I'm a Christian- Edumicate ME!!!

[retleftolc]

Not being an ass in the title, just wanted to make sure I got a response.

So, most of the arguments beyond Jesus- Yes or No, seem to be regarding gray areas that us crazy Christians say we KNOW the right answer to. There are very few things that a Christian should say we know. If not, where does faith come in?

So my question:

If more Christian were of the mind that I think they should be would you still have such a hard line against those that are Christian?

Is the attitude towards "me" in direct relation to the perceived attitude I have toward "you"?

Ret

[ChrisV]

If religious people of any stripe kept their opinions to themselves and didn't try to impose their morality on others, I wouldn't much care what they thought. I'd probably still be pretty contemptuous of them intellectually, in the same way that I tend to look down on people who believe in astrology, or lucky numbers, or whatever; but I'd conceal it, the same way I just keep my mouth shut whenever people say things like "Oh, he's such a typical Capricorn". I might still debate religion on places like 2+2, but it would just be for kicks.

[retleftolc]

That said, what if one of basic fundamentals of ones religion was to at least expose others to their god, ie Jesus. Im not a rammer myself, and have literally been in a shouting match with a street preacher before.

Guess my point being, if I let you know, not out of the blue, but in the flow of a conversation that I would like you to come to my men's bible study group would you feel I have imposed upon you?

Ret

FWIW- I'm contemptuous towards most religious types too, and I guess non-religious types also.

[m_the0ry]

A spirituality shouldn't need to recruit to get members, it should propagate through thought on the merit of its ideology. Thats the key difference between dharmic and dogmatic religion, and why the latter is destructive to society.

[cambraceres]

As a Christian, you take a stance which is intellectually indigestable. Take a laconic, inquiring glance at the system underlying your theology and tell me how one can simply "suppose" it is valid. One needs justification to believe this or that, otherwise it is strong willed conjecture. Conjecture is not what one should base their system of beliefs on in my opinion, yet that is precisely what you are doing. You can not validate, nor define the central element of this system, and for this reason it persists. Expose the underpinning to the light of rational review and tell me what you see.

[MaxWeiss]

I'm not sure I understand your question, but before you could clarify, could you answer mine??

What do you "know" and (MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY) how do you "know" it???

I always get the "I just 'know'" or "you can't understand unless you accept it" or something confusing like that. What the heck is that???

Please help, me I have not had ONE person explain to me what this "knowledge" is. Is it some kind of mental experience like feeling the "I" part of you is gone, like Sam Harris talks about, or is it some kind of deep understanding of --something---what is it that you "know" and what makes you so sure that God is the explanation.

I would very much like to understand this, because right now, the argument of having some kind of personal mental experience doesn't hold a lot of (any) credit. (Nor will it even if I do understand, but I really am curious and want to know.)

Thanks for your help!!!!

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Take a laconic, inquiring glance at the system underlying your theology and tell me how one can simply "suppose" it is valid.

[/ QUOTE ]

All beliefs have underlying systems that are simply "supposed" valid.

[Alex-db]

[ QUOTE ]
Not being an ass in the title, just wanted to make sure I got a response.

So, most of the arguments beyond Jesus- Yes or No, seem to be regarding gray areas that us crazy Christians say we KNOW the right answer to. There are very few things that a Christian should say we know. If not, where does faith come in?

So my question:

If more Christian were of the mind that I think they should be would you still have such a hard line against those that are Christian?

Is the attitude towards "me" in direct relation to the perceived attitude I have toward "you"?

Ret

[/ QUOTE ]

No. At least not fully. Well, it could be.

Here's how;

I, personally, don't really care if you preach or are convinced you are right. You are free to be as privately deluded as you want to be, and you can tell people about it.

My concern is that your delusion is infectious to less intelligent people, and that the content is unpleasant, nevermind that it is factually incorrect (even though you basically conceded this one).

Lets say it is equally as wrong and as infectious as astrology, but as a previous poster pointed out astrologists don't tend to ever (succesfully) impose views on others.

You seem to think that by not preaching, or by admitting you are not sure you're correct, you are more coherent or don't cause any problems.

