|
On August 02 2011 23:59 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 22:00 mcc wrote:
Nope, agnosticism says : "I do not know whether God/... exists.". If you want to be self-consistent you also have to be agnostic about fairies, trolls,.... , because they might exist we just did not see them yet. That's true, but there's clearly a difference between a God and trolls, fairies - God exists (hypothetically) as the creator of the universe and is beyond matter and time, and thus would be difficult to spot or measure. Meanwhile trolls and fairies are supposed to exist on Earth, so if they haven't been seen for X amount of time, the more time passes the less likely it is that they exist. Agnostic is just too broad a term. Atheists and theists can both be agnostic about god - they just ascribe different percentages to the likelihood of God existing, which lands them on the theism or atheism side of the scale. That's why one would have to qualify it by saying that God is truly an unknown, because its hypothetical properties are beyond our ability to measure if it is indeed beyond time and space, while trolls, fairies, ghosts can be perceived on Earth, and therefore are subject to more skepticism and disbelief.
And yet according to most religious tradition god is supposed to be just as perceptible as mythologies would have you believe trolls and fairies are, if not more so. This unknowable god concept is almost entirely modern (or at least its popularity is modern), because science has pushed the boundaries of what we know so much, and the concept of an unknowable god is in recognition to the fact that we have found zero evidence of his existence.
God used to be the cause of the weather, famines, diseases, good health, healthy children, the survival of the tribe, creator of creatures as they are, tsunamis, earthquakes etc. He lived in heaven which was in the clouds, and the devil lived in hell which was under the earth. Because we now have answers to all those things (and have explored so much as well) we now know god is in none of those places, so apologetic theists basically take a make-it-up-as-you-go approach, to justify their beliefs.
|
On August 03 2011 00:29 Vore210 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 23:59 radscorpion9 wrote:On August 02 2011 22:00 mcc wrote:
Nope, agnosticism says : "I do not know whether God/... exists.". If you want to be self-consistent you also have to be agnostic about fairies, trolls,.... , because they might exist we just did not see them yet. That's true, but there's clearly a difference between a God and trolls, fairies - God exists (hypothetically) as the creator of the universe and is beyond matter and time, and thus would be difficult to spot or measure. Meanwhile trolls and fairies are supposed to exist on Earth, so if they haven't been seen for X amount of time, the more time passes the less likely it is that they exist. Agnostic is just too broad a term. Atheists and theists can both be agnostic about god - they just ascribe different percentages to the likelihood of God existing, which lands them on the theism or atheism side of the scale. That's why one would have to qualify it by saying that God is truly an unknown, because its hypothetical properties are beyond our ability to measure if it is indeed beyond time and space, while trolls, fairies, ghosts can be perceived on Earth, and therefore are subject to more skepticism and disbelief. And yet according to most religious tradition god is supposed to be just as perceptible as mythologies would have you believe trolls and fairies are, if not more so. This unknowable god concept is almost entirely modern (or at least its popularity is modern), because science has pushed the boundaries of what we know so much, and the concept of an unknowable god is in recognition to the fact that we have found zero evidence of his existence. God used to be the cause of the weather, famines, diseases, good health, healthy children, the survival of the tribe, creator of creatures as they are, tsunamis, earthquakes etc. He lived in heaven which was in the clouds, and the devil lived in hell which was under the earth. Because we now have answers to all those things (and have explored so much as well) we now know god is in none of those places, so apologetic theists basically take a make-it-up-as-you-go approach, to justify their beliefs. God of the gaps. Science fills in a hole in our understanding and we simply move God to another gap. I like to think of religion as the science and guidelines for your life of the past. Religion is just cultural heritage.
|
Good videos. The strength of the videos is in their call for critical thinking, but their weakness comes from their acrimony towards people who have faith. There certainly are religous assholes who beat others over the head with their beliefs, but there are others that view the concept of a creator as a logically sound argument. The problem with dialogue between atheists and theists is both a result of religous people being assholes about their beliefs, but also atheists wholeheartedly rejecting even the possibilty of a creator. A true critical thinker who does not have faith in the possibility of a creator will be an agnostic, not an atheist, since an agnostic is someone that at least acknowledges their inability to know for certain the truth of a matter. Atheists are just the opposite side of the Theist coin and therefore their dismissal of theistic beliefs without proper debate makes them as much of an asshole as the theists they so loathe when they make their claim that existence sprang from...nothing I suppose.
|
On August 03 2011 01:20 BaronVonHydra wrote:
Good videos. The strength of the videos is in their call for critical thinking, but their weakness comes from their acrimony towards people who have faith. There certainly are religous assholes who beat others over the head with their beliefs, but there are others that view the concept of a creator as a logically sound argument. The problem with dialogue between atheists and theists is both a result of religous people being assholes about their beliefs, but also atheists wholeheartedly rejecting even the possibilty of a creator. A true critical thinker who does not have faith in the possibility of a creator will be an agnostic, not an atheist, since an agnostic is someone that at least acknowledges their inability to know for certain the truth of a matter. Atheists are just the opposite side of the Theist coin and therefore their dismissal of theistic beliefs without proper debate makes them as much of an asshole as the theists they so loathe when they make their claim that existence sprang from...nothing I suppose.
Calling yourself an atheist doesn't mean you resort to illogical thinking. Atheist simply means that you're not a theist.
Theist: belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.
Atheist: a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods:
Thus you can be an atheist and still acknowledge the fact that the existence of a god is possible.
The reason we can't use the word agnostic is because it is a common belief among uneducated people that agnostic somehow means that you just haven't "chosen" yet. They don't really understand the concept of science and uncertainty. On numerous occasions people have completely misinterpreted me when I've said that I'm agnostic/agnostic atheist. Claiming that I'm an atheist is much closer to the truth of my opinion than what they think agnostic is.
|
On August 03 2011 01:20 BaronVonHydra wrote:
Good videos. The strength of the videos is in their call for critical thinking, but their weakness comes from their acrimony towards people who have faith.
Faith: strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
A belief in something without proof shouldn't be respected. Of course, you can still respect the people who have faith.
|
On August 03 2011 01:40 Mecker wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 01:20 BaronVonHydra wrote:
Good videos. The strength of the videos is in their call for critical thinking, but their weakness comes from their acrimony towards people who have faith. Faith: strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. A belief in something without proof shouldn't be respected. Of course, you can still respect the people who have faith. I humbly disagree. While I'm a die-hard atheist, I find it understandable that people have faith in unreasonable things. You need to understand that every human being is moved by emotions, we all have it. It's emotions that convince you to get out of bed everyday and live your life. We need emotions to live. And we all react differently to different emotions. Fear of death is a very powerful emotion. And some people can only stand living and wake up everyday if they believe death isn't as scary as it really is. It's understandable.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't respect people because of their emotions. They can still contribute to humanity and help shape the world a better place. Newton was religious, even Galileu, who was persecuted by the church, was religious. I love both of those guys, they gave important contributions to science. I can respect that even as great scientists, they were human beings who can be afraid of the dark.
|
On August 03 2011 03:58 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 01:40 Mecker wrote:On August 03 2011 01:20 BaronVonHydra wrote:
Good videos. The strength of the videos is in their call for critical thinking, but their weakness comes from their acrimony towards people who have faith. Faith: strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. A belief in something without proof shouldn't be respected. Of course, you can still respect the people who have faith. I humbly disagree. While I'm a die-hard atheist, I find it understandable that people have faith in unreasonable things. You need to understand that every human being is moved by emotions, we all have it. It's emotions that convince you to get out of bed everyday and live your life. We need emotions to live. And we all react differently to different emotions. Fear of death is a very powerful emotion. And some people can only stand living and wake up everyday if they believe death isn't as scary as it really is. It's understandable. That doesn't mean we shouldn't respect people because of their emotions. They can still contribute to humanity and help shape the world a better place. Newton was religious, even Galileu, who was persecuted by the church, was religious. I love both of those guys, they gave important contributions to science. I can respect that even as great scientists, they were human beings who can be afraid of the dark.
Well, it's a video in support of critical thinking, and faith is indeed at odds with critical thinking. This isn't really a problem until people start acting like their faith is rational and want to use it to shape things like public policy and morality. Then we have problems.
Wanting to believe in Heaven isn't a problem; it's just irrational. Wanting to believe in Heaven and therefore wanting to persecute people with different beliefs and trash the environment and force women to carry pregnancies and strap bombs to yourself is a problem.
|
On August 02 2011 22:00 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 21:35 WhiteDog wrote:On August 02 2011 20:27 Vore210 wrote:On August 02 2011 19:35 Buff345 wrote:
im pretty sure the only people who can say they have a purely logical take on the idea of god are agnostics. everyone else is using some faith. its impossible to know something doesn't exist anywhere unless you are omniscient. and if you're omniscient then youre probably god. Are you agnostic on the idea of trolls, fairies, a teapot in an elliptical orbit around the sun? Because you can't truly know that those 3 things don't exist after all... You are misunderstanding about agnosticism. It's not saying "everything is possible", it's saying "there are no clear answers to metaphysical questions". Since god is a metaphysical being, above time and matter, then no one can say weither he exist or not in the eyes of an agnostic. But since fairies, trolls and the likes are physical beings, then we can observe that they are not here. Nope, agnosticism says : "I do not know whether God/... exists.". If you want to be self-consistent you also have to be agnostic about fairies, trolls,.... , because they might exist we just did not see them yet.
I will reiterate my claim :
"Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable."
Quoted from wikipedia.
It's about metaphysical claim, and since troll and fairies should have walked down on earth at some point, therefore an agnostic can say that, considering everything we already know about the history of earth, it is false. On the other side, if you claim that it exist a world somewhere in another dimension or another dimension or a metaphysical place where troll and fairies exist, then an agnostic will answer : who knows ?
God is supposed to be beyond matter and time.
|
On August 03 2011 04:12 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 22:00 mcc wrote:On August 02 2011 21:35 WhiteDog wrote:On August 02 2011 20:27 Vore210 wrote:On August 02 2011 19:35 Buff345 wrote:
im pretty sure the only people who can say they have a purely logical take on the idea of god are agnostics. everyone else is using some faith. its impossible to know something doesn't exist anywhere unless you are omniscient. and if you're omniscient then youre probably god. Are you agnostic on the idea of trolls, fairies, a teapot in an elliptical orbit around the sun? Because you can't truly know that those 3 things don't exist after all... You are misunderstanding about agnosticism. It's not saying "everything is possible", it's saying "there are no clear answers to metaphysical questions". Since god is a metaphysical being, above time and matter, then no one can say weither he exist or not in the eyes of an agnostic. But since fairies, trolls and the likes are physical beings, then we can observe that they are not here. Nope, agnosticism says : "I do not know whether God/... exists.". If you want to be self-consistent you also have to be agnostic about fairies, trolls,.... , because they might exist we just did not see them yet. I will reiterate my claim : "Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable." Quoted from wikipedia. It's about metaphysical claim, and since troll and fairies should have walked down on earth at some point, therefore an agnostic can say that, considering everything we already know about the history of earth, it is false. On the other side, if you claim that it exist a world somewhere in another dimension or another dimension or a metaphysical place where troll and fairies exist, then an agnostic will answer : who knows ? God is supposed to be beyond matter and time.
Note especially, that does not mean exclusively.
|
On August 03 2011 01:20 BaronVonHydra wrote:
Good videos. The strength of the videos is in their call for critical thinking, but their weakness comes from their acrimony towards people who have faith. There certainly are religous assholes who beat others over the head with their beliefs, but there are others that view the concept of a creator as a logically sound argument. The problem with dialogue between atheists and theists is both a result of religous people being assholes about their beliefs, but also atheists wholeheartedly rejecting even the possibilty of a creator. A true critical thinker who does not have faith in the possibility of a creator will be an agnostic, not an atheist, since an agnostic is someone that at least acknowledges their inability to know for certain the truth of a matter. Atheists are just the opposite side of the Theist coin and therefore their dismissal of theistic beliefs without proper debate makes them as much of an asshole as the theists they so loathe when they make their claim that existence sprang from...nothing I suppose.
There are many ideas that are logically sound but still unreasonable. I believe most religious people think they are being ridiculed when an atheist talks about the Flying Spaghetti Monster or even the Invisible Elf in the backyard. And while that might often be the case there's also a more pragmatic point. Exactly that you can dismiss ideas even if you have no way to rule them out logically.
The distinction between atheism and agnosticism is mostly semantics. Some say atheism means there definitely is no god, some say it means "I see no reason to believe that there is a god". Almost all people who call themselves atheists actually take the second position. If you think "that's not atheism" fine, it just means you are speaking a slightly different language. You can always ask for clarification and refer to their beliefs directly instead of ambiguous labels.
The final point is the same as the first one. There are ideas that are possible but so unlikely that they deserve almost no attention. I mean, winning the jackpot on the lottery 50 times in a row is possible. Not only is it impossible to rule out, you can actually assign a specific probability to it.
The problem with logically proving that God could exist is exactly this. Yes, he could. But the real question is how likely is it? And you can't do that without taking an honest look at where our ideas of God come from, how the claims of supposed holy books check out, etc.
"Well, it's possible and I have faith, so that's good enough for me." is not the attitude of a critical thinker. In it's own way it's worse than claiming that something is impossible when it's actually just very, very improbable.
|
On August 03 2011 04:10 matjlav wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 03:58 VIB wrote:On August 03 2011 01:40 Mecker wrote:On August 03 2011 01:20 BaronVonHydra wrote:
Good videos. The strength of the videos is in their call for critical thinking, but their weakness comes from their acrimony towards people who have faith. Faith: strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. A belief in something without proof shouldn't be respected. Of course, you can still respect the people who have faith. I humbly disagree. While I'm a die-hard atheist, I find it understandable that people have faith in unreasonable things. You need to understand that every human being is moved by emotions, we all have it. It's emotions that convince you to get out of bed everyday and live your life. We need emotions to live. And we all react differently to different emotions. Fear of death is a very powerful emotion. And some people can only stand living and wake up everyday if they believe death isn't as scary as it really is. It's understandable. That doesn't mean we shouldn't respect people because of their emotions. They can still contribute to humanity and help shape the world a better place. Newton was religious, even Galileu, who was persecuted by the church, was religious. I love both of those guys, they gave important contributions to science. I can respect that even as great scientists, they were human beings who can be afraid of the dark. Well, it's a video in support of critical thinking, and faith is indeed at odds with critical thinking. This isn't really a problem until people start acting like their faith is rational and want to use it to shape things like public policy and morality. Then we have problems. Wanting to believe in Heaven isn't a problem; it's just irrational. Wanting to believe in Heaven and therefore wanting to persecute people with different beliefs and trash the environment and force women to carry pregnancies and strap bombs to yourself is a problem. I agree, religion have it's use for people who need it emotionally, but that doesn't mean it's rational or reasonable. Religion and science can coexist, but for that you need to understand religion's limits, you cannot use it to explain the world. For that, religion is wrong, you should use science instead. Learn how to separate them.
"If religion has any point and purpose to it. It's not to serve as a science text-book."
- Neil Tyson
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. "
- Galileo Galilei - a man who was both very religious and made huge advancements in science.
|
I'm a philosophy major working on my doctorate thesis and just found this thread. First of all I would like to address that yes critical thinking (aka philosophy) should be taught in schools. It's one of the most important things children can learn. You teach the kid to fish, not give him the fish. But second of all, and this is my most important point, I hate how there is this whole science vs religion meta thing going on IRL now. What annoys me is every few people from either side truly understand what is happening and the in's and out's. I have studied much religion and my doctoral thesis is actually on rationality, religion and the neuroscience and how they interact.
Saying that, this thread actually frustrates me too no end because it is incredibly ill-informed. Reminds me of talking to freshman. You know the guy who just took his first philosophy or logic course. or even worse, the guy who just read something inspiring on the internet. I'm saying this because despite what armchair logicians think, it is a research based field you really can't just 'learn'. I'm only writing this paragraph because I can really tell by the style of writing in this thread that it seems many are like this. THIS IS NOT A BAD THING! However! I do urge you to do more research especially on the side opposite of which you stand.
It really disheartens me to see such passionate arguments on both sides that are so ill-informed. the most shocking revelation over the past 5 years has been that a lot of the misinformation has been coming from the 'atheist' portion. The religious side has always had misinformation, but it is surprising to see fellow 'critical thinkers' so ignorant about the opposite side.
As far as faith goes, there is literally tons of work on it. Hume wrote some VERY good material on faith that is still relevant today.
|
On August 03 2011 05:00 Cytokinesis wrote:
I'm a philosophy major working on my doctorate thesis and just found this thread. First of all I would like to address that yes critical thinking (aka philosophy) should be taught in schools. It's one of the most important things children can learn. You teach the kid to fish, not give him the fish. But second of all, and this is my most important point, I hate how there is this whole science vs religion meta thing going on IRL now. What annoys me is every few people from either side truly understand what is happening and the in's and out's. I have studied much religion and my doctoral thesis is actually on rationality, religion and the neuroscience and how they interact.
Saying that, this thread actually frustrates me too no end because it is incredibly ill-informed. Reminds me of talking to freshman. You know the guy who just took his first philosophy or logic course. or even worse, the guy who just read something inspiring on the internet. I'm saying this because despite what armchair logicians think, it is a research based field you really can't just 'learn'. I'm only writing this paragraph because I can really tell by the style of writing in this thread that it seems many are like this. THIS IS NOT A BAD THING! However! I do urge you to do more research especially on the side opposite of which you stand.
It really disheartens me to see such passionate arguments on both sides that are so ill-informed. the most shocking revelation over the past 5 years has been that a lot of the misinformation has been coming from the 'atheist' portion. The religious side has always had misinformation, but it is surprising to see fellow 'critical thinkers' so ignorant about the opposite side.
As far as faith goes, there is literally tons of work on it. Hume wrote some VERY good material on faith that is still relevant today.
Do you truly believe that that's the appropriate level of abstraction to talk about specific religious claims or religious traditions?
Or that you even need it discuss concrete examples of how rationality breaks down?
|
On August 03 2011 05:00 Cytokinesis wrote:
I'm a philosophy major working on my doctorate thesis and just found this thread. First of all I would like to address that yes critical thinking (aka philosophy) should be taught in schools. It's one of the most important things children can learn. You teach the kid to fish, not give him the fish. But second of all, and this is my most important point, I hate how there is this whole science vs religion meta thing going on IRL now. What annoys me is every few people from either side truly understand what is happening and the in's and out's. I have studied much religion and my doctoral thesis is actually on rationality, religion and the neuroscience and how they interact.
Saying that, this thread actually frustrates me too no end because it is incredibly ill-informed. Reminds me of talking to freshman. You know the guy who just took his first philosophy or logic course. or even worse, the guy who just read something inspiring on the internet. I'm saying this because despite what armchair logicians think, it is a research based field you really can't just 'learn'. I'm only writing this paragraph because I can really tell by the style of writing in this thread that it seems many are like this. THIS IS NOT A BAD THING! However! I do urge you to do more research especially on the side opposite of which you stand.
It really disheartens me to see such passionate arguments on both sides that are so ill-informed. the most shocking revelation over the past 5 years has been that a lot of the misinformation has been coming from the 'atheist' portion. The religious side has always had misinformation, but it is surprising to see fellow 'critical thinkers' so ignorant about the opposite side.
As far as faith goes, there is literally tons of work on it. Hume wrote some VERY good material on faith that is still relevant today.
I get what you mean, but you should back it up before saying it.
The Pew study in the U.S for example disagrees with what you've said, in that atheists are ranked second highest only to jews in knowing about world religions and about the religion in their specific area of the world. Catholics are ranked the lowest, the other religions are in between. If you can show some evidence to the contrary, i'd be happy to see it.
It is an interesting point that has been raised time and time again, that if you are an atheist you likely know more about a persons religion than they do. Perhaps you've had the misfortune to meet some hipster atheists/agnostics or something, but I know far more about catholicism and christianity than anyone my age i've met. I've read more of the bible than them (usually they have gotten 100% of their faith from the priest preaching at the pulpit). I avoid debating with them though, because whenever they do bring up religion and discover my lack of faith (I NEVER bring it up as a rule, some of them have a habit of asking and im not about to lie) we get into an argument that they inevitably get very, very pissed off about as i've quoted passages of the bible at them which contradict their lovey-dovey vision of christianity, and the works of well known critical thinkers.
There is also the religious joke frequently passed around which has a great deal of truth to it - "If you want to become an atheist, read the bible".
|
On August 03 2011 04:39 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 04:12 WhiteDog wrote:On August 02 2011 22:00 mcc wrote:On August 02 2011 21:35 WhiteDog wrote:On August 02 2011 20:27 Vore210 wrote:On August 02 2011 19:35 Buff345 wrote:
im pretty sure the only people who can say they have a purely logical take on the idea of god are agnostics. everyone else is using some faith. its impossible to know something doesn't exist anywhere unless you are omniscient. and if you're omniscient then youre probably god. Are you agnostic on the idea of trolls, fairies, a teapot in an elliptical orbit around the sun? Because you can't truly know that those 3 things don't exist after all... You are misunderstanding about agnosticism. It's not saying "everything is possible", it's saying "there are no clear answers to metaphysical questions". Since god is a metaphysical being, above time and matter, then no one can say weither he exist or not in the eyes of an agnostic. But since fairies, trolls and the likes are physical beings, then we can observe that they are not here. Nope, agnosticism says : "I do not know whether God/... exists.". If you want to be self-consistent you also have to be agnostic about fairies, trolls,.... , because they might exist we just did not see them yet. I will reiterate my claim : "Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable." Quoted from wikipedia. It's about metaphysical claim, and since troll and fairies should have walked down on earth at some point, therefore an agnostic can say that, considering everything we already know about the history of earth, it is false. On the other side, if you claim that it exist a world somewhere in another dimension or another dimension or a metaphysical place where troll and fairies exist, then an agnostic will answer : who knows ? God is supposed to be beyond matter and time. Note especially, that does not mean exclusively.
Note but.
|
On August 03 2011 05:00 Cytokinesis wrote:
I'm a philosophy major working on my doctorate thesis and just found this thread. First of all I would like to address that yes critical thinking (aka philosophy) should be taught in schools. It's one of the most important things children can learn. You teach the kid to fish, not give him the fish. But second of all, and this is my most important point, I hate how there is this whole science vs religion meta thing going on IRL now. What annoys me is every few people from either side truly understand what is happening and the in's and out's. I have studied much religion and my doctoral thesis is actually on rationality, religion and the neuroscience and how they interact.
Saying that, this thread actually frustrates me too no end because it is incredibly ill-informed. Reminds me of talking to freshman. You know the guy who just took his first philosophy or logic course. or even worse, the guy who just read something inspiring on the internet. I'm saying this because despite what armchair logicians think, it is a research based field you really can't just 'learn'. I'm only writing this paragraph because I can really tell by the style of writing in this thread that it seems many are like this. THIS IS NOT A BAD THING! However! I do urge you to do more research especially on the side opposite of which you stand.
It really disheartens me to see such passionate arguments on both sides that are so ill-informed. the most shocking revelation over the past 5 years has been that a lot of the misinformation has been coming from the 'atheist' portion. The religious side has always had misinformation, but it is surprising to see fellow 'critical thinkers' so ignorant about the opposite side.
As far as faith goes, there is literally tons of work on it. Hume wrote some VERY good material on faith that is still relevant today.
I`d be interested to hear what you think of as misinformed in this thread. Saying a and not b is kind of rude you know 
|
On August 03 2011 05:00 Cytokinesis wrote:
I'm a philosophy major working on my doctorate thesis and just found this thread. First of all I would like to address that yes critical thinking (aka philosophy) should be taught in schools. It's one of the most important things children can learn. You teach the kid to fish, not give him the fish. But second of all, and this is my most important point, I hate how there is this whole science vs religion meta thing going on IRL now. What annoys me is every few people from either side truly understand what is happening and the in's and out's. I have studied much religion and my doctoral thesis is actually on rationality, religion and the neuroscience and how they interact.
Saying that, this thread actually frustrates me too no end because it is incredibly ill-informed. Reminds me of talking to freshman. You know the guy who just took his first philosophy or logic course. or even worse, the guy who just read something inspiring on the internet. I'm saying this because despite what armchair logicians think, it is a research based field you really can't just 'learn'. I'm only writing this paragraph because I can really tell by the style of writing in this thread that it seems many are like this. THIS IS NOT A BAD THING! However! I do urge you to do more research especially on the side opposite of which you stand.
It really disheartens me to see such passionate arguments on both sides that are so ill-informed. the most shocking revelation over the past 5 years has been that a lot of the misinformation has been coming from the 'atheist' portion. The religious side has always had misinformation, but it is surprising to see fellow 'critical thinkers' so ignorant about the opposite side.
As far as faith goes, there is literally tons of work on it. Hume wrote some VERY good material on faith that is still relevant today.
I'm a philosophy student and I therefore know everything about critical thinking! Here, let me generalize this entire thread/group of people and use it to put myself on a pedestal and not provide a single specific example! That will educate you all!
I'm saying this because despite what armchair logicians think, it is a research based field you really can't just 'learn'.
Sorry, no, philosophy majors do not have a monopoly on thinking, lol. If you think that I haven't learned a lot about logic and reason over my years-long transition from religious to atheist and spending a lot of time hearing many arguments for and against it just because I don't know all of the names of the philosophers and the specific terms for the ideas, then you are simply wrong.
I suppose that's my main problem with most philosophy majors I've met in my experience. They aren't actually better philosophers than anyone else that I talk to; they just know all of the names and the terms so that they can sound pompous about it.
I don't have a problem with you suggesting that people read more, but please cut the incredibly condescending attitude.
|
On August 03 2011 07:14 matjlav wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 05:00 Cytokinesis wrote:
I'm a philosophy major working on my doctorate thesis and just found this thread. First of all I would like to address that yes critical thinking (aka philosophy) should be taught in schools. It's one of the most important things children can learn. You teach the kid to fish, not give him the fish. But second of all, and this is my most important point, I hate how there is this whole science vs religion meta thing going on IRL now. What annoys me is every few people from either side truly understand what is happening and the in's and out's. I have studied much religion and my doctoral thesis is actually on rationality, religion and the neuroscience and how they interact.
Saying that, this thread actually frustrates me too no end because it is incredibly ill-informed. Reminds me of talking to freshman. You know the guy who just took his first philosophy or logic course. or even worse, the guy who just read something inspiring on the internet. I'm saying this because despite what armchair logicians think, it is a research based field you really can't just 'learn'. I'm only writing this paragraph because I can really tell by the style of writing in this thread that it seems many are like this. THIS IS NOT A BAD THING! However! I do urge you to do more research especially on the side opposite of which you stand.
It really disheartens me to see such passionate arguments on both sides that are so ill-informed. the most shocking revelation over the past 5 years has been that a lot of the misinformation has been coming from the 'atheist' portion. The religious side has always had misinformation, but it is surprising to see fellow 'critical thinkers' so ignorant about the opposite side.
As far as faith goes, there is literally tons of work on it. Hume wrote some VERY good material on faith that is still relevant today. I'm a philosophy student and I therefore know everything about critical thinking! Here, let me generalize this entire thread/group of people and use it to put myself on a pedestal and not provide a single specific example! That will educate you all! Show nested quote +I'm saying this because despite what armchair logicians think, it is a research based field you really can't just 'learn'. Sorry, no, philosophy majors do not have a monopoly on thinking, lol. If you think that I haven't learned a lot about logic and reason over my years-long transition from religious to atheist and spending a lot of time hearing many arguments for and against it just because I don't know all of the names of the philosophers and the specific terms for the ideas, then you are simply wrong. I suppose that's my main problem with most philosophy majors I've met in my experience. They aren't actually better philosophers than anyone else that I talk to; they just know all of the names and the terms so that they can sound pompous about it. I don't have a problem with you suggesting that people read more, but please cut the incredibly condescending attitude.
Yeah, but I will had that there is no technics or anything to help you think (in the way heidegger define it at least). I like how people always defend their degree or any other kind of symbolic penis to point out that what they say is deeper or more intelligent : in fact it is just more refined, clearer and therefore easiest to defend.
Thinking is something that has nothing to do with all that : it's about you, your condition, your views on your life and what you are / your future / why you are here. You think when you force yourself to go deeper into the meaning of your life and your view on the society you live in : that's why so few people actually think, not because they are not educated to do so, but because they never take the time to walk down the road and ask themselves deep and simple question with the intend to really came up with their own answer.
The rest is just reasonning, well in my point of view at least.
|
On August 03 2011 05:19 Spidinko wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 04:39 mcc wrote:On August 03 2011 04:12 WhiteDog wrote:On August 02 2011 22:00 mcc wrote:On August 02 2011 21:35 WhiteDog wrote:On August 02 2011 20:27 Vore210 wrote:On August 02 2011 19:35 Buff345 wrote:
im pretty sure the only people who can say they have a purely logical take on the idea of god are agnostics. everyone else is using some faith. its impossible to know something doesn't exist anywhere unless you are omniscient. and if you're omniscient then youre probably god. Are you agnostic on the idea of trolls, fairies, a teapot in an elliptical orbit around the sun? Because you can't truly know that those 3 things don't exist after all... You are misunderstanding about agnosticism. It's not saying "everything is possible", it's saying "there are no clear answers to metaphysical questions". Since god is a metaphysical being, above time and matter, then no one can say weither he exist or not in the eyes of an agnostic. But since fairies, trolls and the likes are physical beings, then we can observe that they are not here. Nope, agnosticism says : "I do not know whether God/... exists.". If you want to be self-consistent you also have to be agnostic about fairies, trolls,.... , because they might exist we just did not see them yet. I will reiterate my claim : "Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable." Quoted from wikipedia. It's about metaphysical claim, and since troll and fairies should have walked down on earth at some point, therefore an agnostic can say that, considering everything we already know about the history of earth, it is false. On the other side, if you claim that it exist a world somewhere in another dimension or another dimension or a metaphysical place where troll and fairies exist, then an agnostic will answer : who knows ? God is supposed to be beyond matter and time. Note especially, that does not mean exclusively. Note but.
Maybe you can re-read that sentence and you will notice two "-" characters denoting inserted sentence. "but" is part of that sentence not the main one so my point stands.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On August 03 2011 10:12 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 05:19 Spidinko wrote:On August 03 2011 04:39 mcc wrote:On August 03 2011 04:12 WhiteDog wrote:On August 02 2011 22:00 mcc wrote:On August 02 2011 21:35 WhiteDog wrote:On August 02 2011 20:27 Vore210 wrote:On August 02 2011 19:35 Buff345 wrote:
im pretty sure the only people who can say they have a purely logical take on the idea of god are agnostics. everyone else is using some faith. its impossible to know something doesn't exist anywhere unless you are omniscient. and if you're omniscient then youre probably god. Are you agnostic on the idea of trolls, fairies, a teapot in an elliptical orbit around the sun? Because you can't truly know that those 3 things don't exist after all... You are misunderstanding about agnosticism. It's not saying "everything is possible", it's saying "there are no clear answers to metaphysical questions". Since god is a metaphysical being, above time and matter, then no one can say weither he exist or not in the eyes of an agnostic. But since fairies, trolls and the likes are physical beings, then we can observe that they are not here. Nope, agnosticism says : "I do not know whether God/... exists.". If you want to be self-consistent you also have to be agnostic about fairies, trolls,.... , because they might exist we just did not see them yet. I will reiterate my claim : "Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable." Quoted from wikipedia. It's about metaphysical claim, and since troll and fairies should have walked down on earth at some point, therefore an agnostic can say that, considering everything we already know about the history of earth, it is false. On the other side, if you claim that it exist a world somewhere in another dimension or another dimension or a metaphysical place where troll and fairies exist, then an agnostic will answer : who knows ? God is supposed to be beyond matter and time. Note especially, that does not mean exclusively. Note but. Maybe you can re-read that sentence and you will notice two "-" characters denoting inserted sentence. "but" is part of that sentence not the main one so my point stands.
Very well, even if we were to grant your interpretation of that definition, are you agnostic about the existence of transcendental metaphysical fairies? Adding that something is metaphysical changes nothing about the methods available to us for determining if things exist. If evidentiary support is not available, then belief in an entity is not justified.
You're probably an atheist too, you just don't want to admit it to yourself. If your answer to 'do you believe a God exists' is not yes, then you do not believe a god exists. 1+1=2 Of course agnostics say 'but I don't KNOW'. That doesn't matter, nobody KNOWS, the question is do you believe?
Agnosticism and Atheism are not mutually exclusive at all.
Also I suppose it`s not my place to say, and maybe a bit hypocritical on my part, but isn't this thread supposed to be about critical thinking and stuff? Surely the discussion I just joined in to could have its own thread? In fact i'm pretty sure it already has tons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
