|
Thank you all for reaffirming my position that philosophy is a religion, not a discipline. Its about as helpfull for science as religion was, and that people are as emotionally invested in philosophy as they are in religion.
The response i saw for philosophy was exactly the same as for the "truth" of religion. Quote something, don't read it, pretend it agrees with you, and completely ignore it when someone calls you on your malarky. You make a point, someone makes a counter point... you completely ignore it and continue on to a different point without addressing anything they said. When that fails insult, deride, defame and demean. The script was followed right down to insisting on the need to get something in a foreign language.
In short, you arrogantly assume that you're in teaching mode: teacher to pupil, not debating or discussion mode between equals. You expect your ideas to be taken for gospel truth and get upset when they're questioned. Like philosophy does with the universe you have a monologue at someone, not a conversation with them. Science can survive being questioned, philosophy cannot.
How incredibly rude.
Again.
If you get down to it, you eventually get to a point that you can't really differentiate one reason from another, and you have to essentially take a leap of faith to opt for your preferred school of understanding.
I don't wish to undermine what is overall an excellent post -- I just need to quibble with this one statement. Most working scientists (myself included) stick with naturalistic assumptions and heavily favor empirical data because hypotheses incorporating those assumptions, and eschewing other "ways of knowing" like divine revelation, more often produce predictions that are confirmed by testing. In other words, they have a track record of success (in terms of raw predictive power) that other philosophies do not. This isn't a leap of faith; it's simply turning first to what's been known to work, before wandering over to other things that often don't work.
I don't wish to undermine what is overall an excellent post -- I just need to quibble with this one statement. Most working scientists (myself included) stick with naturalistic assumptions and heavily favor empirical data because hypotheses incorporating those assumptions, and eschewing other "ways of knowing" like divine revelation, more often produce predictions that are confirmed by testing. In other words, they have a track record of success (in terms of raw predictive power) that other philosophies do not. This isn't a leap of faith; it's simply turning first to what's been known to work, before wandering over to other things that often don't work.If you get down to it, you eventually get to a point that you can't really differentiate one reason from another, and you have to essentially take a leap of faith to opt for your preferred school of understanding.
What I mean by "leap of faith" is that there is just so much we can dig into any form of philosophy before we reach a point were we cannot find anything solid enough to support one rather than the other.
This is derived from the paradoxical nature of perception as the source of empirical evidence: When everything comes from observation, then every principle comes from induction, and thus paradigms become closed systems that are unable to retrieve data from outside their limits. And while those limits can be pushed by observing more data and thus refining the inductive process ("Some things fall" -> "All things fall" -> "Things are attracted to a mass large enough to trap it into its gravitational field" -> "When am I getting my antigravity skateboards"), by their very nature it would be impossible for these systems to ever truly demonstrate a deductive process for all possible scenarios.
In other words: Since what we know is determined by what we perceive, we can only prove a principle true for a specific set of known scenarios. Everything else, we have to assume it must apply until we know otherwise. And this includes the very notion of empirical data being relevant, because so far it has shown to be, but it is impossible to determine it proper.
None of this changes the fact that you can touch your nose and determine it is attached to your face. Just that if you ask yourself "Why" enough times, you will always reach a point at which you have to say "I don't know, so I'll asume X until further evidence is presented".
Just that if you ask yourself "Why" enough times, you will always reach a point at which you have to say "I don't know, so I'll asume X until further evidence is presented".
That's condition acceptance and skepticism, though. It's the exact OPPOSITE of a "leap of faith." Faith is, almost by definition, an acceptance of things as the Truth, even in the absence of evidence, and a willful rejection of any alternatives.
Just that if you ask yourself "Why" enough times, you will always reach a point at which you have to say "I don't know, so I'll asume X until further evidence is presented".That's condition acceptance and skepticism, though. It's the exact OPPOSITE of a "leap of faith." Faith is, almost by definition, an acceptance of things as the Truth, even in the absence of evidence, and a willful rejection of any alternatives.
Clearly language is getting in the way. Is there a term for faith that doesn't have obstinacy latched onto the end of it?
Hmmm... what's this little "ø" next to the thread ti——
Just that if you ask yourself "Why" enough times, you will always reach a point at which you have to say "I don't know, so I'll asume X until further evidence is presented".That's condition acceptance and skepticism, though. It's the exact OPPOSITE of a "leap of faith." Faith is, almost by definition, an acceptance of things as the Truth, even in the absence of evidence, and a willful rejection of any alternatives.
Actually, that's not the definition of Faith. Faith simply means "A belief which is not based on proof" (as per the Oxford Dictionary, and the other dictionaries I have handy). No where it says that it is a willful rejection of any alternative (heck, if that was the case, most religions wouldn't exist at all, as most of them have grown from changes in their faith structures caused by new evidence being presented) or that it accepts something as an absolute truth.
Essentially, every time we make an assumption about things that have not yet happened, we are making leaps of faith, as there is no way by which we can get proof to support such assumption. We can get evidence to suggest a statistically likely outcome assuming that things will continue to happen the way they have happened, but we are otherwise left to mere speculation. The fact that something consistently happens in a previously observed way (such as, say, gravity pulling smaller masses into larger ones) does not mean that it will continue to happen. As Stephen Hawkins said in his 'The Universe in a Nutshell' book "Gravity could very well be a statistical cruelty, and things could start falling upward by tomorrow".
Skepticism does not bar faith; it simply states that one is aware of the possibility that conditions might change, and thus the paradigm under which we are working can as well.
I have to disagree. When galileo make his experiments he he was no thinking about empiricism Vs rationalism he just make his experiments. I think Empiricism (as a philosophial dicipline) Is just a CONSEQUENSE of the fact that that the Knowledge about nature mainly cames by observing nature.
One thing does not change the other. Galileo made a discovery; he didn't claim to be doing it "For Science!". In fact, we wouldn't call what he did back then Science by the whole meaning of the modern word, since there was one thing lacking: A Scientific Method (I mean explicitly. He might as well have used it without calling it that way). And the Scientific Method is wholy fundamented on the principle that empirical evidence is required for an objective revision and confirmation of facts before it can be said to be correct.
That is why I used the expression "...what most people understand for "Science" today..." (as the word "Science" has come to mean different things throught the ages. Originally, it simply meant "Knowledge", regardless of the method employed. Today, the method defines whether it is Science or not, not the knowledge itself).
My point is that this sentences
"And it was all possible thanks to Philosophy."
is false.
I think you are missing my point. When I said "And it was all possible thanks to Philosophy" I specifically stated it in reference to "...and the process that allowed people to reach a consensus regarding facts being necessary for objective thinking was a long and arduous one".
I do not claim to say that scientific discoveries are only possible thanks to Philosophy; I claim that Empiricism, and thus the Scientific Method, was developed thanks to Philosophy, because it is a branch of Philosophy. Those are different things.
At least whit the definition of philosophy that I share with Bignorsewolf, quoting him
"When I say philosophy I primarily mean things like the ontological argument. It tries to start with as little information as possible and advance as far as possible."
But that is not the deffinition of Philosophy. As per the Oxford Dictionary, Philosophy is:
1. the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.
2. any of the three branches, namely natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy, that are accepted as composing this study.
3. a system of philosophical doctrine: the philosophy of Spinoza.
4. the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, especially with a view to improving or reconstituting them: the philosophy of science.
5. a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs.
I have to disagree again. I think that scientific method do not need philosophy to exist, again in my definition of philosophy.I am aware of that definition, but it seem that the ontological fallacy stikes again. If you look trough the history of philosophy, rational investigation is a very tiny part of what philosophers do.
And if you really want to maintain that definitions, then every "rational invesitigation" is philosophy and therefore the majority of philosopher never do philosophy.
But, I must admit that I am only aware of the work of the most renown philosopher, reading the post of Cunningmoongose it seems that serious philosophy work do exist, in the present I must say that I really do not know.
Chill down, you don't have to be so zealous. Philosophy is about reflection, so yes, every rational investigation is philosophy. Unfortunately, irrational investigation also falls under that too.
You're trying too hard to key on a very specific area: ontological fallacies. You're rationale for defining philosophy as such, the fact that it's well known and discussed in detail. That's like saying animals are defined as dangerous and out to humans (because that's what gets portrayed the most) and humans are defined as lying, dangerous, psychopaths (seriously watch the news).
Philosophy is broad, and through it, modern science has been founded.
Sorry if I become too rude :P , it just seems to me that in the history of philosophy the vast majority of ideas are crazy ones.
I know, but if you look at the vast majority of humanity, it's full of war mongering, belligerent, and not-too-intelligent people.
xD Hopefully, you're not using that to qualify humanity; because if such were the case, I may not be human
Nicos, for the last time, you won't win or even understand this argument because you refuse to use an accepted definition of philosophy. If your PURELY RHETORICAL definition of philosophy is that of IRrational thought, then you will come again and again to the conclusion that philosophy is irrational. When your definition of philosophy IN ITS ENTIRETY is ontological arguments, and you refuse to admit the thousands of other avenues of philosophical thought into your definition, you become unable to grasp the broadness of philosophy.
Philosophy begat science. THERE IS NO QUESTION TO THIS. The scientific method is the method of a rational argument using empirical evidence to support your claims. Empiricism is one school of philosophical thought. You can reject that idea as much as you want, but cunning mongoose and others have posted again and again historical references proving you wrong.
Now what I suggest is if this thread is going to go anywhere other than you continually exposing your ignorance that you ACCEPT the OED definition of philosophy, not your own rhetorical definition.
Actually, that's not the definition of Faith.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/faith
Check out definition 7. That's strong faith. Someone who believes in something despite evidence to the contrary, i.e. a religion.
And yes, religions are inherently irrational. But then most people act irrationally, so it's a match made in heaven.
Also, science makes zero assumptions about what is going to happen. I would agree, assuming something is going to happen based on prior experience would be faith (albeit weak faith, i.e. not in the face of contrary evidence) but science makes inferences, not assumptions. The entire basis of the scientific method is that you go about knowing someone could prove you wrong at any moment, and being able to accept that. Also, doubting their findings proved you wrong, etc. Doubt is the polar opposite of faith. Doubt is not believing something, not 100%, even when there is strong evidence for it. True doubt is never satisfied. True faith doesn't need evidence.
Saying science is a giant leap of faith is either (hopefully) just a mistake in language, or a rather vicious libel on the entire scientific community.
Also, science makes zero assumptions about what is going to happen. I would agree, assuming something is going to happen based on prior experience would be faith (albeit weak faith, i.e. not in the face of contrary evidence) but science makes inferences, not assumptions. The entire basis of the scientific method is that you go about knowing someone could prove you wrong at any moment, and being able to accept that. Also, doubting their findings proved you wrong, etc. Doubt is the polar opposite of faith. Doubt is not believing something, not 100%, even when there is strong evidence for it. True doubt is never satisfied. True faith doesn't need evidence.
While I agree that science as you described it does not make assumptions, that doesn't stop people from making assumptions in the name of science. There are just as many ignorant people who will put whole hearted faith into any new speculations just because it came from someone who has a phd and rip quotes from a source they haven't really thoroughly checked; they're not so different from the theists who follow the preachings of their pastor and quote the bible though they haven't really read the context of the quotes.
The theories that science has led to sometimes require faith. There's really no proof of whether the universe is finite or not; believing in either one requires faith. The big bang theory also requires some faith as well. While the theory may be based off of well studied and tested information, the theory is still a theory. The Big Bang Theory assumes things about the universe, so would you still call it science?
Saying science is a giant leap of faith is either (hopefully) just a mistake in language, or a rather vicious libel on the entire scientific community.
Strong faith (which is actually just obstinacy), no.
But it still requires some faith. Everything has got to start somewhere, that's where axioms come into play. You have to have faith in axioms, which cannot be proven.Also, is there a term out there for faith without stubbornness tossed on the end because it's kind of annoying to have to clarify every single time whether I mean strong faith (AKA obstinacy) or weak faith.
The theories that science has led to sometimes require faith. There's really no proof of whether the universe is finite or not; believing in either one requires faith. The big bang theory also requires some faith as well. While the theory may be based off of well studied and tested information, the theory is still a theory. The Big Bang Theory assumes things about the universe, so would you still call it science?
I'm puzzled by this.
This came up in another thread, and since we've both used the terminology I assume we agree on the definitions, which is why this quote puzzles me so.Belief in science (which one might say is a contradiction since science thrives on doubt) is a weak faith belief. In other words it is belief in something for which evidence has been shown. Weak faith isn't counterproductive and it's easy to change a weak faith belief based on new data or evidence or a better argument.
Strong faith, as you later define, is obstinacy. Science does NOT rely on strong faith, or the belief in something despite evidence to the contrary.
Saying that science requires faith is semantic and sort of intellectually dishonest. Yes, one definition of faith can mean what a rational mind would call simply belief. It seems as if you are trying to conflate these definitions of faith to imply that science is based on strong faith, which I don't think either of us believe.
So let's use those terms, strong faith (obstinacy/delusion) and weak faith. Weak faith is not incompatible with skepticism.
As to your specific example here, no, the Big Bang Theory does not assume anything about the universe. It infers them based on mountains of evidence. Assuming is taking as fact without question, without evidence, without outside facts.
You say "it's just a theory". That makes me think you don't know what theory means as it pertains to the scientific method. Practically, everything we know is just a theory. The difference between a law and a theory is largely a semantic one. Like atomic theory, or the theory of gravity. It's an argument based on empirical evidence that has yet to be disproved.
Strong But it still requires some faith. Everything has got to start somewhere, that's where axioms come into play. You have to have faith in axioms, which cannot be proven.
Also, is there a term out there for faith without stubbornness tossed on the end because it's kind of annoying to have to clarify every single time whether I mean strong faith (AKA obstinacy) or weak faith.
