I get the gist of your implementation of 'rational' now and I have a better understanding as to our points of disagreement.
Splendid. Hopefully, the process didn't require some 'leap of faith'?
You have often said statements like: (so and so) "..just hit me for no reason...I didn't do anything" I would be willing to bet?
Your evident misinterpretation of what I actually did write, (as opposed to making statements "like"), indicates you've missed the jest here.
I find it to stringent to be used effectively when applied to human behavior. Under the definition you use, virtually ever choice a human makes would be considered to be irrational, regardless of the outcome chosen. Any choice involving physical senses would certainly qualify as irrational as well as any choice based upon experience (senses because they invoke emotion and experience because it is based on prejudice).
On a day to day basis, most people do combine irrational and rational thinking processes when making choices/formulating decisions. Some folks
rely more upon various irrational foundations than others. I concur that few go about it in a purely logical manner. Having agreed to this extent, the contention that "faith" has an irrational basis is sustained by your quote and previously described reasoning.
Irrational by your definition and a misleading way of putting things.
It isn't misleading since the parameters of the definition of 'irrational' have been demonstrated to apply to "faith". You've already conceded this point, ("Any choice involving physical senses would certainly qualify as irrational as well as any choice based upon experience ..."), by way of your
ancedotal experience of "faith".
You are misleading the reader here in that you are presenting the argument as if people have the choice of removing emotion and experience from their decision making process.
On the contrary, it is you who are presenting a misleading strawman argument since I've stated nothing about "removing emotion and experience" from the decision-making process. What I did present was an example where these factors were taken into account during a reasoning process.
You clean it up a bit by adding that "few go about in a purely logical manner", but you fail to give the reason that such few would be people who are brain damaged ...
That's an absurd implication; the use of logical reasoning isn't possible given brain damage therefore, its usage does not require brain damage. On the other hand, irrationality has often been linked to bran damage by medical professionals.
A more honest way of saying this would be to say that people always combine emotion and experience into their decision making process.
No, the use of the word "always" would be an assertion that this occurs in every instance and that there is conclusive evidence to support such an assertion. What I did state was 'On a day to day basis, most people do combine irrational and rational thinking processes when making choices/formulating decisions.' The alteration you suggested would be a dishonest one, unless you can provide the substantiating evidence to support it.
I don't agree to your position, I only agree that under your contention that such as you said would be true regarding faith and it would be true regarding the position of atheism as well though ...
Your qualifier is nonsensical; atheism employs skeptical reasoning, not irrationality. Your attempts to conflate the two opposing terms under irrationality are illogical.
... so do not try to put words into my mouth without finishing the sentence in the context I would use it.
Again, your qualifier, (" ... it would also be true regarding the position of atheism ..."), doesn't apply to the context. As far as trying to put words in the mouth of another, you've attempted that twice in this post alone so far. A pattern of your previous attempts at this continues to manifest.
Practically the only choices or thought processes that could have a chance to qualify as rational under those terms would be purely mental computations and they as well could not invoke images as the minds eye links emotion unavoidably to imagery.
Not quite. There are several modes of logical reasoning, (inductive, deductive, abduction, inference, etc.), which do not necessitate being restricted to purely mental computations. These methods of reasoning can even take emotions and observed irrationalities into account during the process.
They cannot take emotion or experience or mental imagery into account and hold to the position of not including irrational elements -- under your definition.
Unless you're being intentionally obtuse, you've managed to miss the point once again. Taking observed irrational phenomenon into account has two aspects. One applies to accounting for external phenomenon and the other involved self-awareness of internal phenomenon. In the former instance, someone else's emotions can be taken into account, (or not, as the case may be), without incorporating those emotions themselves into one's own decision-making process. In the latter instance, it is possible to be aware of one's own internal emotions to such a degree as to either be aware of incorporating them or, to intentionally choose to not include them as aspects of a decision-making process. Not only does this _not_ require "brain damage" to accomplish but, such damage would preclude it.
You are justifying (rationalizing) your own tolerance of what sort of irrationality (by your definition) is allowed and this is prejudice.
I said nothing about what "is allowed" and therefore, there was no prejudice involved, (either implicit or, explicit), and no rationalizing. That's the third time so far in this post you've attempted a strawman argument by misinterpreting what I actually wrote.
In fact a belief in atheism would certainly be considered irrational under such a set of rules (although you never said it wasn't so I cannot use this as a 'gotcha', but I could infer it odd to be so critical of a 'faith' based belief system knowing the atheistic one meets the same implied faults). Agnosticism is about the only belief system that could reasonably pass the muster of being 'rational' under the definition of 'rational' you supplied.
Well, no; atheism is a skeptical rejection of beliefs which does not require "faith" or a 'belief in atheism', (as being some sort of belief system itself). Nominally, if atheism were a belief, it would have to reject itself - by definition. Agnosticism, on the other hand, purports a belief that "certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge ... " - while also holding the belief that "there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist." This is why I'm not an agnostic.
-- http://www.answers.com/topic/agnosticism#ixzz1avQ59H77
Atheism is irrational by your definition. It is a rejection without positive proof ...
False. It is a rejection of claims made without those claims having substantiating proof. Your implication is that atheism is required to 'prove a negative assertion', (e.g., 'prove that x does not exist'), by framing it as "a rejection WITHOUT positive proof". Requirement of a negative proof is a logical fallacy. Nothing in my prior statements confers irrationality to atheism.
Notice your indication of "if atheism were a belief".
Since you snipped the context of that comment, I'll just add that atheism isn't a 'belief'; it embodies a lack of belief, by definition.
You try to both take an empty compromising position that is effectively a "failure to state" ...
False. My position regarding the irrationality of "faith" has been elaborately stated.
... and then you indicate your difference to agnosticism indicating that you have fully realized the situation and somehow collected facts enough to disprove agnosticism.
I neither stated nor implied that I've "collected enough facts to disprove agnosticism". I simply stated that I'm not an agnostic, as a follow-on comment to the agnostic premise of a fence-sittingbeleif system, (that they have no evidence, one way or the other - not that I do have such evidence). Under your conditions, everyone would be an agnostic. Since your conditions are illogical, everyone isn't agnostic. By the way, that's the fourth strawman you've tried to promulgate in this post. You're on a roll, man!
I think, though, that you cannot insist to hold your position on a belief in 'faith' being irrational ...
Since I do not insist upon my position being "a belief in faith being irrational", I decline your offer for me to take such an unreasonable position. What I've consistantly argued, using logical reasoning, (rather than "a faith" or "belief"), is that "faith" is an irrational basis for making decisions and further, that such "faith" not only lacks substantiation but, that it actually _requires_ a lack of substantiating evidence.
[/quote]
It doesn't require a lack of substantiating evidence, it merely doesn't require absolute confirmation of evidence and that is a huge difference.
What a load of bovine feces; are you actually suggesting that there's any substantial evidence or, just spliting tiny hairs? The common definition, (as opposed to your selective one), of "faith" includes a lack of supporting evidence for whatever is 'believed' in. A "leap of faith" is therefore jumping to a conclusion for which there is a lack of supporting evidence.
You are rationalizing by degree, trying to find the worst case scenario and presenting it as the minimum condition to qualify ...
Your accusation is false because the worst case wasn't whaat was presented, (excepting that your biased view of it as the worst case is noted); the minimum requirement of "faith" was presented - not needing evidence to 'believe'. This minimum has been previously presented by others holding to irrational faith in various comments to this thread, (and others). So, you're objecting to other xtians not requiring evidence to have 'faith' as well as those who aren't xtian?
Atheism isn't skeptical inquiry. Skeptical inquiry doesn't reject without confirmation ...
Atheism rejects unsubstantiated claims and often includes the skeptical inquiry that those making such religious claims support them. Since those making such unsupported claims remain unable to substantiate them, atheism is a statement of a lack of belief, (not a confirmation of proving a negative condition).
... yet your skeptical inquiry rejects unless it is given absolute proof. Such a contrasting position to the claim I find quite 'irrational'.
It isn't irrational to require the burden of proof from those who are making the claim, (that would be those claiming that a 'belief' in some
I cannot see where you can reduce the amount of logic required by your definition to allow for atheism to fit without also allowing for 'faith' or without appearing to be 'rationalizing' your own definition of 'rational' and that is something you say disqualifies as being 'rational'. So where does that leave us?
No reduction in logic is necessary to allow for atheism, (a skeptical/critical process, rather than a 'belief' itself which requires 'faith' to sustain it). I have no problem with examining any assertion/contention, (including atheism, as commonly defined), using logical reasoning methods. Until some evidence, (a line of reasoning would do), is presented that atheism is an irrational basis itself, I cannot concur with an unsupported opinion that it is. That either leaves us arguing about atheism in order to take the heat off of "faith" as an irrational basis or, starting a new thread with that subject.
I realize the inherent vested interest held by those who profess "faith" would cause discomfort in conceding that "faith", (in general), cannot be accurately asserted to be a rational basis for choice, (since that would mean tacitly admitting that it is an irrational basis). You see, I can account for illogical emotions, (especially since I've got 'em too), in concluding this.
You cannot hold the position that "no reduction in logic is necessary" without also including "..because we are not considering the question in the first place". But you cannot include that extension and also have taken a position on what entails a 'belief'.
I have considered that the question 'faith' as an irrational basis for an equally irrational 'belief' without any "reduction in logic." Perhaps you haven't been paying attention within the constrictions of your 'beliefs'?
You have presented all the evidence that atheism is irrational.
Now you're simply lying; I presented no such evidence, (regardless of your irrational misinterpretations of what I actually did state).
Your deliberate and insulting posts in any thread you can find that relates to faith and especially Christianity shows your prejudice and prejudice immediately rejects a position as rational.
No doubt a xtian would find such things as pointing out that their religion is directly responsible for millions of deaths, an entire "dark age" and a massive amount of cultural theft/suppression & absorbtion of other 'religions' as "insulting." Too bad; such despicable actions under the banner of religion, (including xtianity), is insulting to me. Doubtless this doesn't matter to you either, as an adherent to a belief system which perpetrated such crimes against humanity.
You have poisoned your own well.
On the contrary, xtianity beat me to their own well centuries ago.
You cannot dismiss emotion so readily either. It is likely the most important part of being human and allows us to extend within and beyond the outlines of the drawing. Emotion supplies relevance and without it all things are equally valuable and thus by extension equally worthless.
I didn't "dismiss" it; I expressly stated it could be accounted for. Accounting for something is the opposite of dismissing or, disregarding it. It was further stated that I have emotions, (rather than being an AI program sent to vex you). Although I suppose I could question your contention that "emotion supplies relevance ..." etc., though I somehow doubt that what you'd supply as 'evidence' would be conclusive, (that's skepticism, not a dismissal in advance).
Community Forum
Topic: Faith (Read 53677 times)
April 15, 2009, 07:34:39 pm
