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

[strikeviperMKII]

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

Picking one means you take all the data you have and just go for it. Believe it.

If your belief is true, then the world will tell you it's true. If it's wrong, the world will tell you it's wrong. That's the aim part.

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.

If you know this happens, why is it a bad thing? Are you not sure it happens, therefore you won't be able to see it when it does?

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.

The natural world is a slightly different beast than ourselves. If you want to find out about the natural world, then you don't want 'us' getting in the way. if you want to find out about us, then you have to let 'us' get in the way.

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.

I just gave a method to you. Did you not read? Do I have to call you blind again?
Reason is a tool in the toolbox. It is not the entire toolbox. That statement alone says you are blind, and by your own choice no less.

 

[Meow Mix]

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.

I don't think it's a lot to ask to have someone pitch a position to me in plain English; without their personally invented meanings of commonly defined/understood words that sometimes even contradict the normal English definitions.

I don't think it's a lot to ask to debate with someone in the sense that they only have to say something once to me for me to understand it instead of going through pages literally asking "What do you mean by this" and "How are you defining this word, because the context you used it in is different from any normal English definitions" and so on.

I don't get it. The reason I'm transparent is because I use English and contextual clues to get my statements across. I don't respond with cutesy mystical phrases or self-invented words and then assume the worst of my opponent's cognitive capacity when they ask for clarification.

It's like trying to hold a scholarly debate with someone who still thinks it's cute to pass notes with secret decoders.

Yes I'd like it to make sense, but in order for it to make sense I need my opponents to talk sense. If I wanted to hear about slithey toves I would read Jabberwocky. If I want to hear material that's pitching an idea at me for me to evaluate I'd prefer to read clear, concise English. If this basic (and in my mind, not so far-fetched) request is beyond any particular opponents, then respectfully I'll request that they inform me now so that I might spend my time doing more constructive things than trying to understand someone that isn't even interested in a normal rational discussion.

 

[Gloone]

This poll is really bias imo.

 

[Meow Mix]

I just gave a method to you. Did you not read? Do I have to call you blind again?
Reason is a tool in the toolbox. It is not the entire toolbox. That statement alone says you are blind, and by your own choice no less.

You admit your method is irrational though. There's really not much more to say; you don't value being rational whereas I do. Rational people can't hold conversations with irrational people because you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

This isn't a matter of me being blind, it's a matter of you not even holding a valid position. To use the cow analogy, there isn't even a cow for you to outline to me.

There's nothing more for us to talk about until we meet up on a rational topic or if we talk about something unrelated to reason like our opinions on movies or something. Good day to you.

 

[Gloone]

Suicide is what gives people a reason to blow their brains out. Faith is what gives people an opportunity for something better.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

I don't think it's a lot to ask to debate with someone in the sense that they only have to say something once to me for me to understand it instead of going through pages literally asking "What do you mean by this" and "How are you defining this word, because the context you used it in is different from any normal English definitions" and so on.

Ah, but by answering those questions, you not only learn what the speaker meant, but what you wanted it to mean and why. And even more besides that.

I don't get it. The reason I'm transparent is because I use English and contextual clues to get my statements across. I don't respond with cutesy mystical phrases or self-invented words and then assume the worst of my opponent's cognitive capacity when they ask for clarification.

If you are transparent, then what are you? Where are you? You hold on to this transparent logic like it is a shield or something. In that, you aren't as transparent as you think.

Yes I'd like it to make sense, but in order for it to make sense I need my opponents to talk sense. If I wanted to hear about slithey toves I would read Jabberwocky. If I want to hear material that's pitching an idea at me for me to evaluate I'd prefer to read clear, concise English. If this basic (and in my mind, not so far-fetched) request is beyond any particular opponents, then respectfully I'll request that they inform me now so that I might spend my time doing more constructive things than trying to understand someone that isn't even interested in a normal rational discussion.

You liken what you want things to be to how they should be. That is a foolish assumption to make. Not everyone will be the way you want them to be, or speak how you want them to be, but if you close yourself off to the experience, you may as well be dead.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

You admit your method is irrational though. There's really not much more to say; you don't value being rational whereas I do. Rational people can't hold conversations with irrational people because you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

I don't value reason? Hardly. Reason has its place. Not here. Here, reason gets you right to this dead end. Yet, there's still more road to travel.

This isn't a matter of me being blind, it's a matter of you not even holding a valid position. To use the cow analogy, there isn't even a cow for you to outline to me.

That is strange because I see and know your position. I came from it. I learned from it. You are the one who does not see my position, nor any value in it at all. And you claim that you are not blind?

There's nothing more for us to talk about until we meet up on a rational topic or if we talk about something unrelated to reason like our opinions on movies or something. Good day to you.

Every conversation we have you end with this. I can't say it's unexpected, but I am a little disappointed. Regardless, good day to you as well.

 

[Gloone]

I vote for FAITH!!!!!!!!! it is clearly the better voice. You can't have reason with out it.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

I vote for FAITH!!!!!!!!! it is clearly the better voice. You can't have reason with out it.

I don't know if I ever answered the question...
Faith can only exist (if and only if) you have reason. So both.

 

[Magic Man]

I just want to say one thing before I leave this thread:

 

[Gloone]

I just want to say one thing before I leave this thread:

Aye I agree.

:ignore:

 

[Meow Mix]

Every conversation we have you end with this. I can't say it's unexpected, but I am a little disappointed. Regardless, good day to you as well.

Well, I don't mean to just say "la la la la la :ignore:"

It's not like that. It's more recognizing that we are incapable of agreeing because our methodologies of learning are so different.

I use reason and only reason. My understanding is that there is nothing else to use because reason is the foundation for discerning truth, for winnowing sense from nonsense, for examining claims for internal and external consistency.

There simply are no other methods for discerning truth because any discernment at all is the process of reason. Now, just accepting claims willy-nilly can be done but it's not a process of discernment and it's not rational.

If there is a method where a claim is examined to see if it's self-consistent, to see if it's consistent with the external world -- then that is reason. There are no other ways to examine because what I'm saying is that the process of examining at all is reason -- reason is the entirety of the toolbox, not just one tool in the box.

After that there are valid ways to examine and invalid ways to examine. Determining whether a belief is true or not based on a coin flip is not a valid approach to truth, for instance -- so not just any method works.

You've claimed to have a method that works. I've asked what it is. You claim essentially that your method is to believe first and ask questions later. That is not the use of reason, therefore that is not the examination of a claim for truth. It's not right, it's not even wrong (as Pauli would say). I'm not being blind, I'm not "stuck thinking in a box," it's that I've determined that you are employing a system that isn't even valid. There's no "cow to outline."

Thus we can never come to terms if you insist on using irrational systems that aren't aimed at discerning truth -- which I could argue yours doesn't/isn't. (I've tried, you've disagreed). So we're at a point where we have to agree to disagree. You and some readers might walk away thinking I'm too rigid and stuck thinking in a box, I will walk away thinking that you have an invalid system that's incapable of discerning truth. We won't see eye to eye until we can each agree on a valid epistemic system, so there's no point in continuing; we will only talk past each other.

I will stick with reason. If you believe there is a system other than reason, I will disagree (the word "unreasonable" exists -- ironically -- for a reason). You claim to value reason, but if you operate unreasonably that's incompatible with valuing reason (which includes not abandoning it, arguably). If you want to have a reasonable conversation, I am more than willing. If you want to have an irrational conversation, then I will unfortunately bow out to spend my time on something I feel is more constructive.

 

[Gloone]

Well, I don't mean to just say "la la la la la :ignore:"

It's not like that. It's more recognizing that we are incapable of agreeing because our methodologies of learning are so different.

I use reason and only reason. My understanding is that there is nothing else to use because reason is the foundation for discerning truth, for winnowing sense from nonsense, for examining claims for internal and external consistency.

There simply are no other methods for discerning truth because any discernment at all is the process of reason. Now, just accepting claims willy-nilly can be done but it's not a process of discernment and it's not rational.

If there is a method where a claim is examined to see if it's self-consistent, to see if it's consistent with the external world -- then that is reason. There are no other ways to examine because what I'm saying is that the process of examining at all is reason -- reason is the entirety of the toolbox, not just one tool in the box.

After that there are valid ways to examine and invalid ways to examine. Determining whether a belief is true or not based on a coin flip is not a valid approach to truth, for instance -- so not just any method works.

You've claimed to have a method that works. I've asked what it is. You claim essentially that your method is to believe first and ask questions later. That is not the use of reason, therefore that is not the examination of a claim for truth. It's not right, it's not even wrong (as Pauli would say). I'm not being blind, I'm not "stuck thinking in a box," it's that I've determined that you are employing a system that isn't even valid. There's no "cow to outline."

Thus we can never come to terms if you insist on using irrational systems that aren't aimed at discerning truth -- which I could argue yours doesn't/isn't. (I've tried, you've disagreed). So we're at a point where we have to agree to disagree. You and some readers might walk away thinking I'm too rigid and stuck thinking in a box, I will walk away thinking that you have an invalid system that's incapable of discerning truth. We won't see eye to eye until we can each agree on a valid epistemic system, so there's no point in continuing; we will only talk past each other.

I will stick with reason. If you believe there is a system other than reason, I will disagree (the word "unreasonable" exists -- ironically -- for a reason). You claim to value reason, but if you operate unreasonably that's incompatible with valuing reason (which includes not abandoning it, arguably). If you want to have a reasonable conversation, I am more than willing. If you want to have an irrational conversation, then I will unfortunately bow out to spend my time on something I feel is more constructive.

Well if readers think you are stuck in a box, lets see if we can pry you out of it.

What method would you use to answer the question, can faith being a belief in the truth be justified by the truth?
What method would you use to answer the question, Is faith lost to religion?
What method would you use to answer the question, The truth of the matter is?

If your answer is reason. Why have you not been using it?

 

[Meow Mix]

Well if readers think you are stuck in a box, lets see if we can pry you out of it.

