Rattionality seems pretty simple to me. It's basically just a term for thinking both logically and in terms of things that one has a solid basis to believe. — Terrapin Station

I think this may revolve around what you consider to be "a solid basis" for beliefs. Would you care to define what such a "solid base" might be? :chin: [ My problem is that I can't see (what I would call) a solid base for almost any belief.... ]

Is there ever a need to describe something to yourself? I don't think so. We only describe things "to other people" because we only need to describe them to others.

And yet we have many words - and "God" is a good example, but far from the only one - whose definition is general, at best, or downright vague. Why do you think this is? I'm not sure, but I think it is that we want such vague terms, because we find them convenient and useful. Often we want to conduct a discussion in general (i.e. somewhat vague) terms. For such discussions, vague and poorly-defined terms are the order of the day. :smile:

So no, I don't think I could give you a definition of God, as I understand Her, that you would find useful or adequate. Do I feel inadequate about this? No, I'm afraid not. Precision is more common in theory than it is in practice.

You'd believe in God to the extent that you have some concept/understanding of God, and you'd be able to describe the concept/understanding that you believe. — Terrapin Station

You have more confidence in my descriptive abilities than I have! :wink:

Right, the idea of "I believe that P" or "I believe 'in' x," where one cannot describe P or x, is incoherent. — Terrapin Station

Yes, I'd love to agree with this ... but I believe in God, Someone I cannot adequately describe or define.... I'm human; sometimes we're "incoherent". :smile:

That's a different idea, though--it's more agnostic or neutral. I mean "positively" or "actively" believing in something that one can't describe. — Terrapin Station

Interesting question! :up: :smile: Do I think existing-things are constrained by my ability to describe them? No. Do I therefore think that there could be things out there, real things, that I am incapable of describing? Yes. — Pattern-chaser

So, not really "positively or actively believing", more acknowledging possibilities. :up: :smile: As you say, more agnostic/neutral. :up:

So doesn't France exist in the European context, in addition to its own context? — Michael Ossipoff

Isn't that what I said? :chin:

That looks to me like you're simply observing that contexts can be nested. France exists in its own context, and within Europe (...the world, solar system, galaxy, etc :wink: ). I don't think anything can exist outside its own context. :chin: — Pattern-chaser

ETA: I.e. France exists in a European context, but this does not exchange the One and Only Context that France can occupy. [ Irony. :wink: The One and Only Context of anything is a nonsense, I think. ] In this case, France exists simultaneously in its own context, and that of Europe, the world, the Solar System, etc. I don't think anything can exist outside its own context.

If we imagine something truly outside of any context, how do we define that thing? We define and understand things in their context(s), not in isolation. In the case of the universe, where there is no outside, nothing external to it, we might say it is its own context. But that isn't true of anything else, is it? :chin:

Can something - anything - exist outside its own context? I can't parse that, I'm afraid. — Pattern-chaser


Of course it can. The country of France exists in the larger context of Europe, to give a spatio-geographical and cultural and historical example. — Michael Ossipoff

That looks to me like you're simply observing that contexts can be nested. France exists in its own context, and within Europe (...the world, solar system, galaxy, etc :wink: ). I don't think anything can exist outside its own context. :chin:

But I was talking about a claim that something is real &/or existent in some context other than its own — Michael Ossipoff

Can something - anything - exist outside its own context? I can't parse that, I'm afraid.

Sometimes you see philosophers push back against language-first view, and insist that they are interested in X, rather than the meaning of ‘X’. — Welkin Rogue

I think it's a bit difficult to wholly disentangle X from the 'meaning of X', and from the language (labels, etc) we use to describe or define X. I tend to ignore such difficulties unless and until they impinge directly on my ability to consider X, and X-related things. At 63, I don't have all that much time left. :wink:

You believe things exist that you can't describe? — Terrapin Station

Interesting question! :up: :smile: Do I think existing-things are constrained by my ability to describe them? No. Do I therefore think that there could be things out there, real things, that I am incapable of describing? Yes.

Given that God's [non-]existence cannot be proven, it seems unlikely. — Pattern-chaser


But the children's merry-go-round to nowhere nature of the debate can be proven, yes? — Jake

It's so nice to meet an incurable optimist. :wink:

Can this be the end of the God debate? — BrianW

Given that God's [non-]existence cannot be proven, it seems unlikely. :wink:

Ya they tried those false equivalences for decades as well. I have heard it all. — Jeremiah

"False equivalences"? Fair enough. Then you will be able to prove your belief, that God does not exist? :roll:

I'm waiting....

I gave theists decades to prove their case, they never did. — Jeremiah

Of course they didn't! Their beliefs cannot be proven any more than yours can. I'm surprised you didn't/don't know that. :chin:

I also don't think unicorns, faeries, leprechauns, etc... are real. However, no one seems to care about that. — Jeremiah

I care. :smile: :up: I am a little worried about you, though. You are alarmingly willing to dismiss things without evidence. I thought you were a scientist? :chin:

They are all made up and none of them are real — Jeremiah

As you can't justify this opinion, I wonder why you assert it as though it was a proven fact? :chin: Oh, yes. You're human. We often assert the truth of things we can't prove, to make our unjustified and unfounded opinions sound more convincing. That would be it, then. :roll:

I try and be as reasonable as possible. I would be happy for you to highlight something I do you think is beyond reason. — Andrew4Handel

No, I don't think I will. I haven't observed you doing anything unreasonable. I have offered empirical data: humans behave rationally, but we also behave irrationally too, often. I have not offered the reasons why I think this is so, so there is nothing for you to question unless you don't think that humans do behave irrationally. [ I don't believe you could justify such a stance. ]

I think you are engaging in power relations with me here in this argument to cast aspersions on how rational people can be to resign yourself to a position. — Andrew4Handel

I am not casting aspersions, I'm offering an empirical observation, nothing more than that. You stated that

I do think we can aim towards reason. — Andrew4Handel

and I replied

Indeed. But why would/should we? People say these things on philosophy forums, but they don't seem to notice how uncommon reason is in our real-world lives. Yes, there is some reason present for some of the time. But maybe that's as much as we can manage or stomach? — Pattern-chaser

So: why do you think we should "aim towards reason"?

One shouldn't base a belief on the fear of being damned, one should base a belief on the evidence, or on the reason that support the belief. — Sam26

Why not? :chin: The reasons why we believe stuff are many and varied. Why do you think we should believe based only on "evidence" or "reason"? Genuine question. Why? :chin:

I do think we can aim towards reason. — Andrew4Handel

Indeed. But why would/should we? People say these things on philosophy forums, but they don't seem to notice how uncommon reason is in our real-world lives. Yes, there is some reason present for some of the time. But maybe that's as much as we can manage or stomach?

Empirical evidence suggests that we do not - and will never - behave in a consistently reasonable manner. To do so is not characteristic of our human species. You observe that we could aim towards reason, apparently without pausing to wonder whether we could achieve that aim, whether we would want to achieve that aim, and whether we would still be human if we did. :chin:

if religion is wrong and there is no heaven, that I will simply not exist—that all of this was for nothing. — Play-doh

For nothing? Aside from the religious perspective, we can observe that people who have died still existed. They don't disappear without trace when they die. They affect things while they're here, and they leave that legacy behind when they die. All that actually changes is that the dead person no longer creates new effects and events. But the ones they had already created will remain for as long as there are humans, I think.

The religious perspective is more complicated, and so varied, according to all the different beliefs we have. But I see no reason to assert that there is no life after the death of the body, nor that there cannot be such a life. Demonstrating how this might be so is quite another matter.... :wink:

many of us will not be expert, or even modestly capable, in such arenas. — Jake

:smile: :up:

I think the power of society is a collective power of individuals combining their wills. Should this ever be the case or should societies be run on reason alone? — Andrew4Handel

I think a society is a collection of humans, so I expect it to run as though it was comprised of humans, not Vulcans. :wink: I don't think it's useful to wonder how societies should run, if our wonderings yearn for reason and logic, which are (in general) foreign to human beings. Yes, OK, we are capable of reasonable and rational thoughts and behaviours ... once in a while. But we can't and don't keep it up.

I am not advocating an elitist run society but a society where some form of reason dominates debate and policy. — Andrew4Handel

Then your society would not be composed of human beings, but some other life-form?

I've been told to double major; but, am unsure what else pikes my interest enough to entertain anything else than philosophy. — Posty McPostface

Is design a subject you could follow? Or maybe some aspect of art? There's so much concentration on science these days that almost anything else, as a balance to over-sciencing the world, would be worthwhile. Just my two pennyworth.

One classic dichotomy is whether society or the individual is the more powerful force. — Andrew4Handel

Society is. Many are more powerful than one. The moral imperative, because this is so, is for society only to over-rule individuals when it must....

if god exists can somebody answer why he create the universe? — papamuratte

She didn't. Someone else (or no-one at all) did that. :chin:

Are the mind and body are separate substances or elements of the same substance (dualism or materialism)? — Yajur

There are things that exist. Some of them exhibit mental (non-physical?) qualities, and some exhibit physical qualities. Some exhibit both. I would not distinguish between them because they exhibit one or other of these properties. Existence is existence. Attributes are just that, not more.

Just my two pennyworth. :smile:

Anyway, how do you make better friends? — Posty McPostface

Ah, the Eternal Question. :wink: I'm autistic, so this question has been central to my life. Sadly, the answer has not. Making friends is very hard. I look forward to reading how others have managed to find and keep friends.... :up:

But psychologically, the requirement that would make all these things happen is an end to the divisive religion of Me. Humanity cannot survive divorced from the ecosystem, and the failure of thinking that runs from the op through the thread is to assume that our love of technology - our love of our possessions does not need to be extended to the whole environment. The green world is our body, it is our breath, and an iron lung is no solution. — unenlightened

Yes! :up: The things we need to do are many and urgent. Although recycling is a Good Thing, it is very far from enough. We must reduce cycling (if you see what I mean :wink: ) to an absolute minimum. We need to find a way of being content with less. We need to consume less. If we can't moderate what we take from the world, we will never 'save the world'. It's on us; we humans need to stop being the problem, and maybe even start working on the solution(s).

