Why isn't rationality everything? (in relation to using rationality as a means to refute religion)
So I thought i could use some help on this from you guys. I had a chat with my professor about this in relation to refuting religion and his view is that it is through the encompassing range of the inexpressible that we are moved by to do things and that I shouldn't put rationality and logic on such a pedestal. For example, we don't need rationality to love. My point to him was that while that is true, you still need rationality and in his example you would need it to fall in love with the right woman/man lest you make some mistake and live in regret/sorrow. So religious people often make this their axis for their religious inclination.
Can you guys clear up in more detail why exactly rationality isn't everything in relation to judgements like that of religion. Why is there room for the irrational? Especially when it isn't necessary to live with meaning and purpose or even enjoy life.
Can you guys clear up in more detail why exactly rationality isn't everything in relation to judgements like that of religion. Why is there room for the irrational? Especially when it isn't necessary to live with meaning and purpose or even enjoy life.
Comments (79)
Look at religion the way a sociologist might. More educated, affluent people are more likely to be atheists. I think the reason for this is related to what Marx said about religion: that it's like opium. At first glance, this sounds bad, as if believers are like junkies, deluded and wasting away in a back alley somewhere. In fact, opium is also medicine. Anesthesia can debilitate, but it can also return function to a person who would be curled up in a ball on the floor otherwise.
The reason educated people are freed from the need for this anesthesia is that they're more like to be insulated from the things in life that cause pain. They have health care. Their children have access to antibiotics. They don't live where drive-by shootings happen regularly. They don't fear that attention from the police will lead to a catastrophe. They believe they can contribute meaningfully to their communities.
Uneducated people are more likely to be poor and disenfranchised. I'm not saying rich educated people don't feel pain, I'm just saying they receive it at a lower dose. So if you consider the options for a poor person who becomes overwhelmed by death and disease: which would you choose for them? Real opium? Or religion, which comes with a supportive community?
I think if you look at it this way, you'll see that rational argumentation is going to be fairly impotent in regard to refuting religion. Spend your free time working to help poor families with sickness, community disintegration, and economic instability. That will actually advance atheism.
"Atheism" is an almost useless word. One must give an explanation of what one means when using it. Some people intend to mean " a lack of belief in any deities." Some intend it to mean "a belief that no gods exist."
What do you mean when you use "atheism?"
I also question your assertion, "More educated, affluent people are more likely to be atheists."
One Frank to another...where does that come from?
This is a viciously complex problem given that many fall into the trap of working from the premise that “emotions” are distinct from “logic”. What is more no human being acts wittingly - meaning our appreciation of our very selves is limited and logic itself is confined in use to set limits.
On the neurological side of things I would say that Damasio’s ideas do help combat the straneg dichotomy of the “rational” as opposed to the “emotional”.
For further thought you’d have to lay out exactly what it is you’re trying to “refute” more clearly. To refute religion meaning what exactly woudl be my initial question. If you cannot answer that with moe depth and breadth then we’re going nowhere fast.
This looks like it could develop into an interesting topic very quickly! Don’t disappoint me :D
My intention was to be on the same page as the OP. If I failed, that can be worked out in conversation.
Quoting Frank Apisa
This is the article Psychology Today used to justify the claim. Is it wrong?
There is a lot of disagreement on many aspects of rationality, with that often being fundamentally irreconcilable.
If that weren't the case, we wouldn't have tons of longstanding academic disputes, we wouldn't have academic developments outside of empirical discoveries, etc.
Ugh. False dichotomy. As though emotions and logic were somehow unrelated.
Quoting intrapersona
So they admit it's irrational? Good. Discussion over.
They'd probably say arational, not irrational.
[i]I don't see the word "atheist" or "atheism" in the OP...so I am still not sure what YOU mean when you use those words.
As you say, though, we can clear that up in conversation.[/i]
[i]Not necessarily "wrong"...but dubious. I have a distrust of articles like that one. It contains "studies" and "statistics." I took "statistics" in college three times...once for a math requirement; once for an economics requirement; and once for a psychology requirement...
