View Single Post
Old 04-09-2008, 01:28 PM   #38 (permalink)
filtherton
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
In an argument in a bar sure, I'll agree with you, but this is on a broader scale, wars and suppression of ideas. There the theist becomes the aggressor.
Well, if we want to play the "religion is responsible for war" game I might direct you to a couple of folks who were popular in Europe and Asia in the 20th century. Perhaps it is a claim that could be made about specific theists in specific contexts, but Mondak was referring to general conversations between general atheists and general theists (at least as far as I could tell), which generally have nothing to do with wars or suppression of ideas, beyond flame wars and bannings.

Quote:
I honestly have a hard time understanding how any intelligent, educated theist can be employing reason in regards to their own faith. Faith itself implies there is no need for reason.
On the great ideological road trip, reason has to do with how you get where you're going with whatever you started with, faith has to do with what you start with.

Solid reasoning can result in questionable conclusions if that reasoning is based on questionable premises. Uncertainty in the premises doesn't make the conclusion any less valid with respect to the reason used to derive it. Garbage in, garbage out, as they say (not that I think theology is garbage).

Speaking of congnitive dissonance and reasoning, yesterday's New York Times had an article about a scientist (mathematician maybe) who may have just invalidated a whole set of "classic" psychology experiments concerning cognitive dissonance in monkeys. All he did was show, using a fairly straightforward probability proof, that the researchers apparently assumed that apes choose things randomly, when it could have also plausibly assumed that they don't. The researcher's premises were flawed, their conclusion probably wrong, but the reasoning they used to get from that premise to their conclusion wasn't. In fact, the reasoning seemed so solid, that despite the fact that the science was bad, it seems it took over 50 years for anyone to catch it.

This is really only related to the present discussion tangentially, but I thought it was interesting.

Quote:
Ego can always get in the way.
That's what I'm saying. I also think that the problems of religion are also problems of ego.
filtherton is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360