Liquidrage

Thank you Noah Webster.

Honestly, the term is not clearly defined and a simple internet search on the phrase will show that.
I would define it before I would use it.

David Mathews

Hello Everyone,

I think that the big roadblock to the present discussion is the association of the question regarding rationality/irrationality with theism/atheism. I will take as a starting point the following principles:

1. Rationality/irrationality is a quality of the mind which may be possessed by theists and atheists.

2. All people have rational/irrational beliefs, opinions, convictions and hopes.

3. In general, humans devote the least amount of effort possible in forming their beliefs and worldview because the responsibilities of day-to-day life take precedence over philosophical, logical or theological thought processes.

4. Once people form a conviction about anything it is next to impossible to modify, abandon or change that conviction either by internal thought processes or external motivators (peer pressure, teachers, preachers and other opponents).

Does everyone agree with the above principles?

Sincerely,

David Mathews

lcb

I have a professor who says that "some evidence trumps No evidence"...does anyone know what he is getting at?

optimist

Devilnaut, if "strong atheism" is simply holding that the God-concept is below 50%, then what is "weak atheism"? I would have to argue that "weak atheism" assigns the God-concept a below %50 probability, and strong atheism is when the God-concept is assigned a 0% probability.

D Mathews,

1. I agree to #1
2. I agree to #2

3. I (think) I agree to #3. Maybe because I am a philosophy major this seems a little foreign to me. However, "generally" it seems true. I would not wish this to change either, a farmer doesn't necessarily need to contemplate God. Really, if a farmer holds a belief in God irrationally it is the scientists, goverment officials, and education system to blame. It is them who are suppose to spend time and be aware of philosophic issues.

4. Wow, no not at all. My group of friends and I hold to the maxim that how long you go without being wrong on some major belief of yours, is a measure of how little thinking you are doing. I don't expect my belief in atheism to change, but I might see it modified, and do I expect to discover I am wrong on a lot of other things all the time. Not just trivial things either. I am trying to wade through Wittgenstein's philosophy, and each day I seem to realize I misunderstood something. I dropped determinism like a bad habit when I final realized how the two-slit experiment works! I did like determinism, but when I found out there was a threat to it from quantum physics I went straight to learning about quantum physics. Not long after I understood the threat, did I realize it was right, and abandon determinism. (Not that I'll admit there to being freewill though, I am semi-undecided due to lack of time spent studying that issue)

For a normal person I suppose they would change their mind less often since they are less involved in reflecting on their held beliefs, but I think you take it too far. I think the reason people don't change their mind often is because they just don't spend that much time thinking or arguing about it. If someone did challenge their beliefs often, I think they would be modifying their beliefs often. Some beliefs are slow to change, others fast, but none unmovable.

Philosoft

See, I think it is silly to believe "strong atheists" claim something equivalent to, "all God concepts which I both know about and don't know about are false." This is the strawman position that many ascribe to "strong atheism" and I can't see how it logically exists.

<strong> Depends on your definition of 'certainty.' Can, "my bottle is less than half-full of beer" be an uncertain empirical fact?

<strong> Probably, but then, I think "weak" atheists are "strong" atheists in principle.

<strong> No doubt about this.

[ July 21, 2002: Message edited by: Philosoft ]</p>

phaedrus

David Mathews

<a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=56&t=000271&p=2" target="_blank">Socrates' Cave & The Nature of Reality - Page 2</a>

Kharakov

Hi optimist-

Why did our inability to predict something exactly lead you to abandon determinism (do you take the position that there are no causes, as opposed to the position that we cannot know the causes)?

What are your comments on Shrödinger's Cat?

-k

Genhancer

Please define "rational".

Liquidrage

My guess is because the information presented to him was in the form that the 2 slit experiment breaks determinism.
It of course does not. But it is often presented as if it does.

The easiest explination is in fact determinism with the elimination of free will of the observer.
Only if one presupposes free will and keeps it does the two slit experiment break determinism.

It's quantum uncertainty that breaks what is known as scientific determinism. Which is defined as determinism with the ability to predict the future.

Clutch

Would you kindly read the post before replying? Notice that denying the validity of the FC argument is not the same as calling the idea of a first cause "ridiculous". It's denying the logical necessity of a FC. As I immediate pointed out in easy-to-understand English: I then challenged you to show otherwise if you had the goods -- the radical, earth-shaking goods, as they would be, since the FC argument has been recognized as a dismal fallacy for a long, long time. You replied: Oh, now I see: it seems irrational! Well, darn, I lose!

That's quite the argument you have there...