...and my professors all said (or alluded to) the notion that any of us pursuing polling or statistical analysis careers should ALWAYS attempt to divine the ends an employer or client is looking for BEFORE doing the research! A clever statistician can come up with "most seas are colored pink" if required.
Anyway...I suspect that as many intelligent people would gravitate toward "agnostic"...as would choose "atheist."
Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson all described themselves as agnostic.[/i]
I agree with your professor in one respect and disagree in another. There's clearly more to life than just reason. There's pleasure, affection, hope, faith, love, etc. However, I don't think that these should be considered to be opposed to reason. Ideally, your hope, faith and love should be ordered and directed by the use of reason.
I think there are some areas of philosophy where we do act as though we're on the autistic spectrum and we don't quite know what to do with words, and there is value in that. I'm also a big fan of clarification.
But there are other domains in which there is no merit in acting like there is some unsolvable mystery bound up in a word so that it's practically useless, when all you have to do is look at how it's being used.
Quoting intrapersona
To your professor I'd say there is a lot of priority and preference in falling in love. For example, which character or persona you prefer to the others, what factor you consider to be more vital than others, etc. All these and much more come into play when we're falling in love and they are a part of our rationale even if we don't take the time to deliberate on them.
You seem reluctant to give a direct answer...and if you are not willing to do so for some reason...just tell me and I will drop it.
As of the moment, when you use the word "atheist"...I do not know if you are denoting someone who asserts "there are no gods"...or if you are denoting someone who asserts, "I do not have a 'belief' in any gods."
That difference is significant...and matters to someone trying to understand what you are saying.
I have no problem, however, if you don't care whether I understand what you are saying or not.
That happens.
This is an important point. Our choices are not between rational and irrational. Many things, I could make the case for most things, I could even make the case for almost all things, involved with human interactions with the world are non-rational. Certain neurological disorders involving damage to areas of the brain that involve emotion make it so that the afflicted person is unable to make decisions of any sort.
They probably would. Same dif.
Not.
The former is called positive atheism. Never argue with a positive atheist because they're usually emotionally unstable. This is a famous little blerb that should help you to put the matter to rest.
If the OP asks me to clarify what I meant by "atheist," I will.
This response is an example of what is called "passive aggressiveness." Not generally considered a legitimate form of argument. I don't know if it would be considered non-rational or irrational.
Yup
I may be wrong but I read somewhere that there was a conversation between Niels Bohr and Einstein and the former replied to the latter's ''our theories are too poor for reality'' with ''no, reality is too rich for our theories''.
Just saying...
if your boss is nice i would be less concerned about being completely being rational.
That being said i believe if you can honestly say you are fairly certain that there is little to no evidence that there is no god than you should not believe in god.
In my opinion though it is dangerous to apply mathematics and reasoning to all subjects. I believe some subjects are better left to be in a hazy semi drunkenous.
As I may have mentioned once or twice in other threads, rationality and logic is about definition, measurement and evaluation and is a method for interacting with the world. Through its own method, it has gained top priority in modern human thinking, but it is only one of at least four methods by which humans can interact with the world: the others being sense data, memory and feeling.
We tend to apply rationality to love, but we certainly don’t need it to love. We may, however, need it to make the ‘best’ choice in life partner - but that’s not love.
The problem with putting rationality and logic on this pedestal is that its method of definition, measurement and evaluation diminishes the perceived validity and value of many interactions with the world that are part of our experience. Emotions, for example, are not direct feeling, but rationally defined and controlled aspects of sense data as it interacts with feeling. The feeling itself remains undefined and uncontrolled, but it exists nonetheless, and therefore is valid in itself.
In reference to religion, rationality and logic dismisses spiritual awareness almost entirely, because it encompasses a variety of ways we interact with the world that cannot be defined or measured. While there is much about religion itself that can and should be examined (and likely dismissed) by rationality and logic, when it comes to spiritual awareness, rationality and logic as well as sense data must defer to feeling as a rule.
This will take some practice before we learn how to trust feeling as a valid and useful method of interacting with the world, but I think if we’re going to get past our current level of understanding in science, it will be necessary.
