talkmagic.co.uk

I appreciate all the arguements that are being put down here - I really do. But, I think that the following quote sums it all up:

magicdiscoman wrote:faith is neither logical nor rational and therefore needs neither for justification.

Says it all.

Mike.

homeopathy...if its true, does that mean if i widdle in an ocean, that that ocean then just becomes a sea of wee?

kinda makes you think doesn't it...or does it?

anyway, you're all just fragments of a broken mirror reflecting elements of my inner-self back onto....myself...or something...

"Arrive without travelling See all without looking Do all without doing"

Michael Jay wrote:I appreciate all the arguements that are being put down here - I really do. But, I think that the following quote sums it all up:

magicdiscoman wrote:faith is neither logical nor rational and therefore needs neither for justification.

Says it all.

Mike.

Personally I would say that faith does need justification for those exact reasons if they approached me on the subject.
For example if a person striked up a conversation with me and said they honestly believed they were were a 4000 year old egyptian princess then I would not take their word for it I would need evidence.
Obviously for that person they do not require evidence nor might not with to justify it to me which I'm sure is a relief to all concerned.
For me all faith based or belief without evidence is mearly a sign of someones delusional state but they are probably happy in their delusion so bully for them

But if they have faith in what they are suggesting to you, then they don't need logic or rationality.

You may want evidence, but that is for your own satisfaction. That person's faith, in his eyes and in his beliefs, doesn't need proof - he has faith.

Faith needs neither logic nor rationality (and, as a result, it is neither of those things).

Mike.

Faith & Love... two pretty similar human traits.

As said, neither need justification or explanation. It's something which is Sooooooo subjective. In fact, possibly the rawest forms of subjectivity and individuality.

So, to the original question: can someone disagree with something if it is categorically proven to be agreeable?

Well, here's a word for you, and it's another very subjective thing:

Choice

Mull over that one. Choices, whether rational, irrational or otherwise are what we make. And even though someone TELLS me and PROVES TO ME that the sky is blue, if I make a CHOICE that the sky is in fact purple. In fact, if I chose to believe that for long enough, then to me, the sky could indeed become purple.

Therefore, it would be irrational for someone else to agree with me that the sky was purple—unless they shared the same belief. And it wouldn't be rational for someone who had the same beliefs as me to expect the rest of the world to see the sky as we see it.

There are a lot of ways that rational can be defined, but I think in this discussion, it needs only one definition, and it's already been quoted here.

The fact still remains that 100 or so years ago, it would have been irrational to presume that I could speak to my relatives in America on a paper-thin screen face-to-face, from the comfort of my office in the UK. But it has happened.

It would also have been irrational for mediaeval man to think about travelling to the moon. But it's happened.

Rational thought is logical thought. Logical thought is based on predefined or known parameters. Predefinition is based on past events, and therefore boils down to 'what we already know'. I imagine much more pessimistic decisions/conclusions can be derived using rationality.

Faith and belief, on the other hand, are based on future events not yet unfolded—and are therefore much more optimistic.

Now... tell me... as human beings, are we happier being optimistic or pessimistic?

I know which one I prefer, so I guess I gotta have a little bit of faith

The optimist is wrong just as often as the pesimist, but he has more fun.

Optimism rocks. As does faith, love and hope. Without these things, I can't see how I would cope in this mortal existance.

But advances in technology (including space exploratrion) were brought about through rational-thinking scientists who trusted the established principles of science as a base to keep learning and improving. Religion certainly didn't put man on the moon! Many religious people refuse to believe the earth is more than 12,000 years old!

As Richard Dawkins wrote in the mischievously-titled and rather moving 'A Prayer For My Daughter': "Next time somebody tells you something is true, why not say to them, 'What kind of evidence is there for that?' And if they can't give you a good answer, I hope you'll think carefully before believing a word they say."

If only all children were brought up with such intellectual values, rather than brain-washed into believing the same irrational superstitions their parents have chosen to adopt. I don't deny anyone their "faith", but that should play no part in deciding the laws and rules of society as a whole.

