| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/27/2007 08:53:32 AM · #701 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It is a rational argument to say "If A is true then B. If B is true, then C." We can argue about whether A is true or not, but it doesn't make the argument irrational. I think Lewis presents a compelling case for believing in "something else". Perhaps you disagree, but I would hope at the very least you can see that an intelligent man can hold these beliefs rationally. |
My problem is that whereas he may use a syllogistic form to make the ultimate conclusion that God, and morality in particular, exist (and I'm not sure he does), his propositions are based on false logic. He is positively bound to do that, because his propostions are insubstantiated. They have to be, by necessity.
Also I never disputed that either C.S. Lewis or anyone else was not intelligent and rational. Merely committing a logical fallacy doesn't negate their intelligence, just their judgement. ;-)
Edit. sp.
Message edited by author 2007-11-27 08:54:08. |
|
|
|
11/27/2007 09:32:21 AM · #702 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...I would hope at the very least you can see that an intelligent man can hold these beliefs rationally. |
We covered this ground much earlier in the thread. The intelligence and rationality of believers were never in question. The most brilliant minds in the world once considered lightning to be supernatural. Such a conclusion did not make them stupid or irrational, but neither does it make their claim itself (essentially magic) rational or evidence of truth.
I read most of Lewis' Book I, but it became tough to wade through after one critical mistake. His reasoning relies on the observation that only humans exhibit a sense of fairness- a moral code of right and wrong- that goes beyond mere instinct. The problem is, it's not true, and any conclusions based on that false foundation are thus unsupported no matter how rational they might sound. That doesn't mean Lewis wasn't an intelligent or rational person, but his rationale in this case was faulty. |
|
|
|
11/27/2007 10:00:32 AM · #703 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...I would hope at the very least you can see that an intelligent man can hold these beliefs rationally. |
We covered this ground much earlier in the thread. The intelligence and rationality of believers were never in question. |
Okeydokey
Originally posted by yanko:
What happens when the poor and uneducated, that is most of religion's backbone...... |
|
|
|
|
11/27/2007 10:38:34 AM · #704 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by scalvert:
We covered this ground much earlier in the thread. The intelligence and rationality of believers were never in question. |
Okeydokey
Originally posted by yanko:
What happens when the poor and uneducated, that is most of religion's backbone...... |
|
Lack of education is not lack of intelligence. If Albert Einstein never went to school, he'd still be a genius.
Message edited by author 2007-11-27 10:54:23. |
|
|
|
11/27/2007 10:53:29 AM · #705 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm pretty sure you are wrong. I believe Jefferson was a deist. That is, he believed in God, but not a personal one as found in Christianity... |
I've seen it mentioned he was a deist, but if you read his letters to his nephew Peter Carr it seems he had many of the reservations with religion back in 1787 that have been brought up again here in the thread. The quote I use was merely to show that faith/theology can't be put on the same ground as philosophy as you did. I'm more of a physicist/engineer, so don't feel competent to talk on matters of philosophy, but I've read around the subject (Wittgenstein, Karl Popper, Bertrand Russell and Friedrich Nietzsche) and they had some interesting views of the matter!
Russell's Celestial Teapot is a really interesting thought experiment that is quite apt here. From wikipedia, it was used "to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions".
Message edited by author 2007-11-27 11:15:36. |
|
|
|
11/27/2007 11:06:39 AM · #706 |
| I say the Flying Spaghetti Monster is as likely as God. |
|
|
|
11/27/2007 11:14:36 AM · #707 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I say the Flying Spaghetti Monster is as likely as God. |
Exactly, its really just an ellaboration of Russels teapot. I like it how the found tried to get it taught in schools in the US that also taught ID.