But that doesn't solve anything. You will most likely still be providing support to a religious community and pass on this delusion to future generations.

Again, this may not be a problem, if the delusion in question didn't encourage sexism, violence, racism, war, intolerance and the retardation of scientific progress.

However much you lack conviction in your delusion, failing to help reduce its popularity is implicit support to preventing stem-cell research, encouraging AIDS in Africa, etc, etc, etc.

[cambraceres]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Take a laconic, inquiring glance at the system underlying your theology and tell me how one can simply "suppose" it is valid.

[/ QUOTE ]

All beliefs have underlying systems that are simply "supposed" valid.

[/ QUOTE ]


Meaning that true knowledge is not possible I assume?

Cam

[Alex-db]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Take a laconic, inquiring glance at the system underlying your theology and tell me how one can simply "suppose" it is valid.

[/ QUOTE ]

All beliefs have underlying systems that are simply "supposed" valid.

[/ QUOTE ]


Meaning that true knowledge is not possible I assume?

Cam

[/ QUOTE ]

I was dissapointed no-one with the view religion is ok replied to this previous post on this subject...

From previous thread: (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=9055175&page=&vc=1)

"There must be a nice latin term for this that I have never been taught, but it seems the defence here is:

Since the most fundamental assumptions we make are circular, there is nothing wrong with applying circular logic to derivative, higher level beliefs.

One problem is that the derivative cicularity requires suspension of the core axioms like logic.

I also have an urge to apply Occam's razor, or at least to accept a probabalistic argument on axioms such that:

1. I have freewill
2. Logical conclusion are valid

is more likely to be correct, by a very wide margin, than:

1. I have freewill
2. Logical conclusion are valid
3. The Bible is correct

Especially when 2 contradicts 3 (and 1? another thread I know).

There must be a principle where if a potential axiom could be deduced from previous axioms it shouldn't be assumed as an axiom. Especially in such 2nd-order scientific questions such as how did the universe and humans come into existence?

(ah... my real opinion, is that the answers to these questions have absolutely no business being axiomatic, or I may as well just take enough ketamine that I can accept religion without question and put up with life as a zombie requiring no quest for knowledge)"

[Prodigy54321]

I'd love to respond, but I don't entirely understand the question...

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
All beliefs have underlying systems that are simply "supposed" valid.


[/ QUOTE ]

So, stop having beliefs, especially about your god or morality. At least be "open"! If god talks to me I will listen. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[retleftolc]

As I stated earlier, I dont believe Christian should be of the attitude "I Know" the answer. I dont know God exist, and I dont know Jesus existed as Christians think he does/did. I do however believe some things concerning those two areas. Most of my circle of friends would say they know there is a God.

And... I dont know about immediately understanding if you "accept" it, but you certainly cant grasp it if you dont have faith without the answers.

I was talking to a very intelligent agnostic friend of mine about math and science. He proposed the idea that math and science are faith based too. He stated that the Laws created in these fields though provable, are only that way because of our logic.

So more or less, he said we have figured out a way to make things look solvable, by our on judgment.

I tend to concur, and think this is akin to the argument against religion.

Ret

Oh, and whats wrong with stem-cell research, I think nothing.

[Alex-db]

So because of a very, very high level and esoteric part of epistomological philosophy, you think it is perfectly reasonable for people to believe things like; the earth was created -after- the agricultural revolution, there is a magical man in the sky who created the Earth, this magical man loves us all but advocates gang rape of women, the moon is made of cheese, negative emotions are due to Arch-lord Xenu's universal holocaust?

If not, which of the above are reasonable, and how did you decide?

If you lived life like that you could do things like jump out of planes without parachutes, since you can't be 100% sure you wouldn't end up alive and in a more healthy state than you began (Its only your evil, flawed LOGIC that says otherwise).

If you abandon enough common sense in your assumptions that religion becomes intellectually reasonable, you will end up with some incredibly very weird, unusual, and impractical conclusions about everyday life.

