The long drawn out death of rationality.

[Aldebaran]

No, that's just bad logic, I'm afraid.

MMM. No. Just a typo (such things can happen. I'm severely dyslexic, hence little words are often not "read" by my handicapped brain)

What you should have said is You can disprove the idea that there is no God just as well as you can disprove the idea that there are *no* bright pink hairy land octopuses in the forests of scotland.

Yes. The outcome is that it is impossible to prove.

It's true one cannot prove God doesn't exist. But so what? One cannot *prove* the non-existence of a teapot orbiting Mars. There's no positive reason to believe in either, that's the point.

There is no positive reason to believe God does not exist either BUT the belief God does not exist.
So why do you want to make such a difference between both approaches? There is no difference. It comes down to what one concludes about a problem. Which can be the truth (or a part of it) or not.

So why do you believe in God? What is the positive reason for your belief?

I explained that already several times in this thread.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

It is really, really *stupid* to speak of God as though He were the Yeti or the Loch Ness Monster--a material creature who may or may not "exist." God is an idea. The proper form of the question is: do *ideas* exist?

I would rather say that what humans name with (a word for) God is a concept that resides and as such exists in the abstract.
Hence the question should be if the abstract exists.

salaam.

 

[phildwyer]

I would rather say that what humans name with (a word for) God is a concept that resides and as such exists in the abstract.
Hence the question should be if the abstract exists.

Its the same question. Ideas *are* abstract.

 

[Aldebaran]

How can you be compelled to come to a conclusion?

By. Reason. And. Evidence.

How about you?

Compulsion behind a reasoning only leads to expression of a subjective, forced line of thinking. Any "conclusion" based on such reasoning is no more then a summary of compulsory thought.
You fool yourself if you think that could lead you to "evidence" and/or independent reasoning about a problem. You only see as evidence and reasoning what your compulsory line of thinking leads you to see.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

Its the same question. Ideas *are* abstract.

I make a clear distinction between "idea" and "concept". (this can be a question of language.)

salaam.

 

[phildwyer]

I make a clear distinction between "idea" and "concept". (this can be a question of language.)

salaam.

For philosophical purposes I don't see the distinction, they both translate the German "Begriff."

 

[Jonti]

Compulsion behind a reasoning only leads to expression of a subjective, forced line of thinking. Any "conclusion" based on such reasoning is no more then a summary of compulsory thought.
You fool yourself if you think that could lead you to "evidence" and/or independent reasoning about a problem. You only see as evidence and reasoning what your compulsory line of thinking leads you to see.

Sorry, didn't know about the dyslexia.

You appear to be denying that reason and evidence can force a conclusion. That's taking things far too far. It also contradicts what you said earlier that rational observation had led you to conclude that God exists.

Incidently, I still don't know what rational observations had that effect on you -- and I'm pretty sure no-one else reading here knows either. But perhaps I'm missing something, so please could you specify what those rational observations were? I'm just asking, because I'm curious. I cannot prove to you that God does not exist. But equally, you cannot prove to me that there is a Deity. So naturally I am curious about your claim that "rational observations" had led you to that belief.

The question is, would the same rational observations lead someone else to the same conclusion?

When one talks of the evidence forcing one to a conclusion, one does not mean that threats have been applied. For example, an ordinary Criminal Court (in the UK) has to establish the facts beyond reasonable doubt. The means of forcing people to a conclusion (one way or the other) is simply the marshalling of evidence, and reasoning from that evidence.

The idea here is that the reason and evidence have a power that cannot (rationally!) be denied -- we can quite properly say the evidence forces us to a particular conclusion.

For example, the evidence here here, forces one to the conclusion that Blair knowingly and deliberately misled the people of Britain into supporting the invasion of Iraq. And the evidence here, forces one to accept that Intelligent Design is a theology, and no part of science.

Without this idea that conclusions may be forced on one by a combination of logic and the facts of the matter, then there is no possibility of Justice or Science -- or even that that rational discussions can achieve anything at all! I don't *think* that's what you intend to argue.

Is it?

 

[sleaterkinney]

I do not limit my reasoning to what I perceive with my limited senses and to what can be "proved" with - by default inadequate and hence incomplete- scientific methods.

salaam.

Isn't that just an addmission thet you make it up yourself, and so "God" is just a construct of your mind?.

 

[Gmart]

If you don't limit yourself to your own senses, then please a few examples to clarify please!!!

 

[kyser_soze]

Mysticsm and religion are returning because the promise of the Enlightenment and proclamation of the Rights of Man have never been realised and because science over-promised what it could achieve.

The European Enlightenment led to structured thinking about Man, Society and how the two interact that were entirely separate from God being involved - Man maknig his own rules. The greatest failrue of rational thought - from Paine thru to Marx - was to assume that rational argument (I'm not a Marxist or socialist but he makes a rational, logical argument if nothing else) would be enough to overcome the irrational side of humans.

Science would provide understanding about how, and Enlightened humans would be able to put that understanding to best use.

Unfortunately, the science managed to streak ahead of the 'enlightened' bit, and a bunch of chancers, assorted spivs and some vestigal bits of he feudal order managed to ransack industrialisation for their own ends, creating an industrial version of feudalism that we call capitalism.

And that's why we find ourselves in this strange world - part modern, part pre-modern, part post-modern. Unfortunately, the modern bits are controlled by those with pre-modern thinking, and the post-modern bits are largely irrelevant outside French academia and arguments on bulletin boards

Answering the original post...I see human history as a succession of cycles - not the pendulum or a circle, but a meandering waltz consisting of the same patterns (empires, top down hierarchies, war over resources for example) repeated in ever increasing complexity, with certain elements contained within them (human sacrifice as religious ritual for example) falling off. I have no doubt that what we currently call 'rational' thought and the Enlightenment will eventually fall back while newer forms of older structures, most likely based on religions will again come to the fore. But I also hold out the hope that there will be nations, or groups of people who will hold onto the ideas of Enlightenment so when the cycle comes round again it won't be starting from scratch...I would hope that eventually Religion and the Enlightenment thinking realise that their deepest teachings - tolerance, self sacrifice, care for others welfare - are the same and then, perhaps finally, the species will achieve it's potential.

Of course in that time we could wipe ourselves out in any one of a number of exciting ways, be wiped out by nature (massive vulcanism and mantle plume activity) or from extra-terrestrial origins (asteroid, unfriendly green dudes).

Or we could change our environment and evolve into something different...hell, we might even out-evolve the animalistic bits of our brains...

Who knows? All I do know is that we will repeat history - the old adage about failing to understand it and repeating it is happening right now.

 

[northernhord]

Our current era is notable for the wholesale destruction of the environment, the invention of nuclear weapons capable of destroying all life on earth, and a rash of industrial-scale genocides. All these are the direct result of the fetishization of reason, which is the fatal and terminal error of human history. Trust me on this one.

All these are the result of instrumental reason, though I do agree in some ways that reason is fetishized.