I for one have been Touched by His Noodly Appendage
Message edited by author 2007-11-27 11:15:09. |
|
|
|
11/27/2007 11:15:20 AM · #708 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by scalvert:
We covered this ground much earlier in the thread. The intelligence and rationality of believers were never in question. |
Okeydokey
Originally posted by yanko:
What happens when the poor and uneducated, that is most of religion's backbone...... |
|
Lack of education is not lack of intelligence. If Albert Einstein never went to school, he'd still be a genius. |
Is this seriously your reply? Seriously? |
|
|
|
11/27/2007 11:16:08 AM · #709 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...I would hope at the very least you can see that an intelligent man can hold these beliefs rationally. |
We covered this ground much earlier in the thread. The intelligence and rationality of believers were never in question. The most brilliant minds in the world once considered lightning to be supernatural. Such a conclusion did not make them stupid or irrational, but neither does it make their claim itself (essentially magic) rational or evidence of truth.
I read most of Lewis' Book I, but it became tough to wade through after one critical mistake. His reasoning relies on the observation that only humans exhibit a sense of fairness- a moral code of right and wrong- that goes beyond mere instinct. The problem is, it's not true, and any conclusions based on that false foundation are thus unsupported no matter how rational they might sound. That doesn't mean Lewis wasn't an intelligent or rational person, but his rationale in this case was faulty. |
I don't believe that the capuchin experiment refutes Lewis's observations. What he says is this:
"Quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are;"
In other words, it's not just the SENSE of fairness by ONE of the parties ( unilateral ), it's the innate AGREEMENT of what "right and wrong" are BETWEEN or AMONG the parties ( bi- or multi-lateral ).
The capuchin monkeys, while exhibiting their displeasure of what they received ( for whatever reasons ) exhibited no such innate agreement with either their handlers, or with each other. If the capuchins HAD the kind of innate sense Lewis speaks of, they would have "complained" to their partner capuchin with an expectation that their partner would "share" their "better" reward in such a way as to make the things equitable, once they realized that the handler wouldn't make it "right".
If you were to substitute two young siblings and a parent in that same type of experiment, I'd wager that the "shortchanged" sibling would complain first to the parent that "it's not fair", and, having no indication that the parent was going to "make it fair", would then have turned to their sibling and complained that he/she should make it equitable by appealing to the siblings sense of "fairness". The capuchins did no such thing, as far as I can tell from what I read.
Message edited by author 2007-11-27 11:17:44. |
|
|
|
11/27/2007 11:25:13 AM · #710 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Lack of education is not lack of intelligence. If Albert Einstein never went to school, he'd still be a genius. |
Is this seriously your reply? Seriously? |
Yes, seriously. Do you seriously think that all humans are idiots if they haven't attended school? |
|
|
|
11/27/2007 11:41:04 AM · #711 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I don't believe that the capuchin experiment refutes Lewis's observations. |
Lewis was talking about having an innate sense of fairness, which capuchins demonstrably do. You're referring to what corrective actions they might take after recognizing an unfair situation. If each capuchin complains (to anybody) about an unfair situation, then they must have an innate sense of right and wrong.
Besides, the researchers chose female capuchins specifically because males likely would have shared the rewards rather than complaining (in capuchin social structure, males commonly share everything because their companions are all either mates or offspring, whereas the females are more competitive). |
|
|
|
11/27/2007 12:18:28 PM · #712 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Lack of education is not lack of intelligence. If Albert Einstein never went to school, he'd still be a genius. |
Is this seriously your reply? Seriously? |
Yes, seriously. Do you seriously think that all humans are idiots if they haven't attended school? |
So you think that labeling the majority of religious people as uneducated yet saying that that their intelligence was never in question really flies here? Seriously? |
|
|
|
11/27/2007 12:28:16 PM · #713 |
Originally posted by Phil:
So you think that labeling the majority of religious people as uneducated yet saying that that their intelligence was never in question really flies here? Seriously? |
Try this (read them all):
"18% of the EU population do not believe in a god; 27% accept the existence of some supernatural 'spiritual life force', while 52% affirm belief in a specific god. The proportion of believers rises to 65% among those who had left school by the age of fifteen".
and:
"A letter published in Nature in 1998 reported a survey suggesting that belief in a personal god or afterlife was at an all-time low among the members of the U.S. National Academy of Science, only 7.0% of whom believed in a personal god as compared to more than 85% of the general U.S. population."
and:
"In the same year Frank Sulloway of MIT and Michael Shermer of California State University conducted a study which found in their polling sample of 'credentialed' U.S. adults (12% had Ph.Ds and 62% were college graduates) 64% believed in God, and there was a correlation indicating that religious conviction diminished with education level."
and:
"Such an inverse correlation between religiosity and intelligence has been found by 39 studies carried out between 1927 and 2002, according to an article in Mensa Magazine.[94] These findings broadly concur with a 1958 statistical meta-analysis from Professor Michael Argyle of Oxford University. He analyzed seven research studies that had investigated correlation between attitude to religion and measured intelligence among school and college students from the U.S. Although a clear negative correlation was found, the analysis did not identify causality but noted that factors such as authoritarian family background and social class may also have played a part."
I for one can only conclude that religious belief diminishes with education level according to recent surveys, and an inverse correlation between religiosity and intelligence has been identified, but which could be explained by social factors such as authoritarian family background and economic social class. So, yes, it "flies". |
|
|
|
11/27/2007 12:51:28 PM · #714 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Phil:
So you think that labeling the majority of religious people as uneducated yet saying that that their intelligence was never in question really flies here? Seriously? |
Try this (read them all):
"18% of the EU population do not believe in a god; 27% accept the existence of some supernatural 'spiritual life force', while 52% affirm belief in a specific god. The proportion of believers rises to 65% among those who had left school by the age of fifteen".
and:
"A letter published in Nature in 1998 reported a survey suggesting that belief in a personal god or afterlife was at an all-time low among the members of the U.S. National Academy of Science, only 7.0% of whom believed in a personal god as compared to more than 85% of the general U.S. population."
and:
"In the same year Frank Sulloway of MIT and Michael Shermer of California State University conducted a study which found in their polling sample of 'credentialed' U.S. adults (12% had Ph.Ds and 62% were college graduates) 64% believed in God, and there was a correlation indicating that religious conviction diminished with education level."
and:
"Such an inverse correlation between religiosity and intelligence has been found by 39 studies carried out between 1927 and 2002, according to an article in Mensa Magazine.[94] These findings broadly concur with a 1958 statistical meta-analysis from Professor Michael Argyle of Oxford University. He analyzed seven research studies that had investigated correlation between attitude to religion and measured intelligence among school and college students from the U.S. Although a clear negative correlation was found, the analysis did not identify causality but noted that factors such as authoritarian family background and social class may also have played a part."
I for one can only conclude that religious belief diminishes with education level according to recent surveys, and an inverse correlation between religiosity and intelligence has been identified, but which could be explained by social factors such as authoritarian family background and economic social class. So, yes, it "flies". |
So by your way of thinking:
The majority of the people in the EU are uneducated, we are supposed to use the members of the US National Academy of Science as an argument to judge whether most educated individuals don't believe in God or something spiritual, an MIT and Cal State poll determines how many believe in God yet don't list how many believe in something else/comparable, and, according to scalvert, intelligence was never a question yet the entire point of your last two paragraphs attempts to say otherwise.
Gotcha.
Revel in your genius. I am in awe.
Message edited by author 2007-11-27 12:51:58. |
|
|
|
11/27/2007 01:06:06 PM · #715 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Revel in your genius. I am in awe. |
A predictable response, but unless you feel your personal position is so untenable as to be completely disrupted by mere statistical data, I don't understand why you are acting in such a hostile way. |
|
|
|
11/27/2007 01:10:26 PM · #716 |
Originally posted by Phil:
So by your way of thinking:
... according to scalvert, intelligence was never a question yet the entire point of your last two paragraphs attempts to say otherwise.
Gotcha.
Revel in your genius. I am in awe. |
Unlike dedicated and committed fundamentalists, scalvert and Louis are each entitled to their own opinion.
Also, you might want to rephrase your praise of Louis' genius, as I think being "in awe" risks running afoul of the Second Commandment, as expressed in Exodus 20:3 and 20:5
3 you shall have no other gods before me.
5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them;
for I the Lord your God am a jealous God,
punishing children for the iniquity of parents,
to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,
|
|
|
|
11/27/2007 01:49:28 PM · #717 |
| LOL! GeneralE - you crack me up! |
|
|
|
11/27/2007 01:57:50 PM · #718 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Phil:
Revel in your genius. I am in awe. |
A predictable response, but unless you feel your personal position is so untenable as to be completely disrupted by mere statistical data, I don't understand why you are acting in such a hostile way. |
What data?
You've copied and pasted something but there is nothing in there. 52% of people in the EU believe in a specific God but if they were in the group that quit school before the age of 15 then the number would be 13% more? Whoopee!!
Your way says that the majority of the religious are uneducated, correct? So how am I supposed to read it any other way than to say that the majority of the people in the EU are uneducated? If 79% of the entire population believe in something spiritual then the majority must be uneducated- by your way of thinking of course. Am I right or wrong? |
|
|
|
11/27/2007 02:00:20 PM · #719 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Phil:
So by your way of thinking:
... according to scalvert, intelligence was never a question yet the entire point of your last two paragraphs attempts to say otherwise.
Gotcha.
Revel in your genius. I am in awe. |
Unlike dedicated and committed fundamentalists, scalvert and Louis are each entitled to their own opinion.
Also, you might want to rephrase your praise of Louis' genius, as I think being "in awe" risks running afoul of the Second Commandment, as expressed in Exodus 20:3 and 20:5
3 you shall have no other gods before me.
5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them;
for I the Lord your God am a jealous God,
punishing children for the iniquity of parents,
to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, |
Thanks General. You are correct.
Now if you'd only put as much effort in SC duties as you did that post........ :D |
|
|
|
11/27/2007 02:07:34 PM · #720 |
Originally posted by Phil:
What data? |
Then if you don't even believe there is any true data, your hostility is even more baffling. |
|
|
|
11/27/2007 02:15:18 PM · #721 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Phil:
What data? |
Then if you don't even believe there is any true data, your hostility is even more baffling. |
Why not tell me if I'm wrong or right by assuming that you are saying that the majority of the EU (79% believe in something, remember?) are uneducated?
Hostile? By reading your copy and paste and letting you know what I got from them I am hostile? Maybe my words aren't coming across as I intend but if you aren't trying to be condescending then you might consider working on your written word as well. |
|
|
|
11/27/2007 02:21:06 PM · #722 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Hostile? By reading your copy and paste and letting you know what I got from them I am hostile? |
Sorry, I usually read snide sarcastic comments like "Whoopee!", "I am in awe", "gotcha", etc., as hostility (or insecurity). |
|
|
|
11/27/2007 02:23:14 PM · #723 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Why not tell me if I'm wrong or right by assuming that you are saying that the majority of the EU (79% believe in something, remember?) are uneducated? |
Certainly not. I reported statistics, you may interpret them however you like. You are even free to mischaracterise everything I've said and put words in my mouth, although that will only ultimately discredit you. |
|
|
|
11/27/2007 02:32:28 PM · #724 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Phil:
Why not tell me if I'm wrong or right by assuming that you are saying that the majority of the EU (79% believe in something, remember?) are uneducated? |
Certainly not. I reported statistics, you may interpret them however you like. You are even free to mischaracterise everything I've said and put words in my mouth, although that will only ultimately discredit you. |
Why do I feel like I'm pulling teeth?
Do you or do you not believe that the majority of people who believe in something are uneducated?
Pretty simple question to answer don't you think? |
|
|
|
11/27/2007 02:45:00 PM · #725 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
We covered this ground much earlier in the thread. The intelligence and rationality of believers were never in question. The most brilliant minds in the world once considered lightning to be supernatural. Such a conclusion did not make them stupid or irrational, but neither does it make their claim itself (essentially magic) rational or evidence of truth. |
This is going back in the thread (man, go to sleep and the thread gets away from you), but I was using Lewis' argument as an example of a rational argument toward the proof of God because of this quote by Louis:
Originally posted by Louis:
I'd like to see you try. :-) I for one haven't heard a rational argument yet. |
To catch back up with the current argument, I'd point out that just because the more educated believe in something doesn't make automatically true. If you polled the educated in 1900, I'm guessing a higher percentage believed ether permeated the entire universe than the uneducated.
Message edited by author 2007-11-27 14:48:48.
|
|
