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

[strikeviperMKII]

I just realized that the poll title doesn't have an 's' in 'reason'.

 

[Gloone]

I just realized that the poll title doesn't have an 's' in 'reason'.

I guess faith led him to make this poll. :biglaugh:

 

[strikeviperMKII]

I guess faith lead him to make this poll. :biglaugh:

I don't think a typo constitutes a leap of faith, but if you implying that they made a Freudian slip or something of that nature, and intentionally spelled reason wrong as to prove faith's dominance, then I suppose it could be taken that way.
Of course, it could also be said that they spelled reason wrong to draw attention to reason, rather than faith.
Either way, it's inconclusive.
Still, it is funny that it took me this long to realize it...

 

[ellenjanuary]

I don't think a typo constitutes a leap of faith, but if you implying that they made a Freudian slip or something of that nature, and intentionally spelled reason wrong as to prove faith's dominance, then I suppose it could be taken that way.
Of course, it could also be said that they spelled reason wrong to draw attention to reason, rather than faith.
Either way, it's inconclusive.
Still, it is funny that it took me this long to realize it...

I didn't notice it until you just pointed it out.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

I didn't notice it until you just pointed it out.

It's all god. I mean good.

 

[Magic Man]

False dichotomy...

Nope...

 

[Magic Man]

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.

You answered your own question. It makes his arguments seem obtuse, and that makes them sound wiser to someone who's not paying attention. It's like you said about mysticism. They like to use a lot of words to say meaningless things because it sounds cool, and they think it makes them sound wise and profound, when in reality it just makes them sound silly.

 

[Jeremiah]

I don't think a typo constitutes a leap of faith, but if you implying that they made a Freudian slip or something of that nature, and intentionally spelled reason wrong as to prove faith's dominance, then I suppose it could be taken that way.
Of course, it could also be said that they spelled reason wrong to draw attention to reason, rather than faith.
Either way, it's inconclusive.
Still, it is funny that it took me this long to realize it...

"Either way, it's inconclusive."

It is a simple mistake. I do not favor what you call "faith" over reason. I do not even accept what you, and many others here, call "faith" as faith. What you have is not "faith", it is a shoddy rationalization. But in either case, faith still is a movement away from truth and therefore unpreferred.

I hope that clears things up for you.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

You answered your own question. It makes his arguments seem obtuse, and that makes them sound wiser to someone who's not paying attention. It's like you said about mysticism. They like to use a lot of words to say meaningless things because it sounds cool, and they think it makes them sound wise and profound, when in reality it just makes them sound silly.

Well, you seem to have it all figured out.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

"Either way, it's inconclusive."

It is a simple mistake. I do not favor what you call "faith" over reason. I do not even accpet what you, and many others here, call "faith" as faith. What you have is not "faith", it is a shoddy rationalization.

I hope that clears things up for you.

I know, I wasn't insinuating anything.

 

[Meow Mix]

I would say that 'belief' means that a person thinks something is true because it looks like it should be true. To tie this into justification, belief is something stated with few internal justifiers, and many external justifiers. Knowledge has many internal justifiers and few external justifiers. While both based on internal justifiers, knowledge is more solid than belief.

But you say "I am not talking about an idea's truth. I'm talking about an idea's strength" when referring to internal justifiers. In your system, "internal justifier" just means an idea that originated from you rather than someone else or rather that it's just something that you "agree" with. This would mean that there's no correlation between how many internal justifiers you have or not and knowledge -- unless in your system, the word "knowledge" doesn't indicate that something is more likely to be true than the word "belief." Which, if true, I would find that sort of silly and missing the point of having such a word.

What words do you use to denote the probability that something is true? Normally "knowledge" indicates that something is very probably true, but in your system it seems like you use "knowledge" just to mean "this is my idea and not someone else's and I agree with this idea." I don't find that to be very efficient or useful at all. Essentially you use the word "knowledge" to denote what is NORMALLY meant by the word "belief," which seems unnecessarily backwards.

The difference, I think, is that my semantics allows for any system to be included. Yours does not. Mine also treats said systems as perceptions, with all the flaws that go with.

