You're going to have to elaborate, your response is vague and has no bearing on the conversation.

My response is what you take it for. Once again, I refer you to the original: https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought/logic-religion-and-spiritual-experience

I'm unable to take it for anything if it's vague and has no bearing on the conversation. That's why I asked you to elaborate, but if you're unwilling to speak with clarity, there's nothing I can do about it.

Did you first prove that logic was qualified to speak to the issue at hand? — Isaac

Logic is clearly qualified to state that someone has made no attempt to prove the qualifications of their chosen authority.

Please observe how you ignored this...

If someone were to quote some holy book it would be reasonable to ask that they first prove that the holy book is qualified to speak to the issue at hand. — Jake

That's because if you were to admit that this is a valid statement, you would then be required to apply the same process to other chosen authorities. This process is called intellectual honesty.

Reason is clearly proven useful for very many things. As example, we have many millions of cases of reason being used to successfully construct buildings. We have data, a documented record of success.

What members are typically doing is making an unwarranted leap from "reason is useful for many things" to "reason is useful for EVERYTHING", even in those cases where there is no data to support such a claim.

This is the equivalent of a theist saying "holy books are useful for providing comfort and meaning (proven fact) therefore holy books are qualified to provide credible answers to the largest of questions (wild speculation).

Many members don't yet understand that being loyal to logic only when it takes you where you want to do is not reason, but instead ideology.

These examples are mainly to demonstrate that ‘psychic phenomena’ is not as ‘out there’ as some people think. — Possibility

Well it isn't working. We all experience the redness of red, unless we're colour blind or something. It is perfectly ordinary. That is certainly not true with regard to claims of psychic phenomena, or at least, it would require a hell of a lot more support. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

It is delusion if it exists in your mind and nowhere else but your mind. It is not a delusion when it corresponds with events in the external world. And my experiences very much do have a correspondence with the external world. — Ilya B Shambat

That is not doing philosophy. That is doing wishful thinking.

I'm unable to take it for anything if it's vague and has no bearing on the conversation. That's why I asked you to elaborate, but if you're unwilling to speak with clarity, there's nothing I can do about it. — whollyrolling

He's not a philosopher on this matter, he just wants to be recognised as one. Maybe we should just give him a pat on the head and walk away.

The point is you are using logic and reason right now to make this argument, so, by your method, you would first have to establish that logic and reason have authority to speak to this kind of investigation. So how would you make that case? Evidently you would use logic and reason. So, by your method, you would first have to establish that logic and reason have authority to speak to this kind of investigation...

If someone were to quote some holy book it would be reasonable to ask that they first prove that the holy book is qualified to speak to the issue at hand. — Jake

So how would they 'prove' that? Using what authority? And how would they then prove that such an authority were qualified to speak to such an issue...

Your answer seems to be little more than "it obviously is".

At some point, logic and reason are simply presumed. They must be for discourse to even proceed. So the relevant question to ask is not whether they are qualified to speak to the matter at hand, but on what grounds anyone wishing to dismiss them does so.

No one here is a philosopher, but at least some people contribute to coherent or even rational discourse.

He is hopelessly trapped in his own self-defeating performative contradiction.

No one here is a philosopher, but at least some people contribute to coherent or even rational discourse. — whollyrolling

I meant "philosopher" in a looser sense than being a recognised philosopher with formal qualifications, published writings, and a professorship, but not so loose a sense as anything goes, so long as it has a vague resemblance to what a philosopher might say.

Like you say, the point is to contribute to coherent or even rational discourse, not just to let loose brain farts.

You’re taking a statement out of context. I wasn’t talking about extraordinary claims - I was talking about intuition, falling in love, ‘gut’ instinct, etc: the ‘feelings’ that we tentatively accept as part of human experience, yet in a rational discussion we’d probably dismiss them. The scare quotes are there for a reason - ‘psychic phenomena’ was praxis’ term, not mine.

