|
|
#81
11-13-2005, 02:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why demand logic?
[ QUOTE ]
A self-defeating religon (or any belief system) is one that requires believing the unbelievable. [/ QUOTE ] Unless you give us one tiny example for this "self-defeating religion", I maintain that this is an empty creature you have defined, just a self-contradictory concept that has absolutely no relation to any meaningful discussion about actual relgions, actual people, actual thought processes, actual world. If you'll insist on repeating your definitions without putting them in some relevant context, they will stay as they are now - arbitrary collection of words, "unthinkable thoughts". If you want to salvage them from this rather sad fate, try to put some life into them. Otherwise, this particular discussion has failed. 
|
|
#82
11-13-2005, 04:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why demand logic?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] A self-defeating religon (or any belief system) is one that requires believing the unbelievable. [/ QUOTE ] Unless you give us one tiny example for this "self-defeating religion", I maintain that this is an empty creature you have defined, just a self-contradictory concept that has absolutely no relation to any meaningful discussion about actual relgions, actual people, actual thought processes, actual world. If you'll insist on repeating your definitions without putting them in some relevant context, they will stay as they are now - arbitrary collection of words, "unthinkable thoughts". If you want to salvage them from this rather sad fate, try to put some life into them. Otherwise, this particular discussion has failed. [/ QUOTE ] This discussion has failed. I've made my point simply, I can do no more. It really makes no difference to my pont whether any common or current religons are illogical. I give up. chez
|
|
#83
11-13-2005, 04:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why demand logic?
[ QUOTE ]
It really makes no difference to my pont whether any common or current religons are illogical. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, I know that. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [ QUOTE ] I give up. chez [/ QUOTE ] I give up too, but I hope we'll both succeed more in the future, in our mutual exchange of thoughts, if it will ever happen. Sometimes it is just doomed, in a way.
|
|
#84
11-13-2005, 04:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why demand logic?
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand using the word "interesting" here at all. If someone chooses not to adhere to these logical standards you mention, would it make his beliefs less "interesting"? Less "interesting" for whom? How is "interesting" criteria for anything? [/ QUOTE ] "Interesting" for the people discussing the issue. My point is merely that logic is an accepted standard for belief, in the same way that aesthetics is an accepted standard for art. Suppose someone (who saw no point in logic) said to you: "God round squares 101010. Therefore God exists (does not exist)." We wouldn't be able to say that they're wrong per se, but not many people would find that compelling. [ QUOTE ] Also, you are forgetting (like others here) that religion might have a set of objects and roles, that by their own definition have very little to do with logical standards. [/ QUOTE ] It seems to me that the very basics of life, communication, etc., have quite a bit to do with logical standards. There may be some things that are illogical, but they do not seem to form foundations for belief. [ QUOTE ] Pretty much none of the "relgious truths" were discovered through normal logical reasoning, i.e, premises, arguments, conclusion, etc. Of course, some realigions are full with these structures ("after the fact"), but basically these structures have very little relevancy to the "relgious truths" themselves (also, most of the logical reasoning within the religions was about interpreting reality in order to fit it to a certain dogma, axiom, idea, and not vice versa, as is the normal goal of logical process. Sorry for making such generalizations here, I don't really like it, but it's important to note ). [/ QUOTE ] This may be correct, but I'm not terribly concerned with the historical process of how people come to their conclusions. A physicist may simply plug numbers into equations and hope they work, and then later come back and try to give a physical explanation for them (this is how a large portion of science works in reality). We don't say that they're bad physicists, as long as they can come up with reasonable physical explanations of their findings afterwards. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Would you want your life to depend on Homer Simpson finding the right button to prevent a nuclear meltdown by means of "eenie-meenie-minie-moe"? [/ QUOTE ] No, and I don't quite see your point. [/ QUOTE ] My point was that true conclusions reached by means of guesswork are seemingly bad. The explanation for a conclusion is often just as important as the conclusion itself. [ QUOTE ] it might mean that you are in fact missing a lot of much more important aspects religion has to "offer" [/ QUOTE ] I don't understand what religion has to offer that isn't logical. Even the old saw "God works in mysterious ways" has its logical basis in what people believe God to be. Presumably not many Christians would find the "God round squares 101010" argument very enlightening. [ QUOTE ] By the way I'm not religious at all (at least not according to a conventional sense of it, which is what matters here), so it's not like I'm trying to preach here or anything. [/ QUOTE ] I see this discussion more as a discourse in the usefulness of logic, rather than anything related to religion.
|
|
#85
11-13-2005, 05:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why demand logic?
One more thing. The reason we cannot say that a set of beliefs is "bad" is because "bad" is a relation statement. That is, something must be bad relative to some standard (usually truth or logic). We don't say "that Picasso is wrong", we say "that Picasso is ugly" (that is, bad relative to some aesthetic standard). Most (almost all) people choose to use logic/rationality as a standard for belief acceptance. My view is that they do this because it serves them quite well. That is, those who don't use logic are "naturally selected" out. This is debatable, but that's my opinion, at any rate.
|
|
#86
11-13-2005, 07:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why demand logic?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] It really makes no difference to my pont whether any common or current religons are illogical. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, I know that. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [ QUOTE ] I give up. chez [/ QUOTE ] I give up too, but I hope we'll both succeed more in the future, in our mutual exchange of thoughts, if it will ever happen. Sometimes it is just doomed, in a way. [/ QUOTE ] Sadly I doubt it. Logic is abstract, real world examples are occasionaly useful but never needed. As I'm mainly interested in logic and meaning I want to talk about the nature of religon, belief, meaning etc. not about the specifics of any religon chez
|
|
#87
11-13-2005, 07:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why demand logic?
[ QUOTE ]
Sadly I doubt it. Logic is abstract, real world examples are occasionaly useful but never needed. [/ QUOTE ] Logic that remains in the realms of pure abstraction is meaningless. There wouldn't be any physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, or for that matter _any kind of real science or technology_ if "real world examples" were irrelevant. Also, people would never get any better in poker, without the critical link between logic and actual expirience, "real world exmples". You are advocating some "method" of reasoning, without any relation to phenomena of any kind. It's called sitting at home with the windows closed. [ QUOTE ] As I'm mainly interested in logic and meaning I want to talk about the nature of religon, belief, meaning etc. not about the specifics of any religon [/ QUOTE ] Quite honestly, being interested in the nature of religion, without being interested in "the specifics of any religon" is like being interested in the nature of physics without being interested in "the specifics of any theory in physics", or being interested in the nature of philosophy without being interested in "the specifics of any school of thought". Again, it is meaningless, to say the least. And I'm quite surprised that it is coming from someone who admits to be mainly interested in "meaning". Meaning is in the actual details, not in some formalized, theoretical, abstract and imagined version of things. Meaning is about deciphering signs, signs are something that you look for and search IN the world. As it is, I don't understand what interest you find in religion at all, that you bother to respond here. There's nothing interesting about religion without the specifics: it's just an empty, deserted field. Edit: didn't mean it to sound so harsh, it's really only some thoughts...
|
|
#88
11-13-2005, 08:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why demand logic?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Sadly I doubt it. Logic is abstract, real world examples are occasionaly useful but never needed. [/ QUOTE ] Logic that remains in the realms of pure abstraction is meaningless. There wouldn't be any physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, or for that matter _any kind of real science or technology_ if "real world examples" were irrelevant. Also, people would never get any better in poker, without the critical link between logic and actual expirience, "real world exmples". You are advocating some "method" of reasoning, without any relation to phenomena of any kind. It's called sitting at home with the windows closed. [ QUOTE ] As I'm mainly interested in logic and meaning I want to talk about the nature of religon, belief, meaning etc. not about the specifics of any religon [/ QUOTE ] Quite honestly, being interested in religion, without being interested in "the specifics of any religon" is like being interested in physics without being interested in "the specifics of any theory in physics", or being interested in philosophy without being interested in "the specifics of any school of thought". Again, it is meaningless, to say the least. And I'm quite surprised that it is coming from someone who admits to be mainly interested in "meaning". Meaning is in the actual details, not in some formalized, theoretical, abstract and imagined version of things. Meaning is about deciphering signs, signs are something that you look for and search IN the world. As it is, I don't understand what interest you find in religion at all, that you bother to respond here. There's nothing interesting about religion without the specifics: it's just an empty, deserted field. Edit: didn't mean it to sound so harsh, it's really only some thoughts... [/ QUOTE ] Not harsh just wrong. I disagree with you about meaning. Now if your going to address the actual issue I raised which is that certain beliefs are mutually exclusive because of what they mean then we're in business. If you're just going to assume that all meaning is is semiotics then you should say so up front and argue your case accordingly. We could have an interesting discussion. but asking me for examples when our disagreement is clearly more fundemental doesn't make sense. What is it a sign of ... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] chez
|
|
#89
11-14-2005, 07:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why demand logic?
[ QUOTE ]
Now if your going to address the actual issue I raised which is that certain beliefs are mutually exclusive because of what they mean then we're in business. [/ QUOTE ] This is exactly what I was doing through out our little discussion, time and again. My point was extremely simple, and it remains simple. Here it goes yet one more time. Above, you say these words: "certain beliefs are mutually exclusive." This is a factual claim, especially so in the context of this discussion. However, the structure "certain X are Y" has no relevant meaning for us without the existence of such X. And I repeat: Until you come up with at least ONE actual, certain, example for X that is Y, i.e, 2 beliefs that are mutually exclusive, there's nothing meaningful at all to say about your statement. It is exactly like stating that certain elephants have green wings. They might have, they might not, it might be true, it might be false, it's possible, but I've never heard or seen such elephant. Does the structure of the sentence make sense? yes, of course, but who cares. It only proves that you can say it. Nothing more. There's no meaning in discussing it on the level of abstract logic, since you are refering to _certain_ things. "Certain beliefs", that exist only in abstract, without any relation to actual beliefs in the real world, are not "certain beliefs". They are just a creation of your own mind, a creation you seem to be fascinated with, for some unclear reason.
|
|
#90
11-14-2005, 01:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why demand logic?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Now if your going to address the actual issue I raised which is that certain beliefs are mutually exclusive because of what they mean then we're in business. [/ QUOTE ] This is exactly what I was doing through out our little discussion, time and again. My point was extremely simple, and it remains simple. Here it goes yet one more time. Above, you say these words: "certain beliefs are mutually exclusive." This is a factual claim, especially so in the context of this discussion. However, the structure "certain X are Y" has no relevant meaning for us without the existence of such X. And I repeat: Until you come up with at least ONE actual, certain, example for X that is Y, i.e, 2 beliefs that are mutually exclusive, there's nothing meaningful at all to say about your statement. It is exactly like stating that certain elephants have green wings. They might have, they might not, it might be true, it might be false, it's possible, but I've never heard or seen such elephant. Does the structure of the sentence make sense? yes, of course, but who cares. It only proves that you can say it. Nothing more. There's no meaning in discussing it on the level of abstract logic, since you are refering to _certain_ things. "Certain beliefs", that exist only in abstract, without any relation to actual beliefs in the real world, are not "certain beliefs". They are just a creation of your own mind, a creation you seem to be fascinated with, for some unclear reason. [/ QUOTE ] No, all that required is that people belief some beliefs are mutually exclusive. Then they would beleive in the possibility (and understand the concept of) a self-defeating religon. and now you definitely don't need an example. Either its possible to believe some propositions cannot be believed or its unbelievable that some propositions cannot be believed There you go. chez
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