[retleftolc]

Ok

the earth was created -after- the agricultural revolution- I believe the earth was created, I believe evolution is correct, and that a "big bang" idea is workable as God's creation- Why would it not be?

there is a magical man in the sky who created the Earth- Nope thats just a oddly formed cloud.

this magical man loves us all but advocates gang rape of women- I believe in predestination and free will, so evil has to be from God, and we choose to act it out.

the moon is made of cheese- Doubt it, cause it doesnt look like cheddar and anything else would be a waste.

negative emotions are due to Arch-lord Xenu's universal holocaust? Nope, God.

Ret

And, yes these are the things I believe, not something to create argument.

[Alex-db]

[ QUOTE ]

And, yes these are the things I believe, not something to create argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, but the fact you can come to those conclusions should seriously worry people if you ever hold a position of responsibilty with a potential impact on other peoples safety or wellbeing.

Thats why many people are so concerned about religion and we should try to encourage intolerance towards it just as we do towards racism.

And btw that was -advocates- gang rape, not allows. The moral of the Lot story (and another I forgot) in the OT (whether metaphorical or literal) is that God prefers you to offer your virgin daughters up for gang rape rather than risk harm to a male guest in your house. And I worry you may teach your poor children that this is the book that should guide how they live....

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
There are very few things that a Christian should say we know. If not, where does faith come in?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I see a major difference between "I know x is true" and "I have faith x is true". Perhaps faith allows you some wiggle room in case you're wrong? But it doesn't really matter because most Christians base their actions on what they believe, so they might as well be 100% sure they are right, for all intents and purposes.

Do Christians KNOW god disapproves of homosexuality, or do they just BELIEVE it? Who cares, either way they want to legislate prejudice against gays. Same for the Christians who want to outlaw abortion, or for the Muslims who forbid women to show their face in public. They KNOW (or have faith, whatever) that this is what god wants. These irrational beliefs affect many people whether they share the same beliefs or not.

BTW there was a study done recently (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070208072325.htm) that said 14% of doctors think it is ok NOT to discuss certain medical options (abortion, euthanasia, etc.) with patients if it is against their religious beliefs.

[retleftolc]

"Ok, but the fact you can come to those conclusions should seriously worry people if you ever hold a position of responsibilty with a potential impact on other peoples safety or wellbeing."

Why?

Have you read the story? He offered his daughters to men who wanted to rape the men in the house. That was a choice of Lot's to offer his daughter, not of God. Bad human choice, the Bible is full of them. When did God advocate this?

And, no thats not the point of the story.


Ret

[madnak]

Thrusting a belief system based on the inherent inferiority of humanity onto someone seems a lot less justified if you don't claim to "know" it's true.

I think in terms of axioms, I'll accept "a is a" above "I am worthless and deserve to be horribly tortured, and the same applies to everyone else." Call me arbitrary and illogical if you please.

[Alex-db]

[ QUOTE ]
"Ok, but the fact you can come to those conclusions should seriously worry people if you ever hold a position of responsibilty with a potential impact on other peoples safety or wellbeing."

Why?

Have you read the story? He offered his daughters to men who wanted to rape the men in the house. That was a choice of Lot's to offer his daughter, not of God. Bad human choice, the Bible is full of them. When did God advocate this?

And, no thats not the point of the story.


Ret

[/ QUOTE ]

So what was the point? And what evidence makes you think your interpretation is correct and mine is wrong?

See the post regarding surgeons above for one reason I worry about religious people in positions of responsiblity. Also note the US president.

Anyone who thinks an irrational belief in God's word is stronger than logical analysis should be prevented from putting others at risk.

1. Being religious in an educated society shows a predisposition to poor analysis of information and understanding of logic.
2. Those particular beliefs can make the analysis and logic even worse.

So it would be correct to overlook a religious person for a job involving significant responsibility. In fact we should encourage it.

Imagine a situation in which a chief saftey consultant of some industry believes Zeus watches over him and will prevent him making mistakes, and he is best off spending more time praying and less time concentrating.

1) do you think he is insane?
2) do you feel safe working with him?

[JayTee]

[ QUOTE ]
"Ok, but the fact you can come to those conclusions should seriously worry people if you ever hold a position of responsibilty with a potential impact on other peoples safety or wellbeing."

Why?



[/ QUOTE ]

Because if reading an unverifiable, mistranslated, archaic text can convince you that someone/thing created the universe but that nothing created that person or thing, and that this God is your friend and cares about you and wants you to be killed if you work on Sunday then you are more likely to make incorrect decisions that could harm the well being of others.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
One needs justification to believe this or that, otherwise it is strong willed conjecture. Conjecture is not what one should base their system of beliefs on in my opinion, yet that is precisely what you are doing. You can not validate, nor define the central element of this system, and for this reason it persists.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if it's fair to say that we "need" justification to believe this or that. For example, I know I like chocolate ice cream more than vanilla and it would probably fall into the realm of conjecture. But nonetheless, I know it with absolute certainty. So how is it any different with God? Can't someone just "know" they believe in God or "know" that God exists?

[retleftolc]

"And what evidence makes you think your interpretation is correct and mine is wrong?"

Again I ask, when did God advocate this? That was your remark.


"Anyone who thinks an irrational belief in God's word is stronger than logical analysis should be prevented from putting others at risk."

I dont see a conflict between logical analysis and a belief in God's word.


"So it would be correct to overlook a stupid person for a job involving significant responsibility. In fact we should encourage it."

FYP


1) do you think he is insane? maybe
2) do you feel safe working with him? no
3) is he acting biblically? no

I believe that many of the arguments I have seen here are based on the idea of what the Bible says. Not what it does say. Don't say the Bible says "insert outlandish scriptual quote here", because I'll just respond with a silly comment about it being a diff time or not literal or blah blah blah.

I wont argue on gray areas. Ive already conceded I dont have the answer.

Do you think it is possible that the way I think about God is the same way you embrace logic? If you answer, no because logic is logical, then dont. Do you see why I ask this?

Ret

[madnak]

On what basis do you call a person with x unsupported belief "stupid" and y unsupported belief "faithful?" Particularly when there's an iron-clade inverse correlation between intelligence and belief y, and when those with the very highest intelligence levels also have the highest probability of believing absurd things?

Moreover, our metrics for intelligence basically involve measuring a person's ability to understand logic. We define stupid people essentially as people who are extremely weak with logic. There are cases when facility with language, recall, or social awareness are considered relevant factors, but the standard we use to define stupidity is logical expertise.

[deluz35]

Logic/Reason is given priveleged status as the most valid way of determining "truth" because it measures best on the criteria of consistency. It is the most consistently applicable and practical method of discovery we can presently communicate. When used as the only right way to knowledge, the practice of human reason becomes irrational (Heidegger, et al).

Reason and Religion are cognitive navigational methods within a psychological constructs (which we call human being in physical reality). They are productive as modes of discovery rather than as fixed truths/beliefs/faiths.

A Christian believes in God because it makes their existence more sensible--"easier to digest". Same as the Rationalist believes in either-or Logic. These beliefs provide a "compass" for the human psyche that has not yet developed its own stable navigational system ("rules to live by"). All external belief systems are training wheels for the mind ("to stay on track").

The fun of discovery is "making up your own mind".

Creative, interested in possibilities/probablities rather than final answers. Theories are "working truths"--subject to change. Beliefs are a state of suspended animation, like hitting the "pause" button on the movie of your life to study the details of a frame. Living without beliefs is "play".

PS. Creationism and Evolution as theories are both true. It's a matter of perspective.

[vhawk01]

Your post script applies to anything anyone could ever say at any time. Which of course makes the word 'true' a worthless absurdity.

[m_the0ry]

Christians always force their beliefs on their children. Describe to me the moment in time when you decided to become a Christian? There's a 99% chance you weren't conscious when that decision was made for you. And there's a 99% chance your children won't be conscious when you decide for them.

Free will is really overrated (if existant at all). Say anything enough times and it becomes the truth. Jesus died for your sins. Jesus died for your sins. Jesus died...

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Take a laconic, inquiring glance at the system underlying your theology and tell me how one can simply "suppose" it is valid.

[/ QUOTE ]

All beliefs have underlying systems that are simply "supposed" valid.

[/ QUOTE ]


Meaning that true knowledge is not possible I assume?

Cam

[/ QUOTE ]

Knowledge is assumed to be true based on suppositions you cannot prove.

