5 ms·

It sounds like you agree that religious people are not rational, which is clearly not true. They just start from different axioms (not only physicalist ones) wh

It sounds like you agree that religious people are not rational, which is clearly not true. They just start from different axioms (not only physicalist ones) when they reason. Charitably, it could be confusion over what the word 'rational' means. At any rate, your points about group membership signalling are well taken. I'd like to point out other forms of social signalling, outgrouping for instance, can be just as powerful and even more counterproductive. I'm not sure how to let people have honest, helpful, and enjoyable conversations while still policing for things like extraneous signaling. Historically, creating 'safe spaces' for frank and productive dialog hasn't been very successful.

adrianratnapala 10y ago
Indeed. I am an athiest, but if sievebrain tried to convince me "that God doesn't exist using logic"; then he would get nowhere. Logic alone is too impartial such debates.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  My point was a little different. There is actually lots of reason and logic on both sides. But both in general and at specific times, people need to pick the underlying axioms (do only matter and energy exist?) they are going to assume. You probably agree, but I want it to be crystal clear that we don't have to throw out logic or reason (or accuse others of doing so) to discuss philosophy, theology, and their intersection with current events. If you mean there's no proof for whether physicalism is true or false, then I completely agree.
  - nitrogen 10y ago
    I think you'll see formerly religious atheists make the most claims about the illogic of (their former) religion, because they are most familiar with it. They can provide logical arguments against their particular former belief, but none that would ever convince the true believers (e.g. those who say things like, "Even if the Pope said tomorrow it was all a sham I would still believe in Catholicism", or similarly for other hierarchical religions). Your mention of axioms is very similar to how I used to reason about my own former belief. When empirical reality contradicted those axioms and I spent some time away from the continuous reindoctrination to examine what I believed was real, I found it far more reasonable to disbelieve than to replace one belief with another. Ultimately empirical reality has to be the arbiter; no amount of soul searching alone, without evidence, can reveal facts about reality. So maybe there is no concrete logical "proof" that physicalism is real, but empiricism isn't about absolutes, and empirically, physicalism has a much, much better track record of supplying new, true knowledge about reality than any other supposed way of knowing.
    - humanrebar 10y ago
      > Ultimately empirical reality has to be the arbiter; no amount of soul searching alone, without evidence, can reveal facts about reality. To reiterate, I believe strongly in empirical evidence. I'm mostly arguing against it being the sole source of knowledge. And thanks for sharing the rest of your thoughts. I would call what you believe about physicalism a form of faith since you are aligning your expectations to a system that has a good track record in your experience. And I think that's understandable. At any rate, if we can have a little humility in admitting the limitations to our own certainty, I believe we'll have more charity when dealing with people from other perspectives.
    - humanrebar 10y ago
      > Ultimately empirical reality has to be the arbiter; no amount of soul searching alone, without evidence, can reveal facts about reality. To reiterate, I believe strongly in empirical evidence. I'm mostly arguing against it being the sole source of knowledge. And thanks for sharing the rest of your thoughts. I would call what you believe about physicalism a form of faith since you are aligning your expectations to a system that has a good track record in your experience. And I think that's understandable. At any rate, if we can have a little humility in admitting the limitations to our own certainty, I believe we'll have more charity when dealing with people from other perspectives.
sievebrain 10y ago
Isn't it the other way around? I just argued that belief in what I call pseudo-facts can be seen as an odd form of rationality, if by announcing your belief in them you get useful and positive things in return. For organised religion that might be a community of friends and people who will help you in times of need, a feeling of being part of something, a collection of interesting stories and shared cultural artifacts, acceptance by family, less anxiety about death, a moral code to live by or all of them together. In that sense, the belief in (say) biblical literalism would not itself be a rational belief, but the overall behaviour that surrounds it can be a rational choice. Now, you seem to be arguing that I don't understand the meaning of rational, and then go on to claim that literally anything can be considered rational because you can just pick your own axioms. That's not how rationality works! You can go ahead and create an argument that seems perfectly reasonable in your own frame of reference but nobody else will care if your axioms aren't shared or are clearly nonsense!
- humanrebar 10y ago
  > In that sense, the belief in (say) biblical literalism would not itself be a rational belief I find it optimistic, to say the least, that each individual can reasonably start from first principles, discover whether there is a Creator, discover if God wants anything from us, and then comply with the requirements of God before the afterlife (if there is one). Atheism is a much more defensible position than a personal deism of any specificity. Regarding group membership, some organizations are absolutely about that, but the Jesus of the Bible was clearly opposed to people using religion for personal ends. So there are religions that are open to hanging around for the friendship, but biblical Christianity isn't one of them. > Now, you seem to be arguing that I don't understand the meaning of rational... I didn't mean any offense. It seemed likely that we didn't have the same definition of 'rational' and it seems even more likely now. > ...nobody else will care if your axioms aren't shared... Except people clearly do care. And their response is to establish ingroups, outgroups, promote ignorance, and that's not a good road to go down. I would rather people come to an understanding that everyone is mostly rational, mostly logical, and mostly trying to live a good life. They're normal people that made other choices, in other words. Regarding nonsensical axioms, axioms can be nonsense if they are inherently contradictory. The axioms we're talking about here pass that hurdle.
13of40 10y ago
> they just start from different axioms I think they're also more likely to turn a blind eye to cases where the buildout of their model doesn't hold true. They could, for example, start out with the belief that the bible is the literal word of God, but hand wave away the fundamental contradictions you can find between different parts of it. (How many angels visited Jesus, exactly who did Cain think would kill him for being a vagabond, etc.) That's not just doing math from different first principles, it's changing the arithmetic rules as you go to fit the answer you want to produce.

