[Vision2020] Re: note WAS: Why Christians don't reason well (serious)
Art Deco aka W. Fox
deco@moscow.com
Fri, 12 Mar 2004 08:34:42 -0800
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0035_01C4080C.DD641510
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Bob,
Thank you for posting this note from Doug Jones. I hope everyone who
receives these kind of responses from cult minions will post them.
When Mr. Jones can show a convincing example of a true contradiction, then
one would start taking his
statements-about-god-are-not-subject-to-question-or-to-critical-examination
worldview more seriously. Otherwise, I for one will continue my heathen,
slow-witted practice of using logic.
One cannot successfully argue that reason gives absolute truths. This is
because of the history of the development of logic has shown errors in logic
(which continue to be corrected just as empirical and mathematical knowledge
is subject to correction), but simple, correctly applied logic does seem to
give very probable outcomes depending on the probability of the premises
used.
Mr. Jones and his homologues use reason extensively (though not always
correctly) themselves (just read any article in Crudinto/Adumpsta),
rejecting logic only when it leads to contradictions and other problems in
and to their beliefs and belief structure. This is a very hypocritical
practice and one which clinical psychologists would call a sometimes severe
mental health problem when practiced over the long haul.
Other mental health problems in the cult leadership are apparent from the
Cult Master's statements to the effect the "I have never changed my mind. I
am always right." -- statements which cult toadies seem to swallow if for no
other reason than economic dependence on the Cult Master.
Perhaps, I am wrong and Mr. Jones is now prepared to offer an example of a
true contradiction and thus destroy the heuristic requirement that
communication between humankind needs to be reasonable. If this is the
case, then the only problem left is choosing which of the many thousands of
religions, if any, is the true one -- a much more formidable task if we are
not allowed the use of logic or not allowed to ask questions.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Dickow" <dickow@uidaho.edu>
To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 10:07 PM
Subject: [Vision2020] Re: note WAS: Why Christians don't reason well
(serious)
> My response comments inserted below:
>
> Bob Dickow
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Doug Jones" <credenda@moscow.com>
> To: "'Robert Dickow'" <dickow@uidaho.edu>
>
> Subject: note
>
>
> > Robert,
> >
> > I'm writing offline, since Vision 2020 seems like the last place
>
> ...seems reasonable to me.
>
> >to make
> > a serious point about reason, but I found your note interesting. Feel
> > free to post this note and respond.
> >
> > But your example appears to beg the question in a huge way. It assumes
> > that Reason is some neutral, universal, timeless standard that everyone
> > agrees about -- "standard reasoning" -- as if it were some simple,
> > friendly, agreeable Supreme Court of reality. But *that* is what is in
> > dispute, and you just ignore the deeper debate.
> >
>
> Huh? I'm not sure that there can be a debate. See my original note. But,
> let's have a go:
>
> > The clash between Christianity (my tradition) and the Enlightenment
> > ("standard reasoning") is in part a debate about which criterion is
> > supreme. To just assume "standard reasoning" is supreme and therefore
> > Christians are idiots is just like a devout Muslim invoking the Koran to
> > claim that Buddhists, in your words, "have difficulty using--or refusing
> > to use--the Koran" or like Latvia complaining that Cuba is immoral for
> > not using Latvian law.
> >
>
> Now, I've seen this line of argument before. Unfortunately you are using a
> Religion/Holy Book >Religion/Holy Book analogy, which is not a
> direct analogy to the Faith vs Reason issue. Think about it.. It will not
> apply
> in a in relating to the Faith vs. Reason issue. Try another tack. (Hint:
> Argument by analogy has many pitfalls. Be cautious here. No charge.)
>
> > If I make the substitutions, this is how your opening paragraph sounds
> > to my tradition:
> >
> > > It seems that many devout/fervent Cubans (and, to be fair, sometimes
> > > Latvians) in many social strata have difficulty using--or refuse to
> > > use--Latvian law. One Latvian explanation they do this is that doing
> > so can be a
> > > way of demonstrating to themselves and others the astounding
> > superiority and
> > > awesome power of Cuban law over Latvian law. You see, if you
> > steadfastly stonewall a
> > > Latvian line of argument, Latvian law in effect loses the argument
> > every time,
> > > without ambiguity or doubt.
> >
> > And
> >
> > > It is virtually impossible to convince Cubans who place so much faith
> > in
> > > Cuban law. For the Cubans, the Latvian law simply does NOT matter.
