____twoism

logical positivism is mondo popular in this day in age.

but did you know that neither inductive nor deductive reasoning are rationally grounded? they work, and they're useful, but logically neither process checks out - so we have an entire system of logic for which the only two modes of reasoning are not, themselves, logically sound. See Susan Haack/David Hume, and any modern epistemologist, they all have lots to say about this.

imo, limiting your beliefs to what logic allows turns out to be as arbitrary logically as limiting them to what the body of scientific knowledge allows. they're both just useful places to "draw the line in the sand" to what you're willing to find plausible.

i say this not to piss in anyone's cereal - i accept that people define themselves by these lines in the sand and you won't find my sand-line too far away from either. but i do have to put up with a lot of pompous logical positivists on my college campus with no knowledge of formal logic who claim they only believe what can be logically deduced or inducted, or worse still, Physics majors with no inkling of the historicity of science who claim they only believe what is "scientific". these people have a tendency greater than that of Creationists to insist their worldview is the only viable one, and that others are insane or just stupid. so i spread the word.

anyway, food for thought

Yeah...unfortunately, looking at the world through a strictly scientific, logical perspective is self defeating. Science can only define what's verifyable through repeat experimentation, but the very act of coming up with a hypothesis to test is (often) a subjective act. So essentially, science is blind without a bit of luck, subjectivity and shear curiosity about the unknown. If we define our world only by what we know, science stands still, and the vast expanse of information beyond human knowledge is ignored. Without mystery, there's no discovery.

In other words, I think it's a pretty fucking stupid way of looking at things.

saturdayindex wrote: And skytree... I just threw up in my mouth.

Sorry man...was it the spandex man package?

Skytree wrote:Yeah...unfortunately, looking at the world through a strictly scientific, logical perspective is self defeating. Science can only define what's verifyable through repeat experimentation, but the very act of coming up with a hypothesis to test is (often) a subjective act. So essentially, science is blind without a bit of luck, subjectivity and shear curiosity about the unknown. If we define our world only by what we know, science stands still, and the vast expanse of information beyond human knowledge is ignored. Without mystery, there's no discovery.

In other words, I think it's a pretty fucking stupid way of looking at things.

On point.

Open your mind.

Replies in RED!

BunnyRabbit wrote:

CoBoC wrote:Who says atheists aren't spiritual?

Me.

Well, sort of.

I'm atheist as in I don't recognise the necessity of there being a god - logically speaking.
Me too.

But more generally I don't feel the need for any kind of explanation outside of deductive reasoning.
Yes you do. But the explanation is provided by you and your subjective take on what's plausible.

If you say you're atheist I see it has quite a hard-line position - the Dawkins position - not something you can pick and choose on. Otherwise you're agnostic.
Dawkins is also agnostic. As are most atheists. Otherwise you're claiming an absolute, which is crap.

BOC I think are, at least, interested in the spiritual life. I wouldn't go any further.

<naturalist.

I'm as much an atheist as my dad is strait edge. He doesn't drink or do drugs but he has absolutely no reason to call himself strait edge. I'm just a rational reasonable human being, I believe, and I dont feel the need to call myself an atheist. I've felt this way since high school.

I'm ready for the day the term atheist has gone the way of 'abolitionist' and the like.

meat like product wrote: I'm ready for the day the term atheist has gone the way of 'abolitionist' and the like.

yeah, i can't wait for everyone to have the exact same working model of the universe. things will get real interesting and creative from then on

where's Cupz? represent neo christian love!

turquoise70 wrote:
yeah, i can't wait for everyone to have the exact same working model of the universe. things will get real interesting and creative from then on

I'm not sure what creativity has to do with truth. But anyway, when this happens we'll finally be able to focus on what really matters and get past this religion and spirituality bullshit.

Also, I used to consider myself to be a neo christian. I honestly thought I had coined the term. I realized I was just desperately trying to associate myself with my family's religion. It was a waste of time.

Spot on!

CoBoC wrote:Replies in RED!

BunnyRabbit wrote:

CoBoC wrote:Who says atheists aren't spiritual?

Me.

Well, sort of.

I'm atheist as in I don't recognise the necessity of there being a god - logically speaking.
Me too.

But more generally I don't feel the need for any kind of explanation outside of deductive reasoning.
Yes you do. But the explanation is provided by you and your subjective take on what's plausible.

If you say you're atheist I see it has quite a hard-line position - the Dawkins position - not something you can pick and choose on. Otherwise you're agnostic.
Dawkins is also agnostic. As are most atheists. Otherwise you're claiming an absolute, which is crap.

BOC I think are, at least, interested in the spiritual life. I wouldn't go any further.

Hmmm.

Not going to labour this too much - this being the wrong forum but I'd like to answer these points.

You say, I do feel the need for an explanation outside of deductive reasoning but the need is for an explanation provided by my own subjectivity?
Well, yes, my view is subjective by definition but I don't see how that helps. My choice of explanations is still based on reasoning. I put my trust in scientific method to provide the explanations over and above all other explanations because it's in my view the best option available. Or to put it a other way, the most satisfying in my subjective view given that to my knowledge no-one had come up with as useful or rigorous an alternative.


In the God Delusion, I'm pretty sure Dawkins starts off by laying out why he's extremely hard line on this. To the point where he's rather not even be called an atheist because that at least acknowledges the possibility of supernatural beings, which he sees as unnecessary. Why tag yourself with refutation something you don't recognize in the first place, kinda thing. He goes to great lengths to pour scorn on agnostics too IIRC. His problem - and I agree - is with belief/faith as a basis for important choices.

Science is not a stupid way of looking at things . By definition the scientific method is a reasoned way of looking at things. It might not always be right or even useful in every circumstance but it's the only one that's more right more of the time. It's also the only way to have a truly open mind - if you're doing it right!.


In conclusion, I do not, of course, live my life by scientific methods. It's just a tool for getting things done and explaining things. I feel and create and interact based on my experiences and when appropriate I suspend all disbelief and reasoning in order to feel and create and interact and ultimate create new experiences.