I value rationality over irrationality, and I value seeking the truth. Other people do not value them as highly as me. They might value irrationality over rationality, or at least in special cases, like belief in God. They might not value seeking the truth, or they might value what they find comforting to believe over seeking the truth. Or, alternatively, they might have the same values as me, or convince themselves that they do, or they might be convinced by that which is false or inconclusive, but it is most likely their psychology over and above anything else which drives them down this path.
It sounds bad because it is. It's not the opium of the masses because it is used as a medicine in a way that a doctor would recommend. It's abused like addiction to a powerful drug. It is excessive escapism and unqualified self-medication. You shouldn't treat a grazed knee with a daily shot of heroin. If you struggle to cope with reality, then see a psychiatrist.
And your comments about rich people and poor people and helping the community and so on are irrelevant. You don't need to be rich to cope with reality. You don't need to be religious to engage with your community.
The term covers both. And we generally understand the gist of it. You don't always need to get into specifics, and this seems like a case in point. Atheism is a broad position which covers both strong and weak versions.
Quoting Frank Apisa
I recall seeing this statistic before.
If the meaning of "agnosticism" is basically the same as that of "weak atheism", which is obviously a type of atheism, then that specific distinction is a distinction without a difference. It is trivial. So in such cases, it wouldn't matter whether they described themselves as "agnostic" or "atheist". And if there's a distinction in any of those cases, then the question would be: what is it, and how is agnosticism supposedly justified over atheism of this sort?
Correct. One does not ALWAYS need to get into specifics. But in a discussion in a Philosophy Forum...it almost always IS useful, if not actually necessary.
I notice you did not respond to my question. That makes it of questionable value for me in a discussion with you about YOUR atheism.
I don't.
People like Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Neil DeGasse Tyson, Richard Feynman...are/were educated (some consider them geniuses)...and all were agnostics.
Isaac Newton, Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Jefferson...and a host of other educated individuals were NOT atheists.
And what's more important than that is to condemn the setting aside of such an important matter to indulge unrestrained psychological or emotional drives. Understanding this world is of higher value than escaping it. Both Socrates and Nietzsche understood that.
Please...do not give me that "trivial" stuff.
There is no way I will identify as ATHEIST...which I consider as unintellectual as THEIST.
Anyone using "atheist" as a discriptor or label...has decided that "no gods exist" or "it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god exists."
That is blind guessing...just as "a GOD exists" or "it is more likely that a GOD exists than that no gods exist."
I do not do that guessing stuff on that question.
IT IS NOT TRIVIAL.
No, it's only useful if it's necessary, and it isn't in this case.
Quoting Frank Apisa
This isn't a discussion specifically about my kind of atheism. And I did answer your question, so long as you're capable of reading between the lines. I told you what the term means, which is obviously how I use it. When I say that I'm an atheist, I'm saying that I'm an atheist of either the strong or weak variety. And I can further clarify if need be, but that's not always necessary.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Well, have you bothered to look into it?
Quoting Frank Apisa
That ignores my point entirely.
Quoting Frank Apisa
The distinction I pointed out is indeed trivial, and your angry semantic rant which misses the point doesn't change that.
I don't care if you'd rather use the terms more narrowly, less usefully, less representative of how they're actually used. You aren't dictator of language use.
Perhaps not in your opinion. But in my opinion, it is.
You did NOT answer my question!
And one should not have to "read between the lines." The lines should be sufficient in a philosophical discussion. There are two distinct and discrete choices when using the word "athist"...and you are saying you are one of them. I'm asking which one. If you choose not to answer...just say so. I accept that.
Yes.
I disagree. Your point was: "More educated, affluent people are more likely to be atheists."
What I said applies directly to that.
"Angry...rant?"
You suppose that to be an angry rant on my part.
Oh, well. You will have to live and learn about that!
In any case, the distinction IS NOT TRIVIAL.
At no point do I suggest "it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does"...
...AND I HAVE NEVER MET OR SPOKEN WITH AN ATHEIST WHO DOES NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THAT SENTIMENT.
