture what I experienced.
If I don't claim my explanation to be literally true or scientifically derived, why can't I talk about my experiences with poetry? Why is it illogical to choose to talk about a sunset with poetry when you can choose "more logical" descriptions like light wave frequencies and atmospheric pollutants? (Here is a good example of alogical vs. illogical.)
I think religion has a bad rap because many people use illogical arguments to defend their religion, and they make illogical claims to have a monopoly on truth. I'm trying to say that not all people are like that.
It is possible to hold religious assumptions without holding religious dogma. Everyone, including scientists, has assumptions. What is the difference between assumptions and dogma?
Assumption is holding a position in absence of contrary evidence. ("Unless evidence can prove me wrong, I am going to assume...") Dogma is holding a position DESPITE contrary evidence. ("I don't care what the evidence says, I'm going to believe...") Like the mudders believing Jayne to be a hero, despite revealed evidence that he was no such thing.
My faith is a system of assumptions that is entirely falsifiable. If evidence comes to light tomorrow that all this time, people have been "reaching out" to a telepathic alien who's been orbiting our planet for 6000 years, I'd write a thank you letter to the alien for saving my life. And if it turns out not to be an alien but an electromagnetic signature of the earth that gets interpreted by the brain as a "telepathic sensation", I'd feel grateful that I coincidentally picked up on those sensations at just the right time to save my own life.
Dogma is blind, wherever it is found, whether in religion or science. Dogma rests on the premise that one knows everything there is to know about the world using one certain method, and that premise is, I contend, illogical. But religion is not inherently dogmatic or illogical (anymore than English or Spanish is illogical). And people who subscribe to religion are not inherently dogmatic or illogical.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
>> What makes one explanation "more logical" than another? I mean, let's say you have to choose between psychological motivation vs. biological instinct for the "something" that pulled me through. Which one is "more logical"?
Of course, I'd actually argue that your mental state makes no difference, your body would survive whatever trauma it went through or it wouldn't. There's some evidence for people "letting go" but it is rather vague and normally ties into things like patients refusing to eat, etc. Do you have a logical explanation for how you thinking "I want to survive" would assist whatever it was you suffered from?
And I'd argue religion always works from a foundation of Dogma. They don't call it The Good Book because it is a snappy read for your holidays - they call it that and label it a divinely authored text. Then they find out huge chunks of it are wrong. Then things get interesting.
If Jesus wasn't the Son of God, Christianity goes out the window. Therefore there is at the heart of the religion, a dogma. His lineage cannot be disputed, challenged or questioned - either he is the Son or the religion is nothing. Most other religions hang on a similar premise - Mohammad is the Prophet, etc.
That's why they're dogmatic - there's an unchallengable assumption at the core.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:ALWAYS. I see.
Originally posted by SimonWho:
And I'd argue religion always works from a foundation of Dogma.
You're painting ALL religions with a broad stroke, despite my telling you my religion is based on falsifiable assumptions. Either you think I'm lying/mistaken, or you're ignoring evidence that contradicts your pet theory of all religions. Is there a third or fourth option I'm missing?
Well, Simon, this has been fun. But in my view, your perception of religion is every bit as dogmatic as you accuse all religions to be. Simonwho says religions are always dogmatic and nothing anyone can explain can change his mind about that. So we'll just disagree.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Where did I say that nothing can change my mind on that? It's even clear in the bit you quote that I'm arguing that religions are always dogmatic, not stating it as absolute fact. So don't put words into my mouth and then use them as a basis for running from the argument.
Do you agree that (purely as an example) if Jesus wasn't the Son of God, the whole of Christianity is false? However, there is no room for argument within the Church about Jesus's divinity. It is a non-challengable assumption. That is where the dogma lies.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
I'm arguing that religions are always dogmatic, not stating it as absolute fact.
Uh, sorry if I misinterpreted you, but to me "arguing" and "stating" are synonyms. "Religions are always dogmatic." That sounds like an absolute fact to me (see the "always"). If it isn't, please clarify what WOULD persuade you that religions aren't ALWAYS dogmatic.
Quote:No I don't agree. Religion is extremely diverse. There are variations upon variations.
