[luke warm]

jdonn, on Jan 4 2008, 08:29 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jan 4 2008, 07:55 PM, said:

maybe my belief is irrational, maybe it is illogical... but is it either because it fails to meet some scientific method test? at this time that's all i was interested in

You are entirely missing the point. I finally get it now, you just want to have a completely pointless discussion. Rather than, like like everyone else, discussing something interesting like "is this belief logical, if so why, if not why not", you want to discuss "is one proposed reason that this belief is illogical a valid one". Uh, why? So you don't even want to argue it's not illogical, you just want to argue against one reason that it's illogical? Have fun.

(Made slight edits after the fact, now differs from where it is quoted below.)

how can i be missing the point? i am the one who asked the original question, and the asking *was* the point... now it might not have been your point, but i don't see why i should abandon mine to humor yours... and you have totally misstated both the nature of the posts and my position... yes, i was arguing against that reason because that is the reason given...

Winstonm, on Jan 4 2008, 08:32 PM, said:

Jimmy,

I probably should not butt in as I do not have the education that many other posters possess, but reading this thread brought something to mind.

winston, if you don't know by now i'll go ahead and say it... i don't consider your points or posts to be butting in, and i welcome your input

Quote

As I'm sure you remember, I was raised in a strict fundamenalist Protestant home, so I certainly don't mean a personal affront to believers.

John Maynard Keynes once said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

To me, this is the sane, rational, and logical thing to do.  And it is at the heart of your question.

So, to answer, I do not believe it is illogical to believe in the resurrection simply because it is not scientifically testable, but I do think it is illogical because it is illogical to hold a belief that does not allow a challenge to that belief as facts and knowledge change.

i do remember discussing your upbringing... and it might surprise you to know that i agree with your last paragraph totally, and i'm pleased to see that you (i suspect the others do also, they just don't want to admit it) understand the whole thrust of my question to barmar

Quote

As this belief is an inviolate part of Christian beliefs, it cannot be challenged without abandoning the belief.

i almost agree... i'd rather say the belief can't be abandoned if one is to remain a christian

Quote

This, IMO, is why Christians fight so hard to explain the scriptural paradoxes as justifiable under the belief system, whereas, again IMO, the logical thing to do would be instead of fighting to hold onto the belief, put belief on hold until more information was available.

this part i don't quite agree with... i don't see any reason why it should be more logical to abandon (or put on hold) my beliefs awaiting more information... by the same line of reasoning i could tell someone it's more logical to put his disbelief on hold until more information is available... neither belief nor disbelief (imo) are inherently illogical... either could be, depending on the nature of the evidence for or against... but too many people seem to be saying that belief is illogical because there is no evidence one way or the other (or none they know about), or because they themselves disbelieve... now *that* seems illogical to me (a person saying "your belief is illogical because i disbelieve")

Quote

So, to recap, I do not believe the illogic stems from the non-testability but from the anti-questioning nature of the belief.

i agree... and fwiw it would be an error to think that questions haven't arisen (don't you love that word?), or that questions haven't been answered - at least to my satisfaction, though probably not to the satisfaction of others... as you know through your own life, many things spiritual are only known (or believed) experientially, individually

helene_t, on Jan 4 2008, 08:34 PM, said:

What's so interesting about discussing whether a particular belief is logical, Josh?

that's probably true helene, and explains in part why i wasn't arguing that

[Winstonm]

Quote

i'm pleased to see that you (i suspect the others do also, they just don't want to admit it) understand the whole thrust of my question to barmar

I don't think anyone can argue that non-testability invalidates logic. For example, science suggests that:

A) under certain circumstances life can occur spontaneously.
B) The universe is infinite and therefore there have been limitless oppotunities for the recreation of life-giving circumstances.
C) Therefore, somewhere in the universe other than Earth a life form has occured.

This is my poor and awkward recreation of Carl Sagan's concepts. I do not think the argument holds a logic flaw, though I am not a student of logic and someone may well point out my errors.

Surely, though, at this time it is not testable - although initial attempts on Mars have been made, that is a far cry from testing for life at every available site in the universe.

However, as long as A is correct, the concept is logical, as I understand logic and the nature of arguments.

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Jan 4 2008, 10:39 PM, said:

how can i be missing the point? i am the one who asked the original question, and the asking *was* the point... now it might not have been your point, but i don't see why i should abandon mine to humor yours... and you have totally misstated both the nature of the posts and my position... yes, i was arguing against that reason because that is the reason given...

Yes, why would you want to debate about the big picture of something you truly believe in when you can continue for days about one minor aspect?

By the way, conversations, like people, evolve.

[matmat]

jdonn, on Jan 5 2008, 01:50 AM, said:

By the way, conversations, like people, evolve.

and there i was thinking conversations were intelligently designed.

oh. sorry. i'll go hide in my little corner again.

[EricK]

I came across this article, in the Jewish Chronicle of all places, which might be of interest to participants in this thread:

http://www.thejc.com/home.aspx?ParentId=m1...57237&ATypeId=1

[helene_t]

Winstonm, on Jan 5 2008, 07:07 AM, said:

A) under certain circumstances life can occur spontaneously.
B) The universe is infinite and therefore there have been limitless oppotunities for the recreation of life-giving circumstances.
C) Therefore, somewhere in the universe other than Earth a life form has occured.

This is my poor and awkward recreation of Carl Sagan's concepts.  I do not think the argument holds a logic flaw, though I am not a student of logic and someone may well point out my errors.

I think the argument is flawed although I wouldn't talk about a logical flaw. After all, one needs some knowledge about molecular biology (what "certain circumstances" are we talking about?), cosmology (what does it mean and imply that the universe is infinite?) to assess the argument. In addition, the argument seems to use probability theory, not just logics. In fact I would say that applied logic is trivial, but that pov may be due to the specific fields I have been working in.

The reason I think it's flawed is that it seems to go like this:
1) There were an infinity of opportunities for life to emerge.
2) Each of those opportunities yielded non-zero probability of emergence of life.
3) The events of emergence were independent.
4) This all adds up to a probability of one that life has emerged an infinite number of times.

The problem I see is 4), this is simply not correct without some additional assumptions.

Moreover, I think the premises are wrong. I don't think there are an infinity of planets even if space is infinite. But that's besides the point of course.

[helene_t]

jdonn, on Jan 5 2008, 08:50 AM, said:

By the way, conversations, like people, evolve.

Right, if Jimmy asks an unanswerable question (possibly in order to elicit undefendable answers, thereby exposing the inferior skills of the answerers), it is quite natural for the answerers to counter by answering different questions, or by asking meta-questions. And then the thread is evolving.

[Al_U_Card]

"Mr. Spock, you can now reconnect the logic module as I believe that we have totally exhausted the intellect pods...Mr. Scott, bring the ego drive to full power and warp us the hell out of here!" James T. Kirk.

[onoway]

I have the assumption that I am going to be alive tomorrow and next month etc. because it although it is perfectly logical that I may not be, it makes no sense to order my life otherwise. I have to proceed on faith that I will be around.
Some people are able to have the same faith that there is a god who takes a personal interest in them and their endeavors. I wish , sometimes fervently, that I was one of them. Otoh, it makes no sense to me that the universe is a sort of random event. Our universe may be the speck of dust on someone's jacket but it is so wonderfully ...I cannot think of a word which does not suggest an intelligence behind it...designed? organized?...before man ran amok, balanced? that it becomes a matter of faith for me that there is an intelligence behind it. Maybe we are someone's science experiment. How much understanding does a fruit fly have?
The question of what to teach kids is I think to a large degree an academic one, kids pick up an understanding of their parent's true values in or outside religious situations. The kids will grow up and mostly find the niche that suits them, and often it is not the same as their parent's was. Of course that does assume that there is a choice...for some, religion is not so much a matter of faith as of desperation, perhaps.
If a person has faith, no matter how logical the arguments you are not going to change her/his mind as it is embedded in who they are...

[barmar]

luke warm, on Jan 4 2008, 08:55 PM, said:

all that matters is whether or not my belief must meet the requirements of the 'scientific method' in order to be logical... that's what barmar asserted and that's what i questioned

I never intended that. I said "beyond the reach of logic and the scientific method". As I said in my first response to your question, I meant that to refer to two separate, although related, reasoning processes. Maybe it would have been clearer if I'd used "or" rather than "and".

[sylad]

sceptic, on Dec 28 2007, 12:23 PM, said:

Do you think the world would be a better place if adults did not contaminate thier kids with thier own views on Religion, Politics and Racism

Religion is hate
Religion is fear
Religion is war

[Al_U_Card]

sylad, on Jan 10 2008, 11:18 AM, said:

sceptic, on Dec 28 2007, 12:23 PM, said:

Do you think the world would be a better place if adults did not contaminate thier kids with thier own views on Religion, Politics and Racism

Religion is hate
Religion is fear
Religion is war

Interesting because I tend to separate religion (churches, movements etc.) from the theology and philosophy.

I never did see a (serious) conflict between say Hobbsian and Hegelian philosophers so the potential for conflict must stem from the organisational structures themselves.

[luke warm]

men hate
men fear
men fight

and men form religious doctrines, often based on other-than-pure motives

[AdiPus]

Back to the topic of the survey.
Who posted it (?) had obviously made his point of view clear.
I will refer especially to the first part – Religion, because that is the one that was mostly debated in this forum.
When you answer the question affirmatively, you admit of being guilty of not allowing your children to develop their own opinion.
Let me ask you this: who was left to learn all by himself ever, who weren’t given ever directions, who experimented himself everything in life, and took nothing for granted?
Answer: NOBODY. Then from whom do we learn when we are young? In the following order: From our parents and relatives, our teachers (most of them parents also), from friends (who were mostly taught by their parents), from media (you guessed, most of them parents). So, my point here is we basically learn from adults which most of them are parents.
Some facts: the first 3 religions in terms of the number of adepts represent approximately 66.5% of world’s population. All other religions (each below 6%) make a total of 19.3%. Non-religious represent 11.9% and atheists 2.3%.
That is 85.8% of world’s population is guilty of brainwashing their and other people’s children. Seems like is a small force to defend them from being brainwashed.
The reality is children are nowadays more brainwashed against religion by school, media and society, because they put much more effort in teaching them against religion.
There is no surprise that from all respondents to the survey, ~ 60 % have a different opinion. Which is teaching children religion is not brainwashing as suggested by first two options.
It is parents’ duty to raise their children to become responsible adults; at work, in society and in their family. If they find that their religion has the tools for their children’s spiritual rising why would anybody oppose to that?

[beatrix45]

If you don't teach your own children what you believe to be the 'correct' attitudes toward politics, religion and racism, you are abandoning this function to the STATE or the TRIBE. Way to go, bozo!

[Al_U_Card]

No matter what you think is "right", you could be wrong!

Giving your children an open and cogent approach to life and its mysteries may just help them to find their own way and that might even benefit you!

[luke warm]

Al_U_Card, on Jan 11 2008, 03:01 PM, said:

No matter what you think is "right", you could be wrong!

Giving your children an open and cogent approach to life and its mysteries may just help them to find their own way and that might even benefit you!

what does that mean? how would you do that?

[Al_U_Card]

It means presenting them with the methods and logic of analysis and critique. Whenever a situation or philosophy is encountered, it was presented as neutrally as possible. Questions were answered and sources of information revealed. Questions and investigations were welcomed. As it stands, none of the three have chosen a religion (as yet, altho they are all still in their 20's) but they all have very healthy and open appreciations of their lives.

[blackshoe]

Governments (and many - too many - individuals) generally want to teach children what to think. It would be far better both for the children and for society as a whole to teach them how to think.

[mike777]

blackshoe, on Jan 12 2008, 12:57 AM, said:

Governments (and many - too many - individuals) generally want to teach children what to think. It would be far better both for the children and for society as a whole to teach them how to think.

they have been saying this for 10,000 years...nothing new..wow

maybe they do not know how..you think?

Or we can repeat 10,000 year old sayings and call ourselves brilliant.