In my opinion.

I agree with jdcarr here.

Life changing decisions can't really be rationally based on hope or faith, and are much more sturdy if based on fact.

The only thing I disagree *slightly* with is the 'rational thinking scientists' part.

Most major scientific breakthroughs are by accident. And then, most refinements of those accidents are based on trial and error. Trial and error is based on optimisim and hope, surely? If trial and error and 'experimentation' were rational, then they would be obsolete concepts

LOL - I love the way this is heading....

Scientists must have a specific BELIEF that what they are doing is usuful/beneficial in some way; I wonder how they arrive at and/or justify that belief?

I certainly believe people should ask why. I am logical and scientific at heart, but only recently let myself be subjected to the questions of religion, and asked myself what proof there was.

I think we need to ask ourselves why do we believe the things we do.

I know I have spent the last 24 years claiming to be a Protestant Christian, but surely, I didn't know better, as I spent my primary years in a C of E school, surely, if my family were Jewish I would also be Jewish, until I stop and question myself.

As adults, surely, we must take a step back and ask why? We cannot just accept what we are told anymore.

Make you're own mind up, don't let someone else do it for you.

Anaryn... see my posts above. There's a lovely word called 'choice' in there.

For me, choice is as important as belief, faith or hope.

My mum isn't a religious nut, but really did impose the Christian faith and Bible on us at an early age. At about 6 years old when I nearly died in a road accident, I questioned her faith. And I made a decision that I was somehow 'saved' for something.

However, a year later, my beloved grandpa died, quite unexpectedly.

From about the age of 10 years, I CHOSE not to believe so strongly anymore.

I hadn't LOST MY FAITH, I just chose not to have any.

Choices are a luxury, sometimes we don't have them. Beliefs are something we can choose freely. I guess whatever makes you happy is what you should choose to believe, and don't ever let anyone sway or discourage, or ENcourage for that matter.

seige wrote:Most major scientific breakthroughs are by accident. And then, most refinements of those accidents are based on trial and error. Trial and error is based on optimisim and hope, surely? If trial and error and 'experimentation' were rational, then they would be obsolete concepts

Absolutely. But I think you're using "rational" to mean unimaginative: that scientists need to have a future vision (other than Star Trek) to aspire to. Which is right. But imaginative scientists should not be confused with closed-minded paranormalists who don't even want to properly test their theories (wonder why?), and whose beliefs (be it faires, angels, gods or the healing power of toilet paper) are, to me, BORING when compared to the unspeakable wonder and mind-boggling complexity and beauty of the real world. There's nothing rational about quantum theory, and yet it's based upon sound evidence and a hell of a lot more interesting than bloody homeopathy!

I'm a bit offended by your suggestion that healing power of toilet paper is subject to the same derision as a belief in God (or angels, etc.).

Not happy about that at all...

Mike.

I wonder, has anyone here read up on String Theory or The Theory of Everything?

I love science. I also love how they can get things wrong, but not stop, instead, they find new thing, better things, and just simply keep improving.

Choice is definately a luxury, it's a shame people don't realise how lucky we are.

jdcarr wrote:
Absolutely. But I think you're using "rational" to mean unimaginative: that scientists need to have a future vision (other than Star Trek) to aspire to.

That's rather presumptuous. But I see what you mean.

However... science, discovery etc. is a hierarchical thing. The more we know, the more we can push. The creativity of the scientific mind is limited only by the bounds of imagination. However, rationality plays a huge part in the boundaries too. There are certain limits to what we can still do. However, luckily, there are OTHER scientists beavering away at ways to solve those sub-problems as well.

For instance, a car would be no good without wheels. So inventing a car engine would be pointless without having wheels first. However, wheels are useful without the engine too, so they weren't invented as a necessity for the engine.

I am struggling to explain what I am thinking here, so I will digress for a while and just say, I think we're on the same Hymn sheet, but just starting on different verses!

(Digression mode: does anyone know where our Tonkinese cat has gotten to?)