jakell wrote:The standard impasse in discussions of this nature, but it's really a failing of only having that one tool again. After a few rounds of this, some rationalists might start to question the utility of their approach, the ones who don't end up getting more and more frustrated and angry.
It's clear that religion is with us and will be into the foreseeable future, and unless we go to war or bring in a totalitarian world regime (see Communist Russia), a middle way has to be found. Constantly waving the 'magic' wand of rationality at it does not help, heck, it doesn't even work on internet forums.
I am familiar with the impasse. But I expected it to come from a theological point of view (sort of "well this is my belief" or "at the end of the day it comes down to faith" or some other crazy red herring like that). The fact that the impasse is coming from simply faulty logic and a refusal to use the same language in a discussion is if I may say so, surprising. For the record I neither question the utility of my approach (nothing has brought it into question) nor do I feel anger or frustration, perhaps a smidgen of disappointment if anything as I do enjoy a good debate and this is obviously not turning as I expected.
It's clear that religion is with us and will be into the foreseeable future, and unless we go to war or bring in a totalitarian world regime (see Communist Russia), a middle way has to be found.
Not because something has existed for a long time means that it will continue to exist (see Communist Russsia
) but ultimately I think you are partially right, religion (as unfortunately as it is) will stay with us for a bit longer. In its current form it is incompatible with reason and therefore science and progress. I sense a big clash happening already and I think it will only get worse from now on and I see two major outcomes, one of them is not very nice.
One Degree wrote:I am just referring to your world view affecting your reasoning. How you choose to see it affects how you reason about it.
Yes... the problem is my world view... not the fact that you ignore basic meanings or basic format of a debate or how logic works.
Not wrong or right, just one way when there are more ways.
I will humor you. Explain to me if its not right or wrong how it is, what is your opinion of it, etc.
I am guessing you have a strong science background.
You could say that. I have a very diverse education, it is not just science. I have dabbled in arts, history, science, philosophy and even religion of sorts. I don't know what you are trying to imply just be careful not to make another ad hominem fallacy.
You base your world view on this and therefore you will reason on that basis.
Actually no. My world view is BECAUSE of reason, logic and facts. Not the other way around. I don't know why anyone would work the other way around.
I will reason based upon my world view.
My world view just gives less credence to scientific fact than yours.
Careful you don't go floating away for not believing in the fact of gravity
I am sorry I should be more mature but I could not miss that one. My apologies back on topic.
The reason I mentioned moral/intellectual levels is because of the idea that I can do nothing to change your world view.
You are mistaken. You can change my world view very easily. Simply show the flaws of my logic/arguments and dispute with evidence my claims of facts. You do that and me (and hopefully anyone that understands reason) would follow.
You will only change it if your current world view no longer serves your purposes.
Why do you think it should be any other way? Do you throw away a perfectly working car? why would you do the same with perfectly congruent facts or logic or theory? Now if you come up with a better model for reality by all means you (and I) should change your views.
This is why I said I saw no need to continue the discussion.
That's a rather pessimistic attitude but if you don't want to continue the discussion I understand.
I doesn't always follow. I also have a strong science background and eventually realised that, even though it worked for 99% of things we see 'out there' that remaining 1% is a pretty significant one.
The problem is that whenever people take something on faith, even if its "1%" they are blind when that "1%" gets revealed to them and it takes them a very long time to realize. I can give you a few examples: earth flat at some point was part of that "1%" (although presumably that 1% was way larger than just 1% a few hundred years), it took a lot of time, effort and prosecutions to change that "world view", same with evolution, and same with many other things to be discovered. The problem with faith is that it does not rely on facts (in fact it is incompatible with facts) so there is a massive clash when the facts are no longer obscure to us.
The trouble is that , because it is so powerful, it produces an almost irrational reverence and expectations, and when they are dashed we see an uncharacteristic backlash, sometimes of an emotional nature, with denial (a standard human response) taking a starring role. Thus I can understand the frustrations of science enthusiasts because it happened to me. It does help that I'm getting older now and have had time to process these things.
Nice try trying to make science more "religious like" and irrational.
I always enjoy this.
- By Tainari88
- By litwin
- By wat0n