I think you are misusing the word "faith". The proper name for what you are trying to say is rationnal belief. Meaning a belief that is justified by other reasons withouth itself being true of false (an axiom is such a "belief" as it is justified by what you can rationnaly deduce from it.)
There is a wide difference between a "leap of faith" and a carefully chosen, criticised and rationnaly justified belief.
So, instead of "strong" vs "weak" faith, you may want to use "dogma" vs "rationnal belief".
And, it's nothing new. Plato seems to be considering such definition of a rationnal justified belief at Theaetetus 201, and accepting it at Meno 98. It has been widely discussed in the 1960 following a famous paper by Edmund L. Gettier.
I have to disagree again. I think that scientific method do not need philosophy to exist, again in my definition of philosophy.
Come on, Nicos, we can't really have a proper discussion if we can't at least agree to use the proper definitions of the terms under discussion. You can't say that Philosophy is purely ontological excercise, because it is not purely ontological excercise.
I am aware of that definition, but it seem that the ontological fallacy stikes again. If you look trough the history of philosophy, rational investigation is a very tiny part of what philosophers do.
Quite the contrary. I believe you keep imagining all philosophers to be greek thinkers in togas thinking about the immortality of crabs. Philosophy is what led us to Mathematics, Physics, Biology, Astronomy, and so on; the very system of Logics (without which computers wouldn't even exist) started as a philosophical excercise. There is a reason why Scientists were known as Natural Philosophers before the Scientific Revolution of the XIX century.
And if you really want to maintain that definitions, then every "rational invesitigation" is philosophy and therefore the majority of philosopher never do philosophy.
Every rational investigation is indeed Philosophy; that's exactly my point! As for the second statement, I don't understand the causal implications. If Philosophy is indeed rational investigation, then how does that mean philosophers don't do it?
But, I must admit that I am only aware of the work of the most renown philosopher, reading the post of Cunningmoongose it seems that serious philosophy work do exist, in the present I must say that I really do not know.
Some good reads on the subject (of Philosophy being the source of modern Science) would be Karl Popper, Immanuel Kant, Isaac Newton, Ibn al-Haytham, and Pierre Duhem, just to name a few.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/faith
Check out definition 7. That's strong faith. Someone who believes in something despite evidence to the contrary, i.e. a religion.
Might be. But I'm simply refering to Faith in its standard definition; lastnames, while useful for classification, also run the risk of being far too specific for the debate at hand.
All I meant was that Faith does not imply stubborness or the negation of evidence. As John Paul II once said, we should always question our faith, for blind faith leads nowhere.
And yes, religions are inherently irrational. But then most people act irrationally, so it's a match made in heaven.
I have to disagree with this. Religions are actually quite reasonable; the fact that they claim to seek non-empirical evidence does not mean they are not reasonable, just that the premises they employ for said reasonable process cannot be found in the same way as the premises employed to, say, find out how continental drift works.
One thing is to say that Religion is Unscientific, which it is. Something much different, and in my understanding wrong, is to say that Religion is Unreasonable.
Think of it this way: Religions, which are essentially the social representation of a shared Faith, are not static to evidence relevant to what they seek; Christianity and Islam, for example, evolved from a previous basis found in Judaism after new evidence was presented (in the Christian case, by the "update" brought by Christ, in the case of Islam, by the "update" brought by Muhammad [PBUH]); many of the Christian denominations that have existed appeared through processes of critical thinking applied to the evidence held as acceptable.
If God literally showed up, trumpets and angels, and proclaimed a new set of rules, then that would be considered relevant evidence and religions which accept it as such would undergo a critical rethinking of their systems.
I remember I was once asked to define the 3 things that in my opinion would represent the best of humans should an alien ask. And my answer was "Cooking, Opera, and Religion", the three of which show the amazing extents we can go thanks to the use of that which I think defines us as humans, which is reason.
Also, science makes zero assumptions about what is going to happen. I would agree, assuming something is going to happen based on prior experience would be faith (albeit weak faith, i.e. not in the face of contrary evidence) but science makes inferences, not assumptions. The entire basis of the scientific method is that you go about knowing someone could prove you wrong at any moment, and being able to accept that. Also, doubting their findings proved you wrong, etc. Doubt is the polar opposite of faith. Doubt is not believing something, not 100%, even when there is strong evidence for it. True doubt is never satisfied. True faith doesn't need evidence.
Knowing that something might be proven wrong does not imply that you cannot make assumptions. When you act now based on information from the past, you are making the assumption that it will work, based on data that for all purposes, has literally no reason to continue being true.
And yes, science makes (or at least should) make inferences. But an inference still starts on the assumption that the premises are relevant and will remain valid. As per Oxford Dictionary definition:
1. the act or process of inferring.