What do you mean it allows for any system to be included and mine doesn't? Please give an example of a system that isn't included by the normal semantics of belief and knowledge. Also, in epistemology it is actually accounted for that perceptions have flaws -- I have no idea at all where you got the idea that it doesn't if you've taken even rudimentary epistemology considering a great deal of time is spent studying and asking questions about the nature of perception and how much we can trust it.

Originated isn't the word I would use. An internal justifier can be someone esle's idea, just one that you agree with.

Ok, um... so knowledge in your system is just something that you agree with? That's essentially what you're defining it as: if "internal justifiers" are justifiers that you agree with, and knowledge is distinguished from a belief in that it has mostly internal justifiers (i.e. things you agree with), you're basically just saying that you "know" anything that you agree with.

But then "knowledge" in your system has nothing at all to do with truth; "know" in your semantics is just an arbitrary state of believing something... I think that's counterproductive.

Also it doesn't make any sense to me in that if a "belief" in your system is composed of "external justifiers," and those are (I'm guessing) justifiers that you don't agree with as much, then your use of the word "belief" is very confusing because the foundations for your use of the term make it sound like it's the OPPOSITE of what is normally meant by belief... that it's something you don't necessarily agree with.

In my opinion, no offense, this whole system is bizarre and crippled and doesn't accomplish a distinction between truth values which is normally what these words are for. All of the concepts you've turned these words into can already be described just fine in normal English while still being able to describe truth values, but what you've done is stripped any ability to distinguish truth values and changed some words into things that describe things for which words already exist. I really don't get the point, and I really don't understand still why you would deliberately change such basic words into such a confusing system that doesn't seem to have a goal (the goal of the original is to determine relative truth values, yours seems to just distinguish "my idea that I believe in" from "your idea that I don't").

Yes it does. Until someone changes their internal justifier to either accept the external on of an 'informed theory' or adds a new one pertaining to 'informed theories', then their opinion will not change.

I am not talking about an idea's truth. I'm talking about an idea's strength. Internal justifiers win. Always.

But why build a system of semantics around the psychology of whether someone will change their mind or not? That's already inherently understood with the normal ways to describe things (in terms of beliefs, in the normal English semantics of beliefs).

You lose the ability to describe relative truth values and "gain" the ability to describe something that can already be described in normal English -- I don't understand the point. It makes things unnecessarily obtuse and cripples the purpose of the language.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

But you say "I am not talking about an idea's truth. I'm talking about an idea's strength" when referring to internal justifiers. In your system, "internal justifier" just means an idea that originated from you rather than someone else or rather that it's just something that you "agree" with. This would mean that there's no correlation between how many internal justifiers you have or not and knowledge -- unless in your system, the word "knowledge" doesn't indicate that something is more likely to be true than the word "belief." Which, if true, I would find that sort of silly and missing the point of having such a word.

Knowledge does not mean true, or more likely to be true. I never made that claim.

What words do you use to denote the probability that something is true? Normally "knowledge" indicates that something is very probably true, but in your system it seems like you use "knowledge" just to mean "this is my idea and not someone else's and I agree with this idea." I don't find that to be very efficient or useful at all. Essentially you use the word "knowledge" to denote what is NORMALLY meant by the word "belief," which seems unnecessarily backwards.

Our goals are different. Mine is not to find what is true. Just what is thought to be true.
What is true and what is not true will always be such. When we find something that is true or is not true, it is nice. That's really all you can say about it. It's like getting a new car. Yeah, its a new car. That's it.

What do you mean it allows for any system to be included and mine doesn't? Please give an example of a system that isn't included by the normal semantics of belief and knowledge.

Mine.

Also, in epistemology it is actually accounted for that perceptions have flaws -- I have no idea at all where you got the idea that it doesn't if you've taken even rudimentary epistemology considering a great deal of time is spent studying and asking questions about the nature of perception and how much we can trust it.

Trust it to do what? To tell us the truth? It tells us what it tells us. That is a truth, is it not? Why don't we learn from that first?

Ok, um... so knowledge in your system is just something that you agree with? That's essentially what you're defining it as: if "internal justifiers" are justifiers that you agree with, and knowledge is distinguished from a belief in that it has mostly internal justifiers (i.e. things you agree with), you're basically just saying that you "know" anything that you agree with.

Agree is now becoming a word that we'll have to define. Agree with, as I said before, is associated with belief. A belief example is like saying an answer is correct just because it uses logic. You don't even have to look at it. That's a belief. Knowledge, is agreement, but is more closely related with experience, hence why it is internally justified.