[retleftolc]

"On what basis do you call a person with x unsupported belief "stupid" and y unsupported belief "faithful?""

Im not commenting on th unsupported belief. I was addressing the fact that he took no action to protect when that was his job. My Bible doesnt really ask me to pray and not act. I would pray, then take on the responsibility I had taken on. Why? Because that's what I should do according to Christainity. Praying for rain is not faith. Pray for rain and then taking an umbrella to work is.

BTW, corny is the new black.

Ret

[retleftolc]

Alex-

Do you think it is possible that the way I think about God is the same way you embrace logic? If you answer, no because logic is logical, then dont. Do you see why I ask this?


Ret

[deluz35]

[ QUOTE ]
Your post script applies to anything anyone could ever say at any time. Which of course makes the word 'true' a worthless absurdity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe a better word here would be 'valid'. My point being that the theories of Creationism and Evolution may both be partially correct without contradiction. The strict interpretation of either-or logic assumes that if A is true, then B is false. But A & B may both have truth values in the range of .1-.9 rather than only 0 or 1.

The catch with binary logic is that it flattens propositions to values of 0 or 1 on the truth scale, but a lot of human theories have partial explanatory value, rather than all or none.

Each theory is a collection of propositions, some of which logically contradict one another. However, not all propositions of both sets are mutually exclusive. For example, it is possible that an external intelligent agency engineered the human species at some point in the past, and then left it on its own to self-evolve. This would explain much of the perceived historical phenomena, both intrinsic and extrinsic to human psychology.

It doesn't seem logical to me that either side of this speculative debate is so quick to dismiss the possibility that the other theory may have much to offer. Mythologies such as Christianity are not meaningless and arbitrary. To dismiss religious narratives as such is naive and irresponsible. Mass religions signify human psychological realities whose metaphorical truths need to be decoded/comprehended if we are to live in harmony with ourselves and Nature.

Christianity is "true" in a metaphorical sense. Any good cognitive scientist would examine its tenets as a symbolic language in terms of human psychology. For example, Christ on the cross is a metaphor for the human conscience--our own capacity to evaluate our decisions as right/wrong, good/bad. "He died for your sins" means that your conscience suffers when you do something you know is wrong. The Resurrection is the act of forgiveness. Your conscience must die to its guilt and then be reborn for you to go on with your life. The crown of thorns are pricks, they sting and draw blood, a symbol of a troubled/guilty mind. Etc.

Why is he on the cross? He is cross with himself. That is, he is angry that he did something wrong. The cross is two perpendicular lines, two different directions, a decision, a right angle. It signifies the moment of having to make the right (or wrong) choice.

Such symbols are "true" regardless of whether they are historical facts, if the stories correllate to human experience. There is an inherent logical consistency to these symbols.

"Truth" as I define it is not a meaningless absurdity but a self-consistent communicated agreement about shared experiences. Truth is relative to the appropriate context of locale and observers. Color has no truth for a race of blind men.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
My point being that the theories of Creationism and Evolution may both be partially correct without contradiction.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are very wrong here. They do contradict each other, and whereas I would call evolution a theory, I would call Creationism a mere affectation, fad or mania, but would not elevate it anywhere near a scientific theory. Leave it to rest with numerology, astrology, chiromancy, tea leafs readings etc... and everything else that has a similar relationship to reality as it is experienced! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point being that the theories of Creationism and Evolution may both be partially correct without contradiction.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are very wrong here. They do contradict each other, and whereas I would call evolution a theory, I would call Creationism a mere affectation, fad or mania, but would not elevate it anywhere near a scientific theory. Leave it to rest with numerology, astrology, chiromancy, tea leafs readings etc... and everything else that has a similar relationship to reality as it is experienced! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you referring to the modern religion version of creationism or the first cause argument?

[Alex-db]

[ QUOTE ]
Alex-

Do you think it is possible that the way I think about God is the same way you embrace logic? If you answer, no because logic is logical, then dont. Do you see why I ask this?


Ret

[/ QUOTE ]

From before:
[ QUOTE ]
I also have an urge to apply Occam's razor, or at least to accept a probabalistic argument on axioms such that:

1. I have freewill
2. Logical conclusion are valid

is more likely to be correct, by a very wide margin, than:

1. I have freewill
2. Logical conclusion are valid
3. The Bible is correct

Especially when 2 contradicts 3


[/ QUOTE ]

It is literally unbelievable that you can put the assuption that 'logic is valid' on the same theoretical level as the answers to scientific questions like "how did the universe begin?"

Are questions like "why does water turn to steam?" axiomatic for you? (its not heat, and boiling, God does it!. Or: DO NOT try and find out, it just does")

Why decide God did one and you can use logic to learn about another?

It can be shown that (2) and (3) are mutually exclusive. The fabric of society would crumble in an instant and our intellectual evolution would be set back 1000s of years if you deny the value of logic.

[retleftolc]

Logic is my friend. I was asking about the way you "feel" about logic. I believe logic is, and wont argue that.

Water/Steam of course heat.

I wont disagree that there are example in the Bible where logic flies out the window. Will you please provide your top 3 examples, for me to sipher on?

Ret

[Alex-db]

-Yawn-

This has been answered over and over. here is a contradictions thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=8127995&page=0&fpart=1&v c=1), for example.

Even if the book was't internally so easy to destroy logically, jumping to the conclusion that your God theory is correct (instead of the baseline of no bias to any theory and consider what best current evidence suggests) is horrible logic in itself.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if the book was't internally so easy to destroy logically, jumping to the conclusion that your God theory is correct (instead of the baseline of no bias to any theory and consider what best current evidence suggests) is horrible logic in itself.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lol.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even if the book was't internally so easy to destroy logically, jumping to the conclusion that your God theory is correct (instead of the baseline of no bias to any theory and consider what best current evidence suggests) is horrible logic in itself.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lol.

[/ QUOTE ]

2nd level LOL

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
Christians always force their beliefs on their children. Describe to me the moment in time when you decided to become a Christian? There's a 99% chance you weren't conscious when that decision was made for you. And there's a 99% chance your children won't be conscious when you decide for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are naive if you think a fundamentalist is going to answer this question thusly:

"I've always been a Christian."

Perhaps you are arguing that they are fooling themselves when they say, "I got saved when I was 12," but surely you know enough to realize that they don't believe that it was forced upon them.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you see why I ask this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously he doesn't, which is why he writes things like "Yawn" while the point is sailing over his head. In his defense, you could articulate this more clearly.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
It can be shown that (2) and (3) are mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]

(3) is so poorly constructed that it is tantamount to a strawman. You should have deduced that he is not a plenarist.

[retleftolc]

I started to explain the question after I asked it, but wanted to see his response without any explanation of the question.

And, sometimes I'm about as articulate as a newborn explaining why he sits in his own poop.

Ret

[deluz35]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point being that the theories of Creationism and Evolution may both be partially correct without contradiction.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are very wrong here. They do contradict each other, and whereas I would call evolution a theory, I would call Creationism a mere affectation, fad or mania, but would not elevate it anywhere near a scientific theory. Leave it to rest with numerology, astrology, chiromancy, tea leafs readings etc... and everything else that has a similar relationship to reality as it is experienced! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you referring to the modern religion version of creationism or the first cause argument?

[/ QUOTE ]


I am referring only to "soft Creationism" -- the idea of an External Intelligent Agency (often called "God" or "gods" or "aliens", etc.)as having Created or engineered the human species, as opposed to humans just evolving from apes strictly as a result of environmental adaptation.

Rationalists/Logicians prefer to explain perceived data with the simplest, most elegant theory. In their minds, any theory of human evolution that involves an external intelligence is a priori wrong because it adds a second variable to the equation. This is an aesthetic prejudice!

I am only making the logical argument that just because Evolution is true, does not mean that humans must be solely a product of adaptation rather than a mix of engineering and adaptation.

As our minds evolve, we develop better methods of discovering and interpreting information. We then construct better theories. Yet, we are prone to infatuation with our theories and to treating them as final solutions rather than as approximate explanations.

What's significant to me about the Christian mythology and Creationism is the idea that more than Natural evolution is at work in the human species. Why should this idea even exist? Why would humans make this story up, as opposed to just saying we came out of the Earth and leave it at that?

