These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Intergalactic Summit

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Meditation on: Religion
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lyn Farel
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#41 - 2013-01-01 13:47:19 UTC
Hakatain-haan often hides emotional driven reasonings behind populist and demagogic analysises based on a selective rationality. The mistake is to consider things true or absolute where they are not necessarily.

Relativism is a mandatory part of rationality.

von Khan wrote:
Science investigates, religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power, religion gives man wisdom which is control.


I would rather say that religion gives man control, which can not necessarily be wisdom.

von Khan wrote:
The doorstep to the temple of wisdom is a knowledge of our own ignorance....


That is quite true !
Stitcher
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#42 - 2013-01-01 15:44:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitcher
von Khan wrote:
Science investigates, religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power, religion gives man wisdom which is control.


I disagree. philosophy interprets. Religion is a subset of philosophy, and far from being the whole of it.

Not all philosophies are wise, and many religions are, in my view, the exact opposite of wise. Philosophies can be dangerous beyond belief. "If you are not with me, then you are my enemy." "If they send one of yours to hospital, send one of theirs to the morgue", "We are the chosen of God".

Religion is no more a source of wisdom than fire is a source of wood. You might be able to pick a few scorched lumps of wood out of a fire, but you risk getting burned as you do so.

Wisdom is wisdom. It has no equivalent, only inspirations. You can find wisdom written in a holy book, or on the cubicle wall of a public toilet. You can find it in poetry, in science textbooks, on social networks, in fortune cookies, in speeches and in the shouting of activists on street corners.

You can also find abject drivel in all of those places.

The biggest revelation of my lives was when I realised that other people's ideas are usually worth listening to. Whether they agree or disagree with you, their existence presents an opportunity to expand your knowledge, either by getting another person's perspective and insight, or by crystallizing and refining your own as you debate them.

That's not really the Caldari way of doing things, but the more I look around the more I think it should be. We should be applying our meritocratic ideals to knowledge and philosophy as much as to the way our citizens move around the social and economic structure of our society.

Quote:
Faith is taking the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase.


Taking the first step when you can see at least part of a staircase is an entirely reasonable and rational thing to do. If you can see a little bit of a staircase, the hypothesis that there is more staircase higher up is an entirely reasonable one. You may then test this hypothesis by climbing. That's not faith, that's reasonable extrapolation of the known facts.

Faith is taking the first step when you can't see any staircase at all because somebody whom you trust has assured you that it's there, despite your inability to detect it.

When you understandably fail to get anywhere, you have two options - you can either conclude that the person who told you about the staircase is either wrong, lying or insane, or you can conclude that the staircase only shows itself to the truly faithful when it judges them worthy, and that any apparent absence of a staircase at this precise moment is just a test.

AKA Hambone

Author of The Deathworlders
von Khan
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#43 - 2013-01-01 21:22:40 UTC
What makes a fool is an inability to take even his own good advice.

von Khan
Stitcher
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#44 - 2013-01-01 23:12:39 UTC
I hope I'm not being arrogant by assuming that Ad Hominem attack was aimed at me?

If my argument is flawed, demonstrate as much. Calling me a fool only sabotages your own credibility by creating the appearance of petulance.

AKA Hambone

Author of The Deathworlders
Mekhana
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#45 - 2013-01-02 00:03:44 UTC
Explain to me how human beings aren't capable of doing good without religion pulling the strings.

Also explain to me how is it with religion human beings have at the same time comitted the greatest of evils.

Vide longe er eros di Luminaire VII, uni canse pra krage e determiniex! Sange por Sange! Descanse bravex eros, mie freires. Mortir por vostre Liberete, farmilie, ide e amis. lons Proviste sen mort! Luminaire liber mas! 
Nicoletta Mithra
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#46 - 2013-01-02 03:50:52 UTC
Stitcher wrote:
I hope I'm not being arrogant by assuming that Ad Hominem attack was aimed at me?

If my argument is flawed, demonstrate as much. Calling me a fool only sabotages your own credibility by creating the appearance of petulance.

I did refute one of your earlier arguments in this thread thoroughly, demonstrating conclusively that it was and is flawed. That you therein were referring to my claim that rationality is bounded as "raw, stinking fedo sewage" was apparently, though, quite harmonious with your own credibility in your opinion, it seems. It appears you go on to measure with two yardsticks it seems.

As to your argument in regard to philosophy, your first flaw is that you apparently confuse philosophy (singular), which is an academic discipline studying general and fundamental problems, and philosophies (plural or if referring to a specific philosophy always with indefinite article or further specification), which might refer any kind of world view. So, while every religion might be a philosophy, no religion, nor religion in general is a subset of philosophy.

As to your response to the staircase-aphorism, you do depend on the principle of induction. As you can't prove the principle of induction by induction, nor by deduction, how is your "reasonable extrapolation" a refutation of the aphorism? How are you doing more than inducing that hypothesis that there is more staircase higher up, because somebody whom you trust has assured you that the principle of induction works, even though you can't justify it rationally?

So, really, your criticism only is going to undermine your own foundations.
Stitcher
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#47 - 2013-01-02 11:16:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitcher
Nicoletta Mithra wrote:
I did refute one of your earlier arguments in this thread thoroughly, demonstrating conclusively that it was and is flawed. That you therein were referring to my claim that rationality is bounded as "raw, stinking fedo sewage" was apparently, though, quite harmonious with your own credibility in your opinion, it seems. It appears you go on to measure with two yardsticks it seems.


Which one was this? I've seen you deny my arguments a great many times, I'm yet to see any of them actually be demonstrated as untrue.

In any case, you just committed the logical fallacy known as Tu Quoque, a misdirection fallacy intended to discredit the arguer rather than their argument. My choice to use emotive language in no way invalidates what I am attempting to communicate. Whether it was polite of me to refer to your assertion that way has no bearing on whether or not your assertion was, in fact, true.

I have made my point with regard to the boundaries of rationality - It's a tool specifically and explicitly engineered for transcending limitations, and is capable of evolving as and when new boundaries become known. Your claim that it is bounded is pure wishful thinking at this point. It has thus far comfortably exceeded all the bounds it has encountered, and your claim that there are things that fall outside of its ambit - and specifically your implied claim that the things that fall outside of its ambit are the things you believe in - constitutes special pleading, another fallacy.

See, we've run into this problem whereby, if I'm reading between the lines correctly, you're basically saying that you don't trust or rate logic and reason. Presumably because you have Faith. This is the conversational equivalent of being cloaked at a safespot and asleep. It's impossible to have an effective debate with somebody who doesn't take the mechanism of that debate seriously.

Quote:
As to your argument in regard to philosophy, your first flaw is that you apparently confuse philosophy (singular), which is an academic discipline studying general and fundamental problems, and philosophies (plural or if referring to a specific philosophy always with indefinite article or further specification), which might refer any kind of world view. So, while every religion might be a philosophy, no religion, nor religion in general is a subset of philosophy.


Religion in general is a subset of all philosophies was the intent of my statement. There's no need to quibble.

Quote:
As to your response to the staircase-aphorism, you do depend on the principle of induction. As you can't prove the principle of induction by induction, nor by deduction, how is your "reasonable extrapolation" a refutation of the aphorism? How are you doing more than inducing that hypothesis that there is more staircase higher up, because somebody whom you trust has assured you that the principle of induction works, even though you can't justify it rationally?


For future reference, seeing as you did me the service of correcting my mis-use of the terms "philosophy" and "philosophies", you're mis-using a term here. "The principle of induction" is a term referring to a mathematical proof. What I think you're referring to is known as inductive reasoning.

Inductive reasoning is probabilistic. It asserts nothing in concrete terms, only in terms of likelihood. The best I can say when standing at the foot of what appears to be (and thus has a high probability of being) a staircase, is that it is not unreasonable or irrational to conclude there is a high probability of there being more staircase higher up. I may then test that hypothesis through beginning my ascent, a process which might demonstrate that this one particular staircase bucks the trend by ending abruptly after the first turn, but from where I was standing that outcome could not be foreseen. The fact that my hypothesis turned out to be wrong does not mean that it was invalid or unreasonable when I made it with the evidence I had.

The process has the possibility of being proven wrong engineered into it. All I can produce from looking at the staircase is a hypothesis. The measure of a hypothesis is in how well it stands up to experimental analysis. By climbing, I am testing my hypothesis rather than asserting that it is true.

If I am faced with no sign of any staircase at all then the reasonable and rational conclusion to draw would be that there is no staircase, and that attempting to climb would be an exercise in ridiculousness.

If I am faced with no sign of any staircase at all and conclude that it must be an invisible staircase because I really, REALLY want there to be a staircase there, then I have resorted to wishful thinking and faith.

But you're doing the exact same thing again: you're scoffing at the very tool you're trying to use to argue with me. You either do rate reason and evidence, in which case you need to start listening to it yourself, or you don't in which case you need to be honest and stop trying to use it.

AKA Hambone

Author of The Deathworlders
Fey Ivory
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#48 - 2013-01-02 11:18:05 UTC
Mekhana wrote:
Explain to me how human beings aren't capable of doing good without religion pulling the strings.

Also explain to me how is it with religion human beings have at the same time comitted the greatest of evils.


its a very vaid question Mekhana, but it also points to a dilemma, we face in this dialog... Good, Evil, each one of us know the meaning of these words, but the underlaying fact, is how do we aply them, whats evil for me ?, or evil to you Miss Mekhana, or Mister Stitcher, Miss Mithra or Mister Khan... The knowledge, cultural, religeous upbrinning defines how and in what way will use the labels good and evil... My logic tells me that religeon is a theory created in good faith for the better ment of humanity, but like all Theories, some wont work in practice, others will... but history also tells us that religeon for all is good it also done have a way of blinding itself, and maybe along the road some get lost in the dark, wich makes them act out of faith then reason... The good intent they so utterly beleave in, maybe they just dont know any better, when the parameters of faith clouds your mind, and hampers your own reason and logic

Let me point to a logical thought experiment... we gathered all of humanity, we agreed upon what was good and what was evil , and from one end to the other, from good to the most retched evil, we lined everyone up... and from the middle point and to the evil end, everyone was put to rest... Now in humanities glory, we would just have the good and the other people down to the middle ground... Now we asume that everything will be alright ?, or is it... My logic and reason tells me that looking through out history, that what was once the middle ground, would now be the "Evil", we will continue to label, a define, from what humanitie can see from the parameters they have, its just human nature !
Misha M'Liena
Rui Freelance Mining
#49 - 2013-01-02 12:43:55 UTC
My faith in my God is rather simple. I simply prayed to him and asked if he was real. The response was a warming of my heart and body.
I do not care If the revered Stitcher proves that my god isn't real. I do not care if i remain the only person still believing.

Because i will ALWAYS believe.


Misha.

Not as innocent as she appears.™  
Nicoletta Mithra
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#50 - 2013-01-02 12:51:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicoletta Mithra
Stitcher wrote:
In any case, you just committed the logical fallacy known as Tu Quoque, a misdirection fallacy intended to discredit the arguer rather than their argument. My choice to use emotive language in no way invalidates what I am attempting to communicate. Whether it was polite of me to refer to your assertion that way has no bearing on whether or not your assertion was, in fact, true.

It would have been a Tu Quoque if I would have used what I said to point out that your arguments are wrong. As I didn't use your personal failings as an antecedent to the implication that 'because of your character, therefore your arguments must be false', but simply aimed at bringing your character to the fore, it's not a Tu Quoque. You should study more closely what a fallacy actually consists in.

Stitcher wrote:
I have made my point with regard to the boundaries of rationality - It's a tool specifically and explicitly engineered for transcending limitations, and is capable of evolving as and when new boundaries become known. Your claim that it is bounded is pure wishful thinking at this point. It has thus far comfortably exceeded all the bounds it has encountered, and your claim that there are things that fall outside of its ambit - and specifically your implied claim that the things that fall outside of its ambit are the things you believe in - constitutes special pleading, another fallacy.

First, I never claimed that the divine falls outside of that which we can tackle rationally. In fact I'd claim otherwise: the divine is in fact something that we are able to approach through rational investigation: The academic discipline doing that is called theology. It is exactly your claim that this is not possible, because you bring forth the special plead that there is nothing such as the divine. Second, my argument is that rationality is bounded first because humans - that are the ones engaging in rational activity - are limited and second, there are intrinsic bounds to rationality like the problem of induction. Third, you should maybe at least read what people responded to you before trying to refute them by simply attributing to them what you expect they would bring forth as arguments.

Stitcher wrote:
See, we've run into this problem whereby, if I'm reading between the lines correctly, you're basically saying that you don't trust or rate logic and reason. Presumably because you have Faith. This is the conversational equivalent of being cloaked at a safespot and asleep. It's impossible to have an effective debate with somebody who doesn't take the mechanism of that debate seriously.

I'm really sorry, but I get the impression you're the one asleep here. If you would have took a little time to read what I wrote, you would know that I'm trusting logic and reason exactly because I have faith and that your fundamental critique of such trust will only serve that you deny yourself trust into logic and reason, as they can't be proven by themselves to be true.

Stitcher wrote:
Inductive reasoning is probabilistic. It asserts nothing in concrete terms, only in terms of likelihood. [...]

The problem there is, still, that you have no proof that induction is working. You just have to trust that it is.

Stitcher wrote:
But you're doing the exact same thing again: you're scoffing at the very tool you're trying to use to argue with me. You either do rate reason and evidence, in which case you need to start listening to it yourself, or you don't in which case you need to be honest and stop trying to use it.

No, I do trust in logic and reason as reliable tools, exactly because I have Faith. The problem, here is, you can't give a rational justification of them. Therefore you should, by your very own arguments discard them. The simple truth is, that one has to have trust in logic and reason and will have to accept them without being able to give reason for that, exactly because they are what we use to give reasons. But then justifying them with themselves would be a vicious circle, one that is disallowed by logic and reason. Thus you are the one scoffing at them, while at the same time you don't notice what you are doing there.

As I already pointed out: Your fundamental criticism of trust destroys your very own foundations.
Stitcher
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#51 - 2013-01-02 13:12:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitcher
Nicoletta Mithra wrote:
Stitcher wrote:
Inductive reasoning is probabilistic. It asserts nothing in concrete terms, only in terms of likelihood. [...]

The problem there is, still, that you have no proof that induction is working. You just have to trust that it is right.


To hell with the rest of it, THIS is the bit where you're going wrong. You can claim to rely on reason and evidence all you like, but those two sentences just demonstrated that you don't even understand the process you're claiming to rely on.

The proof that inductive reasoning works is not and does not need to be inherent to inductive reasoning itself. If, when correctly applied, inductive reasoning consistently produces accurate results and leads to scientific and technological progress that results in things like cloning, warp drive, stargates, FTL comms, shield boosters, NEOCOMs, and so on and so forth, then from those results it can be deduced that inductive reasoning works and is reliable.

The hypothesis is not the proof. The PROOF is the proof. You don't TRUST that your reasoning has led you to the truth, you set out to test whether or not it has. The statement "I think there is more staircase" is merely a prediction. Its factual accuracy is determined by experimental data.

The only thing that inductive reasoning provides you with is the ability to issue the statement "I think X is probably Y and that means Z": "I think that this structure in front of me is probably a staircase, and that means that I should be able to climb it all the way up to the next floor."

If such predictions turn out to consistently be correct then I can move on to the next tier and produce the hypothesis that "the general function of staircases is to connect two floors or decks in a structure, and as such the great majority of staircases that I encounter will be built in such a way as to successfully perform said function" but that's as far as it goes. From that point onward you gather evidence and the hypothesis eventually graduates into "staircase theory", but at no point is faith in staircases a necessary component - you simply understand and agree with a theory which the evidence suggests is accurate.

AKA Hambone

Author of The Deathworlders
Nicoletta Mithra
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#52 - 2013-01-02 13:26:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicoletta Mithra
First, you seem to confuse inductive reasoning with the scientific method here. Second, what you're basically saying is that the scientific method isn't using inductive reasoning, but instead produces knowledge by conjecture and criticism. That is a convenient doge, but ultimately futile. Third: As it stands you have two ways of criticizing rationally: By inductive reasoning, which you discarded - there is no deductive proof of inductive reasoning and it can't prove itself. Or by deductive reasoning, which itself has only itself left to justify itself, as we already discarded induction. Thus deductive reasoning would have to justify deductive reasoning, which leaves us at the point of the vicious circle.

You can't give a rational justification of logic and reason. Face it, you first have to trust it to use them. This trust is not on condition of any rational justification.

Of course that doesn't mean that one needs faith in staircases, but you need to have faith in logic and reason.
Fey Ivory
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#53 - 2013-01-02 13:29:01 UTC
Or Miss Mithra and Mister Sticher, can simply agree to disagree
Nicoletta Mithra
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#54 - 2013-01-02 13:34:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicoletta Mithra
Post Scriptum:
Stitcher wrote:
The proof that inductive reasoning works is not and does not need to be inherent to inductive reasoning itself. If, when correctly applied, inductive reasoning consistently produces accurate results and leads to scientific and technological progress that results in things like cloning, warp drive, stargates, FTL comms, shield boosters, NEOCOMs, and so on and so forth, then from those results it can be deduced that inductive reasoning works and is reliable.

That's not a deduction, it's an induction. Need I say vicious circle?

P.P.S: Oh I agree that we disagree. I'm just saying that Mr. Stitcher isn't only irrational in what he claims, but also wrong.
Maire Gheren
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#55 - 2013-01-02 13:43:46 UTC
Fey Ivory wrote:
Or Miss Mithra and Mister Sticher, can simply agree to disagree

Wouldn't that be a little bit like expecting a newly married couple to agree to keep their hands off of each other? They probably enjoy this. It's a step above the usual ranting I get to see when I check my news over spiced cabbage and fried snake.
Fey Ivory
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#56 - 2013-01-02 13:52:04 UTC
Maire Gheren wrote:
Fey Ivory wrote:
Or Miss Mithra and Mister Sticher, can simply agree to disagree

Wouldn't that be a little bit like expecting a newly married couple to agree to keep their hands off of each other? They probably enjoy this. It's a step above the usual ranting I get to see when I check my news over spiced cabbage and fried snake.


Id rather define it as a unstoppable force, meeting a immovable object , wich is who i leave unsaid
Stitcher
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#57 - 2013-01-02 14:00:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitcher
Nicoletta Mithra wrote:
there is no deductive proof of inductive reasoning and it can't prove itself. Or by deductive reasoning, which itself has only itself left to justify itself, as we already discarded induction.


A
1: Inductive reasoning is defined as being a kind of reasoning that constructs or evaluates general propositions that are derived from specific examples.
2: This process does not result in proofs, but in propositions. (see 1)
3: It is therefore impossible to use inductive reasoning to prove that inductive reasoning works. (see 2)

Conclusion: Any proof of the utility or effectiveness of inductive reasoning therefore requires the use of a logical tool other than induction.

B
1: The scientific method involves the creation and subsequent testing of a hypothesis.
2: Hypotheses are propositions which attempt to explain known phenomena.
3: Propositions are produced through inductive reasoning. (see A1)

Conclusion: Inductive reasoning is a necessary component of the scientific method.

C
1: Inductive reasoning is a necessary component of the scientific method. (see conclusion B)
2: If inductive reasoning was not valid, then the scientific method would not work.
3: If the scientific method works, we would expect the states of human scientific understanding and technology to progress over time.
4: The states of human scientific understanding and technology have progressed over time. (fact)
5: Therefore, the scientific method works. (see C3&C4)

Conclusion: Inductive reasoning is valid. (see C2&C5)

AKA Hambone

Author of The Deathworlders
Nicoletta Mithra
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#58 - 2013-01-02 14:05:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicoletta Mithra
Stitcher wrote:
C
1: Inductive reasoning is a necessary component of the scientific method. (see conclusion B)
2: If inductive reasoning was not valid, then the scientific method would not work.
3: If the scientific method works, we would expect the states of human scientific understand and technology to progress over time.
4: The states of human scientific understanding and technology have progressed over time. (fact)
5: Therefore, the scientific method works. (see C3&C4)

That is a concealed inductive argument, depending on the premise (4) that is of particular nature, to arrive at the general conclusion (5).
You already arrived in argument A at the conclusion that this isn't permissible.
Stitcher
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#59 - 2013-01-02 14:33:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitcher
Not so. I deduced from the larger case (the success of the scientific method) that the specific example of Induction must be valid at least for the case of the scientific method.

Deduced, you will note. So, I have not violated conclusion A.

If you wish to claim that Inductive reasoning ceases to be valid when it comes to logic and reason in general, then:

D
1: Logic and reason are necessary components of the scientific method.
2: If logic and reason were not valid, then the scientific method would not work.
3: If the scientific method works, we would expect the states of human scientific understand and technology to progress over time.
4: The states of human scientific understanding and technology have progressed over time. (fact)
5: Therefore, the scientific method works. (see D3&D4)

Conclusion: Logic and reason are valid.



The utility of our logical tools is the proof of their validity. If you're going to claim that they cease to work when applied to the specific example of Amarrian theology then A) That constitutes special pleading and B) in any event the burden of proof would rest on you to demonstrate that this is in fact the case.

AKA Hambone

Author of The Deathworlders
Nicoletta Mithra
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#60 - 2013-01-02 14:49:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicoletta Mithra
Stitcher wrote:
Not so. I deduced from the larger case (the success of the scientific method) that the specific example of Induction must be valid at least for the case of the scientific method.

Deduced, you will note. So, I have not violated conclusion A.

But to arrive at the conclusion (5) you used inductive reasoning, you have to avoid it entirely for the proof to be fullfilling the criterion of not using inductive reasoning to justify it.

Stitcher wrote:
If you wish to claim that Inductive reasoning ceases to be valid when it comes to logic and reason in general, then:

D
1: Logic and reason are necessary components of the scientific method.
2: If logic and reason were not valid, then the scientific method would not work.
3: If the scientific method works, we would expect the states of human scientific understand and technology to progress over time.
4: The states of human scientific understanding and technology have progressed over time. (fact)
5: Therefore, the scientific method works. (see D3&D4)

Conclusion: Logic and reason are valid.

That is still a vicious circle. See above.

(P.S.: Or if you mean that 3,4 => 5 is a deductive argument, rather than an inductive, then it is simply invalid as it formally yields:
3: A -> B
4: B
5: A (from 3, 4 by Modus Morons.)
This would be the fallacy of affirming the consequent.)

Stitcher wrote:
The utility of our logical tools is the proof of their validity. If you're going to claim that they cease to work when applied to the specific example of Amarrian theology then A) That constitutes special pleading and B) in any event the burden of proof would rest on you to demonstrate that this is in fact the case.

It's not proof, it's justification and not a rational, but a pragmatic justification, in this case specifically a non-rational, pragmatic justification. As to your speculation about how I regard logic and reason to apply to theology (there really only is one theology in the known galaxy) - that is pure conjecture and helps your ill-fated claim little, so you better don't venture further that way.

I suggest that, before you try again, you spare us (or at least me) some time and familiarize yourself with the meta-logical literature. I'd suggest you start with this great article on The Justification of Deduction, which gives an overview of the Problem of Induction as well as the two are quite interrelated.

Good luck: Should you - or anyone else, for the matter - be able to employ a legitimate demonstration of either induction or deduction being justified rationally, I will grant 1 billion ISK for further research in the field of logic under the condition to get a honorable mention in any following papers on the topic and at the certainly following award ceremonies.