2. something that is inferred: to make rash inferences.
3. Logic .
a. the process of deriving the strict logical consequences of assumed premises.
b. the process of arriving at some conclusion that, though it is not logically derivable from the assumed premises, possesses some degree of probability relative to the premises.
c. a proposition reached by a process of inference.
So the assumption is still there. In face of ultimate uncertainty, if you can't assume things on which to base your rational actions, then you cannot act rationally at all.
I just say that if you look trough history "rational thinking" is not what characterized the work of most philosopher.Nicos, for the last time, you won't win or even understand this argument because you refuse to use an accepted definition of philosophy.
And you would be wrong. It is precisely what characterizes philosophy. Remember that something doesn't have to be right to be rational. You can have a perfectly rational conclusion based on a false pretense and you will get a false conclusion. You and I can have a difference of opinion, and make rational arguments to that end that contradict one another, without one of ours being irrational.
And so I'll have to ask you to back up your claim that MOST philosophy is irrational. You continue to make this claim, it's utterly baseless, and I'm calling you on it.
stuff
I don't have the time right now to go over this in its entirety, but I contend that holding beliefs for which there is no evidence is irrational. There is no evidence beyond subjectivism that god exists, therefore the belief in a god is irrational.
Furthermore you are assuming that all religions are doctrinal, which is incredibly closed minded. If I ask an indigenous south Asian islander why they are making a protective ward when the monsoon starts, and they say to protect their home and make the crops grow, they hold an irrational belief. It's mere superstition. It is faith.
My point about the faith thing is there are MULTIPLE definitions and they don't all work in this scenario. Saying I have faith that my mother will help me with rent should I lose my job is not really faith in the religious sense. However, a religious person's faith in god is not based on previous experience but, but on nothing at all, and can't be swayed. I ask you, as someone who I infer is a Christian (not assume) what evidence could I present that would make you disbelieve in your god?
Furthermore you are assuming that all religions are doctrinal, which is incredibly closed minded. If I ask an indigenous south Asian islander why they are making a protective ward when the monsoon starts, and they say to protect their home and make the crops grow, they hold an irrational belief. It's mere superstition. It is faith.
I'm not saying all religions are doctrinal; I'm saying all religions start from a series of ideas and form a system of belief based on them. No need to get jumpy and start calling me close-minded.
If the islander made the same ward a year ago and he was saved from the monsoon, then he has two premises ("I made a ward to protect myself from the monsoon" and "The monsoon didn't affect me this year") from which to draw a conclusion ("The ward protected me from the monsoon"). Even if it is wrong, it is a completely rational excercise.
You said it yourself: Reaching wrong conclusions does not mean the process is irrational. It may be due to premises that are incorrect or because the logical process was inconsistent, but it is still a completely rational process.
The fact that someone takes the Bible as a source of premises and then concludes the world is 6,000 years old is just as rational as someone who uses argon dating to determine it is much older. They are simply starting from different premises and following different logical routes, as they consider different sets of premises to be relevant (the former does not consider empirical data to be more relevant than allegedly divine dictums, while the latter does not consider allegedly divine dictums more relevant than empirical data. But both use data, both process said data, and both reach conclussions that might or might not be consistent with said data).
Is the creationist being scientific? No, because that would require scientific method and thus the acceptance only of observable, empirical data. Is he being rational? Yes, because rational thought is not defined by the nature of the premises, but by a conclusion that has been developed through a logical process of critical thinking that starts from premises.
My point about the faith thing is there are MULTIPLE definitions and they don't all work in this scenario. Saying I have faith that my mother will help me with rent should I lose my job is not really faith in the religious sense. However, a religious person's faith in god is not based on previous experience but, but on nothing at all, and can't be swayed. I ask you, as someone who I infer is a Christian (not assume) what evidence could I present that would make you disbelieve in your god?
There is only one definition of Faith; all others are contextualizations of said definition, such as what we Catholics call "Revealed Faith", in which we claim to be infused by the Holy Spirit and not merely assuming something because someone else said so (it might also be considered clinical insanity, but who knows).
As for faith not being based on anything, I believe you are mistaken. You can't create something out of nothing. One person might believe in God because he came to that conclussion after many years of studying the world; another might do so because the idea of a Prime Mover makes more sense to him that a universe that just came out of nowhere; another because he is genuinely convinced he has witnessed a miracle; another because he was taught that things happen because God wills it and doesn't know the other versions. And the list goes on.
All those are rational ways of believing in God, starting from premises that we might consider right or wrong, empirical or trascendental, but premises in the full meaning of the word.
I ask you, as someone who I infer is a Christian (not assume) what evidence could I present that would make you disbelieve in your god?
You assume and then infer correctly (I'm a Roman Apostholic Catholic). As for evidence, I guess I would need some kind irrefutable evidence that what I feel to be Revealed Faith is just some form of delusion. But then again, that might also require proof that a clinical testing for delusion is able to rule out metaphisical components.
I've had my fair share of faith crisis, and became essentially agnostic for a few years. But a few years ago I determined that I actually did believe in God, and that it had no point trying to convince myself otherwise. Since then, I've been quite a happy man, constantly trying to further educate myself to refine my understanding of both my faith and that of others.
I just say that if you look trough history "rational thinking" is not what characterized the work of most philosopher.Nicos, for the last time, you won't win or even understand this argument because you refuse to use an accepted definition of philosophy.
Will all due respect, you always gives the same reference: "The truth about everything" which is somewhat a parody or at least a collection of philosophers's most streched theories, a collection of out-takes. From this book, you infer that everything philosophy did or still do is irrationnal.
It is a good book, and a good warning not to take every philosophical thesis seriously, but it does not gives the whole truth about philosophy.
It would be really easy to do the same with science. Think about a book that would present Einstein's refusal of quantum mechanics, argue it was motivated because a strong and irrationnal faith in God, and that would point out every irrationnal beliefs famous scientists held in their lives in the whole history of science.
You could rightly conclude that scientists are not ALWAYS rationnal thinkers, but you would be mistake to conclude that science is, AS A WHOLE, irrationnal and misguided.
Your whole position seems to rest upon a hasty generalization, based on the reading of one book.
Edit - My parody of Einstein's position is to be taken as a parody. I do not think faith is always irrationnal. Even if it so for many believers, a few are what I would call a-rationnal in their faith, saying by that they very well understand that by adopting their faith they are stepping ouside the bounds of rationnal belief and are still sane enough to be able to know the boundaries are there and not overstep them by polluting science and rationnal thinking with ideas that have no hold on rationnal endeavours.
They tend to accept faith because it make sense for them and their community, but do not try to push it out on everyone and usually do not take the side of faith when it is shown to be contrary to science, but will instead try to work anew their understanding of what it is they believe in and try to reach a point where the contradiction make sense for them without holding they have the whole truth of it - In catholicism, they call that Aggiornamento (and it's a very very slow process driven by a few intellectuals inside the church). In protestantism - well, you just start your own church I guess ;-)
Myself, I don't believe in God, if you must ask. I'm too lazy to add this new a-rationnal problem to my life and am very happy with only the rationnal ones. ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Taken as a whole, religion only has a few universal characteristics. Most important of which, in my opinion, in order to understand why people act as irrationally as they do in defense of it, is that religion provides for a psychological need of community and transcendent experience that their socio-economic hierarchy doesn't provide. Even within the same religion with ostensibly the same doctrine, the practices and beliefs widely vary. Thus it is difficult to provide a holistic definition of god because god (or the divine to be more generic) is interpreted as needed.
In a hierarchical system those at the top look to religion to reinforce their place in the hierarchy and those at the bottom look to religion to circumvent or subvert the hierarchy. Those that live in an egocentric and individualistic society look to religion for a sense of community, and those that live in a sociocentric society look to religion to individuate themselves. Thus the divine ends up being whatever we don't have.
To this end, doctrine is largely irrelevant. So long as the beliefs help explain things that the community has questions about and doesn't interfere (hopefully reinforces) the psychological need for the practitioners to feel powerful/weak/part of something/valid as an individual, it's a valid religion. People turn to religion when there are no other answers to their questions or rational solutions to their problems i.e. prayer.
It's no mystery, then, that people who have an understanding of the world that arises from empirical knowledge, and furthermore have outlets for all inherent psychological needs, tend (strongly) to be irreligious. It's also, and I risk getting political here (onoez!), understandable why religion is so big here in the states where we have a continually eroding social safety net, where we have alarmist news agencies that thrive on delivering fear, and where we are so spread out and yet indoctrinated to think alike.
When someone like me attacks religion, which I do constantly, people react as if they are preserving part of themselves. To each individual religion is whatever they turn to to make them feel whole. I only really attack the belief structure built on bad data and ask people to recognize why it is they look to religion for answers.
A very interresting sociological take on religion
You may want to read, if you did not already, Georges Bataille's sociology of religion.
The psychological structure of fascism
I am not a fan of the late Bataille delirious' psycho-analytic take on sexuality and religion, but the young Bataille's sociological work is quite interresting.
A very interresting sociological take on religionYou may want to read, if you did not already, Georges Bataille's sociology of religion.
The psychological structure of fascism
I am not a fan of the late Bataille delirious' psycho-analytic take on sexuality and religion, but the young Bataille's sociological work is quite interresting.
I'll save that for later. I have Skyrim to play!
I'm taking an anthro religion course right now and it's very enlightening. I know it sounds arrogant, but the more courses I take the more it just reinforces the way I see the world working. I just didn't know there were academic terms for the phenomena I had observed in my short time on earth.
I just say that if you look trough history "rational thinking" is not what characterized the work of most philosopher.Nicos, for the last time, you won't win or even understand this argument because you refuse to use an accepted definition of philosophy.
I am curious which philosophers make you say that. Most of the philosophy I've read has been quite rational, when placed in the context of the societal preconceptions it originated in.
*Steps into thread. Looks around.*
Not a single reference to Thomas Kuhn in this entire thread? There is something gravely amiss.
*frowns and leaves*
I think that would require a paradigm shift.
*flees*
I know it sounds arrogant, but the more courses I take the more it just reinforces the way I see the world working. I just didn't know there were academic terms for the phenomena I had observed in my short time on earth.
You know, statistically there had to be someone like you who would have had some of the beliefs your teachers are now explaining and showing to be rationnal and well argued for.
Don't think you are special, or intelligent*; you are just lucky that your randomly instilled and so far unjustified beliefs are still holding after a critical analysis and justification. ;-)
*By the way, it's a joke. I'm never too sure on this thread, and need to say it, just to feel safe.
And +1 for Skyrim.
rationnal
Normally I don't like to correct people on the internet for grammar and spelling mistakes. But there are 23 instances of "rationnal" on this page, when the word is spelled "rational".
I am curious which philosophers make you say that. Most of the philosophy I've read has been quite rational, when placed in the context of the societal preconceptions it originated in.I just say that if you look trough history "rational thinking" is not what characterized the work of most philosopher.Nicos, for the last time, you won't win or even understand this argument because you refuse to use an accepted definition of philosophy.
lets put some examples
- The planest are flawless spheres because the sphere is the most perfect geometric figure.
- I can explain "X" fact whit "Y" reason ergo the "Y" can explain everything".
- All the circularities in descartes.
- HEGEL: the master of nosense, did you know that he claims that he had demostrated that the orbits of the palnet are ellipses just using his dialectic method?
- German idealism: almos the same nosense.
- Monads: serously?
but maybe you can give an example of a rational philosophy (of course that it exist but is not so popular)
There's a big difference between irrational thought and rational thought based on incomplete or incorrect premises.
I'm sorry, but you can't say Leibniz, who practically invented calculus (or at least, defined calculus in a way to make it practical) was not a rational person. I understand that his ideas about monads are a bit out there. On the other hand, the analogy he was going toward: in that a point is the smallest unit upon which geometry is based, and the monad is the smallest unit upon which matter is based, isn't irrational.
I also quite like Descartes, even if his preconceptions about God colored his conclusions.
So yes, there are quite a lot of Philosophical theories which look silly when taken out of context and contrasted with knowledge that they didn't have. But that doesn't mean there aren't valuable lessons to be learned from philosophy. Especially when it comes to ethics and social structures and not metaphysics.
but maybe you can give an example of a rational philosophy (of course that it exist but is not so popular)
I forgot about examples. What do you think of Thomas Hobbes and his ideas about society being a social contract?
rationnalNormally I don't like to correct people on the internet for grammar and spelling mistakes. But there are 23 instances of "rationnal" on this page, when the word is spelled "rational".
Thank you! In french, "rationnel" takes two "n" so I wrongly typed it that way by force of habit, even if I knew it was a mistake. So thank you, I'll watch myself from now on.
Especially when it comes to ethics and social structures and not metaphysics.
What is the problem with metaphysics? Seriously, contemporary metaphysics is quite sound, and closely related to contemporary science. Sure, 18th century hegelian mumbo-jumbo is a disaster for "hard" sciences (but quite usable in psychology and social theory, if used with care and understanding of the epistemological claims about history it is based upon) but as the metaphysical discussions of the 16th-17th centuries gave rise to a lot of interresting scientific theories and hypothesis, contemporary metaphysics is a quite fertile soil for sciences.
There's a big difference between irrational thought and rational thought based on incomplete or incorrect premises.
But the determination of build a system that can explain everything starting only with imcomplete premises is too common, I mean really too common, and that determination is irrational.
Nobody sets out to base their work on incomplete or incorrect premises. But it turns out we have learned a few things over the last several thousand years. Setting out to define a universal system of knowledge may be ambitious, but I don't think that it is irrational.
It sounds to me like you object to metaphysics and epistemology. Ethics and logic are an entire branches of philosophy that are very practical and don't dwell on questions like "What is being?".
Thank you! In french, "rationnel" takes two "n" so I wrongly typed it that way by force of habit, even if I knew it was a mistake. So thank you, I'll watch myself from now on.
