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

[strikeviperMKII]

He presupposed a level of "evidence" that somehow is unavailable though the use of our senses (or a suitable scientific extension thereof), but which somehow is available to those who believe.

You are both right and wrong. I did not presuppose that you could not see the evidence because you cannot sense it at all. I just said you aren't sensing it.
It is available to those who believe because they chose to see it. You do not.

There is no such thing.

Personal revelation is not evidence, it's lunacy.

I do agree. It is very frustrating that we actually have to work at this faith thing. I would much rather like it if God just told us all the answers, put them in plain sight, so this argument could be ended.
Oh wait...he did do that.
So why are we having this argument again?
Ah, yes. Because people see only what they choose to see.

Edit: That's why it's faith.

 

[PolyHedral]

It is available to those who believe because they chose to see it. You do not.

Why does the universe at large care what you believe?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Why does the universe at large care what you believe?

Never said it did. You don't even have to care what you believe. I care what I believe. I think it's counterproductive not to care, but that's just me.

 

[Orias]

Some seem to think that reason should take a backseat to faith. While others seem to believe not only is faith unnecessary but it is detrimental.

So which do you think is more important to humanity and why?

Opposition.

To overcome, you must become.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Is intuition a sense?

It's a combination of several, none of which are supernatural.

Is common sense a sense?

No, it's an overused expression that really means very little. And it's not even that common.

The word "sense" refers to the mental phenomena that are our interpretations of the world around us, and includes more than just physical senses. It is the "sense" we make out of the world (or that our brains make, if you like). It is all the information that has "reached" our brain, ordered, organized and structured not just by the physical processes of cognition but by interpretation piled on interpretion, with a helping of interpretation on the side. Every bit of information allows for a connection to be drawn between it and another bit of information.

For a very wide definition of the word "sense" I can accept that, with the slight sidenote that we only HAVE our physical senses to obtain information about the world. There is nothing supernatural about it.

Personal revelation is realization. It is making a connection.

No. Making the connection means using logic and previously attained information to reach a satisfactory conclusion.

Personal revelation is when a supernatural entity supposedly bestows some kind of personal understanding upon you that for some reason is not available to anyone else.

From Wikipedia: "In religion and theology, revelation is the revealing or disclosing,through active or passive communication with supernatural entities".

 

[Meow Mix]

I think you're using two different versions of "sense" as the same thing there. There's logical sense (of which nonsense is the negation) and there's physical senses, which would be constructions that feed data to the brain.

Yes, this thread is absolutely rife with rampant equivocation.

 

[Willamena]

I think you're using two different versions of "sense" as the same thing there. There's logical sense (of which nonsense is the negation) and there's physical senses, which would be constructions that feed data to the brain.

Logical sense? That's a new one.




I just meant "sense":

1. Any of the faculties by which stimuli from outside or inside the body are received and felt, as the faculties of hearing, sight, smell, touch, taste, and equilibrium.
2. A perception or feeling produced by a stimulus; sensation

Feeling is a sense. Hearing, smelling, tasting, etc are senses. Imagination is a faculty that we hold apart from sense, because it has the power to compose sensation.
I suppose one could file intuition under imagination, but one could also not.

 

[Willamena]

Why does the universe at large care what you believe?

Are you the universe at large caring what you believe?

 

[Meow Mix]

I did not presuppose that you could not see the evidence because you cannot sense it at all. I just said you aren't sensing it.
It is available to those who believe because they chose to see it. You do not.

This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If the evidence is there, it's possible to demonstrate it to someone. Asserting that they "choose not to see it" is asinine. For instance, even with something like this picture:

Some people see the cow, some people don't.

Cow believer: There is a cow in this picture.
Skeptic: I don't see a cow; things look pretty random to me.
Cow believer: That's because you're choosing not to see the cow.
Skeptic: Don't be ridiculous, I'm not "choosing not to see" anything; I just fail to see where there is a cow in this picture.

See how asinine the cow believer's stance is? Why not get out a red marker and draw an outline around the cow and say "See? There it is."

If the evidence is there, it should be possible to use argumentation and reason to get the skeptic to acknowledge it.

Saying "you choose not to see it" is just a cop-out. Why not outline the evidence for us so that we can see it? Assuming that your opponent is deliberately blind isn't only insulting and sophomoric, it's counterproductive to having any sort of discussion at all.

 

[Willamena]

This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If the evidence is there, it's possible to demonstrate it to someone. Asserting that they "choose not to see it" is asinine. For instance, even with something like this picture:

Some people see the cow, some people don't...

Similarly, some people see "choice" in this picture you've painted (with your words), and some people don't.

 

[Willamena]

No, it's an overused expression that really means very little. And it's not even that common.

Its commonality isn't meant to be shared with other people. It's your, and yours alone.

 

[Revoltingest]

Saying "you choose not to see it" is just a cop-out. Why not outline the evidence for us so that we can see it? Assuming that your opponent is deliberately blind isn't only insulting and sophomoric, it's counterproductive to having any sort of discussion at all.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss their argument that we just don't see it because of our blindness. If they believe that they have some spiritual
insight or sense which you & I lack, then that would be possible. I believe they're wrong, but I'll never convince them otherwise, since this is how
they understand it all. We can't prove otherwise, so that which we can't change, we might as well learn to get along with. The more friendly we
are with them, the more open to our rather foreign perspective they might be. And if ever one of them does become receptive to our skepticism,
their change will be their own doing.

 

[Meow Mix]

Similarly, some people see "choice" in this picture you've painted (with your words), and some people don't.

It took me a long time to see the cow. I know without a doubt there wasn't a "choice" involved.

 

[Willamena]

It took me a long time to see the cow. I know without a doubt there wasn't a "choice" involved.

Excellent! That be knowledge that wasn't arrived at through reason.

Especially as others do see a choice.

 

[Orias]

It took me a long time to see the cow. I know without a doubt there wasn't a "choice" involved.

I'm sure chosing to look at it is a choice.

Perception is without a doubt, innevitable.

The choice of will however is not, you can chose to be, or not to be.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Similarly, some people see "choice" in this picture you've painted (with your words), and some people don't.

Seems the word "choice" has just been elected to mean "delusion"... :sarcastic

 

[jarofthoughts]

Its commonality isn't meant to be shared with other people. It's your, and yours alone.

And now the word "common" has apparently lost all its meaning as well.

We'll go through the whole dictionary at this pace.

 

[Meow Mix]

Excellent! That be knowledge that wasn't arrived at through reason.

Especially as others do see a choice.

That others perceive a choice is irrelevant, it's justified (I experienced no sense of choice but rather a dissonance in my cognitive perception from organizing the picture into a cow beyond my control) true (as it was a direct experience and not a question of what exists I can be certain of its truth) belief that there was no choice involved, therefore it is reasonable.

Those who see it as a choice are importing more assumptions than they have to (that some people have the uncanny ability to see the cow but "choose" to ignore it and then lie that they don't see it), and furthermore as I pointed out it's insulting and baseless to accuse an opponent of essentially lying to you instead of trying to help them see the evidence.

This seems simple to me.

 

[Meow Mix]

We'll go through the whole dictionary at this pace.

Lots of equivocation and definition-wrenching happening in many threads lately -- or maybe it always has and I'm just now noticing?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If the evidence is there, it's possible to demonstrate it to someone. Asserting that they "choose not to see it" is asinine. For instance, even with something like this picture:


Cow believer: There is a cow in this picture.
Skeptic: I don't see a cow; things look pretty random to me.
Cow believer: That's because you're choosing not to see the cow.
Skeptic: Don't be ridiculous, I'm not "choosing not to see" anything; I just fail to see where there is a cow in this picture.

See how asinine the cow believer's stance is? Why not get out a red marker and draw an outline around the cow and say "See? There it is."

The bold shows why you think the cow person's stance is asinine. It shows your stance, and the arrogance of it.

If you do not see the possibility of the cow, you will not see a cow even if it was outlined for you. I don't see the cow, so I'll admit there could be one. If someone else saw it, then it must be there.

If the evidence is there, it should be possible to use argumentation and reason to get the skeptic to acknowledge it.

Saying "you choose not to see it" is just a cop-out. Why not outline the evidence for us so that we can see it? Assuming that your opponent is deliberately blind isn't only insulting and sophomoric, it's counterproductive to having any sort of discussion at all.

You chose to be blind. You must to chose to see in order to see. Forcing you to see would not enable you to see.
I do not assume you are blind from the beginning. What you have said, and your stance says that you do not see, therefore you are blind.