He is hopelessly trapped in his own self-defeating performative contradiction. — S

Yes, so is it cruel of me to poke him just to watch him run against the wall? What do you do with these people? I hadn't realised posting here would raise such ethical dilemmas. Its more like working as an orderly in an asylum than discussing issues with peers.... "Yes Napoleon, I'm sure the aliens are coming to take you away again, but it'll all be better if you just take your pills and sit calmy down here..."

You’re taking a statement out of context. I wasn’t talking about extraordinary claims - I was talking about intuition, falling in love, ‘gut’ instinct, etc: the ‘feelings’ that we tentatively accept as part of human experience, yet in a rational discussion we’d probably dismiss them. The scare quotes are there for a reason - ‘psychic phenomena’ was praxis’ term, not mine. — Possibility

So you're off topic. Unless you can make a relevant connection to the topic.

Yes, so is it cruel of me to poke him just to watch him run against the wall? What do you do with these people? I hadn't realised posting here would raise such ethical dilemmas. Its more like working as an orderly in an asylum than discussing issues with peers.... "Yes Napoleon, I'm sure the aliens are coming to take you away again, but it'll all be better if you just take your pills and sit calmy down here..." — Isaac

So true! :lol:

The point is you are using logic and reason right now to make this argument, so, by your method, you would first have to establish that logic and reason have authority to speak to this kind of investigation. — Isaac

I addressed this. I am examining the evidence, and coming to the correct conclusion that atheists in general typically never bother to even try to prove the qualifications of their chosen authority in regards to the largest of questions. I have clearly proven that logic and reason are qualified to address the topic I am addressing.

I haven't proven, nor tried to prove, that logic and reason are qualified to address anything and everything. That is, I am not a person of faith in regards to reason. I accept reason's ability where I see evidence of success, and decline to accept where I see no evidence of such a success.

All I'm doing is applying the very same challenge to reason as atheists apply to holy books. The very same exact thing. The problem is that such an intellectually honest process does not deliver the answer than many atheists wish to hear, and so the process is rejected, ie. ideology.

At some point, logic and reason are simply presumed. — Isaac

That is true, that is what's happening. Atheists typically have a faith based relationship with reason that they are often unwilling to examine, because to do so would lead to a collapse of their perspective. If they were truly people of reason, a collapse of one perspective would be good news, because such a collapse would help advance the investigation. But, at least on forums, they are typically not people of reason, but ideologists who have built a self flattering personal identity out of atheism, and so that perspective must be defended to the death. :-)

My point is that we CAN use reason to reveal that nobody on any side has been able to prove anything, in spite of the earnest efforts of millions of intelligent people over a period of at least 500 years. We have data on this that we can examine. As example, the God debate threads on philosophy forums go on and on and on and on for years making the same old points over and over again precisely because nobody can prove anything, and thus the issue is never resolved.

My point is that we CAN use reason to reveal that nobody on any side can prove the qualification of their chosen authority, and thus the God debate collapses, leaving us with nothing.

My point is that we CAN use reason to then explore our relationship with this nothing, with this state of ignorance. The investigation can continue, but only when we realize and accept what the evidence the God debate has revealed. We are ignorant, in regards to questions of this scale. So long as we insist on pursuing fantasy knowings, we will remain stuck on a children's merry-go-round to nowhere.

I have clearly proven that logic and reason are qualified to address the topic I am addressing. — Jake

I must have missed that, so perhaps you could repeat. You decided that the question "should atheists prove the authority of reason to speak to the question of whether or not there is a God?" is itself a question which logic and reason have authority to speak to. I'm asking what proof you provided for that assertion.

Atheists typically have a faith based relationship with reason that they are often unwilling to examine, because to do so would lead to a collapse of their perspective. — Jake

What other relationship with reason is it possible to have? Can one reason reason?