Ask them to put their argument in premise-conclusion form with clear definitions such that not one word is mentioned that is not clearly defined — khaled

That could be difficult, when nearly all English words have more than one dictionary-meaning. :chin:

I don't know why these denialists completely disregard... — Jeremiah

Just apply Occam's Razor — Jeremiah

But Occam's Razor is a rule of thumb, a guideline, a way of guessing. Denialists are looking for something certain. Now I consider this an unreasonable expectation, and so do you, it seems, but you are offering seekers after certainty ... a way of guessing. That isn't what they're looking for.

Descartes proposed an "evil deceiver" that twists his reasoning so that 2+2 might actually be 5 but the evil deceiver keeps changing it to 4 in Descartes's mind every time. If you propose such a being you can't go on to then use logic as any time you try to logically reason anything the evil deceiver is going to make you think incorrectly. If you can't trust 2+2=4 I don't know why you'd trust "But if thinking is going on, something is doing it". Both of them should be true by definition but since the evil deceiver is there, you cannot use reason — khaled

Then you are doomed! :smile: I'm pretty sure Descartes' demon is not as effective as you describe, but there seems little point in pursuing the matter. Oh, and 2 + 2 = 4 only because we create and define number symbols, number theory, and so forth.

Not wise to use those when the big bad devil is trying to twist all of you thinking. WOOOOOOO — khaled

Sorry, you lost me. :confused:

This argument is still coherent even if P0 had been: an objective reality does not exist. There is no reason to assume either of these. — khaled

Actually, many people (myself included) believe that we can justify the existence of Objective Reality via Descartes' cogito. Despite the difficulties with who "I" might be, "I think, therefore I am" seems to demonstrate that *something* has Objective existence; therefore Objective Reality exists, and this something is all or part of it. But you can relax: this is the One and Only Objective Truth that a human can knowingly possess. :up: :smile: — Pattern-chaser

There ARE people that doubt the "therefore" in "therefore I am" and they make a pretty good case doing it. — khaled

I didn't say it was universally agreed. But if thinking is going on, something is doing it, and that *something* has Objective Existence. Therefore, as something exists, there is such a thing as Objective Reality. I don't see a problem with "therefore". So there is reason to assume that Objective Reality exists, at least to those who are convinced. You said there wasn't such a reason.

This argument is still coherent even if P0 had been: an objective reality does not exist. There is no reason to assume either of these. — khaled

Actually, many people (myself included) believe that we can justify the existence of Objective Reality via Descartes' cogito. Despite the difficulties with who "I" might be, "I think, therefore I am" seems to demonstrate that *something* has Objective existence; therefore Objective Reality exists, and this something is all or part of it. But you can relax: this is the One and Only Objective Truth that a human can knowingly possess. :up: :smile:

the eradication of the human race as the solution to save the World is a bit tongue in cheek discourse — ssu

Are any of the proposals posted here easy ones? No. The problems we have are Big Problems. There are no easy fixes. To save the world, we will have to do things we'd prefer not to do. Whether that means controlling our own numbers, or something else. I do not recommend eradicating the human race, but I confess that I don't know what else to do. How to save the world? Will fuel from hydrogen solve all our problems, even if we can implement it quickly? I suspect not. Not without quite a number of other radical changes. What are these changes, the ones that will/could "save the world"?

Nihilism as I define it is just that accepting what you have — khaled

Good. :up: Then accept it and move on. Find things that work for you, even though you know you won't be able to prove them correct. :chin:

↪Pattern-chaser
nihilism is accepting the uncertainty. It has no bearing on how we deal with it as there is no should in nihilism. Nihilism doesn't say: it all doesn't matter so you shouldn't care. It just says: it doesn't seem so far that any of it matters — khaled

My understanding of this nihilistic realism is of throwing our toys out of our pram. :smile: We discover that there is no (Objective) proof of anything, and we are injured and upset. So we say to ourselves that there is no proof, so none of it matters. We throw out the baby, the bathwater and the bath, to misuse the old proverb. :wink:

There are guidelines, rules of thumb, that we can use. They aren't perfect; they don't always work. But they are tried and tested, and they work more often than not. Mostly. :smile: There is no reason to abandon all hope, once we recognise that our world is uncertain. We just need to accept and deal with uncertainty.

Think of it this way: at least you aren't fantasising, as Objectivists do, that there really is certainty, and that we really do have access to it. We don't. We can throw a tantrum (Nihilism) or we can make-believe (Objectivism) or we can accept what we have, and work with it.

Just my two pennyworth. Do with it as you will. :up: :smile:

Egotistical and smug are both easy. Anyone can do them. Even me. Let's try something more challenging, eh? :wink:

You suggested I was asking you and other people generally How to Save the World. Well no, I'm telling you how. — karl stone

OK. There is to be no discussion. So why're you wasting time posting here? You should be out there in the world, implementing your plans. The world is in a parlous state. You'd better get to it! Good luck.