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

[Meow Mix]

No, it's a linguistic dichotomy, entirely reliant on definition, and definition is arbitrary. There are very few true dichotomies (truth being one of them).

Uh... I clarified that it was a semantic dichotomy, which is what you're saying. I'm not sure why you're disagreeing?

 

[Meow Mix]

Thanks for clearing that for me. So, as long as those 5 axioms is everything I play around with, and don't try to venture outside of them, they won't run into identity problems?

But, I should be able to divide and multiply with these axioms. A computer can only add, but that's no problem.

Yep you can add multiplication and division but then you'd have Peano arithmetic and you'd form the foundation for GIT. So, don't do it if you're trying to avoid GIT.

Like I said it's sort of like trying to avoid Russel's paradox: how do you avoid a set of all sets which don't contain themselves as members? You don't add a set of all sets to your paradigm

 

[nrg]

Yep you can add multiplication and division but then you'd have Peano arithmetic and you'd form the foundation for GIT. So, don't do it if you're trying to avoid GIT.

It sounds like Presburger arithmetic is way too weak to create a solid computer with then. If you can't do stuff recursively, we're talking algorithms that require infinitely long codes.

 

[Meow Mix]

It sounds like Presburger arithmetic is way too weak to create a solid computer with then. If you can't do stuff recursively, we're talking algorithms that require infinitely long codes.

That's right. But that's exactly why things like Aristotlian logics don't in themselves succumb to GIT either. GIT mostly applies to situations in which you can build a computer with it; because the foundations for GIT are essentially something which can compute.

If you have something that doesn't compute, you don't have to worry about GIT. This is why GIT is often misunderstood as meaning there can be no absolute truths -- that's false. A = A is absolutely true and needn't worry about GIT in the slightest.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

I just find your definition confusing, and I'm not sure it's exhaustive. For instance I'm still not entirely sure what it is you mean when you say "belief." I don't know why you find it necessary to change such a basic and universally understood word; it unnecessarily makes your arguments and speech seem obtuse.

Because the basic, universally understood word has gotten us as far as it can. Change it, and we get somewhere else. The definition does not have to be exhaustive to be useful.

It's as if I were to use an awkward definition for the word "and," then responded to any statement you made with the word using my strange definition -- do you agree that would be unnecessarily confusing?

Far from it. It would teach me a new definition of a word, and why you use it that way. Confusing, yes. Unnecessarily, not at all. In fact, confusion is necessary to learn.

They regard it as true that at least one god exists. That's a fact. If you want to shy away from the word "belief" then so be it.

Regard as true = belief (when I and 99.9% other English speakers use the word)

So let's see if we're in agreement now that we've found the source of the semantic dissonance:

Theism is defined as regarding it as true that at least one god exists.
Atheism is the state of not regarding it as true that god(s) exist.

Roman Catholics regard it as true that at least one exists. Therefore, Roman Catholics are theists as the term is defined above.

Are we in agreement now?

You are saying the same thing, and expecting me to change my answer. Saying that belief is this, because 99.9% of the English speaking world says it is, doesn't make it so.
You are logically correct. But your premise is incorrect...so it doesn't really matter.

 

[Meow Mix]

Because the basic, universally understood word has gotten us as far as it can. Change it, and we get somewhere else. The definition does not have to be exhaustive to be useful.

Far from it. It would teach me a new definition of a word, and why you use it that way. Confusing, yes. Unnecessarily, not at all. In fact, confusion is necessary to learn.



You are saying the same thing, and expecting me to change my answer. Saying that belief is this, because 99.9% of the English speaking world says it is, doesn't make it so.
You are logically correct. But your premise is incorrect...so it doesn't really matter.

Well, I don't see the utility in carrying on with this.

So, I'll see you around in other subjects; hopefully subjects in which we can speak English and understand one another clearly.

 

[nrg]

That's right. But that's exactly why things like Aristotlian logics don't in themselves succumb to GIT either. GIT mostly applies to situations in which you can build a computer with it; because the foundations for GIT are essentially something which can compute.

If you have something that doesn't compute, you don't have to worry about GIT. This is why GIT is often misunderstood as meaning there can be no absolute truths -- that's false. A = A is absolutely true and needn't worry about GIT in the slightest.

So, the application of the scientific method on the physical worl is open for GIT, since it's all about venturing outside known axioms and challenging identity?

 

[javajo]

What about Faith with Reason, or Reason with Faith? When it come to my faith, I don't leave my brain at the door, and vice-versa.

 

[Meow Mix]

So, the application of the scientific method on the physical worl is open for GIT, since it's all about venturing outside known axioms and challenging identity?

I'm not sure whether the application of the scientific method itself is open to GIT, though something like a "theory of everything" may well succumb to it. I'd have to think on it and honestly I have too much homework to want to bother, nor would I be that confident in my answer anyway as I don't fully understand GIT yet

 

[Willamena]

Uh... I clarified that it was a semantic dichotomy, which is what you're saying. I'm not sure why you're disagreeing?

