(September 25, 2009 at 6:13 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I didn't say that our ancestors were not superstitious - that's over stating the truth (ie ignoring the facts) to try to prove your own stance. What I said was it's fallacious to dismiss it all as superstition when there's clearly more to it than that.
No you didn't explicitly say it. But when I said they were superstitious, and you said I was mixing up superstition and rational thought...I (quite reasonably I think) thought you meant that they were rational and not superstitious! I was not over stating the truth, I was going by what you said.
I was agreeing with Elionnwy that Thor's happen is a primitive way of explaining storms and lightning, but apparently I'm mixing up rational thought and superstition when I say that's superstitous!
So apparently it's rational to just make up an answer when you don't know something? A rational attempt...perhaps, but the thought itself isn't rational! Making up answers out of thin air that are total non-sequiters and have absolutely no basis, isn't rational!
No it's not fallacious to dismiss it as superstition. To dismiss it as superstition until any of those beliefs have provided any (the E word) or any argument whatsoever, is not a fallacy! If that's a fallacy then it's fallacious to ever call anything superstitious when it lacks any support. Apparently then, I'm being fallacious when I say that it's superstitious to believe that Santa Claus is real. I really shouldn't dismiss these things as superstition until they're supported
If you could argue that believing Thor is the cause of lighting is rational, then you could argue that every explanation is. There's a difference between whether it's actually rational or not, and whether it's attempted to be. A gigantic amount of things are attempted to be, and perhaps at some level of consciousness, everything is. Your brain does the best it can do. The question is, are these actually rational arguments, could you really say they're rational? No I think, I think making up answers out of thin air because you don't know the real answer, is superstitious.
Sorry, but I don't buy what you said. I think it's fallacious to assert that I'm being fallacious by considering something superstitious when it lacks argument, any real support, and when it lacks (the E word). When else do you expect me to call something superstitious?
(September 26, 2009 at 5:38 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Then what was science and not religion was always science and never religion. It's a common misplaced accusation scientists make of religion and to be honest I find it pathetic.
Sounds like shifting the goal-posts to me. Like you're saying Religion is only truly Religion when it's modern Religion which completely avoids any science issues. That's your opinion. The Religions of the past that tried to explain things, where still Religions to those religious people of the past.
EvF
