What Should Be Discussed on These Forums?

[Hurkyl]

But irrational has no place in science or really in philosophy.

Science is based upon a specific irrational methodology: experiment. And any sort of reasoned discourse must be based upon some sort of first principles which cannot be ratonally justified.

There is nothing about the scientific method that requires it to be applied only to "rational" things, nor to be held as the pinnacle of truth.

An example of the former is training a neural net to classify things. An example of the latter is gathering empirical data to support a mathematical conjecture.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Science is based upon a specific irrational methodology: experiment. And any sort of reasoned discourse must be based upon some sort of first principles which cannot be ratonally justified.

There is nothing about the scientific method that requires it to be applied only to "rational" things, nor to be held as the pinnacle of truth.

An example of the former is training a neural net to classify things. An example of the latter is gathering empirical data to support a mathematical conjecture.

Every principle put forth as a part of science is subject to constant testing both for internal coherence (lack of self contradiction) and for agreement or lack thereof in regard to experiment and observation. No principle is ever more than provisionally accepted and even the most cherished of them is only as good as the latest failure to falsify it.

Show me a religion that works on that principle.

 

[Hurkyl]

Show me a religion that works on that principle.

Nobody was arguing that religion is strictly empirical, so I don't understand why you would say this.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Nobody was arguing that religion is strictly empirical, so I don't understand why you would say this.

I said it to respond to this:

Science is based upon a specific irrational methodology: experiment

You can call the experimental method irrational, but I don't have to accept your terminology which I find strained. Comparison of scientific standards of acceptance of basic principles with religious ones was intendd to make that point.

 

[Hurkyl]

You can call the experimental method irrational, but I don't have to accept your terminology which I find strained.

Surely you agree that science is not pure reason? You admit it in post #32. The position that experiment is a source of knowledge is, strictly speaking, an irrational one.

Irrational is not necessarily "crazy" you know.

I had previously been avoiding the term due to its negative connotations. I had assumed that, in post #28, you established that we can safely use "irrational" in its literal sense: something not rational. Was I wrong?

Comparison of scientific standards of acceptance of basic principles with religious ones was intendd to make that point.

How, pray tell?

Science is not religion
Religion is not rational
---------------------
Science is rational

is a fallacious argument.

 

[Exitsign]

In my opinion, it isn't very nice to try and take a happy life from someone who wants to believe in their religion; by telling them otherwise. But this is a discussion forum and they should prepare themselves to hear it when they come here.
Anyways.
There IS a part of the brain that has been found to.. haha well its called The "God" Spot.
I'm not going to explain on this thread but for those who want to read,
http://atheistempire.com/reference/brain/main.html

 

[arildno]

"The position that experiment is a source of knowledge is, strictly speaking, an irrational one."

No, it is not, neither loosely speaking or strictly.

If you want to know what happens IF you make an experiment, an eminently rational decision is to PERFORM that very experiment.

 

[Hurkyl]

And if you're an ancient Greek seeking Apollo's guidance, an eminently rational thing to do is consult the Oracle at Delphi.

 

[arildno]

And if you're an ancient Greek seeking Apollo's guidance, an eminently rational thing to do is consult the Oracle at Delphi.

If you say so..

 

[Pythagorean]

the point is that an individual's reasoning skills has little to do with whether he's a religious or a scientist. All four cases happen. And Evangelists are religious salesmen, they're trying to be persuasive, they're not informative; There's persuasive scientists too. They get jobs in politics as 'advisors', and they're not rational, they're there to persuade the public.

I'll repeat, I'm not religious, and I'm a scientific student, and not once I have used rational thought in the light you two are putting it. For me, 'rational' means listening to my teachers and proving things with math. We build these nice little models with pictures and diagrams and use math and gemoetry and a littl ehand waving. Sometimes they're consistant with reality, sometimes they're not, so we fudge things, we make mathematicians cringe to fit our model better.

I haven't really proven a lot of this to myself in the real world with actual analytical measurements and experiments. I just kind of take the "Giants" word for it (the giants on whose shoulders I ride).

A good Religious leader does the same exact thing, but their subject is morality and personality and character and social interactin, rather than mass and length and physical interactions. A good religious leader has actually been around the block and knows that how you treat people and how you act in your society has consequences and rewards. They use their spiritual teaching practically.

This is an argument about quality really, which applies to both realms.

A religious person with crappy reasoning skills flies loose at the hinges and doesn't use any practical applicatins, they always revert to THE WORD IS ALL, YOU'RE GOING TO HELL (like... my mother for instance)

a scientist with crappy reasoning skills isn't much different. They make broad generalizations, pretty much blindly accept everything they were taught as TRUTH (i.e. they won't accept light could be both a wave and a particle, it can only be one or the other.

