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. Zarn

    Zarn Le Républicain Catholique

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2002
    Messages:
    11,589
    Location:
    New Jersey/ Delaware Valley
    Take the I, Robot movie for example.

    Is it more reasonable to save a child who had less chance of survival or an adult who had a greater chance of survival?

    Remember: Logic wants you to save the adult. According to logic, only an idiot would save a child.
     
  2. newfangle

    newfangle hates you.

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,046
    Location:
    Waterloo, ON
    @Nylan

    Let me try to pin down your fundamental thesis as best I can. My argument is as follows:
    Premise: There is no evidence for divine creation of any sort.
    Conclusion: I don't believe in a divine creator.

    You label this as an "incomplete" conclusion? Does this mean that a conclusion is complete if and only if the concluder is omniscient? If that's the case, you may call what I call a "conclusion" anything you'd like. My point still stands.
     
  3. newfangle

    newfangle hates you.

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,046
    Location:
    Waterloo, ON
    Isn't this an entirely different choice than the creator issue? I'm not sure I follow your point.
     
  4. scy12

    scy12 Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Messages:
    5,181
    The question is which is is the most perfect system of the two. One can't make intelligent estimations with the most imperfect system , can he ? One who uses a better system would make better estimations.
     
  5. Zarn

    Zarn Le Républicain Catholique

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2002
    Messages:
    11,589
    Location:
    New Jersey/ Delaware Valley
    Scy, if we cannot collect evidence, then that system obviously does not even remotely work.
     
  6. scy12

    scy12 Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Messages:
    5,181
    Why does logic wants me to save the adult ? Why is it logical to chose only one who has a greater chance of survival but not whom you like more ?

    Like i said you can't blame logic. You have lost before you start if you do.

    You can only question what is correct to perceive as logical .
     
  7. scy12

    scy12 Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Messages:
    5,181
    What is the subject we have failed to collect evidence on ? (semirhetorical questions)
     
  8. Defiant47

    Defiant47 Peace Sentinel

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,602
    Location:
    Canada
    Not trolling, debating. So far, both sides have been reasonably polite, so it's all good IMO.

    There's a difference. Those people tried something that didn't make sense to be proved right or wrong, and make discoveries. You can't do the same thing with the divine: either you're right or you're wrong, and there's no way to test it (other than probably dying).

    My argument is that logic works because it has been proven to be the most consistent in ascertaining truth than logic has.

    Things that are unknown are to be ascertained with Scientific Method, not by randomly deciding something and sticking with it.

    It is a flawed example (no offense). The answer to that question would depend entirely on the definition of love. If we have a clear definition, then we can easily answer it.

    When that data is incomplete, it is illogical to arrive at a conclusion. I tell you that in my room I may or may not have a hat. Would it make any sense for you to decide to firmly believe that I do indeed have a hat in my room (or do not)? In this situation, it would be more logical to accept a lack of information and an inability to form a conclusion.

    Logic can be used in everything. :)
     
  9. Eran of Arcadia

    Eran of Arcadia Stormin' Mormon Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2004
    Messages:
    23,090
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Sunshine and Lettuce Capital of the World
    We don't need to act as though this is all theoretical. Many politicians have been religious, we can figure out what they believed easily enough and try to find what correlation if any exists between that and their quality.

    I beg - beg to differ . . .
     
  10. Zarn

    Zarn Le Républicain Catholique

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2002
    Messages:
    11,589
    Location:
    New Jersey/ Delaware Valley
    Logic would want the outcome with the highest probability of a positive. The adult has a higher probability of survival, so logic dictates that he be the one to save.

    If logic can be perceived differently, it is not absolute.

    Apparently the divine or any supernatural power. No one has any idea of its existence, because we cannot measure it.
     
  11. Defiant47

    Defiant47 Peace Sentinel

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,602
    Location:
    Canada
    So if it "feels" better to believe in the Christian God, it's more likely to exist?

    (and the logical result of the robot's decision should take age into account: an old person with 10 years left to live with a 90% chance of living = 9 years should not be saved over a young person with 50 years left to live with a 50% chance of living = 25 years)

    So a system that gets results, regardless of whether or not it makes sense, it to be valued over a system that is correct, but isn't providing any results? Correction: is showing no results to be had
     
  12. Ecofarm

    Ecofarm Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2007
    Messages:
    15,370
    Location:
    Univ. Florida
    All systems get results. He said evidence.
     
  13. Defiant47

    Defiant47 Peace Sentinel

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,602
    Location:
    Canada
    I'm sure everyone knows what I mean...
     
  14. scy12

    scy12 Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Messages:
    5,181
    An interpretation of Logic is that it does not want anything , it is a tool . Estimating something in regard of what is the truth and choice is certainly different that saying that logic wants me to chose the one with the higher chance of surviving.

    I want to chose the one i care for because i don't care for the other one. It can be logically explained why i do that , and since this action does have a positive outcome for me , and is not entirely stupid i don't see how it is not logical.

    The logic of choice has much to do with what someone deems most important for what reasons.

    Environments differ and so do genetics. So the logic of choice is not absolute. "Why one ,prefers does something"

    The logic of estimation is. So we can logically estimate why one does something and another one does not , with as accuracy as our data allow us.

    Certainly more than Faith ever would.


    Correct. And no one has any idea what it is actually. Of things we have some definition about and mosr fundumental questions of our existances we have found many,many answers from science and Logic. Faith ? Fath has provided the same answers now as it did 2000 years ago , none.
     
  15. Zarn

    Zarn Le Républicain Catholique

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2002
    Messages:
    11,589
    Location:
    New Jersey/ Delaware Valley
    Anything non-absolute is not infallible. The system of logic is not flawless.

    If you guys keep using logic alone, you'll never be able to understand. Your inability to grasp what I am in saying shows your reluctance to accept the idea that you have to think it ways outside your comfort zone.

    You cannot use a hammer cut a piece of wood in half. That is exactly what both of you are trying to do.

    You can be reasonable and be religious, an atheist, or agnostic.

    Faith is an instrument only used, where logic falters. Faith is more than just belief in the divine. Usually faith has nothing to do with it.
     
  16. GenMarshall

    GenMarshall Ghost Agent

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    42,735
    Location:
    Versailles City, Vekta, United Terran Systems
    Unfortunately, Atheists, especialy the Militant brand, dont see it that way.
     
  17. Defiant47

    Defiant47 Peace Sentinel

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,602
    Location:
    Canada
    Maybe not, but it's better than faith. Imagine you have a device that ascertains what is in a box. Screen A says that it is a red ball. Screen B says that it is a blue ball. Screen A has been 90% correct in thousands of tests. Screen be has been 10% correct in thousands of tests. Which would you rather believe?

    That is because in order to understand, I'd have to use a system that I know is inferior and less likely to be true.

    Logic is a universal tool and you have no proof that it doesn't work equally well for the "metaphysical".

    Agreed, but in matters of religion specifically, you cannot be reasonable due to the whole point of faith: you abandon logic and reason and embrace it as faith. Ask any priest.

    As I said before:

    "So a system that gets results, regardless of whether or not it makes sense, it to be valued over a system that is correct, but isn't providing any results? Correction: is showing no results to be had"
     
  18. Zarn

    Zarn Le Républicain Catholique

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2002
    Messages:
    11,589
    Location:
    New Jersey/ Delaware Valley
    CG: The least reasonable people of all are the hard atheists. Them and the 'I'm definitely right, so everyone else is evil and going to Hell' religious types.

    Soft atheists are usually cool enough, though. ;)

    Defiant: Do you have any proof that it can work with the metaphysical? By its own definition, it cannot possibly measure it.
     
  19. Defiant47

    Defiant47 Peace Sentinel

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,602
    Location:
    Canada
    Again, reasonable in what regard? Religious people can be the most reasonable and smartest people there are. It's just that in the subject of religion/philosophy alone, they're not so reasonable.

    No.
     
  20. scy12

    scy12 Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Messages:
    5,181
    The system of logic is not flawless.



    Compared with other systems of truth-gathering it is.

    Logic is not absolute where it would not be logical to be absolute as one perceives being absolute. Choice of what a person believes to be more important to him.

    If it was absolute it would be deeply flawed because human nature is not absolute it is different. So you are having the right tool but you still want to use it wrongly.

    Logic is absolute when it attempts to understand what a human perceives as logical and why he does that. But there are times that Logic may make due to the available data predictions which are mutually exclusive with different possibility for each of the two happening.

    So we are back to square one. Logic attempts to examine what is more likely at being truth. No other method does that so we have to live with all it's flaws.


    Exactly you can't use faith to reach any logical conclusion with any optimism that it would be correct.

    Give me an example where Faith should be used. There is a chance we may agree if you do. I say only where there are two logical estimations for an experiment with equal chance of them being correct you should choose randomly or by fate one of them. But you would do so naturally if you only followed logic because at that point the only logical think is to attempt to experiment with those so you can continue.

    So Faith is not a factor anyway

    I also agree with this.
     

Share This Page