How about you...or are you going to run away from the question again?
I am NOT an atheist (weak minded or strong)...and I consider that to be significant.
I don't know if it's wrong, but I do wonder. I wonder if this is like that stuff about WEIRD, where results obtained from (say) young, (mainly) white, male, American, psychology students may not generalise to the whole population? The stuff I can find about atheists seems based on Americans, when the US has one of the lowest proportions of atheists. Does data from this very specific demographic apply universally? I don't know. Maybe it does.... :chin:
Your "opinion" is wrong.
Quoting Frank Apisa
That is a false accusation. I did answer your question. You asked what I mean when I use "atheism", and I told you. Once again, it means atheism of either the strong or weak variety. (It doesn't exclusively mean one variety).
You're now moving the goalposts by referring to a different question you never actually asked me. But to answer it, I am a weak atheist, as you should already know, because I've already made that obvious to you.
And reading between the lines is useful and requires a certain level of intelligence. It helps in philosophical discussions to have that required level of intelligence and to put it to use.
Quoting Frank Apisa
And...? Are you suggesting that you found no credibly sourced statistic?
Quoting Frank Apisa
No, that wasn't [I]my[/I] point, although I said that I recalled seeing that statistic. And the relevant point of mine which I was referring to when I said that you were ignoring my point was my point about the distinction without a difference between agnosticism and weak atheism. It is possible to be an atheist, and more specifically a weak atheist. So if, when they say that they're an agnostic, there's no [i]logically[/I] relevant distinction between saying that and saying that they're an atheist, more specifically a weak atheist, then the distinction is trivial. Personal semantics are trivial. Logic is more important.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Yes, and not without reason. Your tone, what you said, the all-caps...
Quoting Frank Apisa
Putting something in all-caps doesn't make it any less wrong.
Quoting Frank Apisa
That misses the point because you are more fixated on your personal semantics than the logic of what I'm saying.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Why are you shouting? And you have now, although perhaps you will childishly deny it on the basis of your personal semantics. I'm more mature than that, so I don't really care whether you call me an atheist or an agnostic. I am what I am.
Quoting Frank Apisa
You fit the definition of a weak atheist, whether you like it or not, and associating that position with weakmindedness just because of the similarity in wording is childish.
No...It is not.
My "accusation" was not false...but now you have answered it...and we will leave it at that.
As for having the required intelligence...I am possessed of that.
That schmarmy crap is for amateurs, S. Get away from it.
I not only have found no sourced statistic...I have found evidence that VERY INTELLIGENT people are not atheists. In fact, it appears as though MOST of the very intelligent people who have lived...were not atheists.
You are just muddying the waters here. YOUR POINT...the one to which I responded...was what I said.
In any case...the difference between agnostic and weak atheism...IS CONSIDERABLE...although you people who want to identify as weak atheists pretend that it isn't.
Okay...that is your right.
It is NOT trivial. The difference between your "weak atheism" and my "agnosticism" is HUGE. If you cannot see that, perhaps logic is not your forte.
Like I said!
You saying I am wrong...does not make me wrong. That is a much more important distinction.
No it doesn't.
I am not shouting...I am emphasizing.
If you do not like it...go talk with someone else.
If you want to think you are more mature than I...be my guest. If you want to think you are Napoleon...be my guest.
Ahhh...you do not like that when someone gives you a taste of your own medicine.
Okay.
In any case, I am not an atheist of any sort. And I do not even use the descriptor "agnostic" any more.
I use this:
I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.
If you do NOT believe in (a)god (some KIND of theist), then you are some kind OF atheist.
Agnosticism is not a third option, it is a specific position that does not entail a belief in theism of some kind, therefore it is atheism of some kind.
That IS ALL ATHEISM is, a LACK of BELIEF in a god or gods.
You can WITHHOLD judgement do to lack of evidence or whatever you LIKE, BUT you still lack BELIEF and THAT is the qualifier FOR atheism.
Do whatever you want to do.
No need to announce it.
Just do it.
I agree.
Okay. Understood.
[GREEN]I hereby announce that from this point onwards, I will just do things![/GREEN]
Wait, the green text isn't working. How will people know that I'm being sarcastic?
Why?
Because you say so?
Why are you asserting that?
Where does that come from?
Not sure why you think that...but I am saying it is incorrect.
My suspicions are that using "atheist" as a descriptor involves a significant MORE than that.
ALL atheists lack a "belief" in any gods.
NOT ALL people lacking a "belief" in any gods...are atheists.
For someone who thinks I am on "a level not worth responding to"...
...you sure are doing a lot of responding, S.
Wonder why that is?
Ah yes, the reading between the lines thing. I meant a serious response, not just using you for sarcasm. If you want a serious response to something I said, you'd need to up your game.
Not just, "NO, that's just your OPINION! NO! That's NOT atheism! NO! It ISN'T TRIVIAL! NO! I AM NOT SHOUTING!!!!". I mean, are you a teenager or something?
A larger question that informs such discussions is whether the world is rational and thus fully understandable through the use of reason. Is that a reasonable assumption? Does the world exist because existence is rational and non-existence is irrational? Is what happens governed by reason? Or is reason just our way of making sense of things?
We do not need definitive proof one way or the other to reasonably resolve the question of whether or not to believe in God. That question is a question of whether you want to be a wise man or a fool, and was answered by Kant's predecessor, Hume. A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. Pointing out that we lack definitive proof either way doesn't justify abandoning reason for fancy.
That is what atheism means. Its not because I say so, but because that is what the word was created to mean.
An atheist that thinks being an atheist means something else such as that you hate religion or do not believe in anything supernatural is confused. Hating religion is anti-theist.
Likewise, an agnostic who thinks they are not an atheist is confused. They lack belief in god(s), thats all atheism is.
Theism = from the greek “theos”, meaning “god”.
Atheism = from the greek “a” meaning “without” and “theos” meaning “god”.
Then in classic philosophy the word was parsed into “weak” and “strong” (and eventually even more uses) in the formulation of specific philisophical arguments, which is what S is trying to explain to you.
Then, anti-theists who were ignorant of what atheism meant but had heard theists use it as a negation or opposite of religion (and as a word encompassing immorality or certain beliefs about religion) began using it in an equally confused manner to refer to themselves.
It has become a misused label in social movements, but these are bastardised uses that added meanings to the word to service an agenda.
My game is just fine. Things are working exactly the way I want them to work
That seems to be bothering you.
Or perhaps you are just pretending to be bothered to make me laugh.
Perhaps you ought not to play so close to the edge, S. You seem in real danger of falling off.
I was born in August of 1936. I'll be 83 this summer.
Not only can we NOT prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of gods using logic or reason or math or science...
...we cannot even narrow it down to "it is more likely no gods" or "it is more likely at least one god exists."
Some people just cannot grasp that.
Oh dear. That's even worse. So you have no excuse.
Respectfully as possible...that is not so.
An atheist that thinks being an atheist means something else such as that you hate religion or do not believe in anything supernatural is confused. Hating religion is anti-theist.
Likewise, an agnostic who thinks they are not an atheist is confused. They lack belief in god(s), thats all atheism is.
Theism = from the greek “theos”, meaning “god”.
Atheism = from the greek “a” meaning “without” and “theos” meaning “god”.[/quote]
First of all..."atheism" came into the English language BEFORE "theism"...so it could not have been derived via that.
It did come from the Greek through the French...and actually derives: "a" without + "theos" a god...and means WITHOUT A GOD.
It has nothing to do with "belief."
Under any circumstances...I assert that anyone who uses the word "atheist" in any way as part of a self-description...is asserting either a "belief" that no gods exist...or asserting that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does.
I am agnostic on the question. There is no way I see to determine that it is more likely one or the other.
I AM NOT AN ATHEIST.
No, you cannot grasp that that's beside the point, as I argued in your own discussion. You seemed to agree with me then, but now I realise that that's largely because I didn't readily give a name to my position, and for good reason, because it encourages petty semantic insistences like we've witnessed here.
