Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 133

Thread: Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

  1. #101
    Gigantus's Avatar Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea
    Moderator Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Goa - India
    Posts
    45,998
    Blog Entries
    23

    Default Re: Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Not really.
    That's lazy. If he (any deity) didn't exist then belief wouldn't exist nor would supernatural events, right?



  2. #102

    Default Re: Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

    Quote Originally Posted by Sar1n View Post
    Which god? Yahweh, Allah, Odin, Flying Spaghetti Monster, or maybe something totally different? Existence of any god is not, despite many futile attempts to the contrary, a logical conclusion. People often believe in things that are not true, I'm sure everyone remembers an instance when (s)he was proven wrong about something...

    Your statement makes honestly no sense.
    People also often believe in things which are true - such as God. You are free to believe that everything came from nothing for no reason and claim it as a "logical conclusion".

    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantus View Post
    That's lazy. If he (any deity) didn't exist then belief wouldn't exist nor would supernatural events, right?
    If He didn't exist then there would be no existence at all.

  3. #103

    Default Re: Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    People also often believe in things which are true - such as God. You are free to believe that everything came from nothing for no reason and claim it as a "logical conclusion".

    If He didn't exist then there would be no existence at all.
    You can believe anything...but if you want it to matter outside of your head, you better prove it.

    Why is there something instead of nothing? That's a question that is, as of yet, out of scope of science. It might not stay that way-science tends to expand its scope, and you cannot predict what it will be able to prove no better than Plato could predict geostationary satellites. Such questions, having not yet established a logical order and empirical connection, have by default infinite number of possible answers, as there is nothing limiting the possibilities.

  4. #104
    Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    4,215

    Default Re: Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

    If God didn't exist, atheists would have to invent him.

  5. #105

    Default Re: Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

    Quote Originally Posted by Prodromos View Post
    If God didn't exist, atheists would have to invent him.
    That's what actually happened.

    After all, if you have no concept of god, you are atheist...

  6. #106
    Gigantus's Avatar Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea
    Moderator Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Goa - India
    Posts
    45,998
    Blog Entries
    23

    Default Re: Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    If He didn't exist then there would be no existence at all.
    Ergo he has to exist, isn't it? Unless we are figments of our own imagination, that is.

    I am aware that faith does not require rational thought, it's probably it's greatest nemesis as your self defeating arguments suggest - but then I spoke about belief, something that I think has a residue of rationality as it is born out of the desire to get answers. Faith is acceptance without questioning, fine by me btw, I just don't subscribe to it, but then I am no good at blindly following orders either.

    Anyone else having an actual opinion on what I surmised?



  7. #107

    Default Re: Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantus View Post
    Ergo he has to exist, isn't it? Unless we are figments of our own imagination, that is.
    I did not dispute that God has to exist: I disputed that the wording "God has to exist" was a "better fit" than "God exists" for the point I was making.

    I am aware that faith does not require rational thought, it's probably it's greatest nemesis as your self defeating arguments suggest - but then I spoke about belief, something that I think has a residue of rationality as it is born out of the desire to get answers. Faith is acceptance without questioning, fine by me btw, I just don't subscribe to it, but then I am no good at blindly following orders either.

    Anyone else having an actual opinion on what I surmised?
    1. Assuming that humans believe in God because God exists is not irrational.

    2. Faith is relevant with respect to theism, not deism. There is nothing inherently less rational about a prime mover explanation than say, an infinite regress theory.

  8. #108

    Default Re: Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

    Quote Originally Posted by Sar1n View Post
    You can believe anything...but if you want it to matter outside of your head, you better prove it.
    The only standard of proof you are willing to accept rules out the possibility of God a priori since it deals exclusively with material entities.

  9. #109
    chriscase's Avatar Princess Thunderballs
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,338

    Default Re: Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

    I've decided that the real world I'm living in is The Wheel of Time. Any reason why I'm wrong or is that just as valid a point of view as any other?

    @Gig - I'm still thinking about what you posted. I'll reply once I've thought it through a bit more.
    Last edited by chriscase; May 15, 2019 at 12:43 PM.

  10. #110
    Gigantus's Avatar Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea
    Moderator Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Goa - India
    Posts
    45,998
    Blog Entries
    23

    Default Re: Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Assuming that humans believe in God because God exists is not irrational.
    Assumptions are in the majority rational as they are mostly based on perceptions and not on conjecture. That doesn't make the perceived matter rational by default. Might be a good idea if we agree that I have a problem with arguments that include 'because God exists', mostly due to it's impossibility of proof and self fulfilment of the argument, and you don't.