> >
> > Weird, no?
> >
>
> Woah! No kidding!
>
> > All the same questions Enlightenment folks raise against Revelation,
> > Christians raise against Reason as the ultimate criterion.
>
> I never suggested anything about Reason being the ultimate anything.
> I just said that Faith will always win, from the point of view of some
> believers, over reasoning. My thesis was very simple: Reason can not
> stand up to Faith because Faith does not use the same conventions as
> Reason. Therefore, I wrote, Faith is superior to Reason in this one
> sense. I implied that fairly clearly. And I gave an example. Didn't you
> see how Aloysius's position was impervious to Plato's argument?
>
> >Where did
> > Reason come from?
>
> God gave us Reason.
>
> >What proof do you have of Reason?
>
> You don't prove Reason any more than you prove the color 'Blue'.
>
> >Isn't it just an
> > historical construction?
>
> No.
>
> >Why is it authoritative?
>
> It's not. It's just a handy way to approach solutions to certain problems.
>
> >Why do you think it's
> > universal?
>
> Did I suggest it is universal? In any case, it may be universal, insofar
as
> we know.
> Things everywhere in our universe everywhere seem to obey the same laws of
> nature, and can be subject to rational explanation and analysis. As for a
> heaven or another 'universe' (where God might have his
> summer home or whatever, where his hobby is making extremely heavy
> rocks in his spare time) that does not seem so 'obey' reason, we probably
> can not know. It is also hard to imagine how such a place would operate.
> As for God, I do know that he is a very reasonable guy, and probably
> would just say "No thanks" if asked to make a rock he couldn't lift.
> As for Faith, I think it serves as the only reasonable alternative to
those
> situations that Reason can not address.
>
> >Why are there so many conflicting interpretations of rational
> > inferences?
>
> Sorry, I don't quite follow this question. Oh, maybe you mean, like,
> why scientists have arguments about things? Lots of reasons, like
> maybe facts are not all in, or are misintrepreted, or in error, or that
> better rational explanations exists. These situations in no way
> diminish from Reason as a valid method. Why do people keep bringing
> this argument up?
>
> >Isn't it circular to justify Reason by Reason?
>
> No. That is not a case of circular reasoning.
>
> >Why do you
> > accept Reason by blind faith?
>
> I don't. What gave you the impression that I did?
>
> >Why do you think Reason is the only true
> > way?
>
> It isn't. I am a Catholic (a Christian faith, and...oh...
> when I went to Catachism class they told us Catholicism was
> the ONLY true religion and that if I even stepped
> inside another church I'd do time in Purgatory. But
> I'm pretty liberal so I don't buy all that nonsense. But,
> I digress...). Faith is also important to me. But in my view,
> Faith is reliable only where Reason can not be applied.
> There are such instances. I have personally experienced
> such instances. In fact, I think I feel one ...coming on...
> ...now....
>
> >And so on. . .
> >
> > All the best,
> > Doug Jones
> >
>
>
> _____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>
>
------=_NextPart_000_0035_01C4080C.DD641510
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV>Bob,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Thank you for posting this note from Doug Jones. I hope =
everyone who=20
receives these kind of responses from cult minions will post them.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>When Mr. Jones can show a convincing example of a true =
contradiction, then=20
one would start taking his=20
statements-about-god-are-not-subject-to-question-or-to-critical-examinati=
on=20
worldview more seriously. Otherwise, I for one will continue my =
heathen,=20
slow-witted practice of using logic.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>One cannot successfully argue that reason gives absolute truths. =
This=20
is because of the history of the development of logic has shown =
errors in=20
logic (which continue to be corrected just as empirical and mathematical =
knowledge is subject to correction), but simple, correctly=20
applied logic does seem to give very probable outcomes =
depending=20
on the probability of the premises used.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Mr. Jones and his homologues use reason extensively (though not =
always=20
correctly) themselves (just read any article in =
<EM>Crudinto/Adumpsta</EM>),=20
