What paradoxes? — Harry Hindu

How about Buridan's Ass paradox?. Given two equally attractive options, rationality fails to provide, as you put it, a solution.

Again, you've avoided answering the question I posed: What solution has irrationality every provided? — Harry Hindu

Perhaps your question is loaded with prejudice. I would ask ''Is the universe rational?" Paradoxes are aplenty. Has rationality provided solutions to them?

That said I don't mean that we should give up on rationality wholesale. I only want to suggest the possibility of a higher order of thinking.

Al least we're in agreement that contradictions are logically bad.

What is natural order? Rules and laws that govern all phenomena in the universe (every time and every place). I thought the bracketed clause was understood and needed not explicit clarification. Who in the world would think that natural order didn't implicitly include both temporal and spatial universality? Without these elements natural order would be meaningless.

What is a miracle? A suspension or violation of natural order. A miracle is an aberration of natural order and wherever and whenever it occurs, natural order collapses.

So, there is a contradiction since both natural order and miracles are mutually exclusive. They're not sufficiently separated, neither temporally nor spatially as you imply, to NOT constitute a contradiction.

Let us suppose for the moment that you're right and that there's nothing weird going on.

Why is it that most people need miracles to believe in God? Why do I say this? Just to make my case, I don't think there would be any Christians if Jesus hadn't done anything miraculous e.g. resurrect after death, etc. Nor would there be any Moslems or Jews without miracles. What we can infer from this fact is that the natural order is not sufficient evidence for God.

Andrewk mentions in his post about the relative worth of the two evidences, stating that miracles are ''stronger'' evidence.

So, why is it that way? In such a way of thinking (most everybody) isn't there the implicit assumption that natural order is NOT evidence of God and that its contradictory - miracles - is evidence?

I don't see it that way — andrewk

Ok. I get the autopilot analogy (other posters have more or less said the same thing). However you said:

Miracles on the other hand are prima facie much stronger evidence for a god — andrewk

Why is it that miracles are considered ''stronger'' evidence? Isn't there a hidden assumption in such an outlook. It appears to me that natural order has an alternate non-divine explanation. Otherwise why is it ''weaker'' than miracles as evidence for god. Extending this train of thought, but not exaggerating it beyond relevance, it looks like people in general don't consider it necessary that natural order implies existence of the divine. Isn't that why miracles are ''stronger'' evidence? So, my objection about the issue still stands.

In terms of your analogy, the autopilot is evidence of an automated non-conscious manufacturer but disengaging the autopilot requires a conscious, thinking pilot (god).

So, I still think (like most people) that the two approaches to the issue cannot be so easily reconciled.

Indeed. Politics has a way of degrading anything it touches. I don't like politics but I'm not saying this from a higher moral ground. There are good politicians around, genuinely interested in the welfare of citizens. Only they're few and outnumbered by others who have private agenda in ruling the masses. Surprisingly, in a democracy it's the people who ''choose'' their rulers. Ironic isn't it?

they were just God exercising his divine prerogative to break his own laws when he wishes — andrewk

As other members have also pointed out. It appears to solve the problem as expressed in the OP. However, natural order and miracle are contradictory terms raising doubts about the soundness of the argument for God (see my reply to Chany, MU, and TS.)

Well it seems I have to go into much more detail into the logic of the issue.

By natural order I mean the laws of nature, which is currently the domain of science. By miracle I mean the violation of natural order. Note that natural order and miracles are contradictory with respect to each other.

We have two arguments as follows:

Argument (A) from people like Isaac Newton:

1. If natural order exists then God exists (N > G)
2. Natural order exists (N )
So,
3. God exists (G)

Argument (B) from most religious folks:

1. If miracles exist then God exists (~N > G)
2. Miracles exist (~N)
So,
3. God exists (G)

Combining the two arguments above, as you all seem to be doing (by criticizing my objection) we get the argument (C) below:

1. (N & ~N) > G
2. N & ~N
So,
3. G

Logically speaking the argument (C) is valid - anything follows a contradiction. But it is unsound because contradictions (N & ~N) are always false.

What say you?

No, it doesn't. It's more like the 0 and 1 of computing. Evil is if anything represented by trying to compute with only ones and no zeros, but it is really a foreign concept to Chinese tradition — unenlightened

And that basically tells us to avoid extremes which can then be extended, I think quite reasonably, onto the good-evil duality(?)

So, you don't find anything wrong with a game in which heads I win and tails you lose???!!

So, if I were to play a coin game with you the condition being heads i win and tails you lose, you would accept??!!!

Isaac Newton was a religious scientist and he was satisfied with discovering the laws of nature which he took to be the work of god.

However, Christians required Jesus to turn wine into water, heal the blind and resurrect after death.

To put it in simple terms:

1) If order (laws of nature) exists then God exists

2) If a suspension of order (miracles) exists thenGod exists

That's like saying If heads I win, tails you lose.

Something's not right.

What is it?

My question is why are two mutually contradictory states (ordinary laws of nature AND miracles - breaking the aforementioned laws) taken to be evidence for the same thing - God?

