NationStates Jolt Archive

For some method of attaining knowledge to be unjustified, one would have to point that it can be judged as worse than some other, that some other method is indeed valid.

No, justification isn't relative, it's absolute.

Something can be unjustified even if everything else is also unjustified.

Otherwise the choice is random, and justification does not apply to random choice.

Random choice, being arbitrary, is always unjustified.

Could you please describe the middle ground you have found between complete justification and the utter lack of justification?

Simply the conventional use of "justification"--the same sort of justification you demand when someone makes a claim about politics or economics.

Inconsistency is not the skeptics problem.

It is common to temporarily adopt your opponents premise only to render it into contradiction.

But now you're contradicting yourself. Proof by contradiction is nothing more than pointing out inconsistency.

This is what I have done, accept the truth of reason and show that it results in contradiction which cannot be by its own tenets.

Actually, you have shown no contradiction in the truth of reason. Your argument is merely for a contradiction in the beliefs of people who accept it--that they demand rational justification for everything, yet cannot rationally justify reason.

The problem is that you've stopped there. You haven't considered the implication of your conclusion. If acceptance of reason is unjustified, then the requirement of consistency is also unjustified. Since your entire argument against the acceptance of reason rests on its inconsistency, your argument is self-destructive.

Of course, you want to say that while inconsistency isn't a problem for you, it is a problem for me. But this is nothing more than another inconsistency on my part... an inconsistency that your argument itself says doesn't matter. If I accept your argument I still have no reason to do anything differently, because I have no reason to require consistency from myself.

I don't truly need a critical edge, because now you won't allow yourself to make the argument.

Why not?

If acceptance of reason is justified, then I am right.

If acceptance of reason is unjustified, then nobody (including, most importantly, me) can say I'm wrong.

I would draw the difference by saying that understanding isn't necessarily true.

Something we "understand" wrongly is something we don't truly understand at all.

If my understanding of Animal Farm is that it's a frivolous superficial fairy tale for children about talking animals, I don't really understand it.

That is the central point I was trying to make, you are trying to say that because we have this innate reason in our understanding, (we understand that if one comes before two, and two comes before three, then one comes before three), then we can say that reason can justify knowledge.

No, we can't say that reason can justify knowledge.

We can only say that, for human beings, justification is inexorably bound up with reason... in a sense that goes beyond a mere assumption.

Now, if I misunderstood you and you were simply saying that we were justified in using reason in the matter of deduction,

I wasn't saying that we were justified in using reason at all.

I just wonder what you were actually trying to prove in the first place.

That human thought follows rational paths.

Not (just) in that we "assume" reason, as skeptics tend to argue--but in that we cannot escape it. If we could, we could not conclude anything at all... even if we did assume reason.

Think of it this way:

1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

The skeptic points out that there is a hidden premise here--"reason works"--and that this premise is unjustified, meaning that we can't really know (3). I disagree. I don't think (3) following from (1) and (2) is a matter of a hidden premise at all. It can't be, because "reason works" doesn't really help us--it only does if it excludes its opposite, "reason doesn't work" (or, perhaps more interestingly, "all the conclusions of reason are false") and by the very nature of its opposite (which denies the truth of the principle of non-contradiction), it cannot exclude its opposite.

Yet we can reach (3) from (1) and (2) somehow, nevertheless... and I submit that we can only do so because human thought excludes "reason doesn't work" not by assumption (which doesn't work) but simply by its character.

Soheran,

I agree with you concerning the nature of reason and its inescapability. I was operating from a definition of understanding that is pretty much limited to human conceptualizing, but the difference in definition is unimportant.

Now I would like to point out that when you say that everything can be unjustified, you are using "unjustified" in a value-free manner. It is not unjustified because someone can be blamed for using it, but because judgment is impossible. This seems to be a rather pointless use of the word, but I do agree with your position, as it is.

You are also correct that I don't show that reason itself is contradictory (now that you mention it, I cannot show that reason is contradictory) rather that people who proclaim its veracity are being contradictory.

Hereafter we disagree.

First off, I understand the conclusion you are throwing out there, that my denial of reason prohibits me from making an argument using reason. This has been thrown up against skeptics for 2500 years, and I have heard many of its reincarnations. However, if you say "I have no reason to require consistency from myself", I have succeeded. Granted, though I cannot say that you are unjustified in your understanding, I can say that, since you have accepted consistency and inconsistency, you have abandoned reason because of my argument. Furthermore, if you accept consistency and inconsistency, I do not know how you could consider any other method of knowledge attainment worse than your own.

That is why I need you to clarify what you meant when you said:

Simply the conventional use of "justification"--the same sort of justification you demand when someone makes a claim about politics or economics.

What is this justification and why does it matter?

EDIT:

Yet we can reach (3) from (1) and (2) somehow, nevertheless... and I submit that we can only do so because human thought excludes "reason doesn't work" not by assumption (which doesn't work) but simply by its character.

This is interesting, but our assumption of reason works would not necessarily be logically consistent itself. Even if the exclusion of "reason doesn't work" doesn't work rationally, it does work pragmatically.

I do agree with you, but I don't consider this to be proof.

Why not? Dawkins (And a number of people on this board) seem to equate me with the same due to my beliefs.

Again, the "THEY DID IT FIRST!" or "THEY WERE WORSE!" is not a defence. You brought up the behavors of that crowd, not me.

You brought up your 'they did it first' comment before I mentioned any of those behaviours - that's the point.

To suggest 'they did it first' is to suggest a parallel. If you honestly think there is a parallel...

"Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!" -Richard Dawkins

Seems perfecty reasonable....

If you're religious, you're dangerous.

That's very objectionable.


That's not even close to what he says.

What he says is that (basically) religion gives people a 'divine mandate' to do as they please - or as they believe they should.

People can kill each other (or whatever else) without compunction, because they are 'doing the right thing' by their lights... since (they believe) their god says it's okay.

It's that idea that everything you do is condoned by some 'higher authority' that is the problem.

Seems perfecty reasonable....
Exactly.

Don’t give special treatment to one belief over others, just because it’s labelled ‘religion’, and be wary that certain religious beliefs can justify morally reprehensible act.

Don’t see what’s so terrible about that.

except that's extra information you haven't got available. You only have the information given: One's a Pygmy, other's a Kenyan. You welcome to make all the assumptions you wish, but you get no other information.

I don't wish to make any assumptions, which is why I wouldn't make any bet. I do not have any useful information that would lead me to pick one party over the other. I don't even have enough information to know if there are two different individuals in question. It's entirely possible that the Kenyan and the Pygmy are the same person.

I guess I'd flip a coin if you forced me to place some bet, but hopefully you won't tell me that random chance is racist.


And making assumptions is exactly what bigotry and racism is all about.

Wrong. Racism and bigotry are about a specific type of assumption. For instance, if you tell me that you are paralyzed from the waist down, and I assume your hobbies do not include marathon running, I am making an assumption that has nothing whatsoever to do with racism.

Making an assumption about an individual's ability to run a race doesn't necessarily have anything to do with ethnicity. That's why your example fails. If you had made the question about, say, a Kenyan and an Eskimo, perhaps you'd have been closer to making a point. But the moment you introduce Pygmies you are introducing an additional variable: that of physical stature. That's got nothing to do with race, since there are small-statured individuals of pretty much every race.