rejecting logic only when it leads to contradictions and other problems =
in and=20
to their beliefs and belief structure. This is a very=20
hypocritical practice and one which clinical psychologists would =
call a=20
sometimes severe mental health problem when practiced over the long =
haul.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Other mental health problems in the cult leadership are apparent =
from the=20
Cult Master's statements to the effect the "I have never changed my =
mind. =20
I am always right." -- statements which cult toadies seem to swallow if =
for no=20
other reason than economic dependence on the Cult Master.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Perhaps, I am wrong and Mr. Jones is now prepared to offer an =
example of a=20
true contradiction and thus destroy the heuristic requirement that =
communication=20
between humankind needs to be reasonable. If this is the case, =
then the=20
only problem left is choosing which of the many thousands of religions, =
if any,=20
is the true one -- a much more formidable task if we are not allowed the =
use of=20
logic or not allowed to ask questions.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Wayne</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message -----=20
<DIV>From: "Robert Dickow" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:dickow@uidaho.edu">dickow@uidaho.edu</A>></DIV>
<DIV>To: <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A>></DIV>=
<DIV>Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 10:07 PM</DIV>
<DIV>Subject: [Vision2020] Re: note WAS: Why Christians don't reason =
well=20
(serious)</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>> My response comments inserted below:<BR>> =
<BR>> Bob=20
Dickow<BR>> <BR>> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> From: =
"Doug Jones"=20
<<A =
href=3D"mailto:credenda@moscow.com">credenda@moscow.com</A>><BR>> =
To:=20
"'Robert Dickow'" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:dickow@uidaho.edu">dickow@uidaho.edu</A>><BR>> =
<BR>>=20
Subject: note<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> > Robert,<BR>> =
><BR>> >=20
I'm writing offline, since Vision 2020 seems like the last place<BR>> =
<BR>> ...seems reasonable to me.<BR>> <BR>> >to make<BR>> =
> a=20
serious point about reason, but I found your note interesting. =
Feel<BR>> >=20
free to post this note and respond.<BR>> ><BR>> > But your =
example=20
appears to beg the question in a huge way. It assumes<BR>> > that =
Reason=20
is some neutral, universal, timeless standard that everyone<BR>> > =
agrees=20
about -- "standard reasoning" -- as if it were some simple,<BR>> > =
friendly, agreeable Supreme Court of reality. But *that* is what is =
in<BR>>=20
> dispute, and you just ignore the deeper debate.<BR>> =
><BR>>=20
<BR>> Huh? I'm not sure that there can be a debate. See my original =
note.=20
But,<BR>> let's have a go:<BR>> <BR>> > The clash between=20
Christianity (my tradition) and the Enlightenment<BR>> > =
("standard=20
reasoning") is in part a debate about which criterion is<BR>> > =
supreme.=20
To just assume "standard reasoning" is supreme and therefore<BR>> =
>=20
Christians are idiots is just like a devout Muslim invoking the Koran =
to<BR>>=20
> claim that Buddhists, in your words, "have difficulty using--or=20
refusing<BR>> > to use--the Koran" or like Latvia complaining that =
Cuba is=20
immoral for<BR>> > not using Latvian law.<BR>> ><BR>> =
<BR>>=20
Now, I've seen this line of argument before. Unfortunately you are using =
a<BR>> Religion/Holy Book >Religion/Holy Book analogy, which is =
not=20
a<BR>> direct analogy to the Faith vs Reason issue. Think about it.. =
It will=20
not<BR>> apply<BR>> in a in relating to the Faith vs. Reason =
issue. Try=20
another tack. (Hint:<BR>> Argument by analogy has many pitfalls. Be =
cautious=20
here. No charge.)<BR>> <BR>> > If I make the substitutions, =
this is how=20
your opening paragraph sounds<BR>> > to my tradition:<BR>> =
><BR>>=20
> > It seems that many devout/fervent Cubans (and, to be fair,=20
sometimes<BR>> > > Latvians) in many social strata have =
difficulty=20
using--or refuse to<BR>> > > use--Latvian law. One Latvian =
explanation=20
they do this is that doing<BR>> > so can be a<BR>> > > =
way of=20
demonstrating to themselves and others the astounding<BR>> > =
superiority=20
and<BR>> > > awesome power of Cuban law over Latvian law. You =
see, if=20
you<BR>> > steadfastly stonewall a<BR>> > > Latvian line =
of=20
argument, Latvian law in effect loses the argument<BR>> > every=20
time,<BR>> > > without ambiguity or doubt.<BR>> ><BR>> =
>=20
And<BR>> ><BR>> > > It is virtually impossible to =
convince Cubans=20
who place so much faith<BR>> > in<BR>> > > Cuban law. For =
the=20
Cubans, the Latvian law simply does NOT matter.<BR>> ><BR>> =
> Weird,=20
no?<BR>> ><BR>> <BR>> Woah! No kidding!<BR>> <BR>> =
> All=20
the same questions Enlightenment folks raise against Revelation,<BR>> =
>=20
Christians raise against Reason as the ultimate criterion.<BR>> =
<BR>> I=20
never suggested anything about Reason being the ultimate =
anything.<BR>> I=20
just said that Faith will always win, from the point of view of =
some<BR>>=20
believers, over reasoning. My thesis was very simple: Reason can =
not<BR>>=20
stand up to Faith because Faith does not use the same conventions =
as<BR>>=20
Reason. Therefore, I wrote, Faith is superior to Reason in this =
one<BR>>=20
sense. I implied that fairly clearly. And I gave an example. Didn't =
you<BR>>=20
see how Aloysius's position was impervious to Plato's argument?<BR>> =
<BR>>=20
>Where did<BR>> > Reason come from?<BR>> <BR>> God gave =
us=20
Reason.<BR>> <BR>> >What proof do you have of Reason?<BR>> =
<BR>>=20
You don't prove Reason any more than you prove the color 'Blue'.<BR>> =
<BR>> >Isn't it just an<BR>> > historical =
construction?<BR>>=20
<BR>> No.<BR>> <BR>> >Why is it authoritative?<BR>> =
<BR>> It's=20
not. It's just a handy way to approach solutions to certain =
problems.<BR>>=20
<BR>> >Why do you think it's<BR>> > universal?<BR>> =
<BR>> Did=20
I suggest it is universal? In any case, it may be universal, insofar =
as<BR>>=20
we know.<BR>> Things everywhere in our universe everywhere seem to =
obey the=20
same laws of<BR>> nature, and can be subject to rational explanation =
and=20
analysis. As for a<BR>> heaven or another 'universe' (where God might =
have=20
his<BR>> summer home or whatever, where his hobby is making extremely =
heavy<BR>> rocks in his spare time) that does not seem so 'obey' =
reason, we=20
probably<BR>> can not know. It is also hard to imagine how such a =
place would=20
operate.<BR>> As for God, I do know that he is a very reasonable guy, =
and=20
probably<BR>> would just say "No thanks" if asked to make a rock he =
couldn't=20
lift.<BR>> As for Faith, I think it serves as the only reasonable =
alternative=20
to those<BR>> situations that Reason can not address.<BR>> =
<BR>>=20
>Why are there so many conflicting interpretations of =
rational<BR>> >=20
inferences?<BR>> <BR>> Sorry, I don't quite follow this question. =
Oh,=20
maybe you mean, like,<BR>> why scientists have arguments about =
things? Lots=20
of reasons, like<BR>> maybe facts are not all in, or are =
misintrepreted, or=20
in error, or that<BR>> better rational explanations exists. These =
situations=20
in no way<BR>> diminish from Reason as a valid method. Why do people =
keep=20
bringing<BR>> this argument up?<BR>> <BR>> >Isn't it =
circular to=20
justify Reason by Reason?<BR>> <BR>> No. That is not a case of =
circular=20
reasoning.<BR>> <BR>> >Why do you<BR>> > accept Reason by =
blind=20
faith?<BR>> <BR>> I don't. What gave you the impression that I=20
did?<BR>> <BR>> >Why do you think Reason is the only =
true<BR>> >=20
way?<BR>> <BR>> It isn't. I am a Catholic (a Christian faith,=20
and...oh...<BR>> when I went to Catachism class they told us =
Catholicism=20
was<BR>> the ONLY true religion and that if I even stepped<BR>> =
inside=20
another church I'd do time in Purgatory. But<BR>> I'm pretty liberal =
so I=20
don't buy all that nonsense. But,<BR>> I digress...). Faith is also =
important=20
to me. But in my view,<BR>> Faith is reliable only where Reason can =
not be=20
applied.<BR>> There are such instances. I have personally =
experienced<BR>>=20
such instances. In fact, I think I feel one ...coming on...<BR>>=20
...now....<BR>> <BR>> >And so on. . .<BR>> ><BR>> > =
All the=20
best,<BR>> > Doug Jones<BR>> ><BR>> <BR>> <BR>>=20
_____________________________________________________<BR>> List =
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>> serving =
the=20
communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>>=20
&=
nbsp; =20
<A=20
href=3D"http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A>  =
; =
=20
<BR>> <A=20
href=3D"mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR=
>>=20
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=
=AF=AF=AF<BR>> <BR>>=20
</BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0035_01C4080C.DD641510--