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

[Willamena]

Then why are some abandoning that onus? What do they gain out of redefining common words to mean completely different things, sometimes even as the opposite of how they're normally defined? (strikeviper uses "know" in the same sense that English speakers use the word "believe," after all!)

Let me say this one more time. The onus is on the reader to make sense and nonsense. The nonsense that you see is nonsense that's been brought into the world at that moment. In other words, the dots that failed to connect failed to connect in you.

I don't believe strikeviper has redefined anything. Rather, I think he's defined it for himself, just you've defined it for yourself, and other for themselves, and I've defined it for myself. Definition is arbitrary, unqiue case, personal. Where we choose to share it with others, semantics becomes necessary.

I understand how "to know" is "to believe," and I also understand the manner in which "to know" is not "to believe." To bottle either one is what hinders communication.

 

[Willamena]

I realize they have multiple meanings and contexts, but the problem appears to be that many people fail to distinguish them and engage in rampant equivocation.

There also seems to be a problem with making up new and sometimes contradictory contexts for common words. My objection is merely pragmatic; why would they do that? Why not use a new word or one that's closer in meaning to what they're trying to convey than to use what normally in English means the opposite? It comes off to me as unnecessarily nebulous, and I question why I should bother wasting my time learning essentially a new language for something that could perfectly well be said in plain English.

It strikes me as childish, sort of as if I slipped you a piece of paper that appeared like gibberish until I also handed you a decoder ring, a wink, and a giddy "tee hee!"

Equivocation refers to contexts that are unrelated to each other being equated, not to contexts that actually are related.

 

[PolyHedral]

Let me say this one more time. The onus is on the reader to make sense and nonsense.

No. The onus is on the speaker to communicate clearly.

 

[Willamena]

No. The onus is on the speaker to communicate clearly.

I disagree. Mostly because there's no such thing.

 

[Magic Man]

No. The onus is on the speaker to communicate clearly.

Indeed, but unfortunately there are clearly some people here who do not value the concept of communicating clearly. Willamena has made this quite clear.

 

[PolyHedral]

I disagree. Mostly because there's no such thing.

No such thing as clarity?

 

[Willamena]

No such thing as clarity?

No such thing as clear communication. You can speak brilliantly, making all the sense in the world, until you're blue in the face, that doesn't guarantee people will listen.

 

[Magic Man]

No such thing as clear communication. You can speak brilliantly, making all the sense in the world, until you're blue in the face, that doesn't guarantee people will listen.

No, but then that's their fault, not yours. All we're asking is for people to communicate clearly. We're doing it, but some others here aren't.

 

[Meow Mix]

Ready, fire, aim perhaps?

I tried, you didn't like it.

You explained a system, but not how it specifically justifies the existence of a god.

I also objected that this system isn't in principle different from reason other than you suggest randomizing what is examined by reason. While I question the utility of doing so completely randomly I happen to agree that examining random things with reason can accomplish things, but that's hardly what I would call "faith."

So, again, can you explain what justifies believing the existence of god(s)?

 

[Meow Mix]

No. The onus is on the speaker to communicate clearly.

No, but then that's their fault, not yours. All we're asking is for people to communicate clearly. We're doing it, but some others here aren't.

Exactly. :yes:

How many times have certain individuals had to ask mball, Poly, or myself exactly what they meant by a word? (Haven't noticed many instances...)

How many times have mball, Poly, or myself had to ask certain individuals what they meant? (Quite a lot!)

Only one side of this conversation appears to be confused by the language of the other, and I wouldn't consider that something to be proud of.

 

[Magic Man]

Exactly. :yes:

How many times have certain individuals had to ask mball, Poly, or myself exactly what they meant by a word? (Haven't noticed many instances...)

How many times have mball, Poly, or myself had to ask certain individuals what they meant? (Quite a lot!)

Only one side of this conversation appears to be confused by the language of the other, and I wouldn't consider that something to be proud of.

It's really too bad you're gay and I'm married.

 

[Willamena]

No, but then that's their fault, not yours. All we're asking is for people to communicate clearly. We're doing it, but some others here aren't.

Speaking clearly isn't the same as being transparent.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

You explained a system, but not how it specifically justifies the existence of a god.

I also objected that this system isn't in principle different from reason other than you suggest randomizing what is examined by reason. While I question the utility of doing so completely randomly I happen to agree that examining random things with reason can accomplish things, but that's hardly what I would call "faith."

'Ready fire aim' says that you don't know logically what is the best choice. So you pick one and see where it goes. It doesn't necessarily mean you use only reason to examine what happens, but that is an option.
It also implies that what you're aiming for isn't really there until you actually fire.
Your 'random reason' theory is more like 'fire, fire, fire', as I explained before. It has no goal. Ready fire aim, does.

 

[Meow Mix]

'Ready fire aim' says that you don't know logically what is the best choice. So you pick one and see where it goes. It doesn't necessarily mean you use only reason to examine what happens, but that is an option.
It also implies that what you're aiming for isn't really there until you actually fire.
Your 'random reason' theory is more like 'fire, fire, fire', as I explained before. It has no goal. Ready fire aim, does.

What do you mean by "pick one?"

Does "picking one" mean:

1) You believe it first, then confirm it
2) You select it for examination neutrally, without believing it until it's justified
3) Something else

If (1), that's irrational. Someone who values reason wouldn't do such a thing. It also leaves the door wide open for fallacies, the Forer Effect, and confirmation bias. The reason successful epistemic strategies like the scientific method explicitely deny using such an irrational methods is exactly because of the things I listed. Ending that practice is part of what allowed us to progress.

If (2), then it's as I said: it's just randomly picking something to rationally investigate. While I question the utility of picking it totally at random, picking something at random that could be related to a matter in question and then putting it under the light of scrutiny can indeed yield results (after all, many successful scientific discoveries have often been accidents, for example).

If (3), please explain with more detail.

Also, when you say:

It doesn't necessarily mean you use only reason to examine what happens, but that is an option

What else is there besides reason to examine something with? Reason is the examination of something for internal and external consistency. It isn't just one tool in a toolbox for examining claims -- reason is the entire toolbox.

 

[Meow Mix]

Speaking clearly isn't the same as being transparent.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

This is exactly what I'm talking about. I don't think it's clever or cute to speak so nebulously that people constantly have to inquire what you mean.

 

[Magic Man]

Speaking clearly isn't the same as being transparent.

It's funny that I'm talking about communicating clearly and this is what you come back with. I was about to ask what you mean, but I guess it's kind of pointless. I even specifically said I just want people to communicate clearly, so if this is all I can get, there's no point in asking again.

 

[Meow Mix]

It's funny that I'm talking about communicating clearly and this is what you come back with. I was about to ask what you mean, but I guess it's kind of pointless. I even specifically said I just want people to communicate clearly, so if this is all I can get, there's no point in asking again.

I had the same feeling, but in the spirit of continuing to try to understand I went ahead and asked for clarification.

 

[Magic Man]

I had the same feeling, but in the spirit of continuing to try to understand I went ahead and asked for clarification.

Yeah, but one thing with Patty is you'll never get a straight answer out of her, and all conversations with her are this difficult and more often than not go nowhere.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I had the same feeling, but in the spirit of continuing to try to understand I went ahead and asked for clarification.

Ah, but in going ahead to try to understand, you stand under a head. This makes you short.

 

[Willamena]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

This is exactly what I'm talking about. I don't think it's clever or cute to speak so nebulously that people constantly have to inquire what you mean.

It is a play on words, humour, and an observation that the reason no one asks you, Matt and others for clarification is because they see right through you. It's not meant meanly, but really... holding something as fundamental as "faith" to mean something that deliberately robs it of sense in context is stubborness extreme. Would you rather that religion make sense, or make no sense? If you'd rather it make sense, then stop fighting the meaning of words, and instead listen for the meaning in words.