Like this:
Quoting Frank Apisa
And this:
Quoting Frank Apisa
Ahhh...still responding.
Still meeting that part of my plan!
Thanks.:wink:
Do you assert that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...
...or are you content to say the chances of "no gods exist" and "at least one god exists" are equal?
Neither. If you've forgotten my position, you need only use your discussion as a reference.
One thing I like to do when its clear someone doesnt know what they are talking about but offers their “knowledge” on the subject is to quickly google the subject to see how close what they offered is to the result. Yours is an exact match to the very first result, right down to your hilarious french reference.
If you are going to shout your idiosyncratic use of atheism under the guise of “knowledge” on the subject, at least put in a little effort. Scroll down, click on “more results”, look around a bit and pull from more than one source...make it at least somewhat difficult for someone to discover you for the fraud you are.
I do not think it is so simple. Many things that had previously been attributed to the work of God now have physical explanations in which the supernatural plays no role. Newton set out to demonstrate the hand of God at work, but it turned out that his physics left no room for the actions of God. It was the work of natural forces not God at work. There are some who appeal to some form of intelligent design, but natural explanations increasingly leave no place for the hand of God. The only place left where a God may play a role is with claims that God is the ground or source of existence. But if we ask why there must be a ground or source, something other than what is as the reason for what is, then such claims seem less likely.
I have been discussing this topic for over 20 years on the Internet...and have written many published op ed pieces on it for over 20 years before that.
The "French reference" is something anyone should know who decides to discuss this subject...and I have use it (as it should be used) for over 40 years.
If there is anyone here who does not know what he is talking about...it is you. Your argument was "Atheism 101...at best.
Now...if it make you feel good to suppose that anyone not expressing a "belief" in any gods is required to be an atheist...do it. I can understand atheists wanting agnostics in their ranks to raise the intelligence level.
Okay...a challenge.
Using reason, logic, math, or science...present an argument that...
...it is more likely there is at least one god than that there are none...or...
...it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
I will then use that argument in another setting...and we'll see how it works there.
Silly game you are playing...but if it keeps you around, I'm up to it.
Either you are of the opinion that the likelihood of "at least one god exists" is greater than the likelihood that "no gods exist...
...or the likelihood of "no gods exist" is greater than the likelihood that "at least one god exists"...
...or you are of the opinion that likelihood is equal or indeterminate. (Of course, you can claim none of the above...to provide humor...in which case I will laugh and enjoy it.)
So...which is it?
What one takes to be likely is based on evidence and temperament. I find no evidence that leads me to think it is likely that there is a God. I have no convictions that lead me to think that there is a God. Someone else, however, may have strong convictions that there is a God and believe that everything is evidence that there is a God. For him it is not only likely that there is a God, but he does not even think it possible that there is not.
I see no way or even any reason to resolve these differences.
That is why I wrote: "...we cannot even narrow it down to "it is more likely no gods" or "it is more likely at least one god exists."
You were taking exception to that.
Apparently you do agree, though.
Quoting S
So stop acting like an 82 year old child. What's funny about that? I am not a mathematician, and I doubt whether even a mathematician could give a credible assessment based on probability. Each of those assertions about probability are, as you would say, guesswork. I don't go by guesswork, I go by reason.
The "whatever we name it" was also important. But your approach has yet to develop around that realisation.
You seem upset.
Calm down. We're just discussing.
Very often I say something somewhere...and have to repeat it. No big deal. Sorry it seems to be that for you.
You still haven't answered the question...even in that comment from my one and only discussion.
There you talk about "plausibility or evidence or good reason."
I personally cannot see a reasonable "plausibility estimate" that impacts on which is more likely or if they should be considered equal.
I personally cannot see ANY unambiguous evidence that impacts on which is more likely or if they are should be considered equal.
I personally cannot see any "good reason" that impacts on which is more likely or if they should be considered equal.
My point all along is to determine if YOU see it more likely that "there are no gods" than that "at least one god exists"...or if YOU see it more likely that "at least one god exists" than that "no gods exist"...
...or if you see it as a toss up.
