Faith, Hope and Love - the pillars of destruction?

[spockrates]

In literal terms and at least one definition,

Faith
Hope
Love

are all crazy to have. It all depends on context.

It would seem that most are crazy, then. For most trust, hope in, and love someone, or something.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

For most trust, hope in, and love someone, or something.

Indeed, and a Buddhist would say those things cause suffering.

We are never so desperately unhappy as when we lose love. (Sigmund Freud)

[spockrates]

For most trust, hope in, and love someone, or something.

Indeed, and a Buddhist would say those things cause suffering.

We are never so desperately unhappy as when we lose love. (Sigmund Freud)

Yes, and a Vulcan would agree with the Buddhist about hope and love, insofar as they are emotions--but perhaps in some sense they are not? She would then point out that the Buddhist is being illogical about faith, for Buddhists trust in the teachings of Buddha.

:p

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

She would then point out that the Buddhist is being illogical about faith, for Buddhists trust in the teachings of Buddha.

That attachment causes suffering is not a faith-based concept, rather an observable truism . Buddhism is not a dogma based religion,but an atheistic philosophy.

One of the most idiotic phrases to enter popular culture is "logic dictates". Logic does not guarantee truth,so cannot dictate anything. Nor do I care what some emotionally stunted fictional character belonging to an emotionally stunted fictional race says about anything.

[spockrates]

She would then point out that the Buddhist is being illogical about faith, for Buddhists trust in the teachings of Buddha.

That attachment causes suffering is not a faith-based concept, rather an observable truism . Buddhism is not a dogma based religion,but an atheistic philosophy.

One of the most idiotic phrases to enter popular culture is "logic dictates". Logic does not guarantee truth,so cannot dictate anything. Nor do I care what some emotionally stunted fictional character belonging to an emotionally stunted fictional race says about anything.

True, with the exception of deductive reasoning, which does dictate. That being said, most reasoning presented in forums such as these is inductive and has to do with probabilities rather than certainties, as you pointed out. So, I agree.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

True, with the exception of deductive reasoning, which does dictate.

Ah, the famous Sherlock Holmes drivel. (remove the impossible and what remains is the truth) Deductive reasoning guarantees nothing


Logic does NOT guarantee truth. In formal logic, the premise is assumed to be true for the sake of argument. A logical inference may be claimed to be true IF AND ONLY IF the premise been proved to be true.


Hence, I argue that God cannot be argued into or out of existence. I demand that any truth claim be supported by evidence. If it cannot be,the best I can do is to accept degrees of plausibility/likelihood.

EG; I do not believe in gods,and consider the likelihood of their existence remote,based on an absence of credible evidence. Nor do I believe in the soul, an afterlife,angels,demons, the paranormal,alien visitation, dragons,mountain trolls or fairies living at the bottom of my garden,for the same reason.

PS When people speak of 'logic' it is to deductive logic they refer.It has even been argued that the simplest form of deductive logic, the syllogism, is the basis of western thought.

Remember: There is a difference between asserting that a premise is untrue, and asserting
that the logic of the argument is faulty. “All dogs can fly. Fido is a dog. Fido can fly.” That
is a perfectly valid argument in terms of logic, but this flawless logic is based on an untrue
premise. If a person accepts the major and minor premises of an argument, the conclusion
follows undeniably by the sheer force of reason. If in an argument, the logic reaches a
conclusion that seems absurd, it behooves you to analyze each sentence separately (to see if
each premise is true without exception) and then to analyze the structure of the argument
(to see if the reasoning of the argument itself is valid). Also be on the lookout for
“equivocation,” the use of two different meanings of one word during the process of an
argument.

http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/documents/Syllogisms.pdf

[spockrates]

True, with the exception of deductive reasoning, which does dictate.

Ah, the famous Sherlock Holmes drivel. (remove the impossible and what remains is the truth) Deductive reasoning guarantees nothing


Logic does NOT guarantee truth. In formal logic, the premise is assumed to be true for the sake of argument. A logical inference may be claimed to be true IF AND ONLY IF the premise been proved to be true.

Agreed.

Hence, I argue that God cannot be argued into or out of existence. I demand that any truth claim be supported by evidence. If it cannot be,the best I can do is to accept degrees of plausibility/likelihood.

True.

EG; I do not believe in gods,and consider the likelihood of their existence remote,based on an absence of credible evidence. Nor do I believe in the soul, an afterlife,angels,demons, the paranormal,alien visitation, dragons,mountain trolls or fairies living at the bottom of my garden,for the same reason.


PS When people speak of 'logic' it is to deductive logic they refer.It has even been argued that the simplest form of deductive logic, the syllogism, is the basis of western thought.

You might be right.

Remember: There is a difference between asserting that a premise is untrue, and asserting
that the logic of the argument is faulty. “All dogs can fly. Fido is a dog. Fido can fly.” That
is a perfectly valid argument in terms of logic, but this flawless logic is based on an untrue
premise. If a person accepts the major and minor premises of an argument, the conclusion
follows undeniably by the sheer force of reason. If in an argument, the logic reaches a
conclusion that seems absurd, it behooves you to analyze each sentence separately (to see if
each premise is true without exception) and then to analyze the structure of the argument
(to see if the reasoning of the argument itself is valid). Also be on the lookout for
“equivocation,” the use of two different meanings of one word during the process of an
argument.

Right. There are FE and LE factual errors and logical errors. Either will prevent the one making the argument from demonstrating her point.

http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/documents/Syllogisms.pdf

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

"If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains (no matter how improbable) must be the truth. (Spockrates)

Stolen from Sherlock Holmes,bullshit when he said it,and it remains bullshit. (Tarquin St John Shagnasty)

When the impossible is removed, there may yet be several/many plausable/possible/ likely explanations. PLUS an assertion of impossibility is a truth claim.

[spockrates]

"If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains (no matter how improbable) must be the truth. (Spockrates)

Stolen from Sherlock Holmes,bullshit when he said it,and it remains bullshit. (Tarquin St John Shagnasty)

When the impossible is removed, there may yet be several/many plausable/possible/ likely explanations. PLUS an assertion of impossibility is a truth claim.

Agreed. I guess the best course of action is to seriously consider as many possibilities as we can, no matter how improbable they first seem to be.

[Anomalocaris]

When the impossible is removed, there may yet be several/many plausable/possible/ likely explanations. PLUS an assertion of impossibility is a truth claim.

Agreed. I guess the best course of action is to seriously consider as many possibilities as we can, no matter how improbable they first seem to be.

You can't live long enough to seriously contemplate any significant portion of the vast pool of vastly improbable possibilities. Wasting your time on them seems to cause you to lose perspective of just how trivial these possibilities really are next to much weightier probabilities. Life is about constrained optimization, to make the best of the limited time and opportunities you have. Optimization is not achieved by losing perspective and wasting opportunities of the probable for the infinitesimally possible.