 

[Hurkyl]

If you say so..

I do. Why would you think otherwise? I'm going to harp on this because it's getting close to the point I was originally trying to make. (and because I think it's important on its own merit too)

For me, 'rational' means listening to my teachers and proving things with math.

That's the sort of picture I had as well -- and the reading I've done while posting this thread supports it. Reasoning is the act of producing "knowledge" through something resembling logical deduction.

In its strictest form (i.e. "pure reason"), all you have is axioms and proofs -- nothing else, not even experiment or religion, is a source of knowledge. I don't think anyone participating here subscribes to such a strict form of rationalism, which is one reason why I find the responses I've seen somewhat perplexing.

But reason can be applied to any set of premises, whether you got them from pure reason, empirical observation, religous dogma, or anything else. And this is a point I think is too often overlooked.

Going back to my ancient Greek example, we are looking at the thought processes of someone who believes in Apollo, and believes that he speaks through Oracle at Delphi. AFAIK, nobody here agrees with those beliefs, but that is not grounds for anyone to call him irrational when he deduces that consulting the Oracle is a way in which he might get guidance from Apollo.

 

[arildno]

If you had said "logical" rather than "rational", I would certainly agree with you on all points.

 

[Hurkyl]

If you had said "logical" rather than "rational", I would certainly agree with you on all points.

So for which points do you think the distinction matters?

Do we at least agree on:

"I saw an interference pattern" is not rational. (it's raw sensory experience)

"I saw an interference pattern, so I'm more inclined to believe in QM" is rational. (a conclusion is inferred from said raw sensory experience)

 

[arildno]

The distinction comes in that, essentially, a rational approach endeavours to get TRUE premises in order to get necessarily true conclusions through logically valid arguments.

The endeavour to get those true premises is NOT part of logic. That is an alogical element of rationality.

It goes without saying then, that most often, the conclusions of a rational approach, say science, only holds provisionally, i.e, as long as we have no reason/evidence to believe that our premises are untrue.

So I agree to that "seeing an interference pattern" is not an element of logic, but it certainly should be a premise in any rational deliberation over the nature of light.

 

[Pythagorean]

The distinction comes in that, essentially, a rational approach endeavours to get TRUE premises in order to get necessarily true conclusions through logically valid arguments.

The endeavour to get those true premises is NOT part of logic. That is an alogical element of rationality.

It goes without saying then, that most often, the conclusions of a rational approach, say science, only holds provisionally, i.e, as long as we have no reason/evidence to believe that our premises are untrue.

So I agree to that "seeing an interference pattern" is not an element of logic, but it certainly should be a premise in any rational deliberation over the nature of light.

so when a taoist says "I see the the way the river flows", it is not rational. But whe says "I see the the way the river flows because I am starting to understand the teachings of yin and yang" then you certainly wouldn't argue with him...

However, in any 'rational deliberation' over the yin and yang (the ebb and flow) of the river, seeing how the river flows must be a premise.

While a taoist may not be expected to see an interference pattern, he'd probably be very willing to see it, and appreciate your interpretation of it, and perhaps even cultivate it into the way he sees the river flow.

But judging by your arguments, you wouldn't ever be willing to even try and see the river, because you don't believe in it. You have a preconcieved idea of what a river is, and if a taoist pointed it out in the room, you'd probably roll your eyes and go back to your playing with your diffracting lenses and molesting the lensmakers equation.

What about creator/god based religions? There's an obvious controversy here. Corrupt religious leaders (often political) are known to use creators/gods as devices to control people. In most of these cases, the government controls economy (unless you were a noble, you really have no idea what it was like if you live in a capitalist society): they feed the people, shelter them, give them work or a roof, and the people really have no choice but to believe in them. Devotion to the 'cause' has kept them alive. Generations later, when it's time to fight for the cause that keeps them alive, they do so unquestionably.

Does this prove religion is wrong and only causes negative impact? Does it prove there's no creator or god?

I personally believe that creationists are wrong, and the Earth is ancient. Does that mean all religions are wrong?

There's some who don't personify god. The idea could be abstract as the 'glue that holds us together' or the 'collective conscience' of humanity (or the universe).

Irrational people are just irrational, regardless of their religious or scientific background. Heck, You and me and everyone on this forum/planet/universe have probably all experienced fits of our own irrationality sometime in our lives.