1) What method would you use to answer the question, can faith being a belief in the truth be justified by the truth?
2) What method would you use to answer the question, Is faith lost to religion?
3) What method would you use to answer the question, The truth of the matter is?

If your answer is reason. Why have you not been using it?

Er, I'm not sure what some of those questions mean.

I've added numbers to them.

1) "Can faith being a belief in the truth be justified by the truth?" I'm really not sure what you mean. Do you mean something like, if you believe in something through faith that turns out to be true, does it justify the use of faith to arriving at that belief?

I would say no, if that's indeed what you're asking. For instance if I were to toss a dart at a spinning wheel with all the state capitols of America on it to determine the capitol of Missouri, and the dart just so happened to land on Jefferson City and I therefore believed it based on that, it's true that I have a true belief but I still don't have a rational belief; nor do I even know whether or not my belief is true because I haven't used any valid methodology to determine whether it's true. The odds that a belief that's just accepted willy nilly actually being true are inscrutable but arguably beyond tiny -- even negligible.

2) "Is faith lost to religion?" I'm not sure what this means...?

3) "The truth of the matter is?" Again, what...?

 

[ellenjanuary]

run to the bedroom, in the suitcase to the left, you'll find my favorite axe
Don't look so freightened, this is just a passing phase, one of my bad days
Would you like to watch tv, or get between the sheets, or contemplate this silent freeway
Would you like something to eat
Would you like to learn to fly
Would you
Would you like to see me try

 

[Willamena]

I don't think it's a lot to ask to have someone pitch a position to me in plain English; without their personally invented meanings of commonly defined/understood words that sometimes even contradict the normal English definitions.

It's a big ole' world. Good luck with finding someone who'll phrase things in your personally invented plain English meanings rather than theirs.

 

[Gloone]

Er, I'm not sure what some of those questions mean.

I've added numbers to them.

1) "Can faith being a belief in the truth be justified by the truth?" I'm really not sure what you mean. Do you mean something like, if you believe in something through faith that turns out to be true, does it justify the use of faith to arriving at that belief?

I would say no, if that's indeed what you're asking. For instance if I were to toss a dart at a spinning wheel with all the state capitols of America on it to determine the capitol of Missouri, and the dart just so happened to land on Jefferson City and I therefore believed it based on that, it's true that I have a true belief but I still don't have a rational belief; nor do I even know whether or not my belief is true because I haven't used any valid methodology to determine whether it's true. The odds that a belief that's just accepted willy nilly actually being true are inscrutable but arguably beyond tiny -- even negligible.

2) "Is faith lost to religion?" I'm not sure what this means...?

3) "The truth of the matter is?" Again, what...?

Would you like a hint or do you want keep guessing.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

It's not like that. It's more recognizing that we are incapable of agreeing because our methodologies of learning are so different.

Different doesn't mean you can't learn from it.

I will stick with reason. If you believe there is a system other than reason, I will disagree (the word "unreasonable" exists -- ironically -- for a reason). You claim to value reason, but if you operate unreasonably that's incompatible with valuing reason (which includes not abandoning it, arguably). If you want to have a reasonable conversation, I am more than willing. If you want to have an irrational conversation, then I will unfortunately bow out to spend my time on something I feel is more constructive.

I understand why you use reason. I used to think the same way about it. But I constantly ran into problems with people because they didn't say anything reasonable. I thought I was the one being reasonable, and they were being irrational.

In reality, it was the other way around. If you expect answers to be in a format that you understand, you're going to face problems. Only you understand the format you want answers to be in. If you want other people to understand you, you have to understand them.

If that means you have to go out on a limb and be irrational for a while, that's what it means.
Generally though, if you stick with it long enough, you'll find that they really aren't being as irrational as you first thought. When you understand their ideas, and how they present them, it doesn't seem irrational at all.

 

[Meow Mix]

Different doesn't mean you can't learn from it.



I understand why you use reason. I used to think the same way about it. But I constantly ran into problems with people because they didn't say anything reasonable. I thought I was the one being reasonable, and they were being irrational.

In reality, it was the other way around. If you expect answers to be in a format that you understand, you're going to face problems. Only you understand the format you want answers to be in. If you want other people to understand you, you have to understand them.

If that means you have to go out on a limb and be irrational for a while, that's what it means.
Generally though, if you stick with it long enough, you'll find that they really aren't being as irrational as you first thought. When you understand their ideas, and how they present them, it doesn't seem irrational at all.

Well, as I said, I took the time to cognize the system you were using. It's still irrational. So, again, good day to you; perhaps we'll meet up when we're talking about something rational or something unrelated to reason.

 

[nrg]

It's a big ole' world. Good luck with finding someone who'll phrase things in your personally invented plain English meanings rather than theirs.

I think most people use words the way their culture around them have been using them, so I don't believe Meow Mix will need much luck finding people who use the most common definition of "belief". I'm willing to bet that the first person she meets in the super market will use the same definitions she uses. I'm even willing to bet that the first person she meets that uses English as a second language will be more familiar with her definition than any other. I mean, the Swedish word for "belief" also has alot of other meanings, but I still have no difficulty keeping up.