My point is that we CAN use reason to reveal that nobody on any side has been able to prove anything, in spite of the earnest efforts of millions of intelligent people over a period of at least 500 years. — Jake

We can. But this could be for any number of reasons. Dogmatism on either side, social pressures, ignorance, subconscious bias... None of that has anything to do with authority to speak to the matter. It may well reveal the pointlessness of doing so, but it says nothing about which approach is most successful in the long run, nor which approach yields most correspondence with reality, nor which approach yields most fruitful models, nor indeed any epistemic model I can think of.

My point is that we CAN use reason to reveal that nobody on any side can prove the qualification of their chosen authority — Jake

Only by a particular standard of proof. You claim to have proved the authority of logic and reason to speak to this issue, I disagree. Does that mean you now haven't proved it, or does that mean I am wrong?

My point is that we CAN use reason to then explore our relationship with this nothing, with this state of ignorance. — Jake

Are you not literally finding the exact same protracted and inconclusive debate over this issue as you previously cited as evidence that logic and reason were not suitable authorities to speak on the matter of God's existence? What is it about this debate we're having right now that differs from the debate about God's existence that justifies you raising counter-arguments using reason and logic?

What is it about this debate we're having right now that differs from the debate about God's existence that justifies you raising counter-arguments using reason and logic? — Isaac

Nada. What differs between our aporoach and his is that he separates the one and the other without justification, also known as special pleading. We do not.

Do you believe it reasonable to question the qualifications of holy books in regards to the largest of questions?

If you answer yes, then why are you resisting performing the same operation on other chosen authorities?

That's all there is to this.

Do you believe it reasonable to question the qualifications of holy books in regards to the largest of questions? — Jake

Yes

If you answer yes, then why are you resisting performing the same operation on other chosen authorities? — Jake

I'm not. Logic and reason are ways of thinking presumed from the start of any discourse. The Bible is a book. They are not even the same type of thing and so I cannot think of a single reason why that which I apply to one should apply to the other.

Logic and reason are ways of thinking presumed from the start of any discourse. — Isaac

Are you saying that we should assume without questioning that human reason is qualified to deliver meaningful credible statements on any subject?

Put another way, are you saying that a single species on a single planet in one of billions of galaxies, a semi-suicidal species with thousands of hydrogen bombs aimed down it's own throat, is capable of generating meaningful credible statements on any subject anywhere in all of reality, a realm we can't yet define in even the most basic manner?

That asked, let's continue and be more specific to the subject at hand.

The question of the God debate is, does a god exist? The question presumes there are two possible answers, existence and non-existence.

Now let's observe reality. The vast overwhelming majority of reality at every scale is space. And yet space has none of the properties which we use to define existence. The point here is, it appears that almost all of reality does not fit neatly in to either the exist or not-exist categories.

Now let's observe God debaters. We can see that pretty close to every god debater who has ever opined on the subject, no matter how much education, intelligence or advanced degrees they may haven, has typically assumed without questioning that the only two possible answers to the God question are exist or not-exist.

Let's observe how philosophers great and small for 500 years have been eager to challenge the competing answers, but pretty much nobody has been interested in challenging the validity of the God debate question.

My point here is that even if we could somehow prove reason is qualified to deliver meaningful statements on the largest of questions, and few are willing to even try, there isn't a lot of evidence that human beings are capable of reason, at least on this subject.

Logic and reason are ways of thinking presumed from the start of any discourse. The Bible is a book. — Isaac

Logic and reason are the chosen authorities of atheists. The Bible is the chosen authority of Jews and Christians. You wish to apply one rule to theist authorities, and another rule to atheist authorities. That's not reason. That's ideology.

Everybody is entitled to their preferred ideology, no complaint there. But nobody is entitled to label their ideology as reason so long as they are unwilling to apply reason's processes in an even handed manner to all sides of a question.

Though I am new and yet I have to learn a ton of things in my life, but what i can simply say is that both sanity and insanity doesn't tie to a religion at all. Religions are way of how to live and of-course they are all good in themselves. Those who says that they are living without a religion is untrue. To me the human knowledge stands on Religion. Religions have come in different shapes and forms. All had their influences, some are remembered and some are forgotten. To me the general definition of Sanity is based on how do we perceive insanity. Insanity is derived from Sanity and vice versa.

