Atheists outperform theists at nearly all reasoning skills

[charlie sc]

Ayn Rand

Oh no, Ayn Rand. I know of her and what I do know is dubious, but let's continue.

So what did she overlook?

She seems to think, "logic rests on the axiom that existence exists." I'm not sure how true this is. Logic is a method of determining the truth and understandably there will be axioms, but I'm not sure about this one. I could make a sound deductive argument about Hobbits if I want to, but we both know the extent of their existence is based in fantasy.

Namely, how does knowledge work and is the only one kind? Are there several kinds, but are they related in that they can be done with strong rationality? Or is there in practice a limit to knowledge just as there is a limit to human mobility? Just as you can't move around as you like, is it the case that you can't do everything with knowledge, reason, logic and evidence?

I'm sure there are other methods but I don't know how reliable they are. Do you? I mean, we have to live in the world somehow and believe claims or truth statements on some basis. If you aren't using logic, reason, knowledge or evidence to ground your, or our, reasoning then I'd hope it would at least be useful or explainable. Perhaps not, but then it's not useful in discourse. Perhaps logic is not the only means to come to the truth(if such a thing as truth exists), however, it seems it's all we have that's reliable. Therefore, if someone wants to have a rational conversation I'll entertain them. However, if they want to have an irrational one, I won't take part because I am not privy to this type of reality.

Put me on ignore, don't answer, answer that I am what I am in your view or what ever. I have been doing this for 20+ years now, day in and day out.

I've never put some one on ignore, so far, in this forum

Trying to figure out how humans can disagree about what reality is and yet all be a part of reality.

Perhaps the questions are more meaningful than the answers?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

I'm sure there are other methods but I don't know how reliable they are. Do you? I mean, we have to live in the world somehow and believe claims or truth statements on some basis. If you aren't using logic, reason, knowledge or evidence to ground your, or our, reasoning then I'd hope it would at least be useful or explainable. Perhaps not, but then it's not useful in discourse. Perhaps logic is not the only means to come to the truth(if such a thing as truth exists), however, it seems it's all we have that's reliable. Therefore, if someone wants to have a rational conversation I'll entertain them. However, if they want to have an irrational one, I won't take part because I am not privy to this type of reality.
...

You are good. You don't take for granted your own position and ask exploratory questions. Now the part of life outside the Internet calls. Reality willingly, I will be back.
So here is a question for you: How do you explain a negative; e.g. useless, meaningless, false, wrong, illogical, unreasonable, without knowledge or evidence, unreal, irrational and so on/what not?

 

[charlie sc]

How do you explain a negative; e.g. useless, meaningless, false, wrong, illogical, unreasonable, without knowledge or evidence, unreal, irrational and so on/what not?

As far as I'm aware, these aren't negative claims. They're positive claims, because they're positing something about the thing in question. These statements or claims are not negating their existence.

For instance, if I say someone is useless then I'm probably making a claim they display a certain behaviour by my standards for what useless is and means, which would be the opposite for the perception of useful.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As far as I'm aware, these aren't negative claims. They're positive claims, because they're positing something about the thing in question. These statements or claims are not negating their existence.

For instance, if I say someone is useless then I'm probably making a claim they display a certain behaviour by my standards for what useless is and means, which would be the opposite for the perception of useful.

You know your ****. Again, you are good. I hesitate to continue, because it will end in "nitpicking" to some. But here it is:
Physical: Physical qualities, actions, or things are connected with a person's body, rather than with their mind. (Collins dictionary)
A thing is physical and it has properties knowable through perception through the senses. But useful is not a property of a thing and knowable through the senses; i.e. observation. It is still a perception, but falsification through empirical evidence is not possible. Thus you know something, yet you don't know it using science.

So here is one way to do a combination of phenomenology, methodological naturalism and the coherence theory of truth and it starts the following place: Humans share reality.
Then explain reality as a combination of same, similar and different.
We are the same as we share reality, except for those who live to them in the real reality.
We are similar as humans, except for those who hold Truth to know, if you/I/somebody else are not a correct human.
We are different as humans, except for those who hold Truth to know, the other differences than their own are really not real.

The moment you stop doing ontology and what reality really is, it changes the game.
An ontological(philosophical) materialist, physicalist, naturalist versus an ontological(philosophical) idealist are both saying the same and similar in some combination: They know what reality is. Yet it is different what they consider real. I have learned that for the reality we share, I don't have to do either. Personally I do believe something, but in practice I can just go with the reality, we share in practice and explain how that works in practice.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, you are honest. But you haven't used reason, logic or evidence.

You haven't really presented something to respond to.

 

[charlie sc]

You know your ****. Again, you are good. I hesitate to continue, because it will end in "nitpicking" to some. But here it is:

Flattery will get you somewhere Thanks.

Physical: Physical qualities, actions, or things are connected with a person's body, rather than with their mind. (Collins dictionary)

Notice the bold. I'd like to imagine most of the world would not appreciate or understand the great strides the academic and intellectual world give to people. Even though we understand more and more about the brain, it would be intellectually dishonest to assume the brain is only the mind. There is no evidence, I am aware of, that connects mind to some metaphysical construct or reality. However, these are the lengths we go to, to emphasise the question of what a mind is? I mention this because we are graciously accepting there may be some metaphysical or unknown connection.

But useful is not a property of a thing and knowable through the senses; i.e. observation

I'm not so sure about this. Useful can be sensed in a number of ways. When something is useful you can indirectly(or directly depending on what it is) derive pleasure or suffering from it. If something is useful to me it may cut the time in half than what something else normally takes. Therefore, I have more spare time(pleasure) and less time doing something I do not want to do(suffering). Useful, depending on the subject, can create a sense of ease, whereas useless a sense of dread.

It is still a perception,

Is it just a perception or is it also an abstraction?

but falsification through empirical evidence is not possible. Thus you know something, yet you don't know it using science.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

They know what reality is. Yet it is different what they consider real.

I think this is the crux of the argument, so if you want to correct me, please do.
Does knowing something make something a real thing? Who knows. Nonetheless, we are beings that are undoubtedly influenced by our environment. Our environment, and us, are on some level physical, therefore, this is what we have to work with. Methodological naturalism and the hypothetico-deductive model are incredibly useful, hence why they are taking the lead.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You haven't really presented something to respond to.

You see, you say that, but you give no reason or what ever. You are not making any reasoned arguments at all. Now if you want me to clarify, ask for that. If you know something else, state that. As long as you continue to evade, I can't tell how you arrive at your assertion. It may be that you have a point, but if so you need to tell me that, besides what you have stated so far.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You see, you say that, but you give no reason or what ever. You are not making any reasoned arguments at all. Now if you want me to clarify, ask for that. If you know something else, state that. As long as you continue to evade, I can't tell how you arrive at your assertion. It may be that you have a point, but if so you need to tell me that, besides what you have stated so far.

All you've really done is opine at length in a way that doesn't really present a cogent argument or point to respond to, it just comes across as naval-gazing. My original point is that "claim x" is not the same as "claim y", and you haven't really responded adequately to that point.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

All you've really done is opine at length in a way that doesn't really present a cogent argument or point to respond to, it just comes across as naval-gazing. My original point is that "claim x" is not the same as "claim y", and you haven't really responded adequately to that point.

Claim x and y have to be the same in some sense, otherwise you use strong ontological dualism.
Gravity is the same for all humans under similar circumstances.
So how are all claims the same for all humans? They all require humans. Thus they are the same. They are similar in that they all are about something. They differ in what they assume relevant.
Now if we agree, I will continue with - they differ in what they assume relevant. Otherwise it is your turn.

 

[Spartan]

Pray tell, what is Godly Wisdom?

God's moral code and knowledge of what people are dealing with and what to know and do.

your god sounds like some maniac despot if he/she/it throws souls(?) into the, "Lake of Fire," for not believing in he/she/it. Consequently, I'd rather suffer than worship such a monster, but you may continue in your thought slavery and/or blind worship.

If people want to rebel against God and choose not to have any part of him then they have their own place to spend eternity. If people wind up in the Lake of Fire it will be because of their own stupidity. They've been warned.

And there's no blind worship about it. I've investigated the historical facts about Christ for over forty years. You obviously haven't. Which is why you have a skewed idea of who God is.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Flattery will get you somewhere Thanks.

Notice the bold. I'd like to imagine most of the world would not appreciate or understand the great strides the academic and intellectual world give to people. Even though we understand more and more about the brain, it would be intellectually dishonest to assume the brain is only the mind. There is no evidence, I am aware of, that connects mind to some metaphysical construct or reality. However, these are the lengths we go to, to emphasise the question of what a mind is? I mention this because we are graciously accepting there may be some metaphysical or unknown connection.

I don't assume that in terms of the reality we share. I will just point out the following. It is possible to observe that people hold different views about the brain/mind problem and there is no evidence of any of the views as for what reality really is. All the views are the same in that they are axioms/assumptions/presumptions and so on.
If you cut away all the difference even including ontological solipsism they all share this: There is something and something else. Now take the minimalistic approach and forget ontology. Ask how can we describe it and how does it work without committing to neither souls nor no souls and all the rest of that.
I don't care that you are an atheist as long as you don't judge me based on that and I as religious won't judge you based on me being religious. We stay secular for the rest of this debate. So what do we share in common?

I'm not so sure about this. Useful can be sensed in a number of ways. When something is useful you can indirectly(or directly depending on what it is) derive pleasure or suffering from it. If something is useful to me it may cut the time in half than what something else normally takes. Therefore, I have more spare time(pleasure) and less time doing something I do not want to do(suffering). Useful, depending on the subject, can create a sense of ease, whereas useless a sense of dread.

The word sense has similar yet different meanings. Senses through the body from the brain and senses in the brain. Science is the former, i.e. observation for all and observer independent. Useful is never sensory input from outside the brain, It is not a sensation of say an elephant. Pleasure and suffering is similar in some sense in all humans, but in the broad sense, what makes sense to you don't have to make sense to me and in reverse.
That is my point about your point. It is always first person or shared first person between humans. It is never like say gravity.

Is it just a perception or is it also an abstraction?

Good point. Sometimes is maybe an abstraction of a perception.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

In epistemology naive empiricism is the idea that everything can be reduced to observer independent observation. The joke is that "everything can be reduced to observer independent observation" is not such a case.
We can agree that something came before us and we can explain that in part using science, but we can't reduce it to science. There is more. How you as you deal with that, is something you do. The same with me.

I think this is the crux of the argument, so if you want to correct me, please do.
Does knowing something make something a real thing? Who knows. Nonetheless, we are beings that are undoubtedly influenced by our environment. Our environment, and us, are on some level physical, therefore, this is what we have to work with. Methodological naturalism and the hypothetico-deductive model are incredibly useful, hence why they are taking the lead.

The problem you face, is that real is not a property of a thing as back to sensation. It is an idea in your head. Real is no different than god. You either believe in it or you don't. Real always works in the following manner. If someone believes it is real, they will act accordingly. But the word "real" has no observable referent just as the word "god".

Overall, you got most of reality down. You just have a few ideas as a result of being in a culture which in some sense overlooks the limitations of science. That science is good, is not a scientific fact. It is a human fact, science is useful in some cases, but it is limited. You can be informed by science, but you can't live only using the scientific methodology.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

God's moral code and knowledge of what people are dealing with and what to know and do.



If people want to rebel against God and choose not to have any part of him then they have their own place to spend eternity. If people wind up in the Lake of Fire it will be because of their own stupidity. They've been warned.

And there's no blind worship about it. I've investigated the historical facts about Christ for over forty years. You obviously haven't. Which is why you have a skewed idea of who God is.

Your faith is strong. But your faith is not the only faith in God. You don't own God, nor do I. There might be a different God than the one you believe in. And no matter how much you believe other humans than you, have a place of their own, the problem you face is that if God is different that the one you believe in, you might be going there yourself. Stop judging other humans in the Name of God. Only God can do that. I can't and you can't.

 

[Spartan]

Your faith is strong. But your faith is not the only faith in God. You don't own God, nor do I. There might be a different God than the one you believe in. And no matter how much you believe other humans than you, have a place of their own, the problem you face is that if God is different that the one you believe in, you might be going there yourself. Stop judging other humans in the Name of God. Only God can do that. I can't and you can't.