You seem to be saying it's a subjective thing - some see the connection and others do not. Why?

Knowing you to be a theist it seems like you want myths to be true. Perhaps to justify your own beliefs??

Personally I think there are elements of truth in all myths, religious or otherwise. It only takes a bit of exaggeration to change truth into a myth. So, to devalue myths would be mistake, running the serious risk of losing valuable information.

In other words, you don't have one example of a question that irrationality has answered. — Harry Hindu

Again you've shackled your mind into thinking that irrationality is the only other option. I'm not too sure but the word ''conjecture'' is quite commonplace in the two champions of rationality - science and math. If I've understood it correctly ''conjecture'' means, in layman terms, a simple guess. A guess by definition is NOT rational as it isn't arrived at through logical thinking. Would you call this irrational? Or would you, in the least, abstain from quick judgment about this matter? The normal process is to check if a given conjecture is true or false after it is made. According to you this would be irrational but it's a normal and often used procedure in science and math.

Personally, I think there's another way, as yet undiscovered, to understand our world. I have no idea what it is but it's there somewhere, perhaps hidden in our subconscious mind.

What is ironic is that you keep making rational statements in your effort to show that irrationality can provide answers in the same way rationality can. — Harry Hindu

Indeed I do. That's a conundrum a rational mind can't deal with, hence your comment. However, just to make a point, an irrational mind can easily take it in its stride. I'm not suggesting we become irrational. All I'm saying is a more powerful thinking tool may exist.

It occurred to me that the terrorist attacks in London are a result of Britain selling arms to countries in the Middle East. — Punshhh

Is causality that simple?

I am not seeing why these are mutually exclusive. — Chany

Why then are people unbelievers - waiting for, well, a miracle to happen? Why aren't people satisfied, so to speak, with the ''evidence'' provided in the Teleological argument? And why do prophets have to perform miracles to gain credibility? I'm quite certain that if tomorrow a miracle were to occur people would begin to believe in the supernatural. Yet they completely ignore the ''ordinary'' evidence.

And how does one go about making the distinction?

Nihilism trumps value by asserting that everything has equal value, and thus makes the assignment of value a subjective assertion/judgment. — Question

Isn't this self-defeating? If everything is of equal value and the act of valuation is simply subjective then Nihilism too is nothing more than a matter of taste and whim.

"These stories of sinful, ridiculous gods are lies! The truth is that gods are morally perfect. " — visit0r

How shall I say this now? Plato needn't dismiss the accounts of god(s) as lies in the first place. Perhaps he wasn't familiar with the notion of crazy wisdom. Indeed, God could be morally perfect and still engage the world in human-like fashion - jealous, greedy, vengeful, etc. This being done to convey divine wisdom to humans who are, quite obviously, limited in their capacity to comprehend it. Think of it like God, to make things easier for humans, ''translating'' godly wisdom to man-speak.

How would we know the answer to this except through reason? — darthbarracuda

Another paradox to shock rationality.

myths depicting them as acting immorally are false. — Jedothek

This seems like an oxymoron. How can ''myths'' ever be true.

I sympathize with you. There are cognitive states that cannot be accurately described in words. Brings to mind the following conversation (authentic?):

Scientist X: Alas our theory is too poor for reality
Neils Bohr: No. Reality is too rich for our theory

You get the point.

However, in any rational outlook, be it science or philosophy, objectivity is set at a premium. And, unfortunately for people like you, your experience doesn't pass muster. Such experiences could be hallucinations, delusions, etc.

That said I find such objections unfair. History is replete with examples of the pioneers of thought being ridiculed, persecuted, even killed for their novel ideas. The point being such great thinkers were at one time absolutely ALONE - like you and others like you are.

I agree that science is a continuously expanding domain - gobbling up other disciplines, even art and music, like a hungry shark in the middle of a shoal of fish. Its rational basis and clever use of math has turned it into a formidable tool to understand our world, the universe itself. So, to some degree I'm in agreement with the OP that lack of scientific ''explanation'' does pose a serious problem for theism.

However, science is not, at least not yet, perfect. In fact, as of principle, science is fallible. It never claims anything definitively, only provisionally. It is in this small space - that of scientific fallibility - that possibilities, ghosts, angels, even God himself, multiply.

You're too quick to judge. If memory serves, Einstein's ToR was initially dismissed as ''nonsense''.

It seems you're satisfied with the current version of rationality we have. Any ''problem'' that arises you dismiss it as something wrong with, for example, initial assumptions or some other failing of the domain you're investigating. I see nothing wrong with that BUT there's an alternative you're completely ignoring. Could rational thinking itself be the culprit? As a fundamental doubt what I'm saying is not new at all. History has many instances of alternative modes of inquiry - mysticism is a case in point. Also Zen Buddhism.

What a pitiful argument.

I believe in unicorns. Some would disagree. Thus the "failure" of reason in the the field of the existence of unicorns. :-} — Harry Hindu

Strawman.

The ''disagreement'' in moral issues not simply a matter of opinion. Each side claims to be right and reasonable despite some cases leading to contradictory conclusions. It's not just morality that has such logic-resistant problems. In contrast to the usual approach in dealing with such cases, which invariably consists of some form of truce between parties (let us agree to disagree?), I take a different path - is it logic that is faulty??

I think the whole issue of abortion is sad and bad.

This is the 21st century and people have unprecedented access to a whole plethora of pharmaceutical products ranging from simple cogh remedies to advanced anti-cancer drugs - included among which are a range of contraceptives.

Having a baby is a serious responsibility - this world is not as friendly to life as we'd like and every person must cautiously navigate through life, avoiding pitfalls, grabbing opportunities, outdoing competitors, etc. I think the word for it is ''Family Planning''.

Given these undeniable facts it seems the abortion issue is a failure of people to comprehend what I've outlined above. It's a non-issue because if people understood the meaning of ''Family Planning'' there wouldn't be need for abortion, at least not in its solution-resistant form.

"Finishing" philosophy takes all the fun away. — darthbarracuda

I understand you suggest that we do philosophy in some sort of ''game-mode'' - fun being a part of it. I also realize that the issues philosophy deals with are complex.

I was just wondering if rationality as a tool for philosophy has ''failed'' us. Should we not try out, for example, Taoist/Zen paradoxical thinking? Why not launch an all-out attack on our sensibilities and reason? Pressurize reason and expose the all-seeing, all-comprehending mind-eye, the true seat of all understanding.

The fairness is based on deducing that Africans are as human as Europeans, a fact that had been denied by pro-Slavery lobbyists. — andrewk

I think the notion of fairness is older than logic. IMHO it arose among ancient cultures simply as a social attribute that enhances survival of the group.

I wonder WHY - all of us, sharing the exact same experience - there are so many different denominations when it comes to religious belief.

Are atheists being too damned materialistic? Have theists abjectly surrendered to wishful thinking? Are agnostics blind to the evidence or lack thereof? What is going on?

To speak for myself, I'm an agnostic. I don't think there's any hard evidence to warrant a firm belief in god BUT there's ample room in our knowledge framework for spirituality, a non-materialstic POV of some sort.

Why do you think that? It was rationality applied to the question of whether it is ethical to own another human that ended the slave trade.

Surely that alone is enough to justify any area of inquiry — andrewk

I fear you may be mistaken. Emancipation doesn't have a rational origin. It's got more to do with emotion. The anti-slavery movement wasn't based on rational arguments but on an appeal to love, pity, fairness.

Why? — schopenhauer1

I don't know how far this is relevant but, if I recall correctly, there's a psychological notion called ''loss aversion''. People prefer not losing to winning. It's based on a biased evaluation of the same value e.g. one prefers not to lose $5 than win $5. The connection I see here is the over-valuation of suffering vis-a-vis happiness, which is the bedrock of pessimistic philosophy. What some may say is that such a biased outlook (suffering greater than happiness) is fallacious.

I hardly think working in contrast to rational processes will enable us to get any closer to solving the problem of consciousness. Exactly what did you have in mind? Choreograph a dance? — TimeLine

Well, if there's one word to describe my life, it's ''BIZARRE''. You don't know how reasonable ''chreograph a dance'' sounds to me. Also, the proposition doesn't sound as outlandish as you think - many mystical traditions have dance as a path to realization.

Utterly failed — VagabondSpectre

Maybe I exaggerated a tad. But you will agree morality has not yielded definitive answers on a rational foundation. In fact, I think moral precepts were formed on a completely different footing. When Moses brought with him the 10 commandments he did so by revelation, not by logic/reason. Similarly the Golden Rule (a pervasive motif in religion) seems to be an intuitive principle - we may analyse it rationally but its source is not based on logic.

If we ever find something that is more powerful than rationality, then every rational person will adopt it! — VagabondSpectre

Oddly, that would be a rational decision. Back to square one! Or not...

I simply question the overrated value of rational thinking. As you said, philosophy is about rational analysis of issues whatever they may be. And as you said there's a lot of disagreement. This ''disagreement'' is what I take issue with. Generally speaking philosophers tend to think the problem is with explicit/implicit assumptions. They never doubt the tool itself - rational thinking. My doubt s whether rationality is the right methodology fo dealing with ALL philosophical questions.

To suggest that philosophy needs to begin to use different modes of thinking almost seems unessisary; — Noble Dust

All I know is rationality has failed in some fields of philosophy. What other modes of thinking are available? I don't know. Personally, I'm leaning towards some form of intuitive mode of contemplation or even a higher form of rationality itself. Of what shape and form this alternative mode of thinking is is anyone's guess.

Has rationality and logical analysis actually achieved anything at all?

Perhaps you would like to elaborate? — A Seagull

It's something like physics. Isaac Newton's theory held out till Einstein came along and added a hogher degree of precision. Likewise the current version of our tool for analysis, logic as commonly understood, ''works'' in most cases. However there are failures (paradoxes etc.). Thus my question - what is our next step?

They are simply rules for human beings to follow in order to stay in line with the cultures they are born in. — Harry Hindu

Some would disagree. Thus the ''failure'' of reason in the field of morality.

Google paradox

I gather you've never been possessed. — Mongrel

:D