Why are YOU having so much trouble with this.
I have no trouble answering the question clearly. Why do you?
We do not know if there is life on Mars but this does not mean that it is as likely to be true that there is as it is that there is not. We do not know if the sun will rise tomorrow, but that does not mean that it is as likely to not rise as it is that it will rise. Not knowing something does not mean that it is as likely to be true as false. We need to consider why someone thinks something is or is not likely to be the case.
Sorry, Fooloso...not meaning to be rude, but I have no idea of what the hell you are talking about or where you are heading with your comments.
You genuinely seem ignorant on the basics of how probability works, as others have suggested. I am no expert, but I at least know that ignorance of likelihood does not logically imply or equate to 50/50.
Really? I think it is quite clear. Not knowing whether God exists or not does not mean we should conclude that it is as likely that he does as it is that he does not.
But that has been my point right along.
Are you agreeing with me...or are you disagreeing?
If that has been your point right along then I am agreeing, although I have been known to disagree with myself.
Still need insults to help you get by.
Interesting.
Anyway...I had to take statistic three times in university. One for my undergrad major of economics; one for a math requirement that I needed. In graduate school my major was psychology...and, as luck would have it, I had to take an advanced statistics course.
Lots and lots of probability theory...an essential to all statistics courses.
Okay...I'm an old guy and university is way back. But I do have an understanding of probability.
Anyway...discussing with you is like trying to nail Jello to the ceiling of a room.
You chose to confront me. You also indicated that I am not worthy of your attention...but still...here you are.
Touche'.
I've done that myself.
I've been an op ed writer for decades...and there are times when I look back at some of the stuff I wrote earlier in my life, where I wonder, "What the hell was I thinking that day?"
Now, as often happens, what you've done there is you've said much without really saying anything at all. I have indicated my scepticism. I have said that I do not believe there to be any assessment of probability that is warranted. You have three options: attempt to provide warrant, concede, or continue to produce text which says nothing at all. So what's it to be?
Okay.
I've been very clear. Your comments are muddy. But then again...you are speaking your mind.
You cannot even spell it correctly; it is preposterous to suppose you have indicated it.
I also like to have the last word.
That may say it all.
You seem unable to understand reasonable commentary...so why should I offer it.
As for dignity...you are the guy who said he was through here...and yet...HERE YOU ARE.
Almost nothing you say is clear as day.
Perhaps you meant "muddy as the Mississippi."
I'm just going to laugh at your shenanigans...so research would be wasted effort.
I am an Anglophile...and in my opinion, you give Englishmen a bad name.
There is much irony here given the context. In a discussion about rationality, you refuse to be rational.
Yes it does. And I am proud of myself.
What you are doing speaks of you.
My condolences.
Don't flatter yourself. You do not offer me a chance to be reasonable...I AM REASONABLE.
And there's plenty of substance in what I have to say. I have had substantive thoughts and considerations published in tens of dozens of newspapers across the US...and even in England (The Lincolnshire Echo). The New York Times published an essay sized piece...without a comma being changed. (Challenging something A. M. Rosenthal wrote!). NEWSWEEK Magazine published a full-page MY TURN of mine.
So don't give me that no substance nonsense.
What you have done is to declare I am not worthy of your responses...and have continued to respond as I was sure you would. If anyone has a problem with a big mouth and no action...you have proved it is you.
You wouldn't recognize rational discussion if you tripped over it. You lecturing me how to write rationally is like Theresa May lecturing on how to get Brexit legislation passed.
Making an assessment about probability in this context is warranted because...???
Quoting S
S, you do realize that I do not much care about what you mean, right?
The moment you dismissively told me that I did not meet your standards for replies and that you were finished with me...and then continued to reply...I realized you were an Inernet toy.
Now...I am playing with you. Anything more substantial would be a waste.
If one really wanted to claim that rationality isnt always necessary or sufficient, wouldnt they do it irrationally, and then would they even make any sense?
It seems to me that whenever someone wants to refer to what is true then they have to speak rationally.
And to make sense of, and to identify some sensation or emotion, requires the implementation of reason.