Can emotion be a way to truth as reason is?

[rybak303]

I am often confronted by Christians who say that just as they have faith in the bible I have faith in reason. I reply that I do not have faith in reason but rather that I have have trust in reason just I have trust in my eyes because my reason like my eyes is primary and provides me evidence to validate this trust. But what of emotion? Is not emotion just as primary to all human beings as reason, if not more so? If I would trust my reason in exploring the dimensions of reality why should I not also trust my emotion? Emotions are subjective many would reply, emotions lie to us, they make mistakes and change with time. And reason does not? How many false ideas were once upheld as truth by those employing their best reason? One might respond 'The ideas were wrong but reason was yet strengthened because it was reason which revealed them to be wrong.' And emotion cannot do the same? How many impulses and passions, particularly the negative ones, are overridden by emotion, particularly forgiving love. Just as reason can be developed so too can emotion. What is the reason of a cave man to Stephen Hawking? Probably the same as the emotion of a cave man to Mother Theresa.
So if we are to explore the dimensions of reality we should employ both our reason and our emotion and not exclude one for the sake of the other just as we would not forsake our eyes for the sake of our ears even though they perceive different dimensions of the same reality. Now given this isn't it likely that religious texts such as the bible often sound absurd because their primary message is emotional truth and we are looking at it too much with reason instead of our hearts? Isn't it very possible that there is emotional evidence to point to the existence of God?

[Edwardo Piet]

Objective absolute truth exists out there regardless of whether the reasoning is correct or not.

So if you believe in whatever the truth is through irrational, entirely emotional reasons, then I guess you could say in retrospect (if we accept the premise that you believe in the absolute genuine truth here) that was a "way" to the truth that wasn't rational or reasonable. However, the actual truth and the way there are two different things and I'd rather have rational, dispassionate reasons for believing than emotionally irrational ones any day.

If I would trust my reason in exploring the dimensions of reality why should I not also trust my emotion?

Because emotions don't reason like you can with, well, with reason.

With emotions you may start with a premise and have no genuine method to get to a conclusion. With reason there is a logical argument or arguments that follows or follow through.

Now given this isn't it likely that religious texts such as the bible often sound absurd because their primary message is emotional truth and we are looking at it too much with reason instead of our hearts?

What on earth is a "emotional truth"? Sounds an awful lot like this I'm afraid: truthiness. Gets you no where.

Isn't it very possible that there is emotional evidence to point to the existence of God?

Gut feeling is not evidence. The term "Emotional evidence" undermines what evidence is actually about. It's about having a rational, valid reason for believing in something. "It just feels true" is no argument, completely irrational, not valid at all. It's merely a bare assertion with emotion added to it, and emotion has no bearing on the reality of the matter.

[Zen Badger]

Now given this isn't it likely that religious texts such as the bible often sound absurd because their primary message is emotional truth and we are looking at it too much with reason instead of our hearts?

No, the bible sounds absurd because it is self contradictory, historically and scientifically inaccurate and not actually the word of god.

Isn't it very possible that there is emotional evidence to point to the existence of God?

If so maybe you should provide some then, instead of just posting these ridiculous OPs and then fucking off never to be seen again until the next idiotic OP.

[Scarface]

A very famous quote says : "We don't see things as they are, we see things as we are". We share a certain amount of common reality but let's not underestimate just how vastly subjective we all are. I can't say for sure how much of our emotions are accurate, but seeing as we are subjective beings, there's no reason to assume that they are any less accurate than our common reality.

[chris]

We can not denie that we are emotive human beings, and many important discoveries have been made by intuitive leaps of faith backed up by a highly emotive defence of that idea, however there are just as many scientifc untruths which have gone through the same treatment. Logic comes in to temper this , put the theories to the test, and only after intensive logical scrutiny does it become established science.

All the best

Chris

[Watson]

I like to think in terms of 'emotional logic.' At any given time we are reacting emotionally to something, whether logically or not.

For instance, say you are walking down the road and witness a terrible car wreck. No one would question you if you expressed horror over the incident in question. Because it is emotionally logical to respond to a car wreck with horror.

[chris]

I like to think in terms of 'emotional logic.' At any given time we are reacting emotionally to something, whether logically or not.

For instance, say you are walking down the road and witness a terrible car wreck. No one would question you if you expressed horror over the incident in question. Because it is emotionally logical to respond to a car wreck with horror.

I'm not sure if the term emotional logic isn't an oxymoron. Logic is the unemotive manipulation of the available data to eventually reach a conclusion.

In the example of seeing a car wreck, logic tells you that from past data of similar car wrecks that someone in that vehicle is probably hurt or dead, it's then that the emotive element of a persons reactions come into play.

However, because this process happens so fast, I can see how you have come to the conclusion stated above.

All the best

Chris

[Watson]

Regardless, it is still emotionally logical, then, to express horror or fear towards the fact that someone has just been seriously hurt or died in your prescence. This is a natural, logical respnse, and I don't think anyone would say "Why are you so horrofied? That was hilarious!" unelss they were crazy.

[chris]

Regardless, it is still emotionally logical, then, to express horror or fear towards the fact that someone has just been seriously hurt or died in your prescence. This is a natural, logical respnse, and I don't think anyone would say "Why are you so horrofied? That was hilarious!" unelss they were crazy.

I agree that most people would react as stated, but that doesn't mean that they have arrived at that emotion logically. If logic was truely involved in the generation of emotion, you would expect everyone to come to the same emotional result, this does not seem to be the case as even with the emotion of horror, different people will exibit different levels.

It has also been shown that many animals who have no reasoning abilities (by our current understanding) exibit emotional responses to various situations.

All the best

Chris

[theVOID]

You're emotional Watson, stop raping the english language to make yourself feel better about your dumb beliefs!