Is Uncompromising Rude Reality Too Much?

[CJK]

Could the comfort of living in a subjective reality be the pull factor for any faith?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Is ANY belief rational?



Rational= Consistent with or based on reason; logical

Logic= The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.


Humans lack the perception to accurately do any of this.

[ShieldAxe]

Is ANY belief rational?



Rational= Consistent with or based on reason; logical

Logic= The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.


Humans lack the perception to accurately do any of this.

What?!?! This makes no sense at all. Why talk about anything at all? Its all hopeless. We can't know anything. Bizarre!

[CJK]

Humans lack the perception to accurately do any of this.

Then why are you arguing your self-proclaimed fallacious arguments on this forum?

A vicious circle of futility.

Thank you for effectively obscuring this thread with your inane remarks.

[McCulloch]

Is ANY belief rational?

Rational= Consistent with or based on reason; logical

Logic= The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.

Humans lack the perception to accurately do any of this.

While I would agree that human attempts at having a complete understanding of the workings of the universe will always be incomplete, I do not believe that deductive reasoning and logic are beyond human abilities. We should therefore be able to move progressively towards a more rational understanding. But as in measurement, the accuracy will never be exact. We should be able to make the margin of error smaller and smaller.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

You are welcome to call it bizzare or inane, but this would imply that you have an argument to pit against it. Please share, I am open.


Why do I bother presenting my views? Although we can't know anything for certain, that does not mean we are unable to present a reasonable hypothesis.

However, in terms of our origins, attempting a reasonable hypothesis is ESPECIALLY sketchy. This is mostly what I am referring to in the current context. Billions (maybe trillions) of years and an infinite number of possibilities seperate us from the truth. What are the chances we make an accurate guess?

Not to imply that we should stop searching, but I think it is essential that we humble ourselves to the great unknown, lest we delude ourselves with arrogant assertions of certainty.

Thank you for effectively obscuring this thread with your inane remarks.

By offering an answer to your question? You ask why so many people opt for a subjective, more comfortable worldview. Perhaps that is because all contrasting worldviews are equally subjective?

Try as you may, you will never convince some people that after death we are met with simple nonexistance. Hope is the drive that keeps us going, day after day. Eradicate that and you can kiss goodbye any desires you might have had to see humanity progress beyond it's current state.

[ShieldAxe]

You are welcome to call it bizzare or inane, but this would imply that you have an argument to pit against it. Please share, I am open.

Are you only referring to death and the afterlife or everything/ all reality in general? It sounds like you are saying we cannot know anything at all and therefore cannot deduce anything about anything? Your message is unclear. We know the equation of gravitational acceleration and there for can logically determine how fast something will be travelling after being dropped a certain distance. Are you saying we can't know that? It might change?

Not to imply that we should stop searching, but I think it is essential that we humble ourselves to the great unknown, lest we delude ourselves with arrogant assertions of certainty.

So god and afterlife are unknowns. You have faith in them right? Therefore you believe they are true. You believe in a god and an afterlife, so how can you still claim they are unknowns?

As far as it being logical: Faith is defined as belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith Faith is defined as being illogical. The emotional benefit of a belief doesn't make the belief rational. Example: I have a rock that i believe has special healing powers. Having this rock makes me feel good. Is it logical to believe the rock has healing powers?

[MagusYanam]

Are you only referring to death and the afterlife or everything/ all reality in general? It sounds like you are saying we cannot know anything at all and therefore cannot deduce anything about anything?

If I were to venture a guess, I would say that The Persnickety Platypus is referring to the Cartesian Principle of Rational Humility - that the only thing we can truly be certain of is 'I doubt; therefore I am'. Our senses and even our own rational capacities are able, from time to time, to fool us, so we can't put absolute trust in them. In fact, Descartes postulated that perhaps the entire world were being controlled by a malicious daemon that was bent upon fooling his every perception and rational thought, for which there was a remote possibility.

His point was this: we can never have absolute certainty in anything besides our own doubt and our capacity to doubt. However, in order to function as people - yea, as rational agents - we need to assume that reasonably, our senses and reason are not fooling us most of the time. But this, as Descartes pointed out, requires some measure of faith. The Persnickety Platypus would probably also point out (and correct me if I'm wrong in this assertion) that the idea of the afterlife is beyond the realm of human sensation. Therefore, we individual human beings of today have no basis for reasonable assumption of what happens to the human psyche after death based on our own experiences, for obvious reasons. Some of us refer to the Gospel for our assumptions about the hereafter, others to a more materialistic standard.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

That is exactly what I mean Magnus. Word for word.

Are you only referring to death and the afterlife or everything/ all reality in general? It sounds like you are saying we cannot know anything at all and therefore cannot deduce anything about anything? Your message is unclear.

Given the thread's context, I had assumed the message would have been interpreted to refer to merely the universe/humanity's origins. Now I see that was a poor assumption on my part.

HOWEVER.....

We know the equation of gravitational acceleration and there for can logically determine how fast something will be travelling after being dropped a certain distance. Are you saying we can't know that? It might change?

I do think it applies to all reality... to an extent. Afterall, the falling speed of the object in question is a matter of perception, therefore is still subjective. It is concievable that our calculations may be wrong. How do we know that the dropped object actually hits the ground when it appears to?

Sure the speed may change. Tomarrow all airspace may convert to a wormhole, increasing the falling rate by thousands of a percent. A passing UFO may alter the earth's gravitational pull. Even something simple such as an unruly wind gust could prove our calculations fallible.

So god and afterlife are unknowns. You have faith in them right? Therefore you believe they are true. You believe in a god and an afterlife, so how can you still claim they are unknowns?

Who said I believe in them? I have faith in them, and will them to be true. Yet, I don't outright believe in anything (despite a minor theistic inclination).

As far as it being logical: Faith is defined as belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith Faith is defined as being illogical.

That would make your belief illogical as well. You must have faith that God does not exist, being that there is no material evidence to support such a view.

The emotional benefit of a belief doesn't make the belief rational. Example: I have a rock that i believe has special healing powers. Having this rock makes me feel good. Is it logical to believe the rock has healing powers?

I know you did not mean it to be, but this is one of the best analogies to God that I have ever heard.

The vast majority of all earth's denizens submit to a religion, often despite a complete lack of material evidence for their convictions. It is also statistically proven that religious people are more immune to depression and suicide than athiests, and are generally much happier.

Is it irrational for a person to seek happiness?

Clearly the rock does have healing powers, if the absense of it may result in an unsuitable emotional condition. In the same way, God, whether he exists or not, has a great effect on billions of people the world over.

God is our rock.

[steen]

Is ANY belief rational?

Rational= Consistent with or based on reason; logical

Logic= The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.

Humans lack the perception to accurately do any of this.

Isn't this just a different version of Plato's Cave?

[Cephus]

People experience the miraculous.

No, people experience things they cannot explain. Humans, being a curious species, create explanations that appeal to their sense of awe, hence inventing miracles. It's not the event, but the ad hoc explanation that makes the miracle.

There was a time when it was a "miracle" every time there was an eclipse of the sun. Today, we know better.