I guess what I mean is, the concept of what is rational on the level of the individual (or even of the group) is based just as much on 'belief' as most religions are.

You have to break reason down to it's simplest definition: seeking to discover truth and what's best. Unless you think these things are always subjective, you must admit that reason (outside of maths) does exist objectively. There are truths, aren't there? There are verifiable better ways to do things, right?

Will, you're confusing social science and hard science. There are hard truths in hard science. But humans are so complex and variable that they're notoriously hard to predict. As for "verifiable better ways to do things" - who gets to decide what is "better?" "Better" for whom? By what standard?

That's why - in my humble opinion - going with what makes sense is not sensible, because what makes sense to one person won't make sense to another. The question should be what works, not what makes sense. I have written about that in the past. If you're interested, click here. But be forewarned - it's typically long-winded lawyer talk.

Better was the wrong word. Efficient and effective would be more appropriate.

The social sciences thing is complicated, sure, but there are educated guesses. The more educated a guess, it's probable that the more reliable the guess is. It's not perfect (only maths are), but it's more effective and/or more efficient.
Are you kidding? I love lawyer talk! :thumbsup:

not necessarily...
but loquitor covered all that much better than I could
I don't know that there is 'truth' and I'm not inclined to think that what one person (or a group of people) believes to be the truth is necessarily what is 'best'
in fact, the more I think about it, the more 'truth' and 'best' just look like words...and words are not rational

I'm saying truth is important to ME. It's a part of my philosophy. I'm not saying it holds the same intrinsic value for everyone, in fact I doubt it does.

Truth isn't just a word, though.

...and how do you know that?

Through belief or irrefutable proof?

Truth is the most irrefutable answer available, so I'd say the latter.

how is this happening again?

look. it's kinda simple.
what is true is the result of an operation that does not violate the rules that shape operations.
only a religious person might invest in a notion of Truth that transcends particular types of demonstrations.
you, will, are making a religious argument.

not only that, but you commit a basic tactical error: you underestimate your adversary.

you cannot possibly argue that christianity is incapable of reason because there's the god character flitting about at the axiom level.
you just can't: it's a stupid argument.
you can't even say it about protestants, though at times, i'd like to.
when you, will, talk about "reason" what you designate by it is "arguments that i like" or "what seems true to me based on the rules that i impose for demonstrations"--if it's even that formal. which it isn't.

that you can demonstrate to your own satisfaction that this god character doesn't exist means that for you the matter is settled. others, who i might disagree with as well btw, can come to opposite conclusions in this respect--but that doesn't make them drooling idiots and yourself Mister Reason.
if anything, the idiocy resides in the claim to be Mister Reason.
you don't need to make the appeal to argue your position.
it's just your position.

it's a stronger position to argue from consequences--look at what these assumptions have lead to; it's a stronger position to argue that you simply cannot make such claims because you do not and cannot know what they refer to. there are a thousand arguments against belief in some christian god-function.

but you can't say that is it True that there is no god-character.
if you do it, you're no different from the characters you oppose.
you're playing the same game.

worst of all, it's a boring game.

Not at all. Nowhere did I say "absolute truth", as a matter of fact I just defined it as the most irrefutable answer. That's not absolute and can be either refined or replaced by an even more irrefutable answer. Consider the scientific "theory" expanded to everything: the best answer available, but that can allow for an even better answer if one is discovered.
I've never argued that. Christianity is a belief system and as such is incapable of reasoning, I suppose, but I refer only to believers when framing my arguments regarding theism.
Your definition of reason is quite relative. I don't impose the rules of science and logic. I recognize that they exist based on their demonstrated accuracy. They are objective and I happen to recognize them. They would exist with or without me.
I never claimed to be Mr Reason. As a matter of fact I've made it clear that I don't have all the answers and am constantly trying to improve my perceptions and remove my biases.
I've stated ad nauseam that I cannot prove the non-existence of god or gods. One cannot disprove that for which there is no evidence. That's the very definition of weak atheism. I'm not sure who you're arguing with, but it doesn't seem to be me.
I've never seen you misunderstand me this badly before. If you have any question, please ask away and I will try to clarify.

Edit: this seems to have become a thread about what I believe. As such, I'll try to summarize my particular philosophy in my journal and stop this incredible threadjack.

//threadjack

i didn't misunderstand you will.
it's all about this:

it's hard to tell what's a throwaway and what's not, so i decided to assume it wasn't.
just so you know how all this got started.

the rules of logic are rules of logic. they structure areas of activity, they formalize ways of thinking in certain ways that have been pretty effective *for us*--but they aren't complete, they can't be completed---so the fact of effectiveness is simply that and does nothing--and can do nothing--to resolve the problem of grounding. if you're going to make claims to something bigger than effectiveness in certain areas, at certain scales, within certain spaces, then you have to be able to build from the inside outward--and the problem's just in the nature of proofs---nothing to be done about it.

and functionally, this isn't a problem, really: but it does point to limits on the kind of arguments that you can make and the kinds of appeals to logic or reason that you can get away with.

but maybe you didn't mean anything at all and the sentence i took off from was a throwaway.
it's just hard to know.
the rules aren't transparent.
and anomalies can occur.
they do all the time.


don't get me wrong, btw: i like reason. it's a very nice space to play about with, an aesthetically pleasing one. it lets you do things like structure sequences of sentences and not get all tangled up.
that is nice.
i like that.

anyway, so this is now a threadjack appended to a thread about vanity plates, so it's fitting in some ways that it should be vain. it's be more fitting if i could figure out a joke using the word plates. but i can't. tant pis.

what started me down this path were the smartass remarks about fundamentalists not reading the bible or not reading it in the 'right spirit'

I understand where these sentiments come from, believe me, and I do not mean to be harsh in my response to them. But they are catty. As in, mindless and gossipy. Of course fundamentalists read the bible. And they read it in the 'spirit' that is 'right' to them. I don't agree with them, but I don't do myself or my beliefs (I will call them instincts) good service by insisting that they are wrong because I am just oh so sure I am right. And, therefore, smarter and closer to 'truth' (god)...I think this is what rb is getting at. And there is no more earthy texture and substance to not believing than there is to believing. It's what you do with it that matters. Everything is relative. That's what I suspect. And the pivot point, which may reside somewhere around the ideas of wisdom and clarity, renders all other psychological matters irrelevant.

That is what I tend to believe. At this point in my life.

But really, I have to thank you, because if it weren't for this conversation, I wouldn't have realized that I don't believe in truth and reason. :p

oh, and I also left out that it twerked me a little to see self-proclaimed atheists saying that christians aren't reading the bible in the right spirit...

what the? :lol:

Nowhere in this thread has anyone posted "right spirit".

As someone who does regularly engage in conversations with religious fundamentalists (and not just Christians, but also Muslims and even the occasional Hindu), I can tell you that some do not have even a casual familiarity with the scripture that they insist on living by. You can call me a smart-ass for pointing that out, but that hardly means I'm wrong. In reality, I make remarks like that from time to time as a snarky challenge. It's a "go ahead and prove me wrong" kinda thing. I suspect that if more theists read their respective religious texts that things might be a little better. The story of Jesus reads like the life of many great religious leaders and philosophers in history and could benefit a lot of people who are seeking to live in harmony with their fellow man. If Jesus did exist and the recounting of his life was mostly correct, he was a great civil rights leader in addition to starting a cult (not necessarily using the word cult as a negative, also).
You should check out my journal. It might change your mind.

okay 'consistent with its spirit'

ratbastid said it

I'm sorry, but I think your contention that if more Christians read the scripture then things would be better is naive. I contend that religious fundamentalism is only a symptom of the greater affliction and that is the tendency for people to become extreme. And it winds its way through all segments and stratifications of society...

I better stop now. I feel a manifesto coming on, lol. And I never seem to go full circle with them, heh...

actually, if you read David Plotz's "Blogging the Bible" series, he made the observation that much of the Bible is pretty damn brutal and sanguinary - to get the sort of stuff out of it that a lot of people want to get out you have to emphasize some parts and downplay others severely. He was speaking as someone reading the book for the first time, front to back. If you want to read him - he's a good writer and pretty incisive as an observer - put his name into the search function at Slate and you'll see the entries. He did it over the course of a year, from mid-06 to mid-07.

So reading the Bible in the right spirit is quite the misstatement - people tend to take away from the exercise what they bring to it. But that's true of most things.

Oh, and MM, I wasn't saying there is no such thing as truth and no such thing as reason -- only that our ability to use them is limited by our humanness (is that a word?).

Yes, humanness is a word.

very well, I guess was just taking away what I brought to it ;)

I don't care what people have on their license plate, but if they deviate from the default plate, they should have to pay extra. And a plate that shows any sort of religion should never be the norm.

What sense would it make for an agnostic like me to be driving around with "In God We Trust" on his license plate. It's bad enough that it's on America's currency. Most people don't realize that IGWT wasn't added to our currency until the 50's when America went through this huge religious phase.

oh yeah, this thread was about license plates :shy:

Are license plates still made by prisoners? Or is that an urban myth?

What if they're made by Chinese prisoners.... :expressionless:

I think they're rolled on the thighs of Cuban virgins...

wait, no...that's cigars :p

I know the stickers here in Wisconsin are made by prisoners. I don't know about the plates themselves.

What everyone wants to know is whether those "live free or die plates" in NH are made in prisons.

Absolutely not. As long as you can choose your license plate, I see nothing wrong with it.

I don't really see it as a violation either. However, people of other faiths (including Wiccans, Satanists, and Voodun) must also be allowed plates that express their faith. Otherwise it is discrimination and establishment of a religion by the government. This is why I'd be surprised to see any state go ahead with this.

I think in some states, some license plates are still made by prisoners.

And, for the record, I think while we have "In God We Trust" on our money, we can't bar states from putting it on license plates. Whether I think we should continue to have "In God We Trust" on our money is another question....

But I absolutely resist the idea of putting a cross on license plates. That is a clear violation of the separation between church and state. And this is not about that I'm Jewish, so the state should provide me one with a Star of David or a Menorah. I don't want my religious symbols on anything issued by the government, either. The only way to guarantee freedom to practice religion for everyone is for the government to completely disassociate itself from any single religion. Which, by the way, I am not at all satisfied it is doing, and I would like it to be done much better.... But that's another question....

Out of curiosity, how you y'all feel if we had the option of having the same imagery attached to other state-issued documents? I'm thinking birth certificates, social security cards, tax forms...would that alter anyone's perception of an encroachment of church/state separation? Are there license plates available for other potentially confrontational issues? Pro-choice/pro-life...homosexual/heterosexuality? How would you fee if GLAD sponsored a "Join the Gay Way" tag that was offered in your home state?

Just thinking here...gotta go to work. Ta ta :)

edit: forgot to p.

pig...IMO, the establishment clause in the first amendment sets a higher standard for religion than those other examples of confrontational issues.

To pass the establishment clause test, a state program/policy that "promotes" religion must have a valid secular purpose and not advance or inhibit one religion over others.

well, dc_dux, yes and no. You also can't discriminate against religion or treat religion as a subject differently from any other, otherwise it's a content-based restriction in violation of freedom of speech. So I'm not sure you're right that the first amendment sets a higher standard on the expression side. The issue is what constitutes "an establishment of religion."

This particular thicket has caused huge problems in Establishment Clause jurisprudence, which (IMHO) borders on the incoherent. I'm not suggesting an answer here because I don't have one.

That'll do pig. That'll do.

I just wanted to type that.

It would be almost impossible to quantify, but if it's a hot button issue, it should not be on plates. If it's not a hot button issue, but somebody is trying to make it into one, they should be defenestrated.

Maybe having the UMC cross and flame on your plate should be allowed, but not "My Belief, or HELL". Or any issue where there are large groups both for and against an issue. So, no pro-life/pro-choice.

Or maybe I'm just going to hell. Does anybody need to me to pick up something while I'm there? I hear they have a great Wal Mart.

What the crap? I could have sworn I hit 'edit', not 'quote. Oh well.

We already have 'choose life' vehicle tags here in Florida.

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b2...0life20tag.jpg

They're very popular.

I'm fine with all these license tags, as long as you have a Billy Ray Cyrus mullet to go along with them. Or if you always smell strangely of baby powder. Otherwise...

I don't get close enough to smell them.

(post removed) I didn't read the entire thread and posted on one of the first replies.... I know better and removed it for relevancy.