What is more important for the future well-being of humankind: Faith or Reason?

[Meow Mix]

False dichotomy. Logical fallacy. Logic implies, but does not guarantee, truth. Logic 101.

It's not a false dichotomy the way I had defined the terms (which are common definitions), and simply throwing up your arms and declaring it a false dichotomy doesn't make it so any more than if I threw up my arms and called your objection an ad hominem (which it isn't).

If you insist that it is, then I request you clarify.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Logic 101:
If A is larger than B and B is larger than C, then C cannot be larger than A.

After that everything else falls into place and the use of accurate definitions is the basis for all effective rational communication.
If you deny this that means that you are in fact dodging the question and you are not in any way interested in knowing what is correct, not to mention that you are just using semantics to try (and fail) to disguise this fact.
If you cannot even define what your own point of view is then discussing that point of view is void and continuing the discussion is pointless.
Meow has shown a lot more restraint than I would, and while I applaud her for it I do not think you deserve it.

Effective communication does not have to be rational. A point of view does not have to be defined to be understood. It needs only to be experienced.

 

[Meow Mix]

Effective communication does not have to be rational. A point of view does not have to be defined to be understood. It needs only to be experienced.

What meaning does "T'was brillig, and the slithey toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe" impart to you?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

It's not a false dichotomy the way I had defined the terms (which are common definitions), and simply throwing up your arms and declaring it a false dichotomy doesn't make it so any more than if I threw up my arms and called your objection an ad hominem (which it isn't).

If you insist that it is, then I request you clarify.

If you wish to define your terms as you have defined them, there's nothing I can do about that except tell you that those definitions are incorrect. Common as they may be, they are still incorrect.

In fact, I would say that in order to be a Roman Catholic, you must NOT be a theist.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

What meaning does "T'was brillig, and the slithey toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe" impart to you?

It means you are trying to illustrate a point that conversation must be rational to effectively communicate a meaning.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Effective communication does not have to be rational.

Well, we could always just hit each other over the head instead, but I prefer not to. So let's stick with discussions instead. Only...for those discussions to have any purpose we should at the very least agree on what we're discussing, don't you think?

A point of view does not have to be defined to be understood. It needs only to be experienced.

That is only true of shared experiences and thus potentially shared points of view. In this case we neither share experience nor points of view so a definition of some kind would be really helpful.

 

[Meow Mix]

If you wish to define your terms as you have defined them, there's nothing I can do about that except tell you that those definitions are incorrect. Common as they may be, they are still incorrect.

In fact, I would say that in order to be a Roman Catholic, you must NOT be a theist.

I wouldn't say they are "incorrect" except in the sense that they are a different semantic system than you wish to use.

Very well then: what is your definition of what constitutes a "theist?"

While we're at it -- so we might avoid future trouble -- what is your definition of an "atheist?"

 

[Meow Mix]

It means you are trying to illustrate a point that conversation must be rational to effectively communicate a meaning.

And... do you disagree? Or do you think we can hold an entire meaningful conversation by picking random words from Jabberwocky and chucking them at each other?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

I wouldn't say they are "incorrect" except in the sense that they are a different semantic system than you wish to use.

Very well then: what is your definition of what constitutes a "theist?"

While we're at it -- so we might avoid future trouble -- what is your definition of an "atheist?"

I agree with your definitions of theist and atheist. It's your definition of Roman Catholic that I don't agree with.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

And... do you disagree? Or do you think we can hold an entire meaningful conversation by picking random words from Jabberwocky and chucking them at each other?

If I was able to get a meaning from your meaningless words, then I would say your irrational communication was effective, if the meaning I got was the meaning you were trying to impart.

But if your intent was to impart meaningless jibber jabber, then how can it not be meaningless jibber jabber?

 

[Meow Mix]

I agree with your definitions of theist and atheist. It's your definition of Roman Catholic that I don't agree with.

Do Roman Catholics believe at least one god exists?

If yes, they are theists.

If no, they are not theists. (The state of not being theist is to be an atheist, since "atheism" means "without theism").

This is simple to me, I don't understand the confusion. Let me see what a Roman Catholic is, please tell me if you agree with Wikipedia's interpretation of Roman Catholicism in general: "The Catholic Church holds that there is one eternal God, who exists as a mutual indwelling of three persons: God the Father; God the Son; and the Holy Spirit, which make up the Trinity." (Catholic Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Since the Roman Catholics believe "there is one eternal God," that renders them as theists. Do you disagree? If you do disagree that those who believe there is a God are theists then please define what "theism" is in your semantics. This really shouldn't be as much trouble as it's become, honestly, but I'm trying to hear you out.

 

[Meow Mix]

If I was able to get a meaning from your meaningless words, then I would say your irrational communication was effective, if the meaning I got was the meaning you were trying to impart.

But if your intent was to impart meaningless jibber jabber, then how can it not be meaningless jibber jabber?

So you agree that terms must be defined?

I was trying to tell you that your shoe was untied, but you didn't seem to get the message.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Do Roman Catholics believe at least one god exists?

No.

If yes, they are theists.

If no, they are not theists. (The state of not being theist is to be an atheist, since "atheism" means "without theism").

False dichotomy.

