Keith Russell

Sammie:

Insults are not arguments.

Keith.

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>

Mr. Sammi

Keith Russell, you cannot see anything past your blockage, wherever it is and whatever it is. You claim insults, perhaps it is not insultive but instructive.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Keith Russell

Sammi:

Then again, perhaps not.

Keith.

99Percent

False. We couldn't even be exchanging posts if we were as irrational as you claim to be.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

Also, the history of the world (let alone recent world history) proves that there has never been such an instant in which 'we have all understood the same thing'.

Keith.

Mr. Sammi

Understanding the same thing : What about being human? Living on Earth? Eating food? Ability to see? Smell the rosy roses?

I noted there is a rational part of irrationality, where one realises, a lot of false things could have passed, our information and evidence could have been wrong, and so one takes a rational stand as KING of irrationality.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Keith Russell

Sammi:

If we're so irrational, so unable to grasp reality, how is it that you know that there was a moment when 'all have understood the same thing?'

If we're so irrational, so unable to grasp truth, how is it that you are somehow able to know this truth?

Keith.

Mickey

Keith

I was not trying to use the argument from error to say that we cannot have true knowledge because our senses are flawed. I was trying to show that our senses are integral with the material universe. Traditional thinking suggests that a human mind is a discrete entity which receives information through the medium of the senses about other discrete entities in the material universe. My point is that we are not "in" the universe. We are made of universal stuff, and if there is such a thing as space-time it permeates our sub atomic structure. Energy fields and particles do not stop at the apparent boundaries of our bodies or minds. So my first objection to our ability to have true knowledge, is the difficulty inherent in making objective observations of that with which we are integral. Our senses are generated by stimuli, the eye has been formed by light, through natural selection. How we interpret what the light presents to us can depend on the formation of pattern recognition systems in our developmental years. The cat experiments, and the sad cases of children who are kept in sensory deprivation,(and consequently loose the ability to learn language, for example) amply demonstrate this. We only see that which light, which has formed our visual system, permits us to see.

We use knowledge of the world to enable us to interact with each other, you place a chair, I sit on it. This shows that we share the knowledge of what a chair is and its uses. For this working knowledge of chairs to be effective each of us does not need to have exactly the same perception of a chair. This is a familiar concept. The example of colour perception is often used to show that we and other animals can see different colours, or no colour at all, but still interact with the material world. Our knowledge of something does not have to be absolute true knowledge of what it actually is in itself, we only need a "working knowledge" of reality. So my second reason for being unsure about knowledge, is that even a shared knowledge of reality, does not entail that the reality be exactly what we believe it to be.

When you say "rational beliefs are based only on evidence", does it follow that beliefs not based on evidence are necessarily irrational? There is no empirical evidence for the existence of a god. This does not mean that belief in god is irrational. To me belief in god is rational, but it is not knowledge, because by definition, the fact of god cannot be established by verification. The whole of Christian theology is quite rational and logical, and I have read that theological arguments established by the fathers of the church, were never intended to be proofs of god; only to be arguments which show that it is reasonable for a person to believe. There is a difference, IMO between a rational belief and knowledge.
(When it comes to believing in god, I do not, but I cannot say there is no god.)

Further, one could say that all beliefs are based on evidence. If evidence is facts and information, all of us are exposed to the facts and information presented by the environment. Those of us who draw rational conclusions based on logical thinking, claim to have rational beliefs. We object that others just have gut-reactions, and we call their beliefs irrational. As my ex-wife used to say
"I don’t care about theology, I just know there’s got to be something." A belief which is irrational, may accord with a belief which is rational. Both may accord with a belief which can be verified by evidence. It is not the evidence which guarantees rationality, it is the reasoning used in interpretation.


Mickey.

Keith Russell

Mickey:

The system of Christian thought may proceed logically from its first premise, but that premise has not been established logically.

Christian thought is thus a 'castle in the air', a mind game costructed logically on an empty (arbitrary) premise.

Constructing such a system on an empty premise, while it resembles formal logic, cannot be (IMO) considered 'rational'.

Keith.

John Galt, Jr.

I know that there is a mountain on this planet named 'Everest'. Everest's peak is about 29,000 feet above sea level. I know this because somewhere along the line I have learned it. I probably learned it by reading these facts in some encycopedia. I have never seen Everest. With respect to the encyclopedias that I consulted from time to time, I have not checked their general accuracy against the facts that they relate. I do know that I have seen in other volumes some of what I have seen encyclopedias. But I haven't checked to see if these other volumes used the very encyclopedias that I have consulted as their sources for the information therein.

I am inclined to say that, in a straight-forward sense, my knowledge that there is a mountain called 'Everest' is based on faith. I have, in fact, merely accepted, without checking them against the facts themselves, some source(s) as authoritative, and my claim that there is a mountain named 'Everest' derives from such mere acceptance.

Is my knowledge that there is a mountain named 'Everest' based on evidence or on faith, on mere acceptance?

John Galt, Jr.

[ September 30, 2002: Message edited by: John Galt, Jr. ]</p>