(March 23, 2016 at 11:27 am)ChadWooters Wrote: When people talk loosely, they tend to say someone is being irrational when what they really mean to say is that person made an error somewhere along the line or failed to lacked knowledge of important details. That seems not to be what some AF members, like yourself, are claiming. Some here want to judge people as rational, or not, by the conclusions they reach rather than the process by which they reach them. In practice they are saying that your reasoning is flawless and if someone doesn’t agree with you then, they are by definition irrational. Are they truly prepared to call profound thinkers like David Bentley Hart irrational. You may think he is wrong, but irrational. C’mon.

For example, I do not think testability is required to justify belief. Like parsimony it helps guide people toward the best explanation of natural phenomena. The testability of a proposition (P) depends on two conditions 1) not-P is conceivable and evidence for not-P could plausibly be found.

If the reasonableness of all propositions were required to be falsifiable then some fields of knowledge would be excluded, like mathematics and philosophy, when not-P is often inconceivable. Measuring physical objects cannot not test the proposition that phi is an irrational number. Modus pones is a truth preserving structure because the contrary is inconceivable. In other cases, condition 2 cannot be met. No circumstance excludes or confirms whether or not nomena lie are behind phenomena.

And another thing: If you follow my posts here at AF (which I think you don't, because you don't feel I have anything to say that would be worthy of your attention) you can plainly see that I am more than happy to humbly concede where I am wrong, and have done so on several occasions. So, this whole, "you call anyone who disagrees with you irrational" is a strawman.

No, belief need not be reasonable. You can believe for whatever reason you want.

However, if you want to convince anyone else of anything, then it makes a big difference whether your belief is reasonable.

I'm more interested in why people believe things, rather than what they believe.

(March 23, 2016 at 11:48 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(March 23, 2016 at 11:27 am)ChadWooters Wrote: When people talk loosely, they tend to say someone is being irrational when what they really mean to say is that person made an error somewhere along the line or failed to lacked knowledge of important details. That seems not to be what some AF members, like yourself, are claiming. Some here want to judge people as rational, or not, by the conclusions they reach rather than the process by which they reach them. In practice they are saying that your reasoning is flawless and if someone doesn’t agree with you then, they are by definition irrational. Are they truly prepared to call profound thinkers like David Bentley Hart irrational. You may think he is wrong, but irrational. C’mon.

For example, I do not think testability is required to justify belief. Like parsimony it helps guide people toward the best explanation of natural phenomena. The testability of a proposition (P) depends on two conditions 1) not-P is conceivable and evidence for not-P could plausibly be found.

If the reasonableness of all propositions were required to be falsifiable then some fields of knowledge would be excluded, like mathematics and philosophy, when not-P is often inconceivable. Measuring physical objects cannot not test the proposition that phi is an irrational number. Modus pones is a truth preserving structure because the contrary is inconceivable. In other cases, condition 2 cannot be met. No circumstance excludes or confirms whether or not nomena lie are behind phenomena.

And another thing: If you follow my posts here at AF (which I think you don't, because you don't feel I have anything to say that would be worthy of your attention) you can plainly see that I am more than happy to humbly concede where I am wrong, and have done so on several occasions. So, this whole, "you call anyone who disagrees with you irrational" is a strawman.

LC, you have integrity. Something that some of the theists here seriously lack.

(March 23, 2016 at 12:55 pm)Nymphadora Wrote:

(March 23, 2016 at 11:48 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: And another thing: If you follow my posts here at AF (which I think you don't, because you don't feel I have anything to say that would be worthy of your attention) you can plainly see that I am more than happy to humbly concede where I am wrong, and have done so on several occasions. So, this whole, "you call anyone who disagrees with you irrational" is a strawman.

LC, you have integrity. Something that some of the theists here seriously lack.

Oh, that's sweet Nymph!   Thank you.    You give me too much credit though.  I'm just an emotionally reactive poster, and it gets me into trouble sometimes.  It's something I'm actively working on.  Not evidenced in this thread, obviously, lol.

(March 23, 2016 at 1:27 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(March 23, 2016 at 12:55 pm)Nymphadora Wrote: LC, you have integrity. Something that some of the theists here seriously lack.

Oh, that's sweet Nymph!   Thank you.    You give me too much credit though.  I'm just an emotionally reactive poster, and it gets me into trouble sometimes.  It's something I'm actively working on.  Not evidenced in this thread, obviously, lol.

We all get emotional (well, narcissists don't), and we all have our moments, but that's what makes us human

And I watch your posts. I've seen you apologize on many occasions. You are a humble lady and I have much respect for you.

(March 23, 2016 at 11:48 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: So, this whole, "you call anyone who disagrees with you irrational" is a strawman.

I think that was more directed at my line of thought, that lack of belief alone isn't sufficient without a concomitant charge of irrationality for the theist's beliefs. The author of the article in the OP makes a similar point. I think it's a fair point that when we say that someone's beliefs are irrational we don't mean it in the literal sense, but rather that it's a way of speaking when what we mean to say is that such beliefs could not be reasonably supported, and, that if they think they can, they are mistaken. But I think that's commonly understood. The charge of irrationality is an odd one because as we're coming to understand, we're all fundamentally irrational creatures, and it's more of a figurative complaint than a literal one.

(March 23, 2016 at 10:18 am)Felasco Wrote: Thank you. 

I don't know that there is, but it seems a quite reasonable possibility.

How did you figure that the existence of gods is a "reasonable possibility"?

What are the data points that you utilized in order to believe that it is a "reasonable possibility"?

Quote:Every species ever discovered is brilliant within it's niche, or it wouldn't be there.  But beyond it's niche, every species is largely blind, as it has no need for that information.  It's of course true that humans have a bigger niche than say, donkeys, but it doesn't automatically follow that we are therefore capable of understanding everything at some point.  It seems more reasonable to assume we are like every other species ever discovered, capable to a point, and then limited.

Yes, our brains evolved to help us survive on the African plains, not ponder the universe. Yes, it may not be possible for us to understand everything.

So....

How does this negate the idea that reason is still our best method?

Quote:Thus, even if we were to agree that the rules of human reason are binding on all we can observe, that is essentially meaningless information in regards to the fundamental nature of all reality.

In any case, if anyone is going to propose that the rules of human reason are binding upon all of reality, the burden is on them to prove it.   The same is true of holy books of course.

Yes, it may be true that reason may not work in all of reality. I'm  not sure how that would happen, but for arguments sake, I'll go with it. 

That still does not answer the question, what other, better method do we have?




[/quote]

Simon Moon Wrote:How did you figure that the existence of gods is a "reasonable possibility"?

Um, apologies but uh, I didn't say anything even close to that.

(March 23, 2016 at 11:40 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(March 23, 2016 at 10:38 am)Felasco Wrote: Again, you are assuming that nothing in reality can be, or appear to be, contradictory.  Prove it please.

[Emphasis added -- Thump]

This is a subtle strawman.  No one has said that things cannot appear contradictory. Why are you asserting that they assume that?

Please re-read the post you are quoting, and the post I was responding to, thanks.

(March 23, 2016 at 11:31 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(March 23, 2016 at 9:41 am)Felasco Wrote: Please provide proof that the rules of human reason are binding upon all of reality, and thus any gods contained within.

If you ask around, I think you'll find that many if not most theists here seem to believe that their god exists outside of reality itself, which is how they get around the conundrum of how a god living in reality might have created that reality, and where was he before reality came into being.  Point being, there's an assumption built into your challenge which isn't shared by many believers.

Except that my post had nothing to do with religious believers.  I was asking atheists to prove the qualifications of their own chosen authority, or tool if you prefer.