Do you agree that (purely as an example) if Jesus wasn't the Son of God, the whole of Christianity is false? However, there is no room for argument within the Church about Jesus's divinity. It is a non-challengable assumption. That is where the dogma lies.
Let's talk about Christianity. First of all, which "Church" are you talking about? The Catholic church? Lutheran? Mormon? Jehovah's Witnesses? Unitarian Universalist?
Take the UU church for example. They are Christian, but they have no creed. No creed = no dogma. You can believe Jesus was a very inspiring fictional character that you want to pattern your life after, and still be "Christian" in this church. Jesus as the Son of God is NOT a non-challengeable assumption in EVERYONE who calls himself a Christian. Statements like that are factual errors.
That is where I see your position as dogmatic. You lump all religions together and no matter how many times and how many ways I try to explain it, you refuse to accept that not every religion is equal. So at some point, I gotta say to myself, "CTS, don't try to convince dolphins to fly. You're wasting your time, and annoying the dolphin."
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"On the planet earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much — the wheel, New York, wars and so on — while all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man — for precisely the same reasons."
We've already established we have different definitions for the word "religion". For example, I wouldn't consider Unitarian Universalism a religion, mostly because if your members believe what they want to believe, how does that differ from anyone else? This makes them akin to a club, rather than a religion.
>> Uh, sorry if I misinterpreted you, but to me "arguing" and "stating" are synonyms.
No, they're really not. One of the hardest lessons in life (one that many never learn) is that even when you are absolutely totally 100% convinced of something, it isn't necessarily true. Hence, I argue rather than state.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I see. You're defining religion as: a system of dogmatic, illogical beliefs in the supernatural.
Originally posted by SimonWho:
I wouldn't consider Unitarian Universalism a religion
Word to the wise. Next time you argue with someone, it is best to state your unique, peculiar definitions up front. It'll save everyone a lot of time if you let them know you already have a dogmatic defintion that is not subject to change. I wouldn't have bothered arguing with you had I known.
I'm done.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS- I think that recognizing the vastness of the universe and our inability to grasp it is more like mysticism. It veers into religion when people personalize, describe, limit, wheedle or otherwise attempt to control or mediate the unknown.
I mentioned feelings in the other thread, because your religion (in your case) comes down to a feeling that you once had. Knowing far too much of the "higher" functions of the brain and their correlations to EEGs and seizures, I can tell you that I could replicate that feeling with an electrode and a few milliamps. I hate to be so mechanistic about what was prolly a peak experience but this feeling that you had most likely came from the temporal lobe:
Quote:
Dr. Wilder Penfield did extensive studies of the brain. When he stimulated the left side of the brain he saw involuntary movements of different parts of the body. “But when he stimulated the temporal lobe on the right side, there was no movement of any part of the body. Instead the patients reported a wide variety of significant experiences, perceptions and/or feelings. The phenomena reported were basically the same as the auras accompanying temporal lobe seizures…feelings of great peace, of deep understanding, of consciousness of another being
www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00006973&channel=gulberg&threshold=
1&layout=0&order=0&start=20&end=29&page=1
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, I gave that feeling as ONE example. But my faith does involve more than just one feeling.
Originally posted by SignyM:
I mentioned feelings in the other thread, because your religion (in your case) comes down to a feeling that you once had.
Quote:It could very well be. And I am definitely open to exploring this idea. There is never a need to apologize for proposing an alternative explanation. Not to me anyway.
I hate to be so mechanistic about what was prolly a peak experience but this feeling that you had most likely came from the temporal lobe
To use your sunset example, I can describe a sunset as a "warm, homecooked dinner" or the "glow of unrestrained contentment." At the same time, I can describe it as varying wavelengths of light in the upper visible spectrum refracted by atmospheric pollutants. To me, the truth isn't an either/or situation. Each description has its specific purpose. That is why I say religion, to me, is a language-- a different language to describe and understand our world. Sometimes it describes the same things as science, sometimes it doesn't. I don't like seeing any of the religious languages (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc....) forbidden as a valid way to express oneself, nor do I like seeing any of them claimed as the ONLY true language to describe our world.
Religion vs. mysticism. There is a lot of overlap. I think what I am sensing from the physicalists and atheists here in RWED is mainly a vehement objection to organized or institutional religion. Maybe the objection isn't as strong to individual mystical experiences?
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME