1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Faith as a Measure of Intellect

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by CheScott, Aug 2, 2008.

?

Which faiths, if any, do you believe have no rational legs to stand on?

  1. None, faith and intelligence are unrelated.

    59 vote(s)
    53.2%
  2. Some faiths are, in my view, totally stupid. (Choose as many as you like)

    48 vote(s)
    43.2%
  3. Judiasm

    30 vote(s)
    27.0%
  4. Islam

    36 vote(s)
    32.4%
  5. Scientology

    60 vote(s)
    54.1%
  6. Mormonism

    41 vote(s)
    36.9%
  7. Christianity

    29 vote(s)
    26.1%
  8. Catholocism

    33 vote(s)
    29.7%
  9. Any religion other than my own is logical fallacy.

    7 vote(s)
    6.3%
  10. Any sect other than my own is logical fallacy.

    8 vote(s)
    7.2%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. scy12

    scy12 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Messages:
    5,181
    I don't disagree that one may think that there are more than one truth gathering devices and say that he believes logic to be nothing. If he is able of discussion , in an active discussion about this it will be almost impossible not to contradict himself.

    Well i ask what logical process he did use and require that he attempts to explain it. When one attempts to explain something he attempts to use at least partially logical phrases to make sense. Some of it is not logical but i believe that a part of it is.

    For example. Let's say he says Fate. I ask why ? And if his answer is not Faith again that Faith is the best method , or randomness then he must use atleast some kind of logic.

    The problem at being against all logical thought is that you can't have any kind of discussion. If you keep on discussing and not repeating constantly . It was random. It was faith , at one point you will attempt to explain something using logic because you believe logic is the best way to explain it.

    For example Chritians say that Jesus did good things. How did he do good things ? They may say because the bible say it is a good thing but almost everyone will claim that Healing the injured is a good thing , for example. Why , because they are people suffering , and can't contribute in society or to their families. Suffering also causes sad emotions to them and to their family. Humans can be empathetic so we like it when injured are healed. Society and families are important for us for reasons that can again be logically explained.That is a logical conclusion which you would not reach by faith because it is far easier to understand it by using logic.

    If that fails i can ask him about what is his opinion on Hitler. If he denys to answer i will ask him why. If he says that is irrelevant to the discussion and the rules of this site claim that only relevant discussions should take place. I assume he also means that we must obey the rules because if we don't there would be punishments and that discussing new subjects while you are already discussing one , is annoying because you end a discussion with another person without his agreement that he wants to change subject , or that his points where answered.

    It is almost impossible to not use logic to reach a verifiable conclusion even if you use also other methods.
     
  2. Zarn

    Zarn Le Républicain Catholique

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2002
    Messages:
    11,589
    Location:
    New Jersey/ Delaware Valley
    I hate to put it this way, but you guys aren't very good at thinking outside the box, are you?

    You cannot assume logic is everything. Logic relies on the senses. It detects physical things and sees physical results. The Scientific method is logic. It is a great method for the physical, but how could yo use it for the non-physical? Also, we do not have a metaphysical equivalent of logic that can be used, so we cannot determine anything.

    Reason could state certain arguments both ways. It is reasonable for some supernatural force to create the human species (since the idea is certainly possible), but it is also reasonable to not believe it. Why? There is no way to determine it. Reason works the best, but it does not solve anything.

    As for believing something specific, if the divine power was real, would it try and present itself in some way to the most intelligent beings it created? If it does, then it probably already has. If it doesn't, then you have Deism as a possibility.
     
  3. scy12

    scy12 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Messages:
    5,181
    Is this a logical conclusion ?
     
  4. Huayna Capac357

    Huayna Capac357 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Messages:
    8,194
    Location:
    Boston, Massachusetts
    Only cults are truly irrational. And sects like Catholicism. Protestantism is completely rational. We are based on reason.
     
  5. Defiant47

    Defiant47 Peace Sentinel

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,602
    Location:
    Canada
    By the sheer fact that it has been proven to work with the physical. Faith or any other device has been proven NOT to work with the physical. Yet you claim we should use faith rather than logic for the non-physical, simply because the non-physical is different from the physical, and despite the fact that logic has been proven to work with what we have so far.

    I agree with the bolded part. The issue is ascertaining the specific truth.

    A divine presentation would be indistinguishable from a coincidence or non-divine interference. For example, lightning striking the tree right beside you, leaving you luckily unharmed, might be a divine gift, or it might just be coincidence. Another example, for a prehistoric you, a human coming in with with a never-before-seen bow and arrow, saving you from the wild boar chasing you, might be god, or it might just be a culture that is so technologically advanced as to seem like divinity.
     
  6. scy12

    scy12 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Messages:
    5,181
    So you disagree with
    What exactly is the non-physical and how did you arrive to the conclusion it exists ?

    What is metaphysical ? Logic estimates everything which can be estimated about everything. Where logic can not be used to reach a correct conclusion , it can be used to say to us that conclusions based on faith can't be considered correct if they don't use logic.

    What is supernational ? Everything is possible to have happened but since we are unable to determine it or increase the chances of our estimation of if it happened by using logic , the only thing we can do , is deny that the conclusions made by Faith are correct estimations.

    Why hasn't it revealed it self to intelligent species who can create verifiable evidence of this divine power ? And how do we know they are not imagining it or misinterpreting an unknown natural phenomenon because if we play the game of possibilities , it may be it. If there was a valid explanation of what is divine power then that would be a big evidence on it's favor of that phenomenon correctly being named divine power. But not that it was created from a God.
     
  7. Nylan

    Nylan Characters Welcome

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,906
    Location:
    Clow Country
    Wow, lots of trolling in this thread. Why hasn't it been closed?

    Faith is (in one definition) an attempt to find conclusions and explanations that current knowledge cannot yet present. How many times was something created because an inventor just knew he was right, no matter how illogical or crazy his actions seemed? Assuming the premise of this thread is true, people like Edison did great things through stupidity. Simply because modern science cannot explain something does not mean it is impossible, and it most certainly does not mean people who believe said thing has happened are idiots.

    I've also noticed a lot of arguments concerning faith being a bad way to go about doing things are founded in circular thinking. Logic works and faith doesn't because faith is not founded in logic, etc. Ironic, no? ;)

    I think one of the things Zarn was getting at earlier is that just as there are some things chemistry can explain that physics cannot, there are some things that are scientific truths and others that are personal truths. I'd be more than happy to hear a yes to this question (and please forgive me this flawed example), but can you scientifically prove that one person loves another? While some cases might be easier than others, there's a lot of grey area and variables that aren't exactly easy to obtain. What if, based on the information you have, you decide that they don't love each other. What if your decision was wrong and they do indeed love each other? Your decision was incorrect because you did not have all the data.

    Sometimes, we just don't feel that man has accounted for all the variables yet. Sometimes, people feel the data is incomplete.

    As a side note, I will be highly amused if I see a purveyor of "logic FTW" use guesswork or fallacies to "debunk" this post.
     
  8. newfangle

    newfangle hates you.

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,046
    Location:
    Waterloo, ON
    Reason is the process by which human make logical deductions based on observed phenomena. It is not reasonable to conclude that the human species was divinely synthesized because there is no evidence for it.

    Taking the negative stance is the only reasonable thing to do in any circumstance where no evidence is given for the positive.
     
  9. Nylan

    Nylan Characters Welcome

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,906
    Location:
    Clow Country
    It is not reasonable to always assume that one has all the data necessary to make a conclusion. There is always some faith involved, even if it's just that you have faith that there is no more data on the subject and all the variables have been accounted for.
     
  10. newfangle

    newfangle hates you.

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,046
    Location:
    Waterloo, ON
    Premise: I don't understand everything.
    Conclusion: It must be the work of a supernatural agent.

    No. It doesn't work. Next.
     
  11. Nylan

    Nylan Characters Welcome

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,906
    Location:
    Clow Country
    Ooh, a purveyor of logic using a logical fallacy. That didn't take long. Next.
     
  12. scy12

    scy12 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Messages:
    5,181
    Logic may mean to you that making several estimations and attempts of what may work or may not but you can't prove that it does. i.e Experimenting , may lead you into an invention. But you must have some data that lead you into a conclusion that there is a chance that attempting this is correct OR attempting those things if it may be your only option , at that point after attempting all experiments with higher percentage of being correct estimations.


    I still call it logic or scientific method.

    But using something with no percentage of working when you already have something that gives you a conclusion on what you seek is not considered logical or following the road of logic,



    And Faith that logic is simplistic and illogical and does not incorporate in it such things as explained is not logical however.

    Logic is by definition the best way. That is an answer and denying it is like asking to change the definition of logic.

    You are asking , Why is the best way , the best way ? And the answer in this case has to be what should we understand as logical and what as not logical. This i agree can change. But you can't change the word logic definition.

    Why do you assume we can't ? And if we can't how is faith better used as a way to reach that conclusion rather than logic ?
     
  13. newfangle

    newfangle hates you.

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,046
    Location:
    Waterloo, ON
    Fallacy. Again.

    One can always make a conclusion based on available evidence. If additional evidence comes along to suggest a different conclusion, so be it. This is the scientific method. I hate to use a cliche, but according to your reasoning, it is unreasonable to assume the flying spaghetti monster does not exist because we don't have all the data related to his existence.
     
  14. Ecofarm

    Ecofarm Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2007
    Messages:
    15,370
    Location:
    Univ. Florida
  15. scy12

    scy12 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Messages:
    5,181
    Is this a logical conclusion ?
     
  16. lovett

    lovett Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,570
    Well, love is associated with a cocktails containing several certain chemicals. Vasopressing and oxytocin (I believe) are two of the more promenient ones. The production of which (alongside serotonin) increase when in the presence of the object of ones affection. So yeah, I suppose you could prove two people were in love. With a reasonable degree of accuracy.
     
  17. Bill3000

    Bill3000 OOOH NOOOOOOO! Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    18,464
    Location:
    Quinquagesimusermia
    Could the kiddie atheists shut up and leave the atheist talking to the grownups like El Mach and Plotinus, please?

    Moderator Action: If you don't want to read what the kids have to say, I suggest you try and find a forum not connected to a computer game. Warned.
    Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
     
  18. Nylan

    Nylan Characters Welcome

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,906
    Location:
    Clow Country
    An incomplete conclusion, yes.

    Which means that first conclusion was wrong.

    Wrong. I never said it was unreasonable. The world is not made of absolutes. It can be reasonable, but still not be right. If anything, this is better explanation that reason is an imperfect system. I don't claim that there is a more perfect system man can use, and I personally believe the only more reliable way to get information is to be given it by a certain being greater than ourselves, which even then requires trust. I'm not saying reason is useless at all. I'm simply saying reason can be wrong on certain things, has been wrong, and will be wrong in the future as well. There's no stupidity in thinking that reason may be wrong on an issue.

    I'm not claiming faith is conclusive proof. Hence, you were indeed wrong in your assessment of my post.
     
  19. scy12

    scy12 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Messages:
    5,181
    But the point is not if reason can be wrong but whether Faith is a worse method than reason for one to use.
     
  20. Nylan

    Nylan Characters Welcome

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,906
    Location:
    Clow Country
    Even if this is true, it is not 100% accurate. Reason is an imperfect system. People with faith may be in the minority of a statistic, but that doesn't make them idiots. Choosing the minority does not make one an idiot. Thinking the data is not complete is not idiocy. It may have no logical foundation at the time of the conclusion, but that doesn't make it wrong.
     

Share This Page