I'm not saying religious texts should be in scientific journals. They're not the same! But the stuborness and genius of people transcends both fields.

(OMG! i haven't completely looked over and edited this post, I'm about to miss my show! OMG!)

 

[selfAdjoint]

I think all these arguments to the effect that if I act based on some internal mind state that is "true for me" then I am acting rationally are silly. If I truly believe I can fly, and jump out the window of a tall building, is that rational?

 

[Pythagorean]

I think all these arguments to the effect that if I act based on some internal mind state that is "true for me" then I am acting rationally are silly. If I truly believe I can fly, and jump out the window of a tall building, is that rational?

No, because you'd be wrong. You're talking about something testable. In fact, I've never heard of someone so misled that they think they can fly, and jump to their death (it may have happened, but not often enough for me to hear about it). Why? Because that's ridiculous! Why would you even use that in an argument?

What I'm talking about is not the fact, but the analogies used to explain the fact. Anybody perceptive enough (whether scientist or religious) can see the facts and understand their impact (given proper exposure, of course). It's the unprovable arguments that I usually hear scientist and religious people bickering about.

Sure, there might be a green, invisible elephant orbitting the sun. I don't really care as long as it's not producing a direct, measureable affect. Or as long as the direct measurable effect can be explained in some other way, that's good enough too. I'm more interested in playing with the effect, while silly scientists and relgious peoples are bickering over what's really going on behind the scenes.

 

[arildno]

But, since religious views are untestable, which means that a religious deliberation cannot be combined by the most common way of ascertaining the truth of a proposition about the world, a religious deliberation can only be regarded as a rational procedure insofar as it is pointed out another, equally valid method of determining the truth of an existential proposition that IS usable in your religious reflections.

As far as I know, no such alternative truth-ascertaining method has ever been pointed out by believers in religion or those trying to defend religion as something rational.

By all means, try to do so.

 

[arildno]

You have a preconcieved idea of what a river is,

No, I don't. I have a post-conceived idea, based on the rivers I have seen.Give me another river, and my idea of it might change.

 

[selfAdjoint]

No, because you'd be wrong. You're talking about something testable. In fact, I've never heard of someone so misled that they think they can fly, and jump to their death (it may have happened, but not often enough for me to hear about it). Why? Because that's ridiculous! Why would you even use that in an argument?

Who cares if you have heard of it or believe it? It's a case of acting on a belief, just like that Greek who believed in oracles and went to one. Lots of people believe nut things and act on them to their own damage; consider fad diets. For that matter the ancient Greek opinion on oracles was that you could never trust them. They would tell you the truth about the future, but in so gnomic or disguised form that you were (in all the stories) sure to misunderstand.

If you say it's OK to believe in things that aren't testable, i.e. things that have no observable consequences, then in my opinion you're talking about an epiphenomenon. And epiphenomena aren't worth debating.

 

[Pythagorean]

ngs that aren't testable, i.e. things that have no observable consequences, then in my opinion you're talking about an epiphenomenon. And epiphenomena aren't worth debating.

I don't know the specific definition of the terms, but yes, this is one of my subpoints (what you've defined), my main point being that the points that relgious people make that ARE testable (morality and social behavior) aren't always wrong. You provided negative examples that do exist, sure... but:

Lao Tsu was logical/rational about war, using taoist principals.
Bruce Lee was logical/rational about maximizing the abilities (both physical and mental) of the individual. He used both taoist principals and 'laws' of physics.

These are both practical pursuits, that have a definite impact on physical reality.

Both of these taoists may have creative analogies to explain what happens behind the scenese, but they usually spare you the details. Because, as you said, they aren't worth debating. Some people (like me) are more pluralist and wouldn't mind hearing their creative analogies, as it would help to remember the factual parts.

Yet, still ignorant scientists and irrational religious people both debate about these silly things to no end. A pseudodebate. This doesn't mean that all religious people (and all religion) is irrational. It means the two involved in the debate are irrational.

No, I don't. I have a post-conceived idea, based on the rivers I have seen.Give me another river, and my idea of it might change.

You're right, pardon my lack of vocabulary. The river here would be a metaphor or analogue of how things work from a human experience point of view. Both physically, and socially, (and possibly spirituatally, which is the unprovable part) the idea of yin and yang, applied to the river is to know when to fight the river and when to go with it by reading the 'energy' patterns.

'energy' patterns may be an elusive term, but it still has definitions in reality. The more obvious (and probably even acceptable to you) is physical energy. Here it applies to martial arts more than anything, and IT WORKS. If someone's putting his momentum towards you, move out of the way and push him or trip him, adding more velocity (or torque in the case of tripping) to his momentum, saving yourself energy and using up his insetead.