    Quote Originally Posted by chriscase View Post
    @Gig - I'm still thinking about what you posted. I'll reply once I've thought it through a bit more.
    A take on it other then the default 'we believe because God exists' is appreciated.
    Last edited by Gigantus; May 15, 2019 at 01:02 PM.



  11. #111

    Default Re: Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

    Quote Originally Posted by chriscase View Post
    I've decided that the real world I'm living in is The Wheel of Time. Any reason why I'm wrong or is that just as valid a point of view as any other?
    In order to accept that belief, you have to ignore the empirical evidence and principles that you had to accept in order to find out about Wheel of Time, making your belief inconsistent and paradoxical. Fine if you just believe yourself, all you'll be doing is hurting your chances in real world and you'll probably get laughed at outside of any fantasy con, but if you try to proselytize such belief, it'll be a real ethical problem.

    @epi1c_fail if the concept in question has an empirical connection and a logic can be presumed from its definition, then it's possible to prove or disprove it. But a god, by any kind of definition, even if they're so lacking, acts with free will, and is therefore occasionalistic concept, making it not subject to a logic, and thus impossible to prove or disprove. And because we assume some kind of logic underlying every empirically verifiable phenomena, because it's impossible to utilize, or logically encompass in any way, phenomena that are presumed to be occasionalistic, the concept of god becomes vacuous and irrelevant.

  12. #112

    Default Re: Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantus View Post
    Assumptions are in the majority rational as they are mostly based on perceptions and not on conjecture. That doesn't make the perceived matter rational by default.
    It doesn't make it irrational either.

    Might be a good idea if we agree that I have a problem with arguments that include 'because God exists', mostly due to it's impossibility of proof and self fulfilment of the argument, and you don't.
    The existence of neurobiological functions which enable us to perceive God aren't absolute proof, in and of themselves, that God exists.The difference between us is that your starting point assumes said perceptions to be a product of evolutionary deception whereas mine does not; you assume sensory fault where I do not. If a foundational assumption of your investigation is that God cannot exist then whatever your conclusion, it won't be that God exists. So the real problem isn't that God is impossible to prove; its that God cannot be proven to you.
    Last edited by ep1c_fail; May 15, 2019 at 02:58 PM.

  13. #113
    Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    4,215

    Default Re: Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

    It's really amusing to see theism described as a cognitive malfunction or delusion, given that a delusion by definition goes against the mainstream understanding of reality. Since a vast majority of people in virtually every culture in history can sense the divine, who are more likely to be the ones suffering from a malfunction: the 96% of humanity who perceive divinity or the 4% who don't? The consensus gentium seems to be pretty firmly on the side of theism.

  14. #114
    Gigantus's Avatar Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea
    Moderator Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Goa - India
    Posts
    45,998
    Blog Entries
    23

    Default Re: Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    It doesn't make it irrational either.
    Never claimed that.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    So the real problem isn't that God is impossible to prove; its that God cannot be proven to you.
    Agreed, it boils down to what ones criteria for proof are. Acceptance of proof based on unquestoning faith (It is because it is) isn't mine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Prodromos View Post
    It's really amusing to see theism described as a cognitive malfunction or delusion, given that a delusion by definition goes against the mainstream understanding of reality. Since a vast majority of people in virtually every culture in history can sense the divine, who are more likely to be the ones suffering from a malfunction: the 96% of humanity who perceive divinity or the 4% who don't? The consensus gentium seems to be pretty firmly on the side of theism.
    Not that long ago the consensus was that the earth is flat and the centre of the universe. Religious practice made sure that other notions were suppressed for a considerable time. Your point being that acceptance of the existence of God is a temporary fashion and requires enforcement?

    Consensus certainly isn't proof. Afterthought: source of your numbers?
    Last edited by Gigantus; May 15, 2019 at 11:36 PM.



  15. #115

    Default Re: Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantus View Post
    Never claimed that.
    You claimed it by implication.

    Agreed, it boils down to what ones criteria for proof are. Acceptance of proof based on unquestoning faith (It is because it is) isn't mine.
    To reiterate, faith is only directly relevant to theism not deism; the prime mover theory is a logical deduction. Though once again I get the distinct impression that your disdain for faith is another example of you holding your own psychology in contempt; your starting position is to treat it as an evolutionary mistake rather than a valid response. This sort of cynicism often leads people into disregarding entire fields of human learning on the basis of misplaced assumptions.

  16. #116
    basics's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    8,935

    Default Re: Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

    There are two criterion for the existence of God and that is experience and evidence but not necessarily in that order. Following the evidence in this case exposes the life and claims of Jesus Christ as both a historical figure and God and there are enough witnessed writings that confirm this. Is it evidencial or delusional that 66 books written over some four/five thousand years cannot be trusted at all? Is it delusional that His disciples down through the ages were prepared to die for what they experienced in Him and still to this day are? We know that God exists because of HIm and we know of Him because of all that was predicted about Him from the very beginning by God. The evidence that not all or even near to all will not believe is the experience of every person ever born until the moment God calls out to them who are saved or yet to be saved. This is not delusional either as the evidence for that prediction is overwhelming.

  17. #117
    Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    4,215

    Default Re: Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

    Gigantus, my argument isn't that most people are religious, therefore religion is true. It's that almost every human being in almost every culture possesses the sensus divinitatis, so if anyone is delusional or suffers from a cognitive malfunction, it's probably people who can't sense what everyone else has no trouble sensing. Now, personally I don't think nontheism is a cognitive malfunction, but I really get tired of the sense of intellectual superiority that many atheists exude, as if 99% of human beings in human history are blithering retards, while atheists are the few, the proud, the rational, the only human beings with a functioning brain. It's like a blind man calling 99% of humanity delusional for thinking they can see.

  18. #118

    Default Re: Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    To reiterate, faith is only directly relevant to theism not deism; the prime mover theory is a logical deduction. Though once again I get the distinct impression that your disdain for faith is another example of you holding your own psychology in contempt; your starting position is to treat it as an evolutionary mistake rather than a valid response. This sort of cynicism often leads people into disregarding entire fields of human learning on the basis of misplaced assumptions.
    Nope, we've been here before. Faith is relevant for deism as well as theism, or any other religious position. Prime mover is not a logical deduction either-it might seem so at first, but you end up doing faith frogger until the truck of logic splatters your weak reasoning....like happened here: https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...as-story/page5

  19. #119

    Default Re: Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

    Quote Originally Posted by Sar1n View Post
    Nope, we've been here before. Faith is relevant for deism as well as theism, or any other religious position. Prime mover is not a logical deduction either-it might seem so at first, but you end up doing faith frogger until the truck of logic splatters your weak reasoning....like happened here: https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...as-story/page5
    You didn't "splatter" the logic of prime mover theories; you merely suggested alternatives to it.

  20. #120
    chriscase's Avatar Princess Thunderballs
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,338

    Default Re: Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantus View Post
    I put the blame squarely on humans themselves and their rather unique ability of abstract thinking. Abstract thought without rationalized answers (rational answers are rarely available to abstract questions if at all) generally leads to insecurity and all sorts of malfunctions, enter the 'solve all' of deities to shoulder responsibility to provide answers for questions like 'is there life after death, why did my child get killed, what does the comet's appearance mean'. From there it's a pretty seamless path to what Sar1n suggest with his view on responsibility.
    I do agree with you that the capacity for abstract thought sits at the center of speculation about why/how the human species evolved the way we did. It's hard to even begin to imagine what our trajectory would have been without abstract thought. Obviously we wouldn't be trying to imagine such a thing, or anything else.

    Some time back sumskilz made a thread tracing the etymology of ancient biblical terms regarding faith:

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    Faith as belief didnít exist in the religions of the ancient Levant, nor did it exist in Second Temple Judaism. There was no real reason to doubt that there was agency behind the actions of inanimate objects. The actions of people and animals were assumed to be caused by their thoughts, so whose thoughts were behind the actions of the sky and the ocean? The religious questions weren't about if the actions of the world around them were caused by someone or something, the questions were who, how many, and which ones were worthy of loyalty?
    I tend to think our capacity for abstract thought encompasses a wider range of modes of consciousness, some what we'd call "ordinary", others less so. The mind seems to have a variety of sort-of "default" templates, cognitive patterns that will match almost anything. I think the religious impulse and the "what's under my bed" terror live in this rather murky area of the psyche, and exist as templates for reasons that are likely ultimately to make sense from the perspective of survival in ancient times.

    Rationality and the expectation that we can incrementally chip away at the body of unknown, not-understood causes of natural events have become convincing enough to at least some of us, but I doubt the primeval makeup of our brains is going to change all that quickly. After all, we aren't very far away from those ancients on the evolutionary time scale. And under the right circumstances, I'm sure that wiring might take over once again. It's probably a failsafe in our minds, like the difference between a buggy OS and a wiped hard drive. If the sophisticated rational brain gets overwhelmed, a really primitive set of perceptive overlays might be the only way to avoid catatonia.

    Like I said earlier, this is all speculation, but if we're going to entertain the possibility of magic man in the sky, I think a bit of less fantastical speculation can be tolerated.

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •