on the atmosphere of this forum

[cnorman18]

Expanded from a comment on another thread:

For some of our newer members, anything less than a total rejection and denial of anything even vaguely "spiritual" or "religious" is evidence of mental defect, aka "irrationality" (as in "you don't know how to think") and worthy of only contempt and derision. In any other context, such an attitude would be called. "intolerant," "doctrinaire," and "disrespectful," but here on the forum of late, civility, tolerance and mutual respect seem to be taking a back seat to scorched-earth tactics and open contempt.

I would readily grant that there are some on the fundamentalist side, again some relative newbies in particular, who are equally guilty of such behavior; but the misdeeds of either side do not justify or make acceptable the incivility of the other, particular when that incivility is applied indiscriminately and not just to the other side's offenders.

I would like to see more moderator intervention, not less. It is one thing to say, "I respectfully disagree." It is quite another to add heavy doses of ridicule, contempt and derision, not to mention personal aspersions on one's ability to reason or one's personal morality and "spiritual vision" or "maturity."

I have been happy here for many months. DC&R has been a place where I could enjoy, as billed, "intelligent, civil, courteous and respectful debate among people of all persuasions." I have found it stimulating, fun, and thought-provoking.

Those days are largely gone. An authentic exchange of ideas is still possible here, but to find it one must wade through and filter out an ocean of spiritual pride, self-righteousness, intellectual arrogance, inflexibly doctrinaire definitions and pronouncements, and, worse than all of these, constant, unrelenting, personally offensive, and sneering contempt for oneself and one's opinions.

I have been posting here virtually every day since November of last year, and I think I have made some significant contributions.
But I no longer feel like I am coming to a friendly, welcoming place where I can quietly talk and compare ideas with friends who like, respect and accept me. I feel like I am going to a fistfight with people who have no regard for me as a human being, who dislike me personally on account of my beliefs, and who neither have nor express any respect whatever for either those views or me. Even some of our older members are beginning to be infected by this uncivil and disrespectful attitude. I think this is a tragedy.

This is becoming an unpleasant place to spend one's time. Some members have already left, including some fine new ones; and I think more will leave if this ugly and acrimonious atmosphere does not change. In fact, I think that is certain.

Early on, I myself threatened to leave this forum on account of what I perceived as unpoliced and unopposed antisemitism. That problem was resolved. This one may be more difficult to handle. It threatens the very reason for the existence of this forum--civil and respectful debate.

Let me make this clear: I DO NOT CARE if you think yourself to be on a righteous crusade to either win the world for Jesus or rid the world of the pernicious plague of religious superstition. Personal respect for the other members of this forum AND FOR THEIR OPINIONS is more important than your "vital mission." How will you argue for your point of view if everyone you would argue it TO leaves in disgust?

As I said on another thread: If you are about disrespecting and demeaning other people, claiming to be spiritually or intellectually superior to them, and sneering at those who do not think or believe as you do--well, as far as I'm concerned, you're full of crap no matter what you believe or how smart you are.

[Cephus]

I am not attack deductive reasoning. I am attacking the notion that conclusions drawn from deductive reasoning are necessarily true or perfectly reflective of reality.

But since no one has ever claimed that it was, you're attacking a strawman.

This misunderstands my point. Inductive reasoning is not 'valid' or 'invalid.' Inductive reasoning is. We all accept it. We all use it. How can we determine which arguments are reasonable and not reasonable?

Whether it exists or not doesn't mean that it's necessarily the best tool to use, which I presume is your entire reason for bringing it up in the first place. If we're going to evaluate the two forms of reasoning, inductive which is used by religion and deductive which is primarily used by science, to see which one demonstrably brings us closer to a factual understanding of the world around us, the answer is clear. Deductive reasoning wins hands down. Inductive reasoning can certainly be useful in some circumstances, but comparatively, it's a red-headed stepchild when you really care if what you're examining is factually true or not.

[theleftone]

I am not attack deductive reasoning. I am attacking the notion that conclusions drawn from deductive reasoning are necessarily true or perfectly reflective of reality.

But since no one has ever claimed that it was, you're attacking a strawman.

This is incorrect. The claim is implied. See below.

This misunderstands my point. Inductive reasoning is not 'valid' or 'invalid.' Inductive reasoning is. We all accept it. We all use it. How can we determine which arguments are reasonable and not reasonable?

Whether it exists or not doesn't mean that it's necessarily the best tool to use, which I presume is your entire reason for bringing it up in the first place. If we're going to evaluate the two forms of reasoning, inductive which is used by religion and deductive which is primarily used by science, to see which one demonstrably brings us closer to a factual understanding of the world around us, the answer is clear. Deductive reasoning wins hands down. Inductive reasoning can certainly be useful in some circumstances, but comparatively, it's a red-headed stepchild when you really care if what you're examining is factually true or not.

This is still missing my point.

To draw a conclusion through deductive reasoning, one must have taken into consideration all possibilities. Without doing this, we can only resort to using inductive reasoning.

Deductive arguments are rooted in assumptions. These assumptions are, when traced back through the reasoning structure, ultimately based on conclusions derived through inductive reasoning.

There is no such thing as a 'purely deductive' argument. There are only deductive arguments within defined contexts.

That said, I have one more comment about the attribute of induction to religion and deduction to science. It is a mistake to consider religion to be without deductive reasoning and science to be without inductive reasoning. Both incorporate inductive and deductive reasoning into their thought processes.

[Cephus]

The claim is implied.

Certainly not by me. Science is about finding the best answers we can given the information we have, it is not about finding absolute, eternal truth. If that's what you're looking for, philosophy is down the hall.

To draw a conclusion through deductive reasoning, one must have taken into consideration all possibilities.

Hardly. It requires that you take all resonable possibilities into consideration. To study gravity, one does not need to wonder if invisible angels are holding our feet to the floor.

I don't think you can really defend your idea that deductive reasoning is based on unwarranted assumptions however. Deductive reasoning starts with an observation, devises an explanation for that observation, then sets out to test the explanation to see if it is true. An explanation can be either true, false, or needing revision, at which point the process starts over again. If we find the explanation reliable in it's explanatory and predictive powers, we consider it generally reliable, pending new information we may find later that may cause us to re-evaluate it. That's the secret of the scientific method and perhaps where you're confusing "all possibilities". Religion seems to look for perfect, eternal explanations to things, something that is going to be true today and true forever. Unfortunately, that's completely unrealistic. We do not have all knowledge, nor will we ever have all knowledge, therefore anything that we discover can only be evaluated in light of what we actually know. That's an uncomfortable notion for most theists, but it is undeniable reality. Unfortunately, most theists simply invent an unseen source of "information" to cover their discomfort. Even more unfortunately, as mankind learns more and proves that the theist's "unchanging truth" is just laughably wrong, they have to continue to demand that their ideas are right because their entire theological belief system demands it.

Irrationally held beliefs and reasoning based solely upon them is a ridiculous way of looking at reality.

[Sjoerd]

I don't think you can really defend your idea that deductive reasoning is based on unwarranted assumptions however. Deductive reasoning starts with an observation, devises an explanation for that observation, then sets out to test the explanation to see if it is true. An explanation can be either true, false, or needing revision, at which point the process starts over again.

Deductive reasoning is not the same as the empiric cycle. The creative process of finding an explanation is an act of induction, or so I was taught. Generalizing your explanation into an hypothesis is most definitely an act of induction: you induce that the explanation that worked for the last apple that fell will also work for the next apple that you drop.

[theleftone]

The claim is implied.

Certainly not by me. Science is about finding the best answers we can given the information we have, it is not about finding absolute, eternal truth. If that's what you're looking for, philosophy is down the hall.

It certainly seems implied by accepting deductive reasoning as being based on only 'warranted assumptions.' And it's not 'eternal truth' which is the object of my search. It is reality.

To draw a conclusion through deductive reasoning, one must have taken into consideration all possibilities.

Hardly. It requires that you take all resonable possibilities into consideration. To study gravity, one does not need to wonder if invisible angels are holding our feet to the floor.

I don't think you can really defend your idea that deductive reasoning is based on unwarranted assumptions however. Deductive reasoning starts with an observation, devises an explanation for that observation, then sets out to test the explanation to see if it is true. An explanation can be either true, false, or needing revision, at which point the process starts over again. If we find the explanation reliable in it's explanatory and predictive powers, we consider it generally reliable, pending new information we may find later that may cause us to re-evaluate it. That's the secret of the scientific method and perhaps where you're confusing "all possibilities".

This is confusing the hypothetical deductive method and deductive reasoning.

Religion seems to look for perfect, eternal explanations to things, something that is going to be true today and true forever. Unfortunately, that's completely unrealistic. We do not have all knowledge, nor will we ever have all knowledge, therefore anything that we discover can only be evaluated in light of what we actually know. That's an uncomfortable notion for most theists, but it is undeniable reality. Unfortunately, most theists simply invent an unseen source of "information" to cover their discomfort. Even more unfortunately, as mankind learns more and proves that the theist's "unchanging truth" is just laughably wrong, they have to continue to demand that their ideas are right because their entire theological belief system demands it.

This seems an odd objection. It's odd because this is precisely the objection I am raising. Our knowledge is incomplete. Without complete knowledge, we can never fully know the conclusions. We can know things within limited contexts (e.g., There are no married bachelors.). We can know things are more or less consistent with our own ideas and/or experiences. But, without complete knowledge, we cannot fully know reality. We can only offer our best (reasoned) guesses.

Irrationally held beliefs and reasoning based solely upon them is a ridiculous way of looking at reality.

And this brings us full circle. What are these irrational beliefs? How do we know they are irrational? Are these belief irrational, or are they only irrational within a given context?

[Cephus]

Deductive reasoning is not the same as the empiric cycle. The creative process of finding an explanation is an act of induction, or so I was taught. Generalizing your explanation into an hypothesis is most definitely an act of induction: you induce that the explanation that worked for the last apple that fell will also work for the next apple that you drop.

That's why I said that one of the best uses for inductive reasoning is as a front-end for the deductive process. It comes up with ideas, then you switch modes to actually test those ideas. The point is that inductive reasoning simply doesn't have the capacity to actually test the ideas it comes up with, it never puts them up against demonstrable reality and sees if they really work, it simply proposes concepts and then leaves it at that.

We're really going pretty far afield and way off topic on this.

[Cephus]

This seems an odd objection. It's odd because this is precisely the objection I am raising. Our knowledge is incomplete. Without complete knowledge, we can never fully know the conclusions. We can know things within limited contexts (e.g., There are no married bachelors.). We can know things are more or less consistent with our own ideas and/or experiences. But, without complete knowledge, we cannot fully know reality. We can only offer our best (reasoned) guesses.

As I've previously noted, we're way off topic with all of this and therefore this will be my last response to this in this particular thread. If you want to continue the discussion, I'd be happy to do so in a more appropriate thread.

All conclusions we make are tenative, they are based on what we know at the time that we make the conclusion. Future evidence may change how we look at things and this is a strength of science, not a weakness as some theists claim. That said though, we do need to make conclusions based upon what we currently know or we'll never accomplish anything, we simply understand that we may need to revise our thinking at some point in the future.

However, we simply do not make conclusions based on how things *MIGHT* be, only upon how things actually *ARE* according to our current level of understanding. We don't make guesses based on how we wish things were, we follow where the actual evidence leads, not where potential future evidence might lead. We could be completely wrong, it certainly won't be the first time and it won't be the last, but as the weight of evidence grows, the likelihood of our conclusions being so utterly faulty as to be useless is minimized. Science doesn't work in "forever" explanations, but unfortunately for a lot of people, especially for a lot of theists, they want eternal explanations that will never change and reality doesn't work that way.

And this brings us full circle. What are these irrational beliefs? How do we know they are irrational? Are these belief irrational, or are they only irrational within a given context?

They are irrational if they are not defensible through well-reasoned argument and evidence. If we go back to, say, the existence of God, there is no evidence whatsoever for the factual existence of God. None. Nada. Zero. Zilch. It simply doesn't exist, or at the very least, it has never been presented. I can't speak to what may or may not be found in the future. There are also no well-reasoned logical arguments to support the factual existence of God, again, at least not that I have seen. There are a lot of claims, certainly, but these claims are not supported and at their heart, are logically fallacious. That's why they're irrational, they simply don't work on reason, they operate on faith and faith is a poor substitute.