What is OmniNerd?

Welcome! OmniNerd's content is generated by you, the reader. Through voting and moderation we strive to highlight the nerdiest of what's around and provide content that's a little more thought provoking than other sites.

Submit New Content

Voting Booth

Public scrutiny of candidate's tax statements?

View Results, All Polls
15 votes, 2 comments
0
Nerd-Its
+ -

A few points...

Comment comment by Anonymous on 19 September 2006

You point out that contradictory beliefs are "troubling". The main reason they're a problem is that in most forms of logic, if a contradiction is true, then nothing - nothing at all - can be proven false. The entire system of logic is "inconsistent", and therefore useless. If you can believe a contradiction, then (almost by definition) you can believe anything.

You also mention "intermittent" rationality. I don't think that quite characterizes the situation. If you tell even the most pious man that his daughter shoplifted, he'll demand proof. Rational, justifiable, logical proof. The kind of proof that you're looking for him to give you about his faith. It's not an "intermittent" rationality - for most people, it's more like a "bounded irrationality". The irrationality is confined to particular subjects.

As I see it, the theist sees "faith" as more important than "truth". In matters where "faith" applies, "truth" is pretty much irrelevant. They insist otherwise (but that's only because articles of faith are assumed to be true - for them, there's no dissonance between the notions).

But that points out that the discussion you're looking for begs a really important question - you've got a key assumption that rationality is the only way to access "truth". The theist assumes that there are other means. What's the justification for either stance?

You are a viewing a subset of a larger discussion.
View Full Discussion
Star This to Save in Your Profile Favorite
Thread parent sort order:
Highest Voted : Lowest Voted : Oldest : Newest
Thread verbosity:
Expand All : Minimize Replies to Comments
0 Nerd-Its - +
RE: A few points... by Kevin1 :: NR0

But that points out that the discussion you're looking for begs a really important question - you've got a key assumption that rationality is the only way to access "truth". The theist assumes that there are other means. What's the justification for either stance?

Good point. I assume that experience, interaction with the world, is requisite for knowledge of the world. I would term accurate identification of one's interactions with the world 'rationality'. My belief in such is founded upon my own experience of the nature of my conscious awareness of the world. I know or at least guess things about the world by virtue of experience, mainly by recollection, experience and inference from the two. I would likely contend that 'truth' is not experienced except as a value in discursive logical systems.

The theist appears to add heartfelt desire to the category of experience of the world, and not merely to mean the world of their personal experience. I would presume this means most theists are idealists, though I would leave it to the individual theist to explain his own beliefs. I think idealism and realism are both impossible to justify in the face of daily experience.

Rationality, on the other hand, is the basis of the desire to search for justification. I don't think one can get very far trying to argumentatively punt themselves away from rational discourse, especially in a series of written exchanges of debate.

Posted 19 September 2006, Hide, Parent, Reply