So, presumably, you'll openly admit that you're an ideologue? Or will you justify your own appeal to reason and logic?

What is it about this debate we're having right now that differs from the debate about God's existence that justifies you raising counter-arguments using reason and logic? — Isaac

I can offer real world documented evidence that atheists rarely (if ever) are willing to examine and challenge their chosen authority in the same way that they challenge theist authorities. Don't take my word for it, try and find a thread on any philosophy forum where such an examination is happening at all, let alone to the degree theist authorities are challenged.

Just read the thread above. Lots of different folks logic dancing their favorite God debate perspective, with no attempt at all to demonstrate that something as small as human logic can meaningfully address the very largest of questions about the most fundamental nature of reality (scope of God claims).

Just read the thread above. Lots of different folks assuming that the only possible answers are exist or not-exist, even though a casual observation of reality reveals that most of reality does not fit within that simplistic paradigm.

I've proven my perspective using real world evidence that is readily available to all. Atheist ideologues can't do that. That's the difference.

Logic and reason are the chosen authorities of atheists. The Bible is the chosen authority of Jews and Christians. You wish to apply one rule to theist authorities, and another rule to atheist authorities. That's not reason. That's ideology. — Jake

No, failure to apply logic and reason to logic and reason is irrational (not logical or reasonable). If I reason, for example, that you’re confused, but upon further pondering have the insight that you’re only feigning confusion and for some emotional reason choose to deny the insight and fail to revise the prior assessment, that’s irrational.

You need to show faulty reasoning and failure to revise the faulty reasoning. Good luck. :smile:

So, presumably, you'll openly admit that you're an ideologue? Or will you justify your own appeal to reason and logic? — S

That's a "no", then, I suppose.

Are you saying that we should assume without questioning that human reason is qualified to deliver meaningful credible statements on any subject? — Jake

Yes, both 'meaninful' and 'credible' are are assessment within logic and reason. What faculty would you use otherwise to determine what a text is even saying? How would you even understand the meaning of a sentence, let alone a proposition, if you suspend logic and reason. I think you are confusing logic and reason with empirical science and you're confusing 'source' with 'authority'.

Empirical science is certainly not the only means, nor the only source from which to obtain meaningful propositions, but it is the closest we have to an 'authority'. An authority needs to have some justifiable claim to support its rejection of other propositions. Empirical science has such a claim (propositions it rejects are those which do not produce predictable results for a wide proportion of the population). Religious texts have no such justification and therefore no justified claim to authority.

Logic and reason are the chosen authorities of atheists. The Bible is the chosen authority of Jews and Christians. You wish to apply one rule to theist authorities, and another rule to atheist authorities. That's not reason. That's ideology. — Jake

Restating a proposition does not make it any more true unless you address the objections. Logic and reason are not 'authorities' they are habits of thinking and they cannot be suspended whilst maintaining even the very basic intellectual faculties such as reading. On cannot even comprehend what is written in the Bible without logic and reason. If the Bible says "do not kill thy neighbour", how is it that I know not to kill my neighbour. How do I know that pointing a gun at him and pulling the trigger is going to lead to his death and that this action is opposed to the proscription in the text? Logic, and reason.

I can offer real world documented evidence that atheists rarely (if ever) are willing to examine and challenge their chosen authority in the same way that they challenge theist authorities. — Jake

That doesn't prove whether thay should (which is the debate we're having), only that they don't.

Yes, both 'meaninful' and 'credible' are are assessment within logic and reason. What faculty would you use otherwise to determine what a text is even saying? How would you even understand the meaning of a sentence, let alone a proposition, if you suspend logic and reason. I think you are confusing logic and reason with empirical science and you're confusing 'source' with 'authority'. — Isaac

You didn't answer the question. Here it is again as a reminder.

