loquitur

Will, rationalism is in the eye of the beholder. Different people accept different things as rational because their premises are different. Saying you're a rationalist doesn't by itself say much more than that you believe what you choose to believe because of its appeal to your sense of rationality. There is no such thing as Mr Spock.

Willravel

Rationalism is a loose philosophical system, but a system none the less. And I find it's the best description for my particular perception. I could make up a term like "reasonist", but no one would have a clue what I'm talking about.

Essentially, I try to develop my own reasoning and logical faculties and then use them to explain what I perceive and deduce. I "believe" in science, reason, and logic. I call it rationalism, you can call it what you want.

Baraka_Guru

loquitur's description is apt, considering some of the most celebrated rationalists were devout Christians. They were certainly coming from different premises than Willravel is.

A good way to describe rationalism is as an exercise of logic rather than dependence on the empirical to uncover knowledge.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

mixedmedia

uh, you misread what I said, will. by christian 'oppression' I was referring to christians who say they are being oppressed by atheists and other non god-loving peoples. All that war against crassmas and bullshit likewise. capice?

And, I'm sorry, will, all vaguely supported examples aside, you still cannot say that atheists are being oppressed, either.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

JumpinJesus

Yeah, I have to say I can't think of a time where atheists were oppressed as a group. Now, individuals might have met some resistance from the Church or other fundamental groups when espousing beliefs that didn't adhere to dogma (re: Galileo), but I can't say I can equate atheism with any movement designed to promoting equal treatment of oppressed people.

I have to say that this thread certainly took a turn, but I like where it's going.

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

Willravel

I can be a lot more specific. Two cases I read about today on reddit:

Recently, a UCF student was at a Catholic Mass. When he went up for communion, he pocketed the Eucharist (wafer), planning on eating it when he got back to his seat. Someone grabbed him and tried to prevent him from leaving, and now the Catholic Church is demanding that he return the wafer. He's received death threats from theists. Why was he in mass? He (an atheist) was concerned about public UCF funds paying for a religious service.

The charge of atheism during the middle ages carried with it a sentence of death. The Inquisition killed an unknown amount of atheists.

How about this, run for president as an atheist and then tell me atheists aren't oppressed.

loquitur

Will, you should read a spot of Ayn Rand. She claims to be the apostle of reason, too. Her "reason" is, quite obviously, very different from yours. It doesn't mean one or the other of you is irrational. But which form of reasoning you find persuasive will depend on your own preferences and premises - which are not necessarily rational or based on reason.

Willravel

Look at it like enlightenment. There are many roads to enlightenment. Anne and I each have a different set of cognitive biases, which color or ability to rationalize and reason. I can't speak for her, but one of my goals is to remove as many of my biases as possible.

I can't stand Rand.

Cynthetiq

If dunking the koran is considered sacreligious to those that believe in Allah, then this is equal to Catholics and their blessed wafers.

I find both absurd.

As for the man in the service, I still state that there's not enough information to pass judgement. I've had people whom I did not promote tell me that they had what it takes and when tested they weren't able to pass muster. They still believed they should have gotten the promotion.

Again, I state it emphatically just because you believe you should be promoted, doesn't mean you will.

Seems that you have biases you aren't willing to remove.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

The Rand thing was a joke. Jeez.

Cynthetiq

Odd, I wasn't thinking about Rand.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

loquitur

Let me expand past Rand. The French Revolution purported to enshrine Reason at the center of society. Two years later the revolution was devouring its devotees in the Terror. Karl Marx claimed to have scientifically analyzed society. We know where that led, too.

Logic and rationality ex ante don't necessarily provide you with good road maps of how society can be organized on a macro level. Yes, they are useful in making individual small-bore decisions, but even then things break down because humans are complex and unpredictable. Logic and rationality will help you with societal organization ex post - once something happens and you see how people react, you can evaluate why and figure it out. But trying to predict it is a hit-or-miss affair.

That's why I'm a big believer in the scientific method: quantitative analysis and experimentation. The only way to know what works is to test it and see what happens, then test it again, then test it again -- just like any scientific experiment. If it's replicable consistently and the result is roughly what was sought, then it "works." To my mind this is the way rationality should work, because it recognizes both the possibilities and the limitations of reasoning.

Willravel

You can't blame Marx for what Stalin did. I'm not saying that Marx's conclusions were necessarily perfect (if there is such a thing in economic and/or governmental systems), but somehow I can't imagine Marx liking the idea of a dictator using propaganda to elevate himself to the position of near godhood in his communist society. I can imagine Marx getting pretty pissed about that, actually.
Yes, this is a perfect explanation as to why I tend to think of governmental systems from a hunter-gatherer standpoint (which is why I might seem more socialist). When I look at human organization and give it a real historical context—a context that stretches back tens of thousands of years—I see the massive inherent flaws in such crowded societies today. It's why I tend to reject outright pure capitalism. But I don't want to get into that too much.
I think it's useful.
Don't you find that the scientific method is rational/reasonable? I try to fit science in most of my perceptions of the world:
Is there another name for this that I'm not aware of?

guyy

You could sum this up kind of like this:

"Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please"


What does this have to do with the state-sponsored proselytizing on license plates in Indiana and South Carolina? I suppose your anti-anti-clericism kinda sorta makes the Burke-de Maistre pose understandable in this context.

aceventura3

I think this point should not be overlooked. As people get involved over a slogan on money or a license plate, having no impact on anything, what really does have an impact is ignored. For example, the IRS grants tax exempt status to churches and religious organizations. In order to get this special benefit your church or religious organization has to be formally recognized and validated by the federal government. If your religion does not become an officially recognized religion by the federal government, you get no tax exempt status. This is clearly a legal issue respecting the establishment of religion. Also, your church or religious organization can partake in activities normally illegal or heavily regulated, without interference by government - i.e. gambling (bingo), food service (food kitchens) and perhaps a few other things.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

I think it needs to be explained the other way around: You should be rational when applying the scientific method.

The rational application of the scientific method isn't always self-evident.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

mixedmedia

Honestly, I find reason and rationale to be concepts just as hopeful and sketchy and man-made as the concept of god. If you wanna get right down there to it. I'm not sure they really exist.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

loquitur

well, outside of certain fields of mathematics. Algebra and calculus are perfectly rational, for example.

mixedmedia

yes, math is rational
but people are not and I do not know that they are capable of being so

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

Baraka_Guru

ax2+bx+c=0 and and such means little when you are naked and killing and fucking, rolling around in mud.

The human element can really screw things up.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

mixedmedia

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.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

Willravel

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?

loquitur

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.

Willravel

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!

mixedmedia

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

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

Willravel

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.

mixedmedia

...and how do you know that?

Through belief or irrefutable proof?

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

Willravel

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

roachboy

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.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

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

roachboy

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.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

mixedmedia

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.

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?

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

Willravel

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.

mixedmedia

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...

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

loquitur

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?).

Willravel

Yes, humanness is a word.

mixedmedia

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

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

ipollux

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.

mixedmedia

oh yeah, this thread was about license plates

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

loquitur

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