But then "knowledge" in your system has nothing at all to do with truth; "know" in your semantics is just an arbitrary state of believing something... I think that's counterproductive.

Finding truth was never the goal of my system. I never made such a claim. Why did you assume that?

Also it doesn't make any sense to me in that if a "belief" in your system is composed of "external justifiers," and those are (I'm guessing) justifiers that you don't agree with as much, then your use of the word "belief" is very confusing because the foundations for your use of the term make it sound like it's the OPPOSITE of what is normally meant by belief... that it's something you don't necessarily agree with.

Okay, you've already said it was confusing.

In my opinion, no offense, this whole system is bizarre and crippled and doesn't accomplish a distinction between truth values which is normally what these words are for.

None taken. I would suggest that you stop focusing on what the system doesn't do, but what it does do.

All of the concepts you've turned these words into can already be described just fine in normal English while still being able to describe truth values, but what you've done is stripped any ability to distinguish truth values and changed some words into things that describe things for which words already exist. I really don't get the point, and I really don't understand still why you would deliberately change such basic words into such a confusing system that doesn't seem to have a goal (the goal of the original is to determine relative truth values, yours seems to just distinguish "my idea that I believe in" from "your idea that I don't").

If you don't see a goal, that doesn't mean it doesn't have one. Just because it doesn't have the goal you think it should, doesn't mean it's useless.

This is where your system stops, and mine begins.

But why build a system of semantics around the psychology of whether someone will change their mind or not? That's already inherently understood with the normal ways to describe things (in terms of beliefs, in the normal English semantics of beliefs).

Inherently understood? Evidence suggests otherwise. People change their minds so fast that they don't even know they are doing it. Why do people, in the face of all of rationality, not change their minds about God? Why do they insist on using scientific evidence to back their claims, even when all evidence suggests otherwise? Why is scientific evidence suddenly up for debate?
Because it's not about science. It's not about truth. It's not even about God.

You lose the ability to describe relative truth values and "gain" the ability to describe something that can already be described in normal English -- I don't understand the point. It makes things unnecessarily obtuse and cripples the purpose of the language.

I would say this system only deals only with relative truths. Why do you say it loses the ability to describe them?
I can see you don't understand the point. That doesn't mean there isn't one.

 

[Meow Mix]

I would say this system only deals only with relative truths. Why do you say it loses the ability to describe them?
I can see you don't understand the point. That doesn't mean there isn't one.

Yeah, let's just go back to being done with this conversation. See you around.

 

[Magic Man]

Well, you seem to have it all figured out.

Yup, I'd say I do.

 

[Man of Faith]

We need both to be well adjusted human beans. This is a false dicotemy.

 

[PolyHedral]

We need both to be well adjusted human beans.

Quoted for awesome.

 

[Magic Man]

We need both to be well adjusted human beans. This is a false dicotemy.

I wish people would stop calling it a false dichotomy (although calling us "human beans" is pretty awesome). Faith is believing something without evidence. Reason is believing something after applying logic to the evidence that's available. They are opposite ways to determine what's true and real. Both of them can exist in the world, but we can also keep one and get rid of the other and be perfectly fine.

 

[bobhikes]

I wish people would stop calling it a false dichotomy (although calling us "human beans" is pretty awesome). Faith is believing something without evidence. Reason is believing something after applying logic to the evidence that's available. They are opposite ways to determine what's true and real. Both of them can exist in the world, but we can also keep one and get rid of the other and be perfectly fine.

Never!!!!! Without both Humans would not exist.

Whats funny is that no matter how many people tell you so you refuse to believe which shows you have great faith in at least yourself.

 

[Revoltingest]

Never!!!!! Without both Humans would not exist.

Whats funny is that no matter how many people tell you so you refuse to believe which shows you have great faith in at least yourself.

Tis not faith, but rather confidence borne of experience.
I do OK without faith, but I could use more of that "reason" stuff, which might have kept me from investing in Michigan real estate.

 

[bobhikes]

Tis not faith, but rather confidence borne of experience.
I do OK without faith, but I could use more of that "reason" stuff, which might have kept me from investing in Michigan real estate.

Simple Questions

Is an infant Human? How does an infant reason?