Are you saying that we should assume without questioning that human reason is qualified to deliver meaningful credible statements on any subject? — Jake

Empirical science is certainly not the only means, nor the only source from which to obtain meaningful propositions, but it is the closest we have to an 'authority'. — Isaac

Being the best does not automatically equal being qualified. The smartest squirrel ever born won't be able to understand the Internet. A twelve year old will be better at math than a 4 year old, but neither will be able to do particle physics.

An authority needs to have some justifiable claim to support its rejection of other propositions. Empirical science has such a claim (propositions it rejects are those which do not produce predictable results for a wide proportion of the population). — Isaac

You still are not challenging your chosen authority, but are instead focusing exclusively on defending it's superiority, just as all ideologists do. A person of reason would challenge all proposed authorities in an even handed manner with no dog in the fight.

Please Note: You believe in human reason. Ok, that's great. I'm just calling upon you to do human reason. Instead of ideology.

Religious texts have no such justification and therefore no justified claim to authority. — Isaac

You have no proven authority which can be used to dismiss the proposed authority of religious texts, at least in regards to the largest of questions. Smaller claims made by religions may be able to be debunked if there is real world data available to analyze.

Logic and reason are not 'authorities' they are habits of thinking and they cannot be suspended whilst maintaining even the very basic intellectual faculties such as reading. — Isaac

This does not automatically equal human logic and reason being qualified to generate meaningful statements on some particular question.

Again, please observe how even the most respected commentators in the God debate typically don't even question the "exists or not" paradigm which the God debate is built upon. It's entirely possible that the question itself is so flawed (ignoring the nature of reality) that any argument for or against in response to such a question is rendered meaningless. Such a possibility at least merits investigation, but pretty much nobody ever bothers. This is the system you are basing atheism upon.

On cannot even comprehend what is written in the Bible without logic and reason. — Isaac

This does not automatically equal logic and reason being capable of generating meaningful statements about the most fundamental nature of reality, ie. the scope of most god claims.

That doesn't prove whether thay should (which is the debate we're having), only that they don't. — Isaac

They should only if they wish to be people of reason. If they prefer instead to be ideologists the burden is lifted, and they may proceed as they wish.

If you wish, this exchange, which I thank you for, might provide you with some insight in to theism. Observe how determined you are to hang on to your chosen authority. That's not a theist thing, but a human thing. We want to know things, we really want to know. Or at least we want to have some methodology which offers some hope of knowing. This desire is very understandable, but does not automatically equal having such a methodology.

To me, just one view, the only way to rescue the God debate from being an endlessly repetitive merry-go-round to nowhere is to face the fact that when it comes to the largest of questions we simply don't know, and we simply have no proven methodology which can credibly fix that lack of knowing. Or to put it simply, we are ignorant.

It seems to me the centuries long God debate has delivered useful information, but we don't like what has been revealed, so we're ignoring it, pushing what the evidence is telling us away, sweeping it under the nearest rug.

We have every right to do this. But the price tag is the surrender of reason, and to ride eternally on the merry-go-round to nowhere.

No, failure to apply logic and reason to logic and reason is irrational — praxis

Yes, ok, and that's what atheists are doing. They're experiencing a failure to apply logic and reason to logic and reason. That is, they are assuming, without proof, that logic and reason have infinite ability, are able to meaningfully analyze anything in all of reality.

It's an unwarranted leap from...

Reason is useful for very many things.

to...

Reason is useful for everything.

Theists often do the very same thing. They see the wisdom of some holy book teachings regarding human scale issues such as love, and then leap from that to the conclusion that therefore the holy book is qualified to provide answers to the very largest of questions.

If one can escape the ego fueled ideology, it's not that hard to see that human beings are very very very small creatures in a very very very big reality, and it's not that sensible to automatically assume that such a tiny creature would be able to grasp EVERYTHING. This is especially true when we observe that this tiny creature has thousands of hydrogen bombs aimed down it's own throat, hardly evidence of advanced reasoning powers.

Also, some moral intuitions are more nature than nurture. — praxis

Really? Which one(s)? :chin: