1) I think it is a preference to choose to lose freedom. It's not my preference, though in smaller ways and certain situations we all allow others to control us. The doctor's office. In a terrorist attack. In the military. In a corporation as an employee. So there is a wide spectrum and small to larger compromises. But even in those more radical versions where one ends up like a slave: in certain but not all cults, as an illegal immigrant working in sweatshop type conditions (and often living on the work premises), we are talking about people making choices based on values. So working from their values (and goals) they may be perfectly rational, but doing something neither you or I would want to do - and perhaps also you and are are lucky enough not to think the latter scenario is actually better than freer options that do not provide food for our families because we are better off. 2) I choose non-rationality rationally all the time. There are all sorts of decisions I make where I do not analyze in the ways generally associated with reason and logic. Now perhaps my implicit knowledge has been arrived at through some unconscious rationality, but I have to black box that. These can be decisions that have to be made quickly. They can be decisions where a vast array of factors are present and my gut reactions have been good (or in any case better than thinking it out verbally). There's a reason we evolved a mixed set of methods to arrive at decisions. Then there is the whole gut decisions on issues I simply cannot reason about, right now anyway. Is this a simulation and does that make a difference and other apriori type stuff. There's a vast array of social stuff that I use intuition for, though I often reflect later and this may or may not hone my intuition. Now this all may be a tangent, but honestly I think people are often reluctant to acknowledge how mixed their epistemologies are. How mixed the ways they arrive at decisions are. Irrational is pejorative, so I use non-rational for those processes that are not linear verbal thinking with the goal of being logical, parismonious etc.Is it rational to choose irrationality intentionally? — David Mo
Like "my language", what does that mean?... my religion is more pick and shovel. — unenlightened
think it is a preference to choose to lose freedom. — Coben
Faith is the typical starting point for all Science, “believe it or not”. All Science starts with assumption and hypothesis, — PseudoB
“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified” (Gal. 2:16). — Nikolas
“Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” — Nikolas
I'm not being critical but obviously you are unaware of the difference between faith IN Christ and the Faith OF Christ. Yet people attack Christianity and faith unaware of this essential distinction. — Nikolas
Truly I tell you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, — Nikolas
In some way they are doing this, sure. I am saying this in response to what I thought was your assertion that people never do this. They do. People prefer not to have to make choices. They vary in the degree of how much they avoid this and how they avoid this. They vary wildly in this. But people give away power all the time in a diverse set of ways. I am not saying this is right or good or bad or wrong. I am saying people do this. How lovely to not have to figure out WHICH expert is right for example. For example. a family member was sick. She went the normal medicine route at first but after a bit, given their treatment options and prognosis, she went alternative. Most people will not do this. Now she chose an alternative treatment with scientific support and she survived - using the regular doctors to moniter the changes which they did not understand. This took extreme bravery on her part. She decided to trust her abililty to determine which expert to believe. Most people will choose whatever the dominant expert is. Most people do not want to put themselves in a position to be actively responsible: this can be anything from clothes, to how one is supposed to view the opposite sex in one's subculture, to parenting, to health, issues where one can choose between experts or follow the experts of one's team and not think about it much exept to justify after the fact why the choice is the right one.That is impossible. The man who chooses to submit to the will of another is doing so freely and weighing the advantages of doing so. — David Mo
Like "my language", what does that mean? — 180 Proof
Like trusting ... obeying ... submitting ... — 180 Proof
No scientist says that a hypothesis is true before it is tested.
To challenge core agreements takes faith in the unseen. — PseudoB
If it applies “here”, it should apply “there”, and due to that very agreement, we apply our will, and move to test our predictions. — PseudoB
We were not talking about beliefs in everyday life, but whether science is supported by some kind of faith.
I just don't understand how the laws of force and momentum can ever allow for something concrete, when all they seem to offer is a watery perception that changes from person to person? — PseudoB
For two or more bodies in an isolated system acting upon each other, their total momentum remains constant unless an external force is applied. Therefore, momentum can neither be created nor destroyed.
It seems to me that you are a bit solipsistic. I mean you carry your own closed line of thought.Now to bring this back to faith, the reason certain writings are so "undefined", is because there is only One Who is meant to decide the manifestation of those things, — PseudoB
But a scientific basis for a philosophical conversation can only go as far as the "sphere" allows. I am coming from outside that sphere — PseudoB
The laws of social psychology - if they exist - are not like the laws of physics. You call the "law of momentum" a simple empirical generalisation : many people are strongly influenced by some (which?) social agents. This is not very precise but we can take it as a starting point. I agree. The churches are a good example. Many people are indoctrinated by them and lose their ability to think for themselves. The priest says "Kill!" and they kill. "Hate X!" and they hate X. MIchel Foucault wrote a very good book on the techniques of indoctrination by confession in the Catholic Church. But the scenes of mass hysteria in other Christian meetings or the killers of Allah are other examples among many others.It's all based on the laws of momentum, applied to things non-physical, being thoughts and agreements with those thoughts. — PseudoB
So what if Jesus said something that totally dissolves a brain altogether?? — PseudoB
So what is faith?? — PseudoB
For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. (1 Cor 1:21)
If you wanna destroy "science" with me, I'm happy to entertain the notion. — PseudoB
Faith is not Belief — PseudoB
Do you see a problem here? — PseudoB
Faith is to get us to a belief that changes things. — PseudoB
— Joaquin
In no court would an anonymous and contradictory text written hundreds of years ago (it is not very well known when) be admitted as testimony, telling fantastic stories with the obvious purpose of lifting up to the heavens someone we do not know for sure existed.But are testimonies not an acceptable means of evidence in court? — Joaquin
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.