Creationism - an example

[Sidhe]

Nope! I'm more of a Scotty.

You mean you have a tendancy to overplay the seriosness of situations and the timeframe in which resolutions will occur to make yourself appear superhuman, and a penchent for scotch?

Logic on it's own is fine, but for conveying points or discussion, emotion is a vital ingredient, otherwise why have emoticons?

 

[betazed]

So, for quantity, go with logic, and for quality emotion?

That's prolly the best one can do if one is looking for an argument for emotions.

 

[betazed]

Logic on it's own is fine, but for conveying points or discussion, emotion is a vital ingredient, otherwise why have emoticons?

I primarily use emoticons because I do not assume that the other person is not as unemotional as I am and I myself is not as unmemotional as I want to be.

Once again, why do you think emotions are necessary for a discussion? WHich discussion in this forum has been more elevated in its content by emotions (barring the babe thread which is unadulterated emotions!)

 

[The Last Conformist]

Without emotions, there'd be no discussions. Rationality, at the end of the day, is just a means of achieving emotional ends.

 

[betazed]

Without emotions, there'd be no discussions.

What if you and I started a discussion on mechanics. Why would be need emotions for that?

Rationality, at the end of the day, is just a means of achieving emotional ends.

The end would be that both you and I come out with a better understanding of mechanics. How is that end emotional?

 

[The Last Conformist]

What if you and I started a discussion on mechanics. Why would be need emotions for that?

If we started a such discussion, the reason would be we had a desire to learn about, educte about, or similar about mechanics. A desire is an emotion.

 

[betazed]

If we started a such discussion, the reason would be we had a desire to learn about, educte about, or similar about mechanics. A desire is an emotion.

Its not a desire. Its a goal.

You don't need emotions to have goals. For example, computers have goals.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Its not a desire. Its a goal.

You don't need emotions to have goals. For example, computers have goals.

No they don't. A goal is something you want to reach - computers don't want anything.

 

[Homie]

OK, so I decided to give that philosopher Daniel Bennett a chance. I listened to the whole thing, and it was the most pointless dribble I have ever heard. I should be professional about it, and debate his points, but what points? He didn't really have any points, he just rambled on.

And on top of this VERY UNconvincing speech, his heavy breathing was incredibly annoying.

 

[Perfection]

No they don't. A goal is something you want to reach - computers don't want anything.

Exactly and wanting is an emotionally driven process. Certainly rationality is great when I want to analyze the world and how it functions, but too really live life you need emotions!

I don't want to be some boring being bent only on behaving in some rational manner. Emotional irrationality is a vital and extremely vital part of life.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Well, Birdjaguar, I don't think that I and other athiests here limit ourselves to reason. While I believe it is virtuous to base our model of reality on science and empiricism, some of the most important aspects of life rest firmly in the irrational side. My sense of humor, my relationships, my morality, the emotions that drive me to do the things that I do, all are based in the irrational. There's no particular philosophical reason that I should find something worthwhile, I just do, and that's that.

I'm not Spock!

"Me thinks she doth protest too much." You cannot limit yourselves to reason alone that is my point. Reason is only a tool we have evolved to use. It is a tool that is limited. The repeated echo in OT is "Prove it!" "Show me the evidence!" "You don't understand the basics of science!" Reason is a source of understanding about the natural world. It is not the only one. Our rationality is just one of many filters that we place between us and the world. Elephants and Ants use a different set and they perceive reality very differently. Who is correct? Cubism and impressionism are two schools of art that asked about seeing the world differently.

You cut yourself some slack above when you said the bolded words. None of the important stuff is based in reason. Some of it may even have genetic a basis. The same irrationality that drives you to act in specific ways, also drives the theists to act in specific ways.

Religon is a powerful gumbo that combines big important philosophical questions, irrational experiences, charismatic leaders, social and community connections and membership, and the very basic need to feel wanted into answers easily digested by most humans.

Anyway I'm starting to ramble and will cut this off now before it gets embarassing.

 

[Perfection]

Reason is a source of understanding about the natural world. It is not the only one.

what are the others?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Hehe, BJ. Easy to say, not so easy to justify.

Deficiencies? Like what?

Can you come up with a scenario where imbuing Spock with emotions will make him better at performing his duties (in both Star Trek and if he were magically transported to 21st Century Earth).

I posed this as a challenge before in this forum and it went unanswered. I will pose it again. Come up with a hypothetical scenario where emotion is better than reason? At best it is probably as effective. At worst it is a huge detriment.

On the whole we would be all better off if we were Spock.
Pefection is not Spock. neither am I. But I sure wish both of us were.

No we do not. But it would be enough. Most satisfyingly, it would be consistent.

If you are limiting the scenario to Spock in his role on Star Trek (which is really nothing more than an amiable living computer), then adding emotions will not help him. But as a citizen of the 21st C, then the obvious answer is: raising a family. Especially teenagers. Others would be:

1. Being a charasmatic leader
2. Empathizing with the distraught
3. Writing poetry
4. Painting a picture that is more than mere representation
5. Explaining anything that not logical
6. Teaching elementary school

If everyone was coldly logical as you seem to want, The world would certainly be a dreary place. At least now we can laugh at our silly destructive ways.

 

[Birdjaguar]

what are the others?

Experience.

Spoiler K. Gibran :

AND the priestess spoke again and said: Speak to us of Reason and Passion.
And he answered, saying: Your soul is oftentimes a battlefield, upon which your reason and your judgment wage war against your passion and your appetite.
Would that I could be the peacemaker in your soul, that I might turn the discord and the rivalry of your elements into one ness and melody.
But how shall I, unless you yourselves be also the peacemakers, nay, the lovers of all your elements?

Your reason and your passion are the rudder and the sails of your seafaring soul.
If either your sails or your rudder be broken, you can but toss and drift, or else be held at a standstill in mid-seas.
For reason, ruling alone, is a force confining; and passion, unattended, is a flame that burns to its own destruction.
Therefore let your soul exalt your reason to the height of passion, that it may sing;

And let it direct your passion with reason, that your passion may live through its own daily resurrection, and like the phoenix rise above its own ashes.

I would have you consider your judgment and your appetite even as you would two loved guests in your house.
Surely you would not honour one guest above the other; for he who is more mindful of one loses the love and the faith of both.

Among the hills, when you sit in the cool shade of the white poplars, sharing the peace and serenity of distant fields and meadows---then let your heart say in silence, "God rests in reason."
And when the storm comes, and the mighty wind shakes the forest, and thunder and lightning proclaim the majesty of the sky--then let your heart say in awe, "God moves in passion."
And since you are a breath in God's sphere, and a leaf in God's forest, you too should rest in reason and move in passion.

 

[Birdjaguar]

OTOH, I can easily come up with quantifiable arguments/situations where reason would be better than emotions.

From the vaults:

Spoiler :

Betazed's cows, quark and gluon,
Provide cud for us all to chew on.

It sprang to life fully formed and without discussion; for me it is "Betazed".

 

[Birdjaguar]

Once again, why do you think emotions are necessary for a discussion? WHich discussion in this forum has been more elevated in its content by emotions (barring the babe thread which is unadulterated emotions!)

Chukchi's birthday thread.

 

[Perfection]

Experience.

Experience is the heart of empiricism and science.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Experience is the heart of empiricism and science.

Yes experience is at the very foundation of life. When paired with reason it leads to science. When unencumbered by reason, it leads to love and mysticism and despair.

 

[Perfection]

Yes experience is at the very foundation of life. When paired with reason it leads to science. When unencumbered by reason, it leads to love and mysticism and despair.

How are love mysicism and despair ways of understanding the universe?

 

[YNCS]

The religious answer to creationists was given by St. Augustine some 1600 years ago. He wrote a book called De Genisi Ad Litteram (On the Literal Meaning of Genesis):

Often, a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant person is laughed at, but rather that people outside the faith believe that we hold such opinions, and thus our teachings are rejected as ignorant and unlearned. If they find a Christian mistaken in a subject that they know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions as based on our teachings, how are they going to believe these teachings in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think these teachings are filled with fallacies about facts which they have learnt from experience and reason.

Reckless and presumptuous expounders of Scripture bring about much harm when they are caught in their mischievous false opinions by those not bound by our sacred texts. And even more so when they then try to defend their rash and obviously untrue statements by quoting a shower of words from Scripture and even recite from memory passages which they think will support their case "without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance". (1 Timothy 1:7)

(John A. Hobson's translation)