AJ113

Absolutely!

Isn't it being deceitful to claim that intuition is a path to knowledge if intuition is really defined as "right guesses"?

Yes! That's my point!

Guesses aren't considered paths to knowledge.

Agreed!

If fake intuition (i.e. when you THINK you know something immediately but turn out to be wrong) turns out to be indistinguishable from real intuition (when you THINK you know something immediately but turn out to be wrong), what good does intuition do us as a process through which to acquire knowledge?

To me, I don't see any way to distinguish fake intuition from real intuition. Perhaps you could enlighten me. And if there's no way to tell the difference, I fail to see how intuition can be a reliable tool for obtaining knowledge.

-B

Maybe we should discuss intuition. As defined by the dictionary, does it really exist? I don't think so. Remember, intuition ALWAYS results in the gaining of knowledge. Not sometimes, but always.

Now, how many people do we know who have this amazing talent? I certainly don't know anyone. Therefore I suggest that there is no such thing in reality as intuition, and that all we have is people acting on hunches, and hunches, as we all know, can sometimes be wrong.

The reason I make this distinction is in order to dismantle Nowhere357's argument that a religious faith can be a rational faith when it relies on intuition to demonstrate its rationality.

As I've just shown, intuition is not a reality, and so when people say "intuition" they are talking about something that does not really exist, such as "magic," and they often really mean "hunch" or "guess," and we all know that hunches and guesses can be wrong.

So if "intuition" is a person's sole submission as to the rationality of his religeus beliefs, it is void. The beliefs are irrational.

Bumble Bee Tuna

Tricky little bastard, pretending you disagree with me...

-B

AJ113

Yeah, sorry 'bout that, but I needed to do it in order to present my argument.

Rational BAC

If the mods are at all worried about this thread being personal, I do not consider it so. And am enjoying it immensely.

Carry on guys.

Nowhere357

Awareness of our emotional states is of course a practical fact.

So my use of "reason" is valid.

I think we've agreed that it is not reasonable to ignore our emotional states.
But here, "reason" is used as if it means "logical" (which it can mean, of course). This then makes involving emotional awareness, by definition, unreasonable. But involving awareness or understanding of our emotional states IS NOT unreasonable, so I disagree with this definition.

Also, intuition can definitely be right, or wrong - the same as logic, which can be right, or wrong. Again, I disagree with your definition.

What then when logic yields an incorrect result? I think it's not reasonable (!) to claim that all of the scientists who noticed the apparent contradiction between the wave manifestation of light, and the partical manifestion of light, were in fact illogical.

So really I disagree with the way you are defining all of these terms.

I think perhaps your definitions are consistent (that is, they are not necessarily wrong) - just not very useful.

Since neither of us is (apparently) willing to budge on the semantics, we are at an impasse. I have another way to explain my position here - please see my next post to BBT. And thanks, AJ, this has been fun and stimulating.

Nowhere357

Here my objection is that when we look closely, we see that all our decisions involve both logic and intuition to some degree. The most emotional decision envolves some logic (I feel 'x', therefore 'y') while the most logical decision involves intuition ('axioms' for example are intuitive).

But I want to shift gears here, and explain why I think my approach is necessary.

There is a war going on - a battle between freethought and the hateful intolerance which is supported by the dark side of Christianity.

Results are what imo matters most here - if someone has rejected the dark side (that sounds so Star Wars-ish!) then I am not interested in trashing their faith.

In my experience, cherry pickers have rejected all the negative crap. They generally are good people. More power to them! As I've said, they rarely are interested in debate - so kudos to RBAC for hanging out here and for having a nice thick skin.

Cherry pickers draw the wrath of the fundamentalists, and that in itself is enough reason to support them - or at least to not oppose them.

They have shed the worst of the shackles of Christianity - and that imo is very rational.

Truth is truth - I don't advocate pretending like someone makes sense, if they don't. But there is no reason (!) to personally insult the entirety of their lives. Anyway, that's the motivation for my involvement here.


(Btw, I know about frisbee golf - but what is ultimate frisbee?)

AJ113

You missed the point. Your use of "reason" is not valid because it means "cause" in the context of your posts, and has little to do with the verb "to reason."

I think we've agreed that it is not reasonable to ignore our emotional states.

I can agree to this, but I certainly do not agree that emotions should be deemed as valid contributary factors when attempting to make rational decisions.

It is certainly true that, as human beings, we often DO allow our emotions to interfere in the rational thought process, but sadly, as soon as we do this, the thought process stops being rational.

But here, "reason" is used as if it means "logical" (which it can mean, of course). This then makes involving emotional awareness, by definition, unreasonable.

Correct.

But involving awareness or understanding of our emotional states IS NOT unreasonable

Yes it is. Emotion has no place in rational thinking.

so I disagree with this definition.
Take it up with the authors. If this discussion is going to challenge the authority of the dictionary in order to make a point then we're not going to get very far.

