Logic vs. Theism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-03-2017, 01:32 PM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 01:11 PM)fschmidt Wrote:  It is critical to leave the definition of God open so that each person can view God according to his own mental abilities. For people of average intelligence, it is probably best that they personify God. I can have reasonable conversations with conservative Mennonites and Muslims even if our definition of God differs because we share the same basic values which are based on the God concept. I find it almost impossible to have a conversation with members of modern culture who are either secular or modern Christian (whose concept of God is complete nonsense).

If you are talking with somebody about "god" and you each have different concepts in mind then the conversation may sound reasonable but it is totally unproductive. You are not communicating. There is no "resonance" going on.

I have no idea what having similar values has to do with it because I don't base my values on any god concept.

Quote:One thing that the God label adds to the forces of nature is a recognition that these forces act on human history. This is critical, and something that modern liberal culture rejects.

I do not see any connection between the god label and understanding that natural forces helped shaped history. The fact that I don't use the label "god" to discuss those concepts doesn't prevent me from exploring them.

Quote:If you have an open mind and sufficient intelligence, then you should eventually be able to understand what I am saying even if you don't agree with it. I do agree that no one here yet understands what I am saying.

If you are unable to explain yourself clearly then perhaps you need to sit back and think it through.

Quote:I reject pantheism because God must be CAUSE to have meaning. The forces of nature are cause, but nature itself is not.

I can not parse that into coherent sentences. I do not know what you mean when you say something can "be cause" or "is cause".

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
06-03-2017, 01:43 PM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 01:14 PM)fschmidt Wrote:  I don't understand your question. Are you asking what "mental resonance" means, or are you asking about my subjective concept of truth? By "mental resonance" I just mean a means of producing similar thought patterns in another person's mind.
Fair enough regarding your definition, but I would caution that if my mind for example resonates with an idea, that doesn't make the idea true or defensible. So if you convey an idea that resonates with me such that we have similar thoughts about it, that does not speak to anything other than that we both like the idea. Similarly if you convey a thought and it does NOT resonate with me, your tendency to assume I'm mentally deficient, as if that's the only possible explanation for the non-resonance, is not automatically true, either. I might not understand because you're terrible at explaining it. I might not agree for good and sound reasons. I might be smart but suffering from some form of bias. There are literally dozens of general reasons why I might disagree, and most of them don't have anything to do with you having superior reasoning or thinking skills. If you really care about convincing others, have some epistemological humility and some positive assumptions about who you are dealing with.

While we are at it I would appreciate knowing what you conceive truth to be and how one goes about determining it. You mention your "subjective concept of truth"; this is a clue that perhaps you believe that all truth is subjective. I am not sure I agree with that without qualification. I would say there is no such thing as 100% certain and objective truth; if that is what you mean then we are roughly on the same page. If, as many theists do, you believe that personal subjective experiences lead in the direction of actually apprehending reality, and that these experiences are binding on anyone other than yourself, then we will have some differences of opinion. If as many theists do, you assert there there is 100% certain and objective truth, conveniently found in your holy book or dogmas and not in the holy book or dogmas or even reasoning of others, then we will have some differences there as well.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like mordant's post
06-03-2017, 01:57 PM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 01:43 PM)mordant Wrote:  Fair enough regarding your definition, but I would caution that if my mind for example resonates with an idea, that doesn't make the idea true or defensible. So if you convey an idea that resonates with me such that we have similar thoughts about it, that does not speak to anything other than that we both like the idea. Similarly if you convey a thought and it does NOT resonate with me, your tendency to assume I'm mentally deficient, as if that's the only possible explanation for the non-resonance, is not automatically true, either. I might not understand because you're terrible at explaining it. I might not agree for good and sound reasons. I might be smart but suffering from some form of bias. There are literally dozens of general reasons why I might disagree, and most of them don't have anything to do with you having superior reasoning or thinking skills. If you really care about convincing others, have some epistemological humility and some positive assumptions about who you are dealing with.

While we are at it I would appreciate knowing what you conceive truth to be and how one goes about determining it. You mention your "subjective concept of truth"; this is a clue that perhaps you believe that all truth is subjective. I am not sure I agree with that without qualification. I would say there is no such thing as 100% certain and objective truth; if that is what you mean then we are roughly on the same page. If, as many theists do, you believe that personal subjective experiences lead in the direction of actually apprehending reality, and that these experiences are binding on anyone other than yourself, then we will have some differences of opinion. If as many theists do, you assert there there is 100% certain and objective truth, conveniently found in your holy book or dogmas and not in the holy book or dogmas or even reasoning of others, then we will have some differences there as well.

Of course one can communicate a false idea just as easily as a true idea. Communication and truth are different issues.

None of your descriptions of truth match mine. In my view, the whole concept of purely objective truth is nonsense, a kind of god of Plato that is part of the Plato-based religions of the West including Atheism. The only thing that there is is experience and thoughts which are our models of reality. Gravity is a human concept, invented (not discovered) by people to model experience. These 2 books (from very different perspectives) describe this view of truth:

https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Hebrew...0096BCVPG/
https://www.amazon.com/Zen-Art-Motorcycl...0026772N8/
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2017, 01:59 PM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
Inductive reasoning can be useful, but not always. The premises can be false. The conclusion can be false.
95 % of this universe at the moment is unknown, (Dark Energy and Dark Matter). With 5% known, making ANY generalizations about anything is premature.

"Inductive reasoning consists of inferring from the properties of a sample to the properties of a population as a whole.

For example, suppose we have a barrel containing of 1,000 beans. Some of the beans are black and some of the beans are white. Suppose now we take a sample of 100 beans from the barrel and that 50 of them are white and 50 of them are black. Then we could infer inductively that half the beans in the barrel (that is, 500 of them) are black and half are white.

All inductive reasoning depends on the similarity of the sample and the population. The more similar the same is to the population as a whole, the more reliable will be the inductive inference. On the other hand, if the sample is relevantly dissimilar to the population, then the inductive inference will be unreliable.

No inductive inference is perfect. That means that any inductive inference can sometimes fail. Even though the premises are true, the conclusion might be false. Nonetheless, a good inductive inference gives us a reason to believe that the conclusion is probably true.

The following inductive fallacies are described in this section:
Hasty Generalization
Unrepresentative Sample
False Analogy
Slothful Induction
Fallacy of Exclusion "
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/induct.htm

This universe has been proven to be non-intuitive. Relativity, Uncertainty, Quantum Mechanics, the math of Dirac are not intuitive. There are some logics that are perfectly correct, yet do not obtain in Reality (at least as far as we know in this universe). Logic alone is not sufficient. It's necessary but not sufficient. Evidence is required.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
06-03-2017, 02:06 PM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 01:11 PM)fschmidt Wrote:  One thing that the God label adds to the forces of nature is a recognition that these forces act on human history. This is critical, and something that modern liberal culture rejects.

I'm a proponent of modern liberal culture. I recognize beyond any reasonable doubt that the forces of nature do indeed act on human history. I see no reason to clutter up that recognition with a totally unnecessary personification taken from an ancient mythology that to my eyes is primitive, brutish, and authoritarian.

I'm sorry, but your beliefs are much too silly to take seriously. Got anything else we can discuss?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Astreja's post
06-03-2017, 02:15 PM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 01:57 PM)fschmidt Wrote:  
(06-03-2017 01:43 PM)mordant Wrote:  Fair enough regarding your definition, but I would caution that if my mind for example resonates with an idea, that doesn't make the idea true or defensible. So if you convey an idea that resonates with me such that we have similar thoughts about it, that does not speak to anything other than that we both like the idea. Similarly if you convey a thought and it does NOT resonate with me, your tendency to assume I'm mentally deficient, as if that's the only possible explanation for the non-resonance, is not automatically true, either. I might not understand because you're terrible at explaining it. I might not agree for good and sound reasons. I might be smart but suffering from some form of bias. There are literally dozens of general reasons why I might disagree, and most of them don't have anything to do with you having superior reasoning or thinking skills. If you really care about convincing others, have some epistemological humility and some positive assumptions about who you are dealing with.

While we are at it I would appreciate knowing what you conceive truth to be and how one goes about determining it. You mention your "subjective concept of truth"; this is a clue that perhaps you believe that all truth is subjective. I am not sure I agree with that without qualification. I would say there is no such thing as 100% certain and objective truth; if that is what you mean then we are roughly on the same page. If, as many theists do, you believe that personal subjective experiences lead in the direction of actually apprehending reality, and that these experiences are binding on anyone other than yourself, then we will have some differences of opinion. If as many theists do, you assert there there is 100% certain and objective truth, conveniently found in your holy book or dogmas and not in the holy book or dogmas or even reasoning of others, then we will have some differences there as well.

Of course one can communicate a false idea just as easily as a true idea. Communication and truth are different issues.

None of your descriptions of truth match mine. In my view, the whole concept of purely objective truth is nonsense, a kind of god of Plato that is part of the Plato-based religions of the West including Atheism. The only thing that there is is experience and thoughts which are our models of reality. Gravity is a human concept, invented (not discovered) by people to model experience. These 2 books (from very different perspectives) describe this view of truth:

https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Hebrew...0096BCVPG/
https://www.amazon.com/Zen-Art-Motorcycl...0026772N8/

Now I see where the Plato reference came from. You think that I treat truth as metaphysical, existing independent of the mind but this is not my view at all so let me clarify. Truth is epistemological in nature. When a concept or proposition corresponds to the facts it identifies in a non-contradictory fashion, that proposition is true. So when I speak of objectivity I'm speaking of the proper orientation of the relationship between the subject of consciousness and any and all objects it perceives or considers. Truth is not in the mind nor in reality apart from the mind but lies in the relationship between the two. Hence it's basis in the primacy of existence.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like true scotsman's post
06-03-2017, 03:35 PM (This post was last modified: 06-03-2017 03:59 PM by Thoreauvian.)
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 12:38 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  The South prohibited (technically) the abuse of slaves

Footnote to conversation: In his own accounts of his experiences as a slave in Maryland, a relatively moderate slave state at that time, Frederick Douglass said slave owners routinely whipped or even killed their slaves for misbehaving, without legal consequences. The logic was that one slave whipped or killed was a small price to pay for keeping the others in line.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thoreauvian's post
06-03-2017, 04:02 PM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(05-03-2017 11:43 AM)Jay Vogelsong Wrote:  I wish someone would explain this to Donald Trump. Angry

I wish someone would tell him that he won the election, so he can stop campaigning.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dr H's post
06-03-2017, 04:06 PM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(05-03-2017 06:55 PM)Jay Vogelsong Wrote:  For many theists, reality is in conflict with their God concept since their God is all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful

And that right there is where the theist breaks with logic. Omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive. For them to coexist is paradoxical, and the existence of paradox means that the particular system being used from which to reason is inadequate for the task.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dr H's post
06-03-2017, 04:30 PM (This post was last modified: 06-03-2017 04:36 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 03:35 PM)Jay Vogelsong Wrote:  
(06-03-2017 12:38 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  The South prohibited (technically) the abuse of slaves

Footnote to conversation: In his own accounts of his experiences as a slave in Maryland, a relatively moderate slave state at that time, Frederick Douglass said slave owners routinely whipped or even killed their slaves for misbehaving, without legal consequences. The logic was that one slave whipped or killed was a small price to pay for keeping the others in line.

I was in no way trying to imply that the US system of slavery did not routinely furnish examples of owners-of-their-fellow-human-beings who went outside the bounds of the law with impunity.

Of course abuses of the worst sort were rampant, which is what one would expect to find when an(y) ideology exists that says "Group A is superior while Group B is sub-human".

But the South did have rules, which varied from state to state but nevertheless were there, that technically prohibited outright abuse. Slave importing was regulated, then restricted, and finally outlawed in the 1820s, if memory serves... didn't stop it from continuing sub rosa.

I simply find the idea that the Bible is a moral guidebook to be laughable, given its tolerance of the practice of slavery.

The notion that this is not "condoning" something it regulates is simply laughable, in the face of the obvious simplicity of prohibiting the practice, as so many other common-to-the-region things were prohibited by the Hebrew religion. [Edit to Add: For one example, archaeologists who are digging up Iron Age settlements in the region can immediately tell if it was a Hebrew settlement or a Canaanite town, based on the presence or absence of pig bones, even when the settlements are close to one another.]

Equally laughable is the idea that the people would not have listened to such a prohibition, especially given that the foundational mythology of early Judaism was the tale of the Israelites being sold into and then freed from the evil of slavery!

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: