7 of 7
7
Philosophy of Religion and Intuitions
Posted: 25 June 2013 09:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 91 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21

I liked the cow analogy Mike.

I think that what I’m more concerned about by refusing or limiting certain dialogue in philosophy is that this is precisely the modern method for many people to actually keep their views alive in some respects. I am referring, in particular, to the idea of not giving platform for other people to even present altering views. I was noticing how the NRA uses this very effectively, for instance, in order to prevent dissident ideology from affecting them. Notice how frustrating it is for investigative reporters to attempt to get interviews with anyone who has severe argumentative fault should they be challenged? The lack of being able to get sincere answers tend to leave people with an inability to logically justify a proper rationale for certainty of conviction.

The main justification for the Miranda rights was due to the idea that one who is not given notice for charge is being abused by being punished (through detainment) by what is not known. The power of purposefully ignoring someone I think can be more harsh than direct physical assault because you can at least have a chance to defend yourself directly than to have someone harm you indirectly without you being able to see where it’s coming from.

I’m certain most of us can relate to this. I am personally still finding discomfort with a recent breakup in a relationship almost two years ago now because I don’t know why we broke up and she won’t tell me. It makes you try to fill in the blanks with all the various endless possibilities and never any certainty. I’d rather be told directly even the most shallow and unjust reason for our breakup than nothing at all.

And this is what I think is harmful about closing the door to even the most ridiculous logic or rationale from other people by closing or limiting particular discussions. I think we need to elevate it as a duty to respond to others in all areas of formal dialectic. This is an emotional reason, among others, I don’t support using falsification as a justification to rule out non-scientific or pseudo-scientific discussions that some feel should be used as a means to weed out apparently futile positions.

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2013 10:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 92 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  81
Joined  2013-06-01
MikeYohe - 25 June 2013 08:07 AM

I am coming to the conclusion that Church leaders are monetary inspired and preachers and ministers are divinely inspired whereas the general population is Belief driven. Sort of the Sheppard and his flock.

Do you mean the preachers feel they are guided ad hoc by the Holy Spirit and the lay people are guided by teachings?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2013 11:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 93 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  483
Joined  2013-06-01

Yes, you say it so much better than I can. A certain % of people get that inter-body connected feeling and become preachers. If everyone got it then we would not need the preachers to teach.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2013 04:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 94 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  220
Joined  2011-10-01
ufo-buff - 25 June 2013 07:20 AM
Dom1978 - 24 June 2013 04:49 PM

We can’t really say the Christian tradition must be divinely inspired because it produces social stability and personal happiness and turns people’s lives around, getting them off drugs or alcohol or whatever, The reason for this is that other religions like Islam, Mormonism and Scientology also seem to do all of these things. And we also can’t say the Bible must be divinely inspired because it moves people, is so beautifully written, changes lives etc, since many other books do these things too. That’s why I chose the criteria of amazing predictions and astounding knowledge for divine inspiration, and indeed this is why many fundamentalist Muslims and Christians use these criteria. They know they need to try to find something that’s unique to their tradition.

How do we know all those religions aren’t divinely inspired?  Each religion claims to be the only true religion, but maybe they are wrong about being unique and divinely inspired in other areas that matter more?

Most Christians are aware that the entire package of Christianity contains many mistakes, but they overlook these mistakes because they don’t want to risk losing the truths of Christianity in the process of extracting the mistakes.  It’s like the parable of the wheat and the tares:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+13:24-30&version=NKJV

So if Christianity helps Plantinga in real ways then isn’t he being rational to accept some harmless non-falsifiable lies as part of the package?  (I don’t know if this is rational by the philosophical definition, but isn’t it understandable?)

If you want to say that all the world’s religions are divinely inspired, and that God is trying to communicate with human beings in many different ways, then that’s an interesting view, but it’s some kind of New-Age religion, and it has nothing to do with what I’m talking about here. The fundamentalist Christian philosophers I object to are all exclusivists. That is, they think that the Bible and the (official) Christian tradition alone are divinely inspired. It’s this view that I consider to be irrational.

[ Edited: 25 June 2013 04:35 PM by Dom1978 ]
 Signature 

“Life is shit, but the graphics is good”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2013 05:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 95 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  81
Joined  2013-06-01
Dom1978 - 25 June 2013 04:28 PM

If you want to say that all the world’s religions are divinely inspired, and that God is trying to communicate with human beings in many different ways, then that’s an interesting view, but it’s some kind of New-Age religion, and it has nothing to do with what I’m talking about here. The fundamentalist Christian philosophers I object to are all exclusivists. That is, they think that the Bible and the (official) Christian tradition alone are divinely inspired. It’s this view that I consider to be irrational.

I’m not sure how you are defining irrational.  In my opinion, belief in the Great Pumpkin is more rational that belief in the Invisible Pink Unicorn (bless Her holy hooves) who is simultaneously invisible and pink.

Belief that Christianity is the only divinely inspired religion is comparable with belief in the Great Pumpkin, but belief in the Trinity is comparable with belief in the Invisible Pink Unicorn.  (I guess the Christian philosophers distinguish between person and substance, but I suspect the followers of the Invisible Pink Unicorn might have similar ways to finesse the irrationality.)

Almost every Christian denomination officially believes in the Trinity, so liberal Christians should not be spared.  On the other hand, belief is not binary 0 or 1; it is a real number 0 through 1.  The more irrational concepts might not be strong beliefs, so we shouldn’t automatically declare the believer to be irrational for accepting them as part of a package deal.

[ Edited: 25 June 2013 06:07 PM by ufo-buff ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2013 06:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 96 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  483
Joined  2013-06-01

Everything that has been divinely inspired has been rational.
Time and knowledge or better divinity makes them irrational.

Point being, Ancient people were just as smart and rational as we are today.

Of course I am talking mainstream.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 June 2013 11:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 97 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5169
Joined  2010-06-16

Sorry, Mike, but one can’t really assume that earlier people were as smart and rational as present ones.  First, if we recognize changes in organisms which benefit them in the environment more than their peers will usually allow them to procreate more effectively, then those humans who are more able to deal with life will probably produce more offspring.  If the ability to think is of value, then we might guess that the average IQ has been moving up. albeit very slowly, over the last few thousand years. 

Second, while reason is valuable, it has to be based on facts.  We know vastly more now than we did a few millenia ago.  Therefore, we are likely to be far more effective in our thinking than they were.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 June 2013 12:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 98 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21

I agree with Mike that the rationality of people in the past was relatively similar to today. I clearly understand evolution’s power to create change in genetics, and as well, believe that it is possible some of these changes may be able to enhance our capabilities to think, but I’m not so trusting that complex particular thought processes during only a few thousand years have altered our capability to reason any better. People still to this day rarely choose a mate based on the quality of intelligence. It is more often that we choose mates based on either practical criteria or emotions alone.

I think that religious thinking in ancient times was not necessarily originated in irrational thinking. It was for the desire to make real logical sense of reality and practical considerations that initiated concepts that were likely of a secular mind-set that began the structures of what later became more formalized as religion.

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 June 2013 12:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 99 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5169
Joined  2010-06-16

Please notice that I said albeit very slowly.  I certainly wasn’t claiming major advances, just suggesting that an absolute statement may not be quite correct.

My main point was the second, that it doesn’t matter how intelligent or rational one is, if one doesn’t have the data so they can start their logical reasoning with valid premises, they aren’t going to be very successful at reaching accurate conclusions.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 June 2013 12:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 100 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  483
Joined  2013-06-01

Occam Post #97

Occam
Sorry, Mike ………………


I am writing you because we are not going to be able to come to John’s birthday party this year. The rains have caused the roads to be muddy and we are behind on getting the harvest in. But I am still planning on seeing you in the up coming holidays.
Love XXXX

Note; a basic style letter written in Egypt at the time of Jesus.

That same letter will work fine today. This coming Friday I will be in the city and planning on spending time at the book store. I have read where there are some new books out of translated letters, hoping to buy a couple.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 June 2013 12:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 101 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  483
Joined  2013-06-01

Occam   Post #99

Occam
Please notice ………………….

I agree with you.

I would like to say that history seem to record the odd ball stuff.
History will look at us today and say our religions included the Jim Jones and going to passing spaceships. Neither one very intelligent or rational.

Profile
 
 
   
7 of 7
7