That explains a lot. I apologize for my ancestors taking Celtic, French, German, and a few other languages and placing them in the language blender. English doesn't have any consistent rules for spelling.
What is the problem with metaphysics? Seriously, contemporary metaphysics is quite sound, and closely related to contemporary science. Sure, 18th century hegelian mumbo-jumbo is a disaster for "hard" sciences (but quite usable in psychology and social theory, if used with care and understanding of the epistemological claims about history it is based upon) but as the metaphysical discussions of the 16th-17th centuries gave rise to a lot of interresting scientific theories and hypothesis, contemporary metaphysics is a quite fertile soil for sciences.
Oh, I don't have any problem with metaphysics myself. I just understand how it can look like nonsense if you read it without knowing the context from which it arose. I don't know if there are any easy answers for what the nature of reality is, which is why there have been so many different views for so long.
I was just pointing out that "Philosophy" includes Ethics (and even Logic) which can be very rational and doesn't really need to rely on unsupportable axioms like what the fundamental building block of the universe is or what was the first cause.
But the determination of build a system that can explain everything starting only with imcomplete premises is too common, I mean really too common, and that determination is irrational.
Ah, the system argument! You know, the devising of a philosophical system often was not used, as you seem to think, as a way to say : that is the truth about everyting (again this book) but as a way to test and develop the internal coherence of axioms, in a way that would show to others what you could expect to explain upon those axioms (like in geometry).
Some (like Hegel) took it seriously as a challenge to build the all perfect system (and Hegel even tough he did it... well, the guy was full of himself), other, like Descartes or Leibniz took it as a way 1) to show other thinkers the internal coherence of the theory your axioms could produce, 2) as a way to show exactly where competing and sound theories could diverge or converge and what exactly were the implications of choosing one over the other, and 3) as a way to invite other thinkers to try to show where the internal coherence of the theory could be weak - as a test leading to a discussion and a probable revision.
Showing a system is not always saying "here is the universal truth about everything!" it is also on often only a convenient way to test the logical properties of a theory when you can't devise an experiment.
String theory is trying to do exactly that (showing you cand build a coherent system of explanation upon some axioms) and, as philosophy, can go back and tweak the premises when an incoherence is detected in the system or new empirical data is made available. It also have been, if not proven true or false, a rich soil for new ideas, as philosophical systems have always been in their time, for the problems of their time.
You know, most philosopher went and revised their systems a lot in their lifetime, following critical analysis from other thinkers and new empirical data, tweaking it in response. It's misguided to think a system (bare the Hegelian one) was devised as "definitive."
One of the most used example of a "definitive" system is Spinoza's. But Spinoza died before publishing, so you can't really say how he would have revised his system given the appraisal of fellow thinkers.
We use imcomplete or false premises every time, because we do not have access to the truth. thats fine, maybe you can create a philosophical theory that explain the "facts" you have available.
But thats all, why to try to explain more? if you want to explain more you need more "facts", but a lot of philosophical system do not do that, they start from very little (like the I think therefore I am) and then build the entire of knowledgeable concepts.
Metaphysics tackles the questions like "Who are we?", "Why are we here?", and "Why does anything exist?". Those are questions that are difficult to answer. We certainly have plenty of facts, but we don't have all of them.
I myself think those questions are unanswerable. But I think the search for the answer is meaningful enough to be worthwhile. Even if sometimes it leads you to monads.
I forgot about examples. What do you think of Thomas Hobbes and his ideas about society being a social contract?
Politics is not my field of expertise, but I will say my opinion an take the risk.About social contract: Nobody make a contract, we are born into society, we do not agree anything at least at the begining.
The idea is that the contract is implicit. If you are living in society, partaking of its benefits, and not rebelling against the state, you have implicitly agreed to live by the rules of the state.
About hobbes social contract:Shamesly quoting from wikipedia
"the lives of individuals in the state of nature were solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short"
It seems wrong to me,originaly the human species do not come togheter by a social contract, they do not pursue happiness, evolution and gentic predispose humans to form groups because is a strategy of survival.
and with or without society the lives of mos individuals have been poor,nasty brutish and short.
If you only know what a quick skimming of wikipedia tells you, it's really not fair for me to critique you. Hobbes does say that people came together as a strategy of survival. The social contract evolves from that, as those people start having disagreements, and need laws/rulers/contracts to arbitrate disputes between individuals within the group.
Anyway, I don't necessarily agree with everything Hobbes wrote. But he wrote a very rational treatise on political philosophy. His ideas have evolved and are part of the foundation of modern western government. (Even though he argued for an absolute monarch, that's one of those cultural biases that he lived under.)