'energy' patterns could also be the intesity of a social situation, i.e. when someone's screaming (which even physically, is an intense expenditure of energy) and throwing a fit about what they want, it's the time to go with the river, flow with it, don't waste your energy fighting them. Once they ware themselves out (i.e. the river's current slows) you have a prime oppurtunity to fight the river. (unless of course, they turn it into a combat situation in which case you refer to the above paragraph)


You can apply this method further, to just about any social realm or your own studying techniques, or tons of other places.

These are good lessons for people who are only yin or only yang, to learn when it's appropriate for both.

 

[arildno]

the points that relgious people make that ARE testable (morality and social behavior) aren't always wrong."

Please take into account that first and foremost, EVERY religion posits the EXISTENCE of some thing, whether that is called "God" or "mana" or whatever.
These are the points I have objected to as being rational.
Furthermore, there is a non-necessary connection between these points and those salient in morality&social issues, so yes, I agreee that "inspired" morality MAY be good (even morally rational!), but don't bet on that..

 

[selfAdjoint]

I don't know the specific definition of the terms, but yes, this is one of my subpoints (what you've defined), my main point being that the points that relgious people make that ARE testable (morality and social behavior) aren't always wrong.

Not so. The link, having a religion -> behaving morally is a weak one. Many people who are great church goers are crumb bums and many atheists are upright. This being so, we cannot conclude that if a person truly believe in Taoism he will be ethical, there is no evidence of which people truly believe and which don't, and the behavior is not an adequate test.

That a faith teaches morality says nothing either, many many other agencies teach morality.

 

[Pythagorean]

This being so, we cannot conclude that if a person truly believe in Taoism he will be ethical, there is no evidence of which people truly believe and which don't, and the behavior is not an adequate test.

That a faith teaches morality says nothing either, many many other agencies teach morality.

I never claimed that having a religion meant you were ethical! In fact, I even used Lao Tsu as an example and how he was RATIONAL about war, which could be considered highly unethical. In fact, in the case of Taosim, ethics isn't necissarily part of the practice.

My overall point has always been that just because someone is a scientist it doesn't meant they're logical and/or rational, and that religious people can be rational and/or logical.

I'm guessing that when I say religious person, you think something very specific and extreme like a christian evangelist condemning the sinners to a lifetime of donations to his three story church as a form of repent. Or some weak pawn, obeying the church blindly for his own salvation.

While these images may make up a majority of modern man's exposure to religion (through the tv and intense forum arguments), they're not the case for the vast majority of diverse religions spread over the thousands of cultures inhabiting Earth.

 

[arildno]

Again, you have come up with just weak, sputtering defenses of religion as something rational.
Nothing of what you have written contain valid arguments in favour of that:

Rather, your argumentative strategy has been:
1. Religious people feel that their beliefs are true, HENCE religion is rational.
2. Some religious people are behaving morally, HENCE religion is rational.
3. Some religious people are able to think rationally about maths and politics and so on, HENCE religion is rational.

If you haven't got anything stronger to come up with, I suggest you admit defeat .

I have declined to comment most of your wholly unsupported insinuations of what I supposedly mean (which, admittedly, has made up quite a bulk in your previous posts).

 

[Hurkyl]

Rather, your argumentative strategy has been:
1. Religious people feel that their beliefs are true, HENCE religion is rational.

No. It's:

Religous people feel their beliefs are true. Hence, reasoning from those beliefs is a rational act.

(at least, that's the point I am trying to make here)

An empiricist and a religous person have different sources for the things they believe are true (experiment and dogma, respectively), but the source of "truth" is irrelevant for the purposes of reasoning with it.


And, going way back to the point I was originally trying to make, there isn't an incompatability between empiricism and religion. Believing in both just means you have two sources of truth, rather than just one. And if you're further a rationalist -- believe that reason is a source of truth -- then you have three sources of truth: experiment, dogma, and reason.

 

[arildno]

No, reasoning from those beliefs may well be compatible with LOGIC. That doesn't make those beliefs rational.

 

[Hurkyl]

That doesn't make those beliefs rational.

Nobody said they were.

 

[arildno]

Yes, you have said that believing in religion is a rational thing.

 

[Hurkyl]

Are we even reading the same thread?

Here's a possible example of what I mean:

(not rational)[/color] I believe the bible is true, and I believe that our observations tell us something about the universe.

(rational)[/color] And from these, I infer that the book of genesis contains a metaphorical account of how God created the universe.