Which religion would that be? What are the important truths? — Athena
On the other hand, there is a liberal education and learning the higher-order thinking skills. That education leads to science AND good moral judgment. — Athena
Personally, I think we have two extremely important truths right now and that religion is a very serious problem right now because too many people are living a fantasy, and their fantasy could destroy life on the only planet we have. — Athena
Truth, stop filling the air with carbon and destroying the planet. — Athena
I just learned that there is such a thing as a Logotherapist. Maybe that would be a job opportunity for someone philosophically inclined. I don't know anything about its efficacy, but its emphasis on finding meaning in life, sounds like a novel approach to depression and ennui. :smile:I did wish to become an art therapist or a psychotherapist. However, there are very few jobs in this field. — Jack Cummins
I would say that the decision to drop the bomb was a philosophical choice. It's a decision which required going beyond a direct application of scientific principles, and also beyond the direct application of religious principles. So the decision relies on some further intuition. Notice that the vast majority of any seemingly important decisions which we make on a day to day basis are like this. — Metaphysician Undercover
Well I don't really agree, because philosophy addresses issues which fall out of the reach of formal logic.
So what it "falls back on" is an odd sort of reasoning, like abductive, which is better described as intuition rather than structured logic. — Metaphysician Undercover
We commonly make decisions to do things which would have huge import if we went another way, (like not to kill the person I am mad at for example) but we are already so culturally ingrained to recognize what we are doing as correct, through either the principles of religion, or science, that we don't even think about, or consider any alternatives. — Metaphysician Undercover
An odd sort of reasoning it might be but it’s still reasoning and you can’t go against what are logical inferences otherwise it’s unreasonable to claim so. — Brett
The fact that philosophy and science might have “proved” God doesn’t exist doesn’t make it so. — Brett
Here you actually demonstrate an instance of going against logic, being illogical or irrational. — Metaphysician Undercover
If you believe that philosophy and science have proven that God does not exist, then you'd be going against logical inferences to still believe in God. — Metaphysician Undercover
But I’m saying though they might have proved that God doesn’t exist doesn’t make it so for me, so I would not be part of your thoughts on going against logic. — Brett
No I don’t accept their logic because I don’t believe they proved God did not exist. I’m saying it’s an assumption on their part that they’ve proven this. — Brett
But you still don’t think I’m correct in thinking that philosophy is structured on reason and that to go off the rails is irrational and therefore to be discarded as being of no use except to put us back on track? — Brett
Therefore that person who uses some idiosyncratic form of abduction, who appears to be "off the rails", might really be the one required to put us back on track. — Metaphysician Undercover
Furthermore, it is possible that the reason why the person's conclusions are inconsistent with conventional conclusions is that the conventional conclusions are actually "off the rails". — Metaphysician Undercover
I imagine it’s possible with someone with schizophrenia to apply their reason to their problems, and it would make sense to them, one step leading logically to the next, but it’s based on irrationality, so it could no longer be called reason. — Brett
I as trying to think of some way of demonstrating how religion, philosophy and science are equal to each other in addressing the world. — Brett
I don't think we can say that they are equal. — Metaphysician Undercover
You cannot judge it as irrational relative to the conventional logic, because the conventional logic might really be the one that's off the rails. Therefore we must assume something else, God's logic or something like that, and say that it could be judged relative to God's logic, which would validate the conclusion that the person's logic might be irrational. — Metaphysician Undercover
A couple of posts above, you brought in the term schizophrenia,for no apparent reason in the middle of an argument about irrationality. It just seemed a bit out of context and incongruous. There might be people on this forum who have been given this diagnosis. I am not implying that you do not understand the meaning of the term, but I still want to emphasise that the word, schizophrenia, should not be misused, in a colloquial sense, to imply a split personality. — Jack Cummins
I am sorry if you think that I misinterpreted you. — Jack Cummins
so schizophrenia has no bearing on the matter and did not need to be mentioned at all. — Jack Cummins
The reason I am getting a bit heated over the matter is because I have worked with people diagnosed with this mental health problem and see it as a sensitive issue. — Jack Cummins
do you not think that it is fair to say that we all have splits in reason and lack of it? — Jack Cummins
If someone believed in the existence of God then they had a Truth to their life. Otherwise why would you believe it? If and when someone begins to doubt the existence of God and eventually repudiates that existence with what do they replace that Truth they had? — Brett
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.