This is simple to me, I don't understand the confusion. Let me see what a Roman Catholic is, please tell me if you agree with Wikipedia's interpretation of Roman Catholicism in general: "The Catholic Church holds that there is one eternal God, who exists as a mutual indwelling of three persons: God the Father; God the Son; and the Holy Spirit, which make up the Trinity." (Catholic Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

I do not agree with Wikipedia's definition of Roman Catholicism, because that's what the Vatican thinks it is. And the Vatican is probably the worst place to go to when you want to understand the Catholic faith. They are too focused on obedience and loyalty than actual faith.
If that's what you're using, then throw it away. You're talking about something that is basically useless.

 

[Meow Mix]

No.

Ok, so if Roman Catholics don't believe at least one god exists, then they are atheists -- as that's the definition of atheism.

If they don't believe at least one god exists, then they lack belief that any gods exist, which is atheism.

It's not a false dichotomy as I've defined the terms. You just saying "false dichotomy" without supporting your assertion is as baseless as if I just started responding to your statements with "ad hominem."

I'm pretty close to being done with this discussion if you don't start putting forth a little bit more. It's not a lot to ask in my opinion to clarify your position.

I do not agree with Wikipedia's definition of Roman Catholicism, because that's what the Vatican thinks it is. And the Vatican is probably the worst place to go to when you want to understand the Catholic faith. They are too focused on obedience and loyalty than actual faith.
If that's what you're using, then throw it away. You're talking about something that is basically useless.

Let's try it this way. Would a Roman Catholic respond to the question "Does a God exist?" with "yes" or "no?"

If yes, that fulfills the definition of theism as I and most philosophers use it.

If no (or "I don't know" or some other variant that means a nonbelief in gods), then that fulfills the definition of atheism as I and most philosophers use it.

 

[ellenjanuary]

You two are having too much fun. I can understand Viper; but MM's atheistic stance is a little rigid. And what's up with that "does god exist" question turning from a query of existence to a query of belief? Hmmm?

 

[Meow Mix]

You two are having too much fun. I can understand Viper; but MM's atheistic stance is a little rigid. And what's up with that "does god exist" question turning from a query of existence to a query of belief? Hmmm?

What about my "atheistic stance" is rigid?

Also, "does God exist" is a question of belief by definition. Either God is believed to exist or not; this includes if God is known to exist (knowledge incorporates belief).

 

[ellenjanuary]

What about my "atheistic stance" is rigid?

Also, "does God exist" is a question of belief by definition. Either God is believed to exist or not; this includes if God is known to exist (knowledge incorporates belief).

Does the set of knowledge contain the subset belief, or is it the other way around? Philosophy has a few strange schools of thought, including the belief that belief doesn't exist; I'm just wondering if yours is a formal doctrine or not.

The problem I have (one that Viper seems to share) is having a "personal experience with god." In my case, in layman's terms, it defies belief. It is a subset of memories not subject to the daily "stumble and fetch" form of rememberance. I have to go in there and get those memories... and it's scary in there.

There doesn't seem to be a common frame of reference. Combat veterans often cannot talk about war, unless the listener has also been there. I haven't been there, but I've been to a lot of dark places. Without a common context, usually all that happens is that we talk at each other, but nothing ever gets said.

So... did you have good turkey?

 

[nrg]

I would lik a moderator to watch this debate more closely, because I'm starting to think that strikeviperMKII is trolling. It could also be that I simply don't understand how basic epistemology ... no, let's rephrase that; how kindergarden level common sense is dismissed without any reasoning as to why (deciding based on personal experience is not to reason).

strikeviperMKII, it is true that there is no such thing as absolute truths. We need to make at least one assumption every time we try to decide what to believe (or assert, or know, or whatever you want to call it) or we go into infinite regression loops trying to prove everything. And, since Meow Mix seems to have read up on logic too, I don't think she'll contest me on this.

But we have to do something to decide what's more likely to be true or not, and just the fact that you're able to take any sort of action implies that you have a system for making those decisions and coming to the conclusion of what to know/believe/assert/follow (insert more synonyms here). Could you, please, make this debate less fuzzy by stating how you do that?

 

[nrg]

Does the set of knowledge contain the subset belief, or is it the other way around? Philosophy has a few strange schools of thought, including the belief that belief doesn't exist; I'm just wondering if yours is a formal doctrine or not.

Formally, there is no single agreed definition of what knowledge is. As far as we know right now, absolute knowledge is impossible. However, belief doesn't spark as much controversy. It is simply to either agree or disagree regarding the truth of a proposition or premise.

The problem I have (one that Viper seems to share) is having a "personal experience with god." In my case, in layman's terms, it defies belief. It is a subset of memories not subject to the daily "stumble and fetch" form of rememberance. I have to go in there and get those memories... and it's scary in there.

If you have a memory of an awful accident with your bike when you were three years old, that usually means that you agree with the statement that "you had a bike accident when you were three years old". It's still belief. It doesn't matter what you use to justify your belief with, what matters is that you hold it to be true. I'm not sure if holding it to be likelier than every other conflicting proposition or statement falls within the definition too, but I (heh) believe it does.

There doesn't seem to be a common frame of reference. Combat veterans often cannot talk about war, unless the listener has also been there. I haven't been there, but I've been to a lot of dark places. Without a common context, usually all that happens is that we talk at each other, but nothing ever gets said.

That doesn't change the fact regarding wether or not someone believes something or not.

 

[PolyHedral]

as far as we know right now, absolute knowledge is impossible.

~(P∧~P) (dummy text)