Are you judging?

Here's some info on judging.

God uses people to warn others to turn from their sin:

“When I say to the wicked, ‘You wicked person, you will surely die,’ and you do not speak out to dissuade them from their ways, that wicked person will die for their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood. But if you do warn the wicked person to turn from their ways and they do not do so, they will die for their sin, though you yourself will be saved.” – Ezekiel 33

Also note all the Old Testament prophets who condemned sin and corrupt moral leadership, and who were persecuted for their discernment and duty.

Finally, when someone accuses you of being judgmental, are they themselves not being critical and judgmental in making that accusation?

But stay quiet, and evil will abound:

“The only thing required for evil to triumph is for good men to (say and) do nothing.” – Edmund Burke

More in the link. The Bible – Is it Wrong to Judge?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Are you judging?

Here's some info on judging.

God uses people to warn others to turn from their sin:

“When I say to the wicked, ‘You wicked person, you will surely die,’ and you do not speak out to dissuade them from their ways, that wicked person will die for their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood. But if you do warn the wicked person to turn from their ways and they do not do so, they will die for their sin, though you yourself will be saved.” – Ezekiel 33

Also note all the Old Testament prophets who condemned sin and corrupt moral leadership, and who were persecuted for their discernment and duty.

Finally, when someone accuses you of being judgmental, are they themselves not being critical and judgmental in making that accusation?

But stay quiet, and evil will abound:

“The only thing required for evil to triumph is for good men to (say and) do nothing.” – Edmund Burke

More in the link. The Bible – Is it Wrong to Judge?

I reject your version of God and you reject mine. The only one who can decide that is God. I don't judge in the name of God. I am telling you that it might not be as you believe or indeed as I believe. It might work for you, but that is not based on faith alone. If that was the case God would be both Christian and not. I doubt that God is like that. I am a skeptic BTW.

 

[Spartan]

I reject your version of God and you reject mine. The only one who can decide that is God. I don't judge in the name of God. I am telling you that it might not be as you believe or indeed as I believe. It might work for you, but that is not based on faith alone. If that was the case God would be both Christian and not. I doubt that God is like that. I am a skeptic BTW.

Ok. Here's help for the skeptics:

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;
"New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by former skeptic Josh McDowell;
"The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel," and
"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

All excellent reads.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ok. Here's help for the skeptics:

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;
"New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by former skeptic Josh McDowell;
"The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel," and
"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

All excellent reads.

Your faith is strong. So is mine.

 

[charlie sc]

We stay secular for the rest of this debate

Of course.

So what do we share in common?

If you want to go the hard solipsism route, nothing. We have nothing in common, because I do not even know there is such a thing as commonality nor that you exist. However, if we you want to talk about soft solipsism, which I prefer, then we have caboodles and caboodles in common.

The word sense has similar yet different meanings. Senses through the body from the brain and senses in the brain. Science is the former, i.e. observation for all and observer independent. Useful is never sensory input from outside the brain, It is not a sensation of say an elephant. Pleasure and suffering is similar in some sense in all humans, but in the broad sense, what makes sense to you don't have to make sense to me and in reverse.
That is my point about your point. It is always first person or shared first person between humans. It is never like say gravity.

I disagree. Gravity is not immune to falsification or uncertainty. Therefore, to use gravity as some grounding separate thing that you are leaning towards, does not work. So when I say useful or utility, I mean it in the same way that I mean gravity but in a less uniformal way. Just as gravity, or what we theorise gravity is, we can measure usefulness just as equally. Usefullness is an abstract concept but how we measure it is by opinion, happiness/sadness, longevity, and the list goes on. Gravity is an abstract concept and we measure it by its force and various mathematical equations. Undoubtedly, there are no cases of gravity working in reverse but gravity will work differently under different circumstances and conditions. Similarly, usefulness will work exactly the same under different circumstances and conditions.

The problem you face, is that real is not a property of a thing as back to sensation. It is an idea in your head. Real is no different than god. You either believe in it or you don't. Real always works in the following manner. If someone believes it is real, they will act accordingly. But the word "real" has no observable referent just as the word "god".