Also, intuition can definitely be right, or wrong - the same as logic, which can be right, or wrong. Again, I disagree with your definition.

Logic cannot be wrong. Logic is logic. The same goes for intuition.

What then when logic yields an incorrect result?

Logic yields an incorrect result when it is based on false premises. It is never the logic that is wrong. If the deductive process is faulty then it cannot be called logic.

So really I disagree with the way you are defining all of these terms.

It is not me that is defining them, it is the dictionary.

I think perhaps your definitions are consistent (that is, they are not necessarily wrong) - just not very useful.

They are useful to me because they confirm the earlier points I made. And they clearly show that your argument is not valid.

Since neither of us is (apparently) willing to budge on the semantics, we are at an impasse.

The impasse is not due to semantics. It is due to your insistance that emotions and feelings can somehow make a valid contribution to the rational thought process when I have shown beyond doubt that this is clearly not true.

I think that we need to acknowledge our emotions and feelings when attempting to be rational. By doing this, we can readily identify a NEGATIVE factor in the rational thought process and mentally IGNORE it in order to facilitate the process.

And thanks, AJ, this has been fun and stimulating.
My pleasure. The thanks are reciprocated.

AJ113

So if a cherry picker says something that you disagree with do you ignore that fact and pretend that you agree with them, on the basis that you want to support them because their christian beliefs differ to funadamentalist christian beliefs?

They have shed the worst of the shackles of Christianity - and that imo is very rational.

As I said earlier, you cannot be "very" rational. Do you think it is rational to believe in the christian god? If so, why don't you believe in god yourself?

Truth is truth - I don't advocate pretending like someone makes sense, if they don't. But there is no reason (!) to personally insult the entirety of their lives. Anyway, that's the motivation for my involvement here.

Now we get to the crux of the matter. There has been no personal insult made during this thread, let alone an insult concerning the entirety of a life. But you CHOSE to take the comments that were made as an insult. That may be your decision, but personally I prefer to deal with facts, cutting out as much spurrious bullshit as possible. That's the reason for my involvement here.

Bumble Bee Tuna

There's no way we will resolve this argument. You are confusing "rational" with "good", and "irrational" with "insulting the entirety of their lives". I can't help you. RBAC seems like a wonderful person- he is also irrational.

Having "nice" religious beliefs isn't somehow more rational than having "mean" religious beliefs. I will never convince you if you think that saying RBAC is irrational is a massive insult, equivalent to saying he's an evil person.

RBAC is irrational. That doesn't mean I hate him or even dislike him. He's a good person. Just not rational. That's the point of the debate, but for you rational is synonymous with good so I can't help you.

-B

Nowhere357

My use of the word is consistent with the dictionary definitions.

"I think we've agreed that it is not reasonable to ignore our emotional states."

Then you are in contradiction with yourself. For example, by what you say here, we should not include our awareness of the feeling of love when we choose a mate.

Based on your definitions, this is true. It also leads to contradictions, as shown above.

I agree that emotions can interfere with with logical thought - this is why the scientific method is so valuable. And why the scientific method seems to fail when dealing with theistic faith.

Humans are not logic machines.

Based on your definitions, this is true. It is also leads to contradiction, as I've shown. You admit "it is not reasonable to ignore our emotional states", and then claim that it is not reasonable to include our emotional states. This is in contradiction.

My definitions are from the dictionary. Why are you denying this?

Of course logic can be wrong. Logic is not omni-anything. It is just a tool.

"This sentence is a lie."

And of course intuition can be wrong. Otherwise all of our gut feelings would be correct.

Which is why I said your definitions are consistent. My definitions also are from the dictionary, and also are consistent. The difference is the variations I have chosen avoid the contradictions in your position.

Yes I know - which is why you will not give proper consideration to the variations I provided, I think.

My argument is valid, based on my defintions.

The impasse is due to semantics, because the words have multiple definitions, and we each are using a different set of these variations.

Again, your statement of "I have shown beyond doubt that this is clearly not true" has meaning only in your framework, not in mine. You are not being fair. My position is based on my definitions, which come from the dictionary. If you wish to identify errors in my position, then you must use my definitions. No position is sound if we change the meanings of the words used. When I point out your errors, I attempt to use the definitions as you provided.

Of course I agree.

Here you seem to admit that the rational process includes emotional awareness, which is my position. But then it also seems to say that we should identify the emotional component, in order to reject it. I guess I don't understand what this says, because it seems to contradict itself.

(If we are for example determining the height of a tree, and we really wish our tree is the highest, then of course we should eliminate our desire when we measure the tree, to avoid tainting the result. Is this close to what you mean?)

If you are willing to consider my pov using my definitions, in order to better critique it, I will restate (this is a long thread for hunting down cut-and-pastes, so the offer is not made lightly.) Or we can agree to disagree, because we really are at an impasse.