adrianratnapala 10y ago

Indeed. I am an athiest, but if sievebrain tried to convince me "that God doesn't exist using logic"; then he would get nowhere. Logic alone is too impartial such debates.

humanrebar 10y ago
My point was a little different. There is actually lots of reason and logic on both sides. But both in general and at specific times, people need to pick the underlying axioms (do only matter and energy exist?) they are going to assume. You probably agree, but I want it to be crystal clear that we don't have to throw out logic or reason (or accuse others of doing so) to discuss philosophy, theology, and their intersection with current events. If you mean there's no proof for whether physicalism is true or false, then I completely agree.
- nitrogen 10y ago
  I think you'll see formerly religious atheists make the most claims about the illogic of (their former) religion, because they are most familiar with it. They can provide logical arguments against their particular former belief, but none that would ever convince the true believers (e.g. those who say things like, "Even if the Pope said tomorrow it was all a sham I would still believe in Catholicism", or similarly for other hierarchical religions). Your mention of axioms is very similar to how I used to reason about my own former belief. When empirical reality contradicted those axioms and I spent some time away from the continuous reindoctrination to examine what I believed was real, I found it far more reasonable to disbelieve than to replace one belief with another. Ultimately empirical reality has to be the arbiter; no amount of soul searching alone, without evidence, can reveal facts about reality. So maybe there is no concrete logical "proof" that physicalism is real, but empiricism isn't about absolutes, and empirically, physicalism has a much, much better track record of supplying new, true knowledge about reality than any other supposed way of knowing.
  - humanrebar 10y ago
    > Ultimately empirical reality has to be the arbiter; no amount of soul searching alone, without evidence, can reveal facts about reality. To reiterate, I believe strongly in empirical evidence. I'm mostly arguing against it being the sole source of knowledge. And thanks for sharing the rest of your thoughts. I would call what you believe about physicalism a form of faith since you are aligning your expectations to a system that has a good track record in your experience. And I think that's understandable. At any rate, if we can have a little humility in admitting the limitations to our own certainty, I believe we'll have more charity when dealing with people from other perspectives.
  - humanrebar 10y ago
    > Ultimately empirical reality has to be the arbiter; no amount of soul searching alone, without evidence, can reveal facts about reality. To reiterate, I believe strongly in empirical evidence. I'm mostly arguing against it being the sole source of knowledge. And thanks for sharing the rest of your thoughts. I would call what you believe about physicalism a form of faith since you are aligning your expectations to a system that has a good track record in your experience. And I think that's understandable. At any rate, if we can have a little humility in admitting the limitations to our own certainty, I believe we'll have more charity when dealing with people from other perspectives.

sievebrain 10y ago

Isn't it the other way around? I just argued that belief in what I call pseudo-facts can be seen as an odd form of rationality, if by announcing your belief in them you get useful and positive things in return. For organised religion that might be a community of friends and people who will help you in times of need, a feeling of being part of something, a collection of interesting stories and shared cultural artifacts, acceptance by family, less anxiety about death, a moral code to live by or all of them together. In that sense, the belief in (say) biblical literalism would not itself be a rational belief, but the overall behaviour that surrounds it can be a rational choice. Now, you seem to be arguing that I don't understand the meaning of rational, and then go on to claim that literally anything can be considered rational because you can just pick your own axioms. That's not how rationality works! You can go ahead and create an argument that seems perfectly reasonable in your own frame of reference but nobody else will care if your axioms aren't shared or are clearly nonsense!

humanrebar 10y ago
> In that sense, the belief in (say) biblical literalism would not itself be a rational belief I find it optimistic, to say the least, that each individual can reasonably start from first principles, discover whether there is a Creator, discover if God wants anything from us, and then comply with the requirements of God before the afterlife (if there is one). Atheism is a much more defensible position than a personal deism of any specificity. Regarding group membership, some organizations are absolutely about that, but the Jesus of the Bible was clearly opposed to people using religion for personal ends. So there are religions that are open to hanging around for the friendship, but biblical Christianity isn't one of them. > Now, you seem to be arguing that I don't understand the meaning of rational... I didn't mean any offense. It seemed likely that we didn't have the same definition of 'rational' and it seems even more likely now. > ...nobody else will care if your axioms aren't shared... Except people clearly do care. And their response is to establish ingroups, outgroups, promote ignorance, and that's not a good road to go down. I would rather people come to an understanding that everyone is mostly rational, mostly logical, and mostly trying to live a good life. They're normal people that made other choices, in other words. Regarding nonsensical axioms, axioms can be nonsense if they are inherently contradictory. The axioms we're talking about here pass that hurdle.

13of40 10y ago

> they just start from different axioms I think they're also more likely to turn a blind eye to cases where the buildout of their model doesn't hold true. They could, for example, start out with the belief that the bible is the literal word of God, but hand wave away the fundamental contradictions you can find between different parts of it. (How many angels visited Jesus, exactly who did Cain think would kill him for being a vagabond, etc.) That's not just doing math from different first principles, it's changing the arithmetic rules as you go to fit the answer you want to produce.