Overall, you got most of reality down. You just have a few ideas as a result of being in a culture which in some sense overlooks the limitations of science. That science is good, is not a scientific fact. It is a human fact, science is useful in some cases, but it is limited.

I won't argue with that

You can be informed by science, but you can't live only using the scientific methodology.

Are you sure about that? The scientific method uses the hypothetico deductive model. I think this model can be applied to any and all circumstances in daily life.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Are you sure about that? The scientific method uses the hypothetico deductive model. I think this model can be applied to any and all circumstances in daily life.

No. Science uses more than the hypothetico deductive model. It also uses observation. But I showed you by saying no that there is more that observation.
There it is for 3 humans:
H1: I think this model can be applied to any and all circumstances in daily life?
H2: Yes.
H3: No.
You can only explain that within methodological naturalism by accepting some form of relativism. Namely that humans in some cases can understand and act differently. The same with useful, what is useful to you might not be useful to me.
In short for useful and other related words I am a cognitive relativist. I am a limited relativist, I don't think everything is relative, but e.g. ontology is of relative usefulness including no god and God depending on a given human. I am not saying there is no god or The God. I am saying you can observe that humans can apparently get away with believing in no god or the God respectively. That is the relative part. That is how I approach science and religion with methodological naturalism. They are both human behaviors, but their usefulness is relative.
You can't do/get away with everything in regards to how you interact with gravity.
You can't do/get away with everything in regards to using science.
You can't do/get away with everything in regards to using religion.
The human condition/existence has limitations and apparently that apply to all humans, when you use rationality. But even rationality has a limit, because in some cases some humans have a life being somewhat irrational.
That is one limit to your OP.
There is no strong correlation between reason and happiness. I personally figured out I need more than science, reason, logic and all that. I needed faith in reason and love. I placed that with God. That is my crutch, I know that, but my crutch works for me.
It may be that religion is a crutch, but what is the problem with that+ I function better with the crutch than without. The crutch is useful to me and not to you. That is relativism.

 

[charlie sc]

No. Science uses more than the hypothetico deductive model. It also uses observation. But I showed you by saying no that there is more that observation.
There it is for 3 humans:
H1: I think this model can be applied to any and all circumstances in daily life?
H2: Yes.
H3: No.
You can only explain that within methodological naturalism by accepting some form of relativism. Namely that humans in some cases can understand and act differently. The same with useful, what is useful to you might not be useful to me.
In short for useful and other related words I am a cognitive relativist. I am a limited relativist, I don't think everything is relative, but e.g. ontology is of relative usefulness including no god and God depending on a given human. I am not saying there is no god or The God. I am saying you can observe that humans can apparently get away with believing in no god or the God respectively. That is the relative part. That is how I approach science and religion with methodological naturalism. They are both human behaviors, but their usefulness is relative.
You can't do/get away with everything in regards to how you interact with gravity.
You can't do/get away with everything in regards to using science.
You can't do/get away with everything in regards to using religion.
The human condition/existence has limitations and apparently that apply to all humans, when you use rationality. But even rationality has a limit, because in some cases some humans have a life being somewhat irrational.
That is one limit to your OP.
There is no strong correlation between reason and happiness. I personally figured out I need more than science, reason, logic and all that. I needed faith in reason and love. I placed that with God. That is my crutch, I know that, but my crutch works for me.
It may be that religion is a crutch, but what is the problem with that+ I function better with the crutch than without. The crutch is useful to me and not to you. That is relativism.

I mostly agree. There are a few points here and I don't agree with, but I don't think it's worth pointing them out and the majority is similar to my world-view if not a different perspective. Good talk.

 

[ecco]

Don't confuse intelligence with Godly wisdom. Slick Willie Clinton was intelligent, but because he didn't have Godly wisdom he was impeached.

And how smart are atheists really, since the Bible says all unbelievers will be cast into the Lake of Fire (Revelation 21:8). That's hardly smart to wind up there.

That is a valid conclusion, IF...
IF your interpretation of scripture is correct
IF your choice of gods is correct
IF, for no good reason, you believe that you have "Godly Wsdom"

Given the title of this thread, it's probable that you aren't correct.