It is important and meaningful that the vast majority of humans believe in divine/extraterrestrial/non-physical origins. There is a reason these concepts exist in the human mind. To dismiss it as arbitrary, or as a vestigial superstitious organ of human psychology is a scientifically lazy response to the problem.

Historically, we are just beginning to arrive at the point where the scientific backlash against religious superstition has gained enough security to begin investigating religion as a cognitive phenomena (Jung, Campbell, et al)

[retleftolc]

WOW!!! That thread really backed up what I stated early on thanks. Gray areas are gray for a reason and its not my job to darken or whiten them.

I really like what DS had to say on the second page of posts.

Thanks again.

Ret

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
It is literally unbelievable that you can put the assuption that 'logic is valid' on the same theoretical level as the answers to scientific questions like "how did the universe begin?"

[/ QUOTE ]

The evidence that logic is "valid" is literally nonexistent.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is literally unbelievable that you can put the assuption that 'logic is valid' on the same theoretical level as the answers to scientific questions like "how did the universe begin?"

[/ QUOTE ]

The evidence that logic is "valid" is literally nonexistent.

[/ QUOTE ]
validity is a logical concept. Without logic, nothing is "valid".

If you are happy with beliefs that don't conform to reason then no need to worry about such things.

chez

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is literally unbelievable that you can put the assuption that 'logic is valid' on the same theoretical level as the answers to scientific questions like "how did the universe begin?"

[/ QUOTE ]

The evidence that logic is "valid" is literally nonexistent.

[/ QUOTE ]
validity is a logical concept. Without logic, nothing is "valid".

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct.

[ QUOTE ]
If you are happy with beliefs that don't conform to reason then no need to worry about such things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also correct, though of no apparent relevance. But that's OK.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is literally unbelievable that you can put the assuption that 'logic is valid' on the same theoretical level as the answers to scientific questions like "how did the universe begin?"

[/ QUOTE ]

The evidence that logic is "valid" is literally nonexistent.

[/ QUOTE ]
validity is a logical concept. Without logic, nothing is "valid".

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct.

[ QUOTE ]
If you are happy with beliefs that don't conform to reason then no need to worry about such things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also correct, though of no apparent relevance. But that's OK.

[/ QUOTE ]The relevance is apparant me but whatever.

chez

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is literally unbelievable that you can put the assuption that 'logic is valid' on the same theoretical level as the answers to scientific questions like "how did the universe begin?"

[/ QUOTE ]

The evidence that logic is "valid" is literally nonexistent.

[/ QUOTE ]
validity is a logical concept. Without logic, nothing is "valid".

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct.

[ QUOTE ]
If you are happy with beliefs that don't conform to reason then no need to worry about such things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also correct, though of no apparent relevance. But that's OK.

[/ QUOTE ]The relevance is apparant me but whatever.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

His point was that it is foolish to argue about the validity of logic, because unless we all accept it axiomatically, you can't even form sentences or convey ideas and you CERTAINLY can't have a discussion on an internet board. You can't do ANYTHING.

Luckily, everyone accepts logic as valid.

[retleftolc]

I dont know, logic doesnt seem vali . . . POOF!!!

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont know, logic doesnt seem vali . . . POOF!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif Good thing you stopped, since your sentence was about to contradict itself. What does 'seem valid' mean if logic isn't valid?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
His point was that it is foolish to argue about the validity of logic, because unless we all accept it axiomatically, you can't even form sentences or convey ideas and you CERTAINLY can't have a discussion on an internet board. You can't do ANYTHING.

Luckily, everyone accepts logic as valid.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the most important thing. Our capacity to reason arguably evolved (I know I'm begging the question, deal with it) to facilitate communication.

Logic may be "invalid" and may not be an acceptable "axiom" or "premise" (let's ignore the fact those are logical terms in the first place), but our interactions with the world outside of us and particularly with other human beings are based on logic. Moreover, alogical beliefs must necessarily be incoherent at any level at which communication is possible. That doesn't mean they don't exist, but if they're inherently isolated they can have very little social validity and no validity on a message board.