Capharnaum
30-04-2005, 16:39
I find this quote quite valid.
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."
While it does not really bother me if people are do not objectively rationalize their beliefs (it really does not affect me, and it is there choice so they can do as they wish), what sometimes irritates me, is when other's, in debate, justify something as though objectively, using their subjective beliefs alone.
For instance, someone may argue strongly that we should say, wear clothes, on a cultural basis, although we may live in a country where it is hot all year round, and lack of clothes would in fact be pragmatic, but culturally one may have migrated, or adopted the culture of a country where it may be cold much of the time, and say it is barabaric, or against culture, etc.
Or religion may tell that say, homosexuality is evil, when by logic one may deduce that there is no real improbity in homosexuality.(just a good example, could not think of other good ones, please don't stab :) ) Where a religion, when formed, was most likely based on logic, and arguing just based on the conclusions made by those who may have formed the religion, rather than the logic used to formulate such conclusions, seems to be assuming religious beliefs as postulates of being almost
Or even quoting: popular quotes are often conclusions made by someone reknowned, are catchy, but are often just the conclusion, a baseless statement when seperated from the logic set out to come to such a conclusion. Yet some in debate, simply present only such a baseless statement and appear to think that it is definitive, that perhaps because this person believed it, it is somehow instantly true. (whereas I in this thread am perusing the logic behind a certain quote)
Again, I am fine with those who choose to hold beliefs in such ways, to trust and to have faith in the source of this belief. But arguing with these beliefs as assumed truths to me I find is lucidly irrational.
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."
While it does not really bother me if people are do not objectively rationalize their beliefs (it really does not affect me, and it is there choice so they can do as they wish), what sometimes irritates me, is when other's, in debate, justify something as though objectively, using their subjective beliefs alone.
For instance, someone may argue strongly that we should say, wear clothes, on a cultural basis, although we may live in a country where it is hot all year round, and lack of clothes would in fact be pragmatic, but culturally one may have migrated, or adopted the culture of a country where it may be cold much of the time, and say it is barabaric, or against culture, etc.
Or religion may tell that say, homosexuality is evil, when by logic one may deduce that there is no real improbity in homosexuality.(just a good example, could not think of other good ones, please don't stab :) ) Where a religion, when formed, was most likely based on logic, and arguing just based on the conclusions made by those who may have formed the religion, rather than the logic used to formulate such conclusions, seems to be assuming religious beliefs as postulates of being almost
Or even quoting: popular quotes are often conclusions made by someone reknowned, are catchy, but are often just the conclusion, a baseless statement when seperated from the logic set out to come to such a conclusion. Yet some in debate, simply present only such a baseless statement and appear to think that it is definitive, that perhaps because this person believed it, it is somehow instantly true. (whereas I in this thread am perusing the logic behind a certain quote)
Again, I am fine with those who choose to hold beliefs in such ways, to trust and to have faith in the source of this belief. But arguing with these beliefs as assumed truths to me I find is lucidly irrational.