Yeah, that might be an interesting exercise, but I'm not here to play devil's advocate. I understand that that's what you want me to do, but I'm more concerned with a genuine discussion than pretend play. — S
Why is intellectual honesty, the challenging of all positions with equal enthusiasm, "pretend play"? — Jake
I don't have to have equal enthusiasm for challenging all positions to be intellectually honest. — S
Being intellectually honest is examining all positions dispassionately as if one has no dog in the fight. All positions get subjected to the same process. As example, the authorities theism is based on are asked to prove their qualifications, just as the authority atheism is based on is asked to prove it's qualifications. — Jake
Being a flag waving ideologue is the relentless selling of a single position. This is what you are doing. You are only challenging the other guy's claims and chosen authorities, never your own. All positions are not subjected to the same process. — Jake
So being intellectually honest involves being intellectually dishonest by pretending that one doesn't have a dog in the fight when one does have a dog in the fight. — S
So present a challenge. Or quit pestering me. — S
I'm not claiming a God exists, or that any doctrines that arise from that belief need to be believed. However, should a God exist, it seems reasonable and sensible to propose that it is, or may be, above logic.
God is typically proposed to be the essence of reality, the creator of reality, a form of hyper-intelligence etc. That is, the God idea is in one way or another attempting to explain the very largest of scale.
Logic is the poorly developed ability of a single half insane species recently living in caves on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies etc. Human reason exists on a tiny local scale.
It seems quite speculative to presume that something as small and imperfect as the rules of human reason would be binding on everything everywhere (scope of God claims), a realm we can't even define in even the most basic manner. If someone wishes to assert this to be true it seems entirely reasonable to ask them to prove it, just as it's entirely reasonable to ask theists to prove the huge claims being made in their holy books.
We might reflect on the influence of scale upon observation.
The classic example of course is that from the surface of the Earth (a very local scale) there is a compelling illusion that all of reality is orbiting around the Earth. When the scale is enlarged to give a wider perspective this perception is seen to be thoroughly untrue, entirely wrong.
Another more modern example is the discovery that time runs at different rates, depending on the relationship between the observer and large bodies such as planets. On the surface of the Earth, a very local scale, the different rates of time are so small (billionths of a second) that they aren't noticed and are a meaningless factor. However, when the scale is expanded, we see that GPS satellites have to take the time speed difference in to account or their location data would be way off.
What's happening with our relationship with logic is that from our human scale it seems an obvious given that logic is binding on everything, and in our day to day lives this is true. But the sample of reality being examined here is extremely small. It's huge to us, but in comparison to reality it barely exists.
Another problem is that we are comparing our intelligence to the only other forms of intelligence ever observed, animals on Earth. And in that limited local scale comparison we look like geniuses, and thus this comparison is very popular. :smile: But when discussing infinite scale ideas like God, that comparison is worthless. If there is any God like thing capable of creating galaxies etc, it's intelligence would be so far beyond our own as to render the concept of intelligence meaningless.
Finally, we've all observed how Christians presume that all of reality is basically about us. We are Gods most important project etc. If one is not a Christian it's extremely easy to doubt such a wild assumption.
But atheists are doing essentially the same thing. They are assuming without proof, and typically without even realizing it, that human logic is binding on all of reality, and thus upon any gods who may be contained within. And like the Christians, their human-centric bias is so strong that it rarely seems to dawn on them that we can't define "all of reality" in even the most basic manner, such as size and shape.