Face it: The only reason you say you wouldn't make the bet because you know where this is leading - to me showing you that anyone is capable of bigoted thoughts/behaviour and thus your earlier statement about, "If you hold racist beliefs, you will behave in bigoted ways" is a vast generalisation (because you can behave bigotedly yet not be racist and you can be racist yet not behave bigotedly) that doesn't hold up under scrutiny.
Much like Dawkins' more recent works.
Actually, the reason I wouldn't make the bet is because I would not have any useful information to go on. Which kind of directly disproves your theory; I'm unwilling to make the bet precisely BECAUSE I don't make the assumptions you're looking for.

there are always differing interpretations of text. fact of the world.
Fortunately, Dawkins himself remains alive, so he can be asked what he actually meant. :D

Face it: The only reason you say you wouldn't make the bet because you know where this is leading...

Yes, to the fact that you keep ignoring that a 'Kenyan' and a 'Pygmy' are not necessarily two different people.

Or indeed should we count any belief dangerous, or should we see the danger in some of the people that hold them?


Belief can be dangerous. It is more dangerous when you claim some 'higher power' as the INSPIRATION for the belief, because you put your opinion beyond reproach.

Belief can be dangerous. It is more dangerous when you claim some 'higher power' as the INSPIRATION for the belief, because you put your opinion beyond reproach.
Really, when you get to the core of it, I think that is what makes any belief system truly dangerous: the notion that the beliefs cannot be questioned or examined critically.

This is why facism is so fucked up. This is why fundamentalism is so fucked up. This is why totalitarianism is so fucked up. This is why a whole host of the ugliest systems of belief are so fucked up. Because they declare themselves beyond reproach and criticism. Because they don't listen to reason or even allow for discussion.

The ability to think critically and examine abstract concepts is one of the few functions which separates human beings from every other known life form. Any belief system which demands that we exclude or shut down these function is fucked up, in my opinion.

Really, when you get to the core of it, I think that is what makes any belief system truly dangerous: the notion that the beliefs cannot be questioned or examined critically.

This is why facism is so fucked up. This is why fundamentalism is so fucked up. This is why totalitarianism is so fucked up. This is why a whole host of the ugliest systems of belief are so fucked up. Because they declare themselves beyond reproach and criticism. Because they don't listen to reason or even allow for discussion.

The ability to think critically and examine abstract concepts is one of the few functions which separates human beings from every other known life form. Any belief system which demands that we exclude or shut down these function is fucked up, in my opinion.

Exactly. Religion is one example of ideas being considered 'beyond reproach', but god is not the ONLY 'higher power' that ever gets invoked...

However, just because it's not the ONLY one, doesn't mean it gets to shed responsibility. And - I think that's the point.

Fortunately, Dawkins himself remains alive, so he can be asked what he actually meant. :D

true, though that won't stop the dedicated from arguing over what he meant when he explained what he meant

true, though that won't stop the dedicated from arguing over what he meant when he explained what he meant

What do you mean by that?

nope. ideas change faster than genetics. if it was some aspect of humanity that was responsible, rather than the particulars of ideas people happened to be holding, then we would expect things to be fairly uniform. but this is not what we see. what we see is some particular idea taking hold among a population and the next thing you know, people are being forced to abandon the cities and everyone with glasses is sent to the death camps.

now, as regards irrationalism generally, sometimes the particular irrational beliefs held for the moment are not in themselves particularly bad. but the 'justificatory' process behind them means that this can only be accidental and temporary - the ideas are held for bad reasons, bad reasons which can and have been used to 'justify' really bad things. the only real way to resist these bad things is to give up on the bad justificatory practices. otherwise you are effectively reduced to just saying 'nuh-uh'. but adopting better justifactory practices necessarily means admitting that your old ones were dangerous.

quoting this for commentary from others

What do you mean by that?

just remarking on the slippery nature of communication and interpretation

Exactly. Religion is one example of ideas being considered 'beyond reproach', but god is not the ONLY 'higher power' that ever gets invoked...

However, just because it's not the ONLY one, doesn't mean it gets to shed responsibility. And - I think that's the point.

Ah, but this gets to the heart of the matter. Not all religious people consider their beliefs to be "beyond reproach" or unquestionable. It would appear that the danger lies, not in having religious beliefs or appealing to a higher power, but in considering those beliefs to be unquestionable...

Ah, but this gets to the heart of the matter. Not all religious people consider their beliefs to be "beyond reproach" or unquestionable.

This is true.


It would appear that the danger lies, not in having religious beliefs or appealing to a higher power, but in considering those beliefs to be unquestionable...
I think there are other dangers that come into play whenever superstition is involved, but you're certainly right that the danger we were specifically talking about is not limited to religion and does not necessarily have to occur whenever religion enters the picture. We've said as much on this page.

nope. ideas change faster than genetics. if it was some aspect of humanity that was responsible, rather than the particulars of ideas people happened to be holding, then we would expect things to be fairly uniform. but this is not what we see. what we see is some particular idea taking hold among a population and the next thing you know, people are being forced to abandon the cities and everyone with glasses is sent to the death camps.

I think Peepelonia meant that if religion or faith or irrationality were entirely and solely responsible for the negative impacts, one would expect to see these impacts occurring only where these things are present. This is not the case. None of these things have solely negative impacts on people, nor are they solely responsible for all the negative impacts in people's lives.

On the other hand, it would be stupid and dishonest to say that religion, faith and irrationality have had no negative impacts on people. I would argue that the relationship between these things and individual and social good is too complex for a single cause/effect assertion.

now, as regards irrationalism generally, sometimes the particular irrational beliefs held for the moment are not in themselves particularly bad. but the 'justificatory' process behind them means that this can only be accidental and temporary - the ideas are held for bad reasons, bad reasons which can and have been used to 'justify' really bad things. the only real way to resist these bad things is to give up on the bad justificatory practices. otherwise you are effectively reduced to just saying 'nuh-uh'. but adopting better justifactory practices necessarily means admitting that your old ones were dangerous.

While your argument above works for specific situations, like holy wars, the situation you have outlined is not universal.

I have the irrational belief that someone loves me. The process I use to justify this belief to myself is subjective. Does this mean that this belief in love is accidental and temporary? It is based on subjective reasons. Is this what you mean by bad reasons? Obviously, I can use it to justify bad things, but it also serves as a justification for doing good things. Somehow, I am able to resist doing the bad things. It is not because I have given up my bad (subjective and irrational) justificatory practices. Quite the opposite. I am able to resist the bad things because of my irrational love, my faith in this person's love for me, and my capability of imagining (there's that irrationailty again) how the other person feels.

Feeling compassion requires intuition, an imaginative leap into the emotions of the other. How dangerous is that?

While your argument above works for specific situations, like holy wars, the situation you have outlined is not universal.

I have the irrational belief that someone loves me.

the only way that belief would be irrational is if you held it despite the existence of significant evidence against it. otherwise, believing yourself loved is perfectly in keeping with rationality.

It is based on subjective reasons. Is this what you mean by bad reasons?

no, a bad reason to believe that someone loves you would be that you read it in the stars or asked the oracle or were told so in a dream, etc. though maybe i'm not sure what you mean by a subjective reason to believe that someone loves you - do you mean that it is subjective because the only evidence for it is in your own head and is unobservable by others?

Feeling compassion requires intuition, an imaginative leap into the emotions of the other. How dangerous is that?

don't know, but it is vital for the existence of ethics in any case

Ah, but this gets to the heart of the matter. Not all religious people consider their beliefs to be "beyond reproach" or unquestionable. It would appear that the danger lies, not in having religious beliefs or appealing to a higher power, but in considering those beliefs to be unquestionable...

more important than questioning is what would count as a source of answers to those questions. for example, it may be all fine and dandy to question what we ought do in some instance under some religious system, but if the allowable source of an answer is something like the word of the high priest then the questioning isn't helpful.

the only way that belief would be irrational is if you held it despite the existence of significant evidence against it. otherwise, believing yourself loved is perfectly in keeping with rationality.

no, a bad reason to believe that someone loves you would be that you read it in the stars or asked the oracle or were told so in a dream, etc. though maybe i'm not sure what you mean by a subjective reason to believe that someone loves you - do you mean that it is subjective because the only evidence for it is in your own head and is unobservable by others?

don't know, but it is vital for the existence of ethics in any case

The specific example doesn't really matter. I could use the idea of agape if you want. What I am trying to point out is that a belief that is irrational or religious, or comes about through a religious, irrational or faith based process, is not inherently dangerous.

Maybe I read your post wrong, but I thought you were saying that ideas, if justified by religious, irrational, or faith based processes, are accidental and temporary. I am not sure what you meant by that, or if that is what you actually meant.

Moreso, you seem to argue that such justification has been used to justify bad things, and the only way to stop the bad thing from continuing is to get rid of the religious, irrational, or faith based 'justificatory' processes. That doesn't make sense. If a person attempts to do me harm, removing his or her justification for causing me harm is only one avenue of stopping the harm. But let's say I choose this avenue. Couldn't this person still want to cause me harm without any justification?

This is why I argue that irrationality is not inherently dangerous.

Ah, but this gets to the heart of the matter. Not all religious people consider their beliefs to be "beyond reproach" or unquestionable. It would appear that the danger lies, not in having religious beliefs or appealing to a higher power, but in considering those beliefs to be unquestionable...

In the film "Dogma", they talk about the difference between belief and ideas. If you think maybe this maybe that... I'm not sure that really counts as 'belief', per se. Ideas are good, because the change fairly fluidly - while 'beliefs' become part of the terrain.

The whole thing is - I suppose - if you really believe your actions are dictated by this beyond reproach agency... you don't ever NEED to question those beliefs.

more important than questioning is what would count as a source of answers to those questions. for example, it may be all fine and dandy to question what we ought do in some instance under some religious system, but if the allowable source of an answer is something like the word of the high priest then the questioning isn't helpful.

If the source of the answer is another human being, then the individual follower isn't questioning anything. They're just waiting to be told what to do by someone else who may or may not be doing the questioning. Much like people who simply believe what their parents/political leaders/etc. tell them, they have removed themselves from the questioning process.

This is one of my main problems with much of organized religion. It consolidates that questioning to a select few (and even those select few are often bound by tradition in exactly what they can question), while everyone else is simply supposed to follow along. Whatever faith they have is placed, not in the divine or in themselves, but instead in other fallible human beings.

There is no room for a personal relationship with the divine or a personal quest for knowledge in such a system. And such a system does allow for large numbers of people to be controlled - whether for good or ill - by a select few powerful leaders.

In the film "Dogma", they talk about the difference between belief and ideas. If you think maybe this maybe that... I'm not sure that really counts as 'belief', per se. Ideas are good, because the change fairly fluidly - while 'beliefs' become part of the terrain.

That's really a semantics thing. In my mind, beliefs are ideas. I think one who stops questioning their faith - who feels that they have it all figured out - has lost it. But I do love that movie and the idea being expressed - while I may not use the same terms - is a good one.

The whole thing is - I suppose - if you really believe your actions are dictated by this beyond reproach agency... you don't ever NEED to question those beliefs.

Ah, but to believe this, you have to believe that you are somehow infallibly interpreting the will of the "beyond reproach agency". One can certainly believe that God is beyond reproach - all good and all that - without believing that one has a perfect and unassailable connection to what God wants. In other words, it is quite possible to believe that God is beyond reproach without believing that any given human is equally beyond reproach.

There's a strange logical disconnect in some people between the idea of human fallibility and this idea that we can somehow perfectly know the will of God. If we are fallible, it stands to reason that we will get at least some of it wrong. If we examine history, it seems fairly obvious that people of faith quite often get some of it wrong. What makes any given person convinced that they, and they alone, somehow have it all correct?

That's really a semantics thing. In my mind, beliefs are ideas. I think one who stops questioning their faith - who feels that they have it all figured out - has lost it. But I do love that movie and the idea being expressed - while I may not use the same terms - is a good one.


It's come up before... as far as I can tell, the most valuable tool we have in our collective toolbox is doubt. Anyone who proceeds to work their way through life without it, is trying to cut shelves with a screwdriver.


Ah, but to believe this, you have to believe that you are somehow infallibly interpreting the will of the "beyond reproach agency". One can certainly believe that God is beyond reproach - all good and all that - without believing that one has a perfect and unassailable connection to what God wants. In other words, it is quite possible to believe that God is beyond reproach without believing that any given human is equally beyond reproach.

There's a strange logical disconnect in some people between the idea of human fallibility and this idea that we can somehow perfectly know the will of God. If we are fallible, it stands to reason that we will get at least some of it wrong. If we examine history, it seems fairly obvious that people of faith quite often get some of it wrong. What makes any given person convinced that they, and they alone, somehow have it all correct?

The problem is - we both know that there is a STRONG market for the infallible reader argument. Those who believe that the scripture is not only inspired, but divine dictation... those who argue that their Bible is exactly the same in English as it was in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek - because 'God protects the meaning'. Those who really really believe that 'discernment' is a 'gift' that makes it possible to decipher God's exact meaning from the text.

And that approach to the source material, if you couple it with the idea of lacking doubts about 'god'... leads to a sticky situation.

Hereafter we disagree.

First off, I understand the conclusion you are throwing out there, that my denial of reason prohibits me from making an argument using reason.

It does not prohibit it at all. (Though, like I said to HotRodia, the continued reliance of skeptics on reason is indicative of the fact that reason is inescapable.)

However, if you say "I have no reason to require consistency from myself", I have succeeded. Granted, though I cannot say that you are unjustified in your understanding, I can say that, since you have accepted consistency and inconsistency, you have abandoned reason because of my argument.

But I have not abandoned reason at all.

Furthermore, if you accept consistency and inconsistency, I do not know how you could consider any other method of knowledge attainment worse than your own.

This is precisely the crucial point, is it not? If you can convince me that no other method of knowledge attainment is worse than mine, then you have indeed succeeded. But you cannot do so, for the simple reason that you have forfeited the capability to say that I am wrong--at least in a matter that is convincing to me. You cannot give me a reason, because your entire argument has been that I should abandon reason.

But once I abandon reason, I have no reason to not just take it up again, as before... and continue to insist that other methods of knowledge attainment are wrong.

What is this justification

Rational. "Democracy is a good idea because of x, y, and z," where x, y, and z somehow logically lead to the stated conclusion.

This is interesting, but our assumption of reason works would not necessarily be logically consistent itself. Even if the exclusion of "reason doesn't work" doesn't work rationally, it does work pragmatically.

What do you mean?

There is no room for a personal relationship with the divine or a personal quest for knowledge in such a system.

"god told me himself" is just as bad, if not worse

The specific example doesn't really matter. I could use the idea of agape if you want. What I am trying to point out is that a belief that is irrational or religious, or comes about through a religious, irrational or faith based process, is not inherently dangerous.

i'm going to need an actual example of this, i think. maybe you meant to say no that you believe you are loved, but rather that you are in love. but this too is not irrational in itself.

Maybe I read your post wrong, but I thought you were saying that ideas, if justified by religious, irrational, or faith based processes, are accidental and temporary. I am not sure what you meant by that, or if that is what you actually meant.

what i mean is that the fact that certain irrational beliefs are not particularly harmful is merely an accident of the process, rather than a deliberate outcome of it. and given that the irrational justification process is accepted as 'right', we have no guarantee that the belief system in question will continue down its not particularly harmful path in light of future revelations to the prophets or direct encounters with the gods or whatever.

Moreso, you seem to argue that such justification has been used to justify bad things, and the only way to stop the bad thing from continuing is to get rid of the religious, irrational, or faith based 'justificatory' processes. That doesn't make sense. If a person attempts to do me harm, removing his or her justification for causing me harm is only one avenue of stopping the harm. But let's say I choose this avenue. Couldn't this person still want to cause me harm without any justification?

perhaps. but in the standard case, people do things for reasons, whether good reasons or shoddy ones.

if you accept a particular belief forming practice as 'justified' that is irrational, you have no grounds to say that someone's competing claim based on the same process is no good other than "nuh-uh, that's not what i was told in my vision" or whatever. which doesn't actually solve anything. for the sake of argument, suppose we accept prophetic visions as authoritative sources of moral knowledge. how could you argue against my prophetic vision that it is right and good to kill everyone that wears glasses? on what possible grounds could you show me to be wrong?

This is why I argue that irrationality is not inherently dangerous.

that doesn't follow

"god told me himself" is just as bad, if not worse

Why? From an atheist point of view, "God told me" is indistinguishable from "my own conscience says...."

If God does not exist, then the guidance the religious person feels they are getting from God is simply a manifestation of their own rationale and conscience (and may even be this in many cases even if God does exist). As long as one is personally working through this, rather than expecting others to do it, then one's own conclusions and beliefs are being expressed at the end of it - whether one feels those conclusions were guided or not.

The problem with Dawkins is that he's a whiny little bitch. He bitches about atheists being marginalized in America and then goes on to say stupid stuff like if everyone were atheist there would be no more war. The very concept of evolution is that life wars upon itself in some way to provide the need for improvement. And then there's that guy who wants the under God out of the pledge, and while I don't think that it has much place there he's still being a whiny little bitch for doing what he is.

Why? From an atheist point of view, "God told me" is indistinguishable from "my own conscience says...."

If God does not exist, then the guidance the religious person feels they are getting from God is simply a manifestation of their own rationale and conscience (and may even be this in many cases even if God does exist). As long as one is personally working through this, rather than expecting others to do it, then one's own conclusions and beliefs are being expressed at the end of it - whether one feels those conclusions were guided or not.

because 'god' occasionally tells people that its high time to wipe the fuckers down the way off the map, and there isn't any arguing with that. whereas even if my conscience tells me to do likewise, you can rationally appeal to other beliefs and motivations i have and show that maybe that isn't such a good idea after all.

The problem with Dawkins is that he's a whiny little bitch. He bitches about atheists being marginalized in America and then goes on to say stupid stuff like if everyone were atheist there would be no more war. The very concept of evolution is that life wars upon itself in some way to provide the need for improvement. And then there's that guy who wants the under God out of the pledge, and while I don't think that it has much place there he's still being a whiny little bitch for doing what he is.

Right. We must not object to a government endorsement of a religion -- and thus an implicit rejection of all other religions (or lack thereof)-- because objecting makes us "whiny little bitches." :rolleyes:

Soheran, before I reply again, I just want to know what our disagreement is.

Soheran, before I reply again, I just want to know what our disagreement is.

hah!

because 'god' occasionally tells people that its high time to wipe the fuckers down the way off the map, and there isn't any arguing with that.

This is really no different than someone personally deciding that "its high time to wipe the fuckers down the way off the map" and is no less arguable.

whereas even if my conscience tells me to do likewise, you can rationally appeal to other beliefs and motivations i have and show that maybe that isn't such a good idea after all.

And even if 'god" tells someone to do so, you can rationally appeal to other beliefs and motivations that they have and show that maybe it isn't such a good idea after all - that it quite possibly didn't come from that god at all - even arguing from the point of view that said god exists.

Once again, you are stuck on this idea that "from god" is equivalent to "unquestionable." For some, that may be true and, as already discussed, that lack of questioning is a problem. For others - those who admit their own fallibility - one must always question whether or not it really is coming from God.

Fortunately, Dawkins himself remains alive, so he can be asked what he actually meant. :D

Yes, as we all know, Richard Dawkins rose on the third day, after defeating the powers of evil. He has since ascended, and is seated at the right hand of the Father.:)

And even if 'god" tells someone to do so, you can rationally appeal to other beliefs and motivations that they have and show that maybe it isn't such a good idea after all - that it quite possibly didn't come from that god at all - even arguing from the point of view that said god exists.

Once again, you are stuck on this idea that "from god" is equivalent to "unquestionable." For some, that may be true and, as already discussed, that lack of questioning is a problem. For others - those who admit their own fallibility - one must always question whether or not it really is coming from God.

you are aware that your solution requires reason trumping revelation; requires making revelation alone not a viable method of justification, yes?

you are aware that your solution requires reason trumping revelation; requires making revelation alone not a viable method of justification, yes?

Not really. It means that, because human beings are fallible and we can never be certain of revelation, that revelation, like everything else, is subject to question. It isn't a matter of "reason trumps revelation" or "revelation trumps reason." It is a matter of the two both being part and parcel of the process. Revelation becomes a part of reasoning and reasoning is necessary to determine what is and is not revelation - and what is actually being revealed.

The problem here is that you are trying to completely separate the two, much as atheists sometimes try and separate morality from religion when talking about the moral views of one who believes morality comes from the divine. The two are not separate concepts to such a person, but are instead inextricably entwined with each other.

Religion informs morality and morality informs religion. Revelation informs reason and reason informs revelation. And even when one comes to a conclusion, one must continue to question it, especially when circumstances change.

Not really. It means that, because human beings are fallible and we can never be certain of revelation, that revelation, like everything else, is subject to question. It isn't a matter of "reason trumps revelation" or "revelation trumps reason." It is a matter of the two both being part and parcel of the process. Revelation becomes a part of reasoning and reasoning is necessary to determine what is and is not revelation - and what is actually being revealed.

yes, but the questioning you have to subject it to must be based on either reason or contrary revelation (or whatever other non-reason based method we are positing as a system of justification). but contrary revelation is subject to exactly the same issue - how do we decide which revelation is right? on the other hand, if reason is our standard, than you literally are declaring that reason must trump revelation - that revelation can only count if it accords with reason. in which case you aren't using revelation as a justificatory process at all.

Why? From an atheist point of view, "God told me" is indistinguishable from "my own conscience says...."

No, it absolutely is not. When somebody declines to take personal responsibility for the choices they make and the beliefs they hold, and is instead assigning responsibility to some outside force, that is significant. Attributing one's personal feelings and internal morality to an external force is psychologically (and morally) major.


If God does not exist, then the guidance the religious person feels they are getting from God is simply a manifestation of their own rationale and conscience (and may even be this in many cases even if God does exist).

Yes, but the individual is not admitting this. They are, instead, attributing their personal opinions and beliefs to an outside force (who happens to be all-knowing, all-seeing, and all-good). This very often has a major impact on their behavior as a result of their personal beliefs.

yes, but the questioning you have to subject it to must be based on either reason or contrary revelation (or whatever other non-reason based method we are positing as a system of justification). but contrary revelation is subject to exactly the same issue - how do we decide which revelation is right? on the other hand, if reason is our standard, than you literally are declaring that reason must trump revelation - that revelation can only count if it accords with reason. in which case you aren't using revelation as a justificatory process at all.

And once again, you make the mistake of trying to make them separate processes. It is much more entwined than that. To the believer, it isn't, "Reason or Revelation." It is a process involving both, with the line between them blurry to nonexistent.


No, it absolutely is not. When somebody declines to take personal responsibility for the choices they make and the beliefs they hold, and is instead assigning responsibility to some outside force, that is significant. Attributing one's personal feelings and internal morality to an external force is psychologically (and morally) major.

A person is no less responsible for their choices and beliefs because they had (or think they had guidance) from another. I ask all sorts of people (and a deity) for advice and guidance in my daily life. This doesn't make my choices any less my own responsibility. It simply means that I look to other sources than myself before actually making those decisions.


Yes, but the individual is not admitting this. They are, instead, attributing their personal opinions and beliefs to an outside force (who happens to be all-knowing, all-seeing, and all-good). This very often has a major impact on their behavior as a result of their personal beliefs.

The individual who questions is admitting this - admitting the possibility that the guidance they feel they get from a deity is simply a manifestation of their own conscience, wishes, etc - admitting that they could be wrong about the revelation they believe they have gotten or what it meant.

Now, they aren't "admitting" that it is absolutely true (otherwise they wouldn't be believers in the first place), but they are admitting that possibility and are very aware of it.

i'm going to need an actual example of this, i think. maybe you meant to say no that you believe you are loved, but rather that you are in love. but this too is not irrational in itself.

Agape is a good example of an irrational belief stemming from religious processes. Agape is a type of love that is unconditional and universal love we feel for everyone, such as Jesus' love is supposed to be. The same idea is found in Buddhism as universal compassion. I just can't see how this is inherently dangerous.

what i mean is that the fact that certain irrational beliefs are not particularly harmful is merely an accident of the process, rather than a deliberate outcome of it. and given that the irrational justification process is accepted as 'right', we have no guarantee that the belief system in question will continue down its not particularly harmful path in light of future revelations to the prophets or direct encounters with the gods or whatever.

But history is full of examples of people who have done great things for others, and have been inspired by religious reasons (i.e. a deliberate outcome of their religiosity). The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., Oscar Romero, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and many others. You are correct in that we have no guarantee that their legacies will continue to be positive, but there is no guarantee that their legacies will inevitably be negative either, and even if they did, the cause may easily be for more secular reasons. It does not need to be because of the religious aspect of the beliefs.

perhaps. but in the standard case, people do things for reasons, whether good reasons or shoddy ones.

if you accept a particular belief forming practice as 'justified' that is irrational, you have no grounds to say that someone's competing claim based on the same process is no good other than "nuh-uh, that's not what i was told in my vision" or whatever. which doesn't actually solve anything. for the sake of argument, suppose we accept prophetic visions as authoritative sources of moral knowledge. how could you argue against my prophetic vision that it is right and good to kill everyone that wears glasses? on what possible grounds could you show me to be wrong?

This is something else, though. I never discussed building a social contract on personal revelation. I, myself, accept my personal revelations as part of the data on which to base my beliefs. But I do not think for a second that anyone else should. It is entirely possible to accept that religious ideas are not inherently dangerous and still not allow our social contract and laws to be based on religion. Many theists, such as myself, hold this position.

that doesn't follow

I wouldn't doubt it. I come from the bar and beer school of debating. I am perhaps too sober for my logic to work.

yes, but the questioning you have to subject it to must be based on either reason or contrary revelation (or whatever other non-reason based method we are positing as a system of justification). but contrary revelation is subject to exactly the same issue - how do we decide which revelation is right? on the other hand, if reason is our standard, than you literally are declaring that reason must trump revelation - that revelation can only count if it accords with reason. in which case you aren't using revelation as a justificatory process at all.

As someone who actually has personal revelations, I will tell you how I relate reason, revelation, and other things. First of all, revelation is not belief. Think of revelation and belief as being related the same way that data and theory are related. Revelation is a part of the data that you use to formulate a belief. Other data includes personal observations, reason, other theories and beliefs that I already have, and my compassion. I generally use reason to find a way to make this all agree in my head, but my compassion trumps my reason. You see, I have this irrational belief in love.

A person is no less responsible for their choices and beliefs because they had (or think they had guidance) from another. I ask all sorts of people (and a deity) for advice and guidance in my daily life. This doesn't make my choices any less my own responsibility. It simply means that I look to other sources than myself before actually making those decisions.

Saying "God told me" is different from asking people for advice in two key ways:

1) If, as the atheist believes, God is of your own making, then what God tells you is not external to you. It's your own voice, but you are attributing it to somebody else. Other people are external to you, and do have their own voices. Consulting with a separate individual is different from consulting with yourself and then claiming you consulted with another individual.

2) Other people are not deities, and one would think God might carry just a tiny bit more authority in the mind of a believer.

In terms of #1, the problem is that the believer perceives the situation as "I consulted with God," as if some sort of other being or individual communicated to them, rather than that they consulted their own mind and conscience. Think about this in terms of the peer review process. If your lab has a paper going out, you can't just have somebody in your own lab review it. You need an external source to look it over. This is because we recognize the important differences between internal and external sources.

In terms of #2, the problem is that by perceiving this internal process as actually a communication with an external being who happens to be a deity, the individual is giving a special weight and significance to their own personal musings. It's one thing to say, "I talked it over with my Dad, and he gave me some advice." It's another to say, "The all-knowing all-good creator of the universe told me what I should do."

Again, from the point of view of an atheist, for an individual to say "God told me..." is very crucially different from an individual who says, "My conscience tells me..."


The individual who questions is admitting this - admitting the possibility that the guidance they feel they get from a deity is simply a manifestation of their own conscience, wishes, etc - admitting that they could be wrong about the revelation they believe they have gotten or what it meant.

Now, they aren't "admitting" that it is absolutely true (otherwise they wouldn't be believers in the first place), but they are admitting that possibility and are very aware of it.
(Bold mine)

The bolded bit is the important part, and it's the critical distinction. Knowing cerebrally that it's possible that maybe God is really a manifestation of your internal processes is quite different from really embracing that concept. It's also very different from getting right down to it and embracing your internal dialog as entirely your own without any God-image as middleman.

Saying "God told me" is different from asking people for advice in two key ways:

1) If, as the atheist believes, God is of your own making, then what God tells you is not external to you. It's your own voice, but you are attributing it to somebody else. Other people are external to you, and do have their own voices. Consulting with a separate individual is different from consulting with yourself and then claiming you consulted with another individual.

So it's all about your personal belief and not theirs.

2) Other people are not deities, and one would think God might carry just a tiny bit more authority in the mind of a believer.

Certainly. Of course some people carry more authority than others as well. It is a scale, but it is mediated by the fact that one can never be certain that a given bit of guidance is coming from God, while one can be pretty damn certain that your mother really said what you heard her say.

In terms of #1, the problem is that the believer perceives the situation as "I consulted with God," as if some sort of other being or individual communicated to them, rather than that they consulted their own mind and conscience.

So the "problem" is that they believe differently than you.

In terms of #2, the problem is that by perceiving this internal process as actually a communication with an external being who happens to be a deity, the individual is giving a special weight and significance to their own personal musings. It's one thing to say, "I talked it over with my Dad, and he gave me some advice." It's another to say, "The all-knowing all-good creator of the universe told me what I should do."

...which is really no different, from an external point of view, than "I thought it over and I decided...."

Again, from the point of view of an atheist, for an individual to say "God told me..." is very crucially different from an individual who says, "My conscience tells me..."

The only difference you've shown is that said individual disagrees with you on the existence of God.

(Bold mine)

The bolded bit is the important part, and it's the critical distinction. Knowing cerebrally that it's possible that maybe God is really a manifestation of your internal processes is quite different from really embracing that concept. It's also very different from getting right down to it and embracing your internal dialog as entirely your own without any God-image as middleman.

So, once again, we're down to, "Bottle believes that God doesn't exist and is just a "manifestation of your internal processes," therefore everyone else should believe that as well and it's dangerous if they don't.

Agape is a good example of an irrational belief stemming from religious processes. Agape is a type of love that is unconditional and universal love we feel for everyone, such as Jesus' love is supposed to be. The same idea is found in Buddhism as universal compassion. I just can't see how this is inherently dangerous.

and i'm not seeing how such a moral sentiment is an irrational belief. in any case, i have already stipulated that the particular end result of irrational belief 'justifying' system can be not particularly dangerous. it is the system of justification that is.

This is something else, though. I never discussed building a social contract on personal revelation. I, myself, accept my personal revelations as part of the data on which to base my beliefs. But I do not think for a second that anyone else should. It is entirely possible to accept that religious ideas are not inherently dangerous and still not allow our social contract and laws to be based on religion. Many theists, such as myself, hold this position.

and on what grounds did you come to believe that it would be unwise to implement the dictates of god, should they concern how we ought do things socially?

As someone who actually has personal revelations, I will tell you how I relate reason, revelation, and other things. First of all, revelation is not belief. Think of revelation and belief as being related the same way that data and theory are related. Revelation is a part of the data that you use to formulate a belief. Other data includes personal observations, reason, other theories and beliefs that I already have, and my compassion. I generally use reason to find a way to make this all agree in my head, but my compassion trumps my reason. You see, I have this irrational belief in love.

love aint irrational

anyways, this again amounts to saying that revelation is not a justificatory process - that it is equivalent to "some bullshit i made up" as far as coming to think that some belief is justified. in so far as this is the case, the irrationality of your position is moderated, as is the inherent danger of it. but this is decidedly not the standard position of how to treat divine revelation - it wasn't even really on the table to not treat revelation (either personal, hierarchical, or in the holy texts, depending on the tradition in question) as authoritative and justificatory until we started down the road of chasing away the darkness of irrationalism with reason and empiricism in a systematic way.

And once again, you make the mistake of trying to make them separate processes. It is much more entwined than that. To the believer, it isn't, "Reason or Revelation." It is a process involving both, with the line between them blurry to nonexistent.

i have a belief that was revealed to me by god. on the basis of this, i think it is justified to hold it, as god is as good a source of justification as you could ask for. you disagree - you think my belief is unjustified. how do you intend to demonstrate that? you have offered up human fallibility, but unless you are merely asking if i am sure that it was god telling me something, then mere fallibility cannot undo the justifiedness of my belief (if we still accept that revelation is a way for beliefs to be justified).

So it's all about your personal belief and not theirs.

I'm talking about the atheist perspective on the situation. So, well, yes...it's not going to be about the religious person's perspective.


Certainly. Of course some people carry more authority than others as well. It is a scale, but it is mediated by the fact that one can never be certain that a given bit of guidance is coming from God, while one can be pretty damn certain that your mother really said what you heard her say.

Yep, though one must remember that there are plenty of believers who are absolutely certain they've received input from God.


So the "problem" is that they believe differently than you.

Not really. The problem relates to the specific thing they believe in. There are other things they could believe which would be different from my beliefs yet would not necessarily cause the same problem.


...which is really no different, from an external point of view, than "I thought it over and I decided...."
Now you've lost me. I was talking about the weight given to a particular input.


The only difference you've shown is that said individual disagrees with you on the existence of God.

I'm talking about WHY that disagreement leads to some very important results. The fact that we disagree on that subject is why we have different perceptions of the moral value of consulting with God.


So, once again, we're down to, "Bottle believes that God doesn't exist and is just a "manifestation of your internal processes," therefore everyone else should believe that as well and it's dangerous if they don't.
No, we're not, and I'm surprised to see you making such a random statement. What are you trying to accomplish with it?

and i'm not seeing how such a moral sentiment is an irrational belief. in any case, i have already stipulated that the particular end result of irrational belief 'justifying' system can be not particularly dangerous. it is the system of justification that is.

I don't see how it's rational. Maybe we need a definition of rational and irrational. I'm using this one (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/rational?view=uk): • adjective 1 based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

For the sake of argument, let's say I justify my belief in agape with an irrational system of justification. Now, explain to me what is inevitably or inherently dangerous about it.

and on what grounds did you come to believe that it would be unwise to implement the dictates of god, should they concern how we ought do things socially?

I did not come to that belief. I believe it would be wise to implement what I believe are the dictates of god. I believe it would be wise for you too. I do not believe you should be obligated to. Is that what you're asking?

love aint irrational

It does not seem to be based on, or in accordance with, reason and logic. In fact, my experiences and observations concerning love seem to indicate that it has strong irrational elements to it.

anyways, this again amounts to saying that revelation is not a justificatory process - that it is equivalent to "some bullshit i made up" as far as coming to think that some belief is justified. in so far as this is the case, the irrationality of your position is moderated, as is the inherent danger of it. but this is decidedly not the standard position of how to treat divine revelation - it wasn't even really on the table to not treat revelation (either personal, hierarchical, or in the holy texts, depending on the tradition in question) as authoritative and justificatory until we started down the road of chasing away the darkness of irrationalism with reason and empiricism in a systematic way.

You are correct. Revelation is not a justificatory process. I said that. It's data.

It is not, however, equivalent to "some bullshit I just made up". Do you think that the data supporting evolution is equivalent to "some bullshit Darwin made up" in terms of supporting Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection? But we are discussing the justificatory process. I would like to know how the process of extrapolating my beliefs from my personal revelations is inherently dangerous.

I don't see how it's rational. Maybe we need a definition of rational and irrational. I'm using this one (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/rational?view=uk): • adjective 1 based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

that is clearly too narrow, as it leaves out empirical evidence and sense data, which are inherent in rationality (on pain of solipsism)

For the sake of argument, let's say I justify my belief in agape with an irrational system of justification. Now, explain to me what is inevitably or inherently dangerous about it.

that the process on which you justify it can be equally used to justify its opposite, or anything else, and there is no standard by which we could adjudicate between these opposing 'justified' beliefs within the system.

You are correct. Revelation is not a justificatory process. I said that. It's data.

It is not, however, equivalent to "some bullshit I just made up". Do you think that the data supporting evolution is equivalent to "some bullshit Darwin made up" in terms of supporting Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection? But we are discussing the justificatory process. I would like to know how the process of extrapolating my beliefs from my personal revelations is inherently dangerous.

the evidence for evolution can be seen by everyone, and so is at least ideally impartial. revelation, by its nature, is not. therefore there seems to be an inherent difference between justificatory processes hinging on the one versus the other.

the stickier question would be that of basing moral action off of moral sentiments, but there at least we can plausibly argue that 1) we generally share at least the basics when it comes to moral sentiments, because of the kind of animal we are, and 2) we don't have any other methods available to us.

that is clearly too narrow, as it leaves out empirical evidence and sense data, which are inherent in rationality (on pain of solipsism)

Sure. Now, seeing as there is no empirical evidence, sense data, reason, or logic for agape, can we safely say that it is irrational?

that the process on which you justify it can be equally used to justify its opposite, or anything else

Just because it can be used that way doesn't mean that it will necessarily be used that way. So it in not inevitable. And the same could be said for reason and rationality, so that shows that it is not exclusive to religious or irrational systems.

, and there is no standard by which we could adjudicate between these opposing 'justified' beliefs within the system.

And this is where we get a little more complicated. What system are you talking about? Different religions could be considered different systems, and each religion would have different ways of adjudicating between these opposing beliefs. Or you could be considering something else as the 'system'.

the evidence for evolution can be seen by everyone, and so is at least ideally impartial. revelation, by its nature, is not. therefore there seems to be an inherent difference between justificatory processes hinging on the one versus the other.

Not for me as an individual. I personally look at the data and formulate an acceptance of the theory of evolution in my head. I also look personally at the data of my revelations and formulate a belief about god in my head. In my head, there is no inherent difference. That is why I don't think my revelatory experiences are merely 'bullshit in my head".

the stickier question would be that of basing moral action off of moral sentiments, but there at least we can plausibly argue that 1) we generally share at least the basics when it comes to moral sentiments, because of the kind of animal we are, and 2) we don't have any other methods available to us.

Sure. I'll admit right now that I don't see the connection between this and the rest of the stuff you wrote.

Sure. Now, seeing as there is no empirical evidence, sense data, reason, or logic for agape, can we safely say that it is irrational?

well, is it a foundational moral sentiment, or is it some belief that is arrived at through some other process? because i count our basic motivating drives and sentiments as a- or pre-rational, rather than irrational. they are not opposed to rationality, but actually fundamental to its use in a range of morally and socially significant cases.

Just because it can be used that way doesn't mean that it will necessarily be used that way. So it in not inevitable. And the same could be said for reason and rationality, so that shows that it is not exclusive to religious or irrational systems.

but the lack of inevitability doesn't touch the question of danger. just because an unexploded bomb doesn't happen to explode before it rusts away doesn't mean that it wasn't dangerous the entire time.

rationality offers an independent method of sorting out issues - we can see where someone has gone wrong and provide them arguments within their own system demonstrating this. this is why you and dem are so keen to include it as a trump card when it comes to justifying revealed belief.


And this is where we get a little more complicated. What system are you talking about? Different religions could be considered different systems, and each religion would have different ways of adjudicating between these opposing beliefs. Or you could be considering something else as the 'system'.

i'm using 'system' to refer to the specific process by which we claim we can come to have justification for our beliefs.

a whole bunch of cultures and subgroups within cultures have adopted "it is in the holy texts" as a way to justify beliefs. this poses a two-fold problem. firstly, it offers no way to resolve disputes over what the holy texts are, when we are talking about different cultures (so in this case, each side thinks that the other is wrongly claiming holy text-based justification because they aren't actually using the holy text from which justification can be gotten). secondly, within a group that agrees on what the holy texts are, there are subgroups that disagree over what the holy texts mean.

the question, then, is how do we figure out which group's beliefs are justified on the basis of the method of justification accepted by the groups, "it is in the holy texts". well, quite frankly, we can't without recourse to some other method of justification (because merely pointing at the text won't work - thqat's what got us here in the first place). we do have a few options though, most of which suck. there is always the old 'war against the heretics and non-believers' option, for example.

if we are serious about coming up with a real method of resolving what is justified and what isn't, rather than just splitting or beating the other side into submission, eventually we will come down to rationality. it offers, in the abstract, an objective way to decide. but once we have agreed that that is the really admirable goal, not applying that goal to our original idea of what counts as justification would just be a failure of rationality on our part.

Not for me as an individual. I personally look at the data and formulate an acceptance of the theory of evolution in my head. I also look personally at the data of my revelations and formulate a belief about god in my head. In my head, there is no inherent difference. That is why I don't think my revelatory experiences are merely 'bullshit in my head".

but the empirical evidence itself isn't in your head - the external world exists and it's out there in it.

Sure. I'll admit right now that I don't see the connection between this and the rest of the stuff you wrote.

well, i was going on about objective outside-the-head-ness as a good, which at first blush seems to run into a small problem when it hits inherently subjective things like moral sentiments.

well, is it a foundational moral sentiment, or is it some belief that is arrived at through some other process? because i count our basic motivating drives and sentiments as a- or pre-rational, rather than irrational. they are not opposed to rationality, but actually fundamental to its use in a range of morally and socially significant cases.

Fine. As long as we have agreement on what you mean by 'rational'

but the lack of inevitability doesn't touch the question of danger. just because an unexploded bomb doesn't happen to explode before it rusts away doesn't mean that it wasn't dangerous the entire time.

A bomb is not a good analogy. A bomb has been designed for the sole purpose of creating dangerous situations. Religion, faith and irrationality were not. Rope could be used to strangle someone, but it is not inevitable that using rope will result in strangulation. Again, just because something can be used for bad things does not mean that it is inherently dangerous.

rationality offers an independent method of sorting out issues - we can see where someone has gone wrong and provide them arguments within their own system demonstrating this. this is why you and dem are so keen to include it as a trump card when it comes to justifying revealed belief.

I didn't include reason as a trump card. In fact, I specifically mentioned that my sense of compassion trumps my reason. Rationality is not the only system to offer a method for sorting out issues, either. Many theists use religious based criteria to judge the validity of their beliefs. It is not necessary to use rationalism to judge the validity of beliefs.

i'm using 'system' to refer to the specific process by which we claim we can come to have justification for our beliefs.

a whole bunch of cultures and subgroups within cultures have adopted "it is in the holy texts" as a way to justify beliefs. this poses a two-fold problem. firstly, it offers no way to resolve disputes over what the holy texts are, when we are talking about different cultures (so in this case, each side thinks that the other is wrongly claiming holy text-based justification because they aren't actually using the holy text from which justification can be gotten). secondly, within a group that agrees on what the holy texts are, there are subgroups that disagree over what the holy texts mean.

the question, then, is how do we figure out which group's beliefs are justified on the basis of the method of justification accepted by the groups, "it is in the holy texts". well, quite frankly, we can't without recourse to some other method of justification (because merely pointing at the text won't work - thqat's what got us here in the first place). we do have a few options though, most of which suck. there is always the old 'war against the heretics and non-believers' option, for example.

if we are serious about coming up with a real method of resolving what is justified and what isn't, rather than just splitting or beating the other side into submission, eventually we will come down to rationality. it offers, in the abstract, an objective way to decide. but once we have agreed that that is the really admirable goal, not applying that goal to our original idea of what counts as justification would just be a failure of rationality on our part.

You are approaching the situation with two assumptions: that personal revelation cannot be questioned, and that personal revelation is the only data informing the beliefs. This is not true.

There are several ways to judge the soundness of a scientific theory, right? If a theory agrees with the data, is simple, is consistent with other accepted theories, describes a large scope of phenomena, and leads to other theories, it is a better theory than those that do none of these things.

In religious belief, there are also criteria. Agreement with data such as scripture or personal revelation, consistency with other beliefs and the findings of science, the scope of such of a belief and its impact on other aspects of our lives, and their ability to form new beliefs and perspectives. A belief that satisifes these criteria is more valid than one that does not.

Someone's personal revelations, and any beliefs stemming from such a revelation, would then be judged according to these criteria within a religious community. A similar set of criteria can be used by the solitary practitioner.

Consequently, we see that there is internal methods of judging the validity of beliefs without resorting to rationalism. You could use rationalism too, but it wouldn't address certain things that are generally included in religious life but are arational, prerational, or irrational, such as charity.

Now, if you're operating under the assumption that having an objective way to decide between issues is the really admirable goal, then you've already sorta decided that rationalism and objectivity are the good. Rationalism is no longer a justificatory process, but an end in itself.

but the empirical evidence itself isn't in your head - the external world exists and it's out there in it.

I was discussing how it works in my head. Revelations are analogous to scientific data in my head. Bullshit I make up in my head is not analogous to scientific data in my head. Got it?

well, i was going on about objective outside-the-head-ness as a good, which at first blush seems to run into a small problem when it hits inherently subjective things like moral sentiments.

Oh. Okay.

Sure. Now, seeing as there is no empirical evidence, sense data, reason, or logic for agape, can we safely say that it is irrational?

The Greek word agape has different meanings in different contexts and is very hard to translate into English: are you using it in the sense of 'Divine love', 'unconditional Platonic love', 'Christian Charity' or another sense?

Forgive me if you've already explained this, but I haven't read through the entire thread. :)

The Greek word agape has different meanings in different contexts and is very hard to translate into English: are you using it in the sense of 'Divine love', 'unconditional Platonic love', 'Christian Charity' or another sense?

Forgive me if you've already explained this, but I haven't read through the entire thread. :)

All I've seen in this thread, is that an attempt is made to claim that 'agape' is somehow peculiarly 'religious'... with no explanation as to why we should embrace that definition.

i have a belief that was revealed to me by god. on the basis of this, i think it is justified to hold it, as god is as good a source of justification as you could ask for. you disagree - you think my belief is unjustified. how do you intend to demonstrate that? you have offered up human fallibility, but unless you are merely asking if i am sure that it was god telling me something, then mere fallibility cannot undo the justifiedness of my belief (if we still accept that revelation is a way for beliefs to be justified).

There is a good chance that I couldn't demonstrate to you that you are wrong - or you to me that you are right. A process that is completely internal is going to be subjective and there isn't much one can do about it. If whatever it is you are justifying harms another person, I will do everything in my power to stop you. If it makes you a dick, I'll choose not to associate with you. If it does neither, then we end up disagreeing on something and it really isn't a big deal at all.


No, we're not, and I'm surprised to see you making such a random statement. What are you trying to accomplish with it?

It's not random at all. The discussion has been about faith being somehow inherently dangerous. I pointed out that danger lies, not in faith itself, but in unquestioned faith - in those who follow a religious leader without question. Free Soviets stated that people who do question and come to their own conclusions - those who believe they have personal communication with the divine - are just as bad, if not worse. I pointed out that, for someone who doesn't believe in God, this would be indistinguishable from "I personally decided," since it is a personal conclusion one way or another. That's when you jumped in, and all you've really said is, "I believe God doesn't exist, so there is this huge difference." Considering that we were discussing faith as being dangerous, it reasonably follows that you think faith is dangerous because it entails belief in God.


that is clearly too narrow, as it leaves out empirical evidence and sense data, which are inherent in rationality (on pain of solipsism)

So if one senses revelation, is it then irrational to examine it and base conclusions on it?

the evidence for evolution can be seen by everyone, and so is at least ideally impartial. revelation, by its nature, is not. therefore there seems to be an inherent difference between justificatory processes hinging on the one versus the other.

Of course there's a difference. The question is what makes the more internal process - that without external evidence - inherently dangerous. Religion is not the only subject in which human beings rely more on internal and subjective data than on external, empirical data.

a whole bunch of cultures and subgroups within cultures have adopted "it is in the holy texts" as a way to justify beliefs. this poses a two-fold problem. firstly, it offers no way to resolve disputes over what the holy texts are, when we are talking about different cultures (so in this case, each side thinks that the other is wrongly claiming holy text-based justification because they aren't actually using the holy text from which justification can be gotten). secondly, within a group that agrees on what the holy texts are, there are subgroups that disagree over what the holy texts mean.

Is disagreement inherently bad?

All I've seen in this thread, is that an attempt is made to claim that 'agape' is somehow peculiarly 'religious'... with no explanation as to why we should embrace that definition.

I don't think G-o-G is claiming that agape is necessarily religious, just that it is not rational.

All I've seen in this thread, is that an attempt is made to claim that 'agape' is somehow peculiarly 'religious'... with no explanation as to why we should embrace that definition.

:(

The Greek word agape has different meanings in different contexts and is very hard to translate into English: are you using it in the sense of 'Divine love', 'unconditional Platonic love', 'Christian Charity' or another sense?

Forgive me if you've already explained this, but I haven't read through the entire thread. :)

I'm using it in the sense of universal and unconditional love. Basically, "I love everyone and everything".

To answer Grave_n_idle, I don't believe such love can only happen to religious people. Since atheists are obviously capable of love and compassion, why should agape be restricted to those who believe in god?

I'm using it in the sense of universal and unconditional love. Basically, "I love everyone and everything".

To answer Grave_n_idle, I don't believe such love can only happen to religious people. Since atheists are obviously capable of love and compassion, why should agape be restricted to those who believe in god?

Here's the quote that caused confusion, then:

"Agape is a good example of an irrational belief stemming from religious processes."

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13145226&postcount=543

Here's the quote that caused confusion, then:



http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13145226&postcount=543

I can see how it would cause confusion. I should have said something more like: "Agape is a good example of an irrational belief stemming from religious, irrational, or faith based processes."

Young children are a good example of atheists who are capable of agape. They love so easily without even knowing of the idea of god.

Soheran, I asked you what our disagreement is because we seem to be talking past each other, with each side simply pointing out that the other undermines his own justification. At the same time, we are both denying reason as completely justified and knowledge as absolute, and accepting reason as an innate (and somewhat universal) category of human understanding.

I agree that we cannot abandon reason, and it seems you agree that reason cannot justify itself.

What I need to know is, where do you find ground in between unjustified belief in reason and completely justified belief in reason. It seems to me that there are two easily distinguishable positions: reason is merely a category of understanding that says more about ourselves than our surrounding and is therefore no justification for belief through reason, or reason is an accurate measurement of reality and is complete justification for belief.

I need to know what your partial justification for belief in and by reason is to understand what our disagreement is if there actually is one.

You have thus far told me what rational justification is, but you have not said why rational justification is partially justified itself.


Also concerning your argument that excluding "reason doesn't work", I would comment that the toleration of inconsistency in human thought is a pragmatic matter, where inconsistency is tolerated to the degree in which it wields utility, for example ending the eternal loops of "it is true that it is true that it is true that it is true...," or "this justifies the justification for the justification..." that would leave us suspended for the duration of our lives.

As such, the exclusion of "reason doesn't work" does actually work, and we make such an exclusion because it provides utility, even if it does not make sense. It seems that the hidden premise is there which allows us to make our conclusions, and all you have done is confirm that it is an unjustified premise.

and it seems you agree that reason cannot justify itself.

Well, I agree that I can come up with no clever argument to justify reason on rational grounds.

I need to know what your partial justification for belief in and by reason is to understand what our disagreement is if there actually is one.

Who said there is a justification?

I can have a "partial" justification in this sense: there is no reason anyone can give to convince me otherwise. (And not just because I'm stubborn.)

Also concerning your argument that excluding "reason doesn't work", I would comment that the toleration of inconsistency in human thought is a pragmatic matter, where inconsistency is tolerated to the degree in which it wields utility, for example ending the eternal loops of "it is true that it is true that it is true that it is true...," or "this justifies the justification for the justification..." that would leave us suspended for the duration of our lives.

This perhaps explains why we do not consume our time worrying about the problem. That was not the question I was attempting to answer, which was how we can reach a conclusion seemingly logically when it clearly does not necessarily follow from the premises.

I can have a "partial" justification in this sense: there is no reason anyone can give to convince me otherwise. (And not just because I'm stubborn.)

But that is no justification, at least no more justification than any irrationality.

This perhaps explains why we do not consume our time worrying about the problem. That was not the question I was attempting to answer, which was how we can reach a conclusion seemingly logically when it clearly does not necessarily follow from the premises.

But you haven't answered how we can reach a conclusion that doesn't follow from the premises. You have only shown that we do reach a conclusion that doesn't follow the premise, it could be because of an assumption of the hidden premise, it could be that the hidden premise is innate.

I like Dawkins because he manages to enrage the Jesusland people do much, it's uber lulz.