To say that it's a semantical dichotomy is to say that the meanings are understood and agreed upon, which seems to me to be entirely not the case here.

The linguistic dichotomy places the responsibility for the presence of a dichotomy on the structure of language.

 

[Meow Mix]

To say that it's a semantical dichotomy is to say that the meanings are understood and agreed upon, which seems to me to be entirely not the case here.

The linguistic dichotomy places the responsibility for the presence of a dichotomy on the structure of language.

He had said he agreed to use the terms for theism and atheism, so I'd assumed he had understood they were dichotomous as defined. But as I said, it turned out he was using a different definition for "belief" (which is essential to both theism and atheism), hence the dissonance.

Now that we cleared up the "belief" matter it should be more obvious how the way I've defined the terms is indeed dichotomous.

 

[nrg]

I'm not sure whether the application of the scientific method itself is open to GIT, though something like a "theory of everything" may well succumb to it. I'd have to think on it and honestly I have too much homework to want to bother, nor would I be that confident in my answer anyway as I don't fully understand GIT yet

Ah, ok, I think I should ask around at my university to find an answer then.

You got my worrying about my home work too, and since I'm no where near as confident in linear algebra as I want to be (vectors are devilishly hard) I guess I better kill my saturday evening now with studies. Thank you for the logic discussion!

 

[Willamena]

He had said he agreed to use the terms for theism and atheism, so I'd assumed he had understood they were dichotomous as defined. But as I said, it turned out he was using a different definition for "belief" (which is essential to both theism and atheism), hence the dissonance.

Now that we cleared up the "belief" matter it should be more obvious how the way I've defined the terms is indeed dichotomous.

An inherently arbitrary score.

 

[Meow Mix]

Ah, ok, I think I should ask around at my university to find an answer then.

You got my worrying about my home work too, and since I'm no where near as confident in linear algebra as I want to be (vectors are devilishly hard) I guess I better kill my saturday evening now with studies. Thank you for the logic discussion!

Beats the hell out of using quaternions or octonions.

Enjoyed the discussion, I'm sure we'll have interesting chats later

 

[Meow Mix]

An inherently arbitrary score.

Wasn't aware we were scoring points or that it was a competition but rather just fleshing out what we meant by our terms.

If someone says "Roman Catholics aren't theists," then obviously they're using some sort of term way differently than they're normally used. Of course semantics are arbitrary, but arbitrarily making a position obtuse that doesn't need to be is just sort of silly in my book. There's a reason languages have common definitions: so we don't run around saying that the toves are slithey to one another. Might as well bang our heads into walls than discuss anything if using bizarre definitions for commonly understood terms becomes the norm.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Wasn't aware we were scoring points or that it was a competition but rather just fleshing out what we meant by our terms.

If someone says "Roman Catholics aren't theists," then obviously they're using some sort of term way differently than they're normally used. Of course semantics are arbitrary, but arbitrarily making a position obtuse that doesn't need to be is just sort of silly in my book. There's a reason languages have common definitions: so we don't run around saying that the toves are slithey to one another. Might as well bang our heads into walls than discuss anything if using bizarre definitions for commonly understood terms becomes the norm.

Why are you so focused on words always meaning the same thing? Meanings change. Words change. That doesn't make them meaningless.

 

[PolyHedral]

 

[strikeviperMKII]

I don't think letting little cartoons illustrate your point is clever either.

 

[Meow Mix]

Why are you so focused on words always meaning the same thing? Meanings change. Words change. That doesn't make them meaningless.

Many times words are interconnected... changing one changes many, so it's not something that should be done lightly. Usually these systems of words are exhaustive, and changing a word removes the exhaustiveness of the system.

This is one such example: changing "belief" changes knowledge, theism, atheism, and a great deal of other things. It seems pointless to me and destroys the ability to communicate without first laying down a whole slew of pertinant definitions. If that's what you want to do, then fine; but your definitions that you attempted to give were still so vague and inexhaustive that they didn't impart any meaning to me.

Normally I don't have a problem with playing the semantics game but when it comes to terms as basic and required for a philosophical discussion as the words "belief" and "knowledge" it just becomes silly and I don't want to spend time on such things. So, again, I'm done with this conversation in particular and I'll see you around in other discussions; hopefully ones in which we're both being clear with our language.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Logic doesn't succumb to either of Godel's theorems because it doesn't set up the paradox. Of course, mathematics are essentially the same as logic and many paradigms therein do give Godel the coup de grace, but for the most part 99% of logic can't possibly trigger GIT, so there's no worries That identity is true and absolutely so is one area of logic that's safe from GIT.

What?!?! Blasphemy!

The implications of Incompleteness go far beyond mere logic. What happens if you meet some guy and all your logic processors say he's A-OK; yet dogs growl and children shy away? No system is complete unto itself without imposing rigid axoimatic definition - as you stated earlier - but what are the axioms of mankind?

Book asks, "what is faith without works?" Obviously, the book knows about Incompleteness. And what is this "most part of 99%" stuff? 99.2%? 99.8%?