Both Christians and atheists are attempting to reduce all of reality down to human scale so that we can comfort ourselves with the fantasy that we have at least some idea what is going on. This might be compared to little children who have absolute faith in their parents, an assumption born of the fear which arises from a near complete dependence. — Jake
I accept that I could be wrong, but if the law of noncontradiction can be violated, then anything goes, literally, as per the principle of explosion. And that's a really big problem. — S
So through a reduction to absurdity, I can demonstrate that a rejection of a God which can violate the law of noncontradiction is justified. — S
No pretending is necessary, as you could easily figure out for yourself if your ideologist's mind wasn't set on auto-rejection mode. — Jake
"Although I would label myself as an XYZ, in this thread I'd like to spend some time examining any possible weaknesses in the XYZ position." — Jake
Isn't this just what you'd hope theists would do? If a theist did that they would gain credibility with you, right? — Jake
I've just presented a challenge to you in my last few posts above. You're not up to meeting that challenge, so you're running away in fear. And BTW, I don't have the power to pester you. If you don't wish to read my posts, don't read them, no problem. — Jake
If no pretending is necessary, then how am I supposed to act as though I have no dog in the fight when I do have a dog in the fight? Wouldn't that involve a kind of pretence? — S
I've told you that I'm not interested in trying to pick apart my own position singlehandedly. I don't need you or anyone else for that. But you keep pressing for me to do what you want, irrespective of what I've said. — S
Yes, you've challenged me to challenge myself, so that you don't have to. — S
It's justified emotionally. We all have the right to seek comfort where ever we can find it. And we all have the right to reject or ignore inconvenient posters such as myself who put that comfort at risk. — Jake
It could, but isn't required to. Take something easier as example. Let's say we're not all that political really, but we lean left. We can honestly disclose that we lean left, while at the same time pointing to problems within the Democratic Party. Ok, so this gets harder as one addresses issues that are more important to us, but it''s still possible. — Jake
Yes, I'm a reason evangelist, and like all evangelists (we won't mention any other names here) I'm annoying. Not only annoying, but truly illogical too, because none of this is ever going to lead to much of anything, thus I'm mostly wasting my life typing to hear myself talk. But please recall, the glory of this medium is that we can simply scroll right on by annoying people. — Jake
So I don't have to? Have you noticed that I'm investing a lot of time in to challenging you? I'm just not challenging you the way you want to be challenged, that's all. — Jake
It's possible I'm three times your age and am going too fast. Ok, if that's the case, then feel free to scroll right on by me, no offense will be taken. — Jake
But you're not really challenging me, because I already have that challenge. That's there by default. I've already considered my position, and this is where I'm at. Now, you might have noticed that I have yet to abandon it. Perhaps consider why that is? Could it be that, instead of being ideologically or emotionally attached to it, which is how you're spinning it, rather, in my reasoned assessment, I have found it to be better than the alternatives? — S
It's justified through reason. It's more reasonable to go with a theory with far superior explanatory power than a theory with nothing going for it which clashes with everything that reason has lead me to believe. Reason has lead me to believe that this isn't a world where anything goes, full of contradiction, that makes no sense whatsoever. — S
So, to boil all of that down, basically, you say we don't know, we're ignorant, and ignorance can be good. — S
But the question then is obviously what do we know and what don't we know, how much do we or don't we know, what is the extent of our ignorance, what are we ignorant of and what aren't we ignorant of, and of that ignorance, what counts as the good kind and what counts as the bad kind. — S
A claim demands justification, otherwise it can rightly be dismissed. — S
but if the law of noncontradiction can be violated, then anything goes... — S
Religion and spirituality represent very meaningful experiences for people, and in every church there is undoubtedly something different but a part of a whole. This whole is the meaning there, as a social unit, in reaction to the civilized attitudes, dilemmas and norms they have to assimilate. Not always is religion or spirituality harmful. — Blue Lux
A. Crowley — Blue Lux
Your "reasoned assessment" is always aimed outward, at somebody else's process, somebody else's chosen authority, somebody else's conclusions. — Jake
Religion for sure is complicated to talk about so just keep in mind that this is my opinion, so it can be wrong. — Yuuky002
Religion today is really a big deal, not more that before in the medieval time, but i think that if you are a religious representative such as the Papa, you have more power than many countrys around.
Religion can be a way of uniting people all around the world for one only cause, that can variate, for a common god, for a life stile, but can also be for non acceptance, chaos and deaf.
I think that the pure concept of each religion is beautiful, no religion talks about deaf, no religion talks about non acceptance. The big problem is that no religion seems to follow there truth meaning and goal. when you go to the catholic church it fells more like a brainwash than anything else. — Yuuky002
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.