REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Do You Have a Thinking Problem?

POSTED BY: CANTTAKESKY
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 13:27
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6772
PAGE 1 of 4

Saturday, August 26, 2006 7:42 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

"Do You Have a Thinking Problem?

"It started out innocently enough. I began to think at parties now and then
to loosen up. Inevitably though, one thought led to another, and soon I was
more than just a social thinker.

"I began to think alone - 'to relax,' I told myself - but I knew it wasn't
true. Thinking became more and more important to me, and finally I was
thinking all the time.

"I began to think on the job. I knew that thinking and employment don't mix,
but I couldn't stop myself.

"I began to avoid friends at lunchtime so I could read Thoreau and Kafka.

"I would return to the office dizzied and confused, asking, 'What is it
exactly we are doing here?'

"Things weren't going so great at home either. One evening I had turned off
the TV and asked my wife about the meaning of life. She spent that night at
her mother's.

I soon had a reputation as a heavy thinker. One day the boss called me in.
He said, 'Skippy, I like you, and it hurts me to say this, but your thinking
has become a real problem. If you don't stop thinking on the job, you'll
have to find another job.' This gave me a lot to think about.

"I came home early after my conversation with the boss. 'Honey,' I
confessed, 'I've been thinking...'

"'I know you've been thinking,' she said, 'and I want a divorce!'

"'But Honey, surely it's not that serious.'

"'It is serious,' she said, lower lip aquiver. 'You think as much as college
professors, and college professors don't make any money, so if you keep on
thinking we won't have any money!'

"'That's a faulty syllogism,' I said impatiently, and she began to cry.
I'd had enough. 'I'm going to the library,' I snarled as I stomped out the
door.

"I headed for the library, in the mood for some Nietzsche, with NPR on the
radio. I roared into the parking lot and ran up to the big glass doors...
they didn't open. The library was closed.

"To this day, I believe that a Higher Power was looking out for me that
night.

"As I sank to the ground clawing at the unfeeling glass, whimpering for
Zarathustra, a poster caught my eye. 'Friend, is heavy thinking ruining your
life?' it asked. You probably recognize that line. It comes from the
standard Thinker's Anonymous poster.'

"Which is why I am what I am today: a recovering thinker. I never miss a TA
meeting. At each meeting we watch a non-educational video; last week it was
'Porky's.' Then we share experiences about how we avoided thinking since the
last meeting.

"I still have my job, and things are a lot better at home. Life just
seemed...easier, somehow, as soon as I stopped thinking."



Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 26, 2006 8:02 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I save my heaviest thinking for three o'clock in the morning. That way, nobody can interrupt my thinking, nobody knowws WHAT I'm thinking, and I can think as much as I want.

I know it's wrong to think alone. But I can't hurry my thinking. I just doesn't feel right if I have to snatch a few thoughts in secret. And still, I just can't let go of those special moments when I finally reach the point of peace, when my personal problems become so tiny that I can fianlly let go.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 26, 2006 8:20 AM

SIMONWHO


It's not just ordinary people like you and me who have thinking problems. The President of the United States had a serious thinking problem when he was younger. Despite the occasional veiled hint from critics, I'm confident George W. Bush hasn't been thinking since at least 1992.

In fact, he now strongly discourages thinking among his staff. Like many, he finds religion a great substitute for thinking and hopes one day all Americans will do the same.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 26, 2006 8:35 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SimonWho:
Like many, he finds religion a great substitute for thinking and hopes one day all Americans will do the same.



And here I was enjoying the thread. Really, now--do you mean to imply that one cannot be a serious thinker and also be religious? Because I'm sure that Augustine sure would be disappointed to hear that. Aquinas, and Kant as well. And if not, what is the meaning of dragging religion into it? Thinking isn't all of the same stripe, you know. It could be the case that two people will think equally hard about the same thing, and come up with two completely different conclusions. It is naive at best--and arrogant at worst--to assume that anyone who disagrees with you isn't thinking. And it's nothing more than metaphysical imperialism to exclude theology from the realm of thought life.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 26, 2006 10:21 AM

OLDENGLANDDRY


I'd just like to say that although i am a heavy thinker I could stop it anytime I wanted. It doesnt rule my life. No, realy, I could stop anytime. I just dont want to stop right now, OK?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 26, 2006 11:06 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Being an Irish-American, I tend to think the hard stuff.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 26, 2006 11:08 AM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.


Hello, my name is ______ (haha, you thought I was gonna tell you), and I'm a thinker.

---

I'm a trouble-maker; Kaneman said so!

::points to 'I'm a trouble-maker' sticker on shirt and makes a platypus noise::

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 26, 2006 11:27 AM

CITIZEN


“Yes, I’m willing. But am I to be consigned to a life where I shall be stupid, boring and uninteresting, like some righteous people I see? Watching day time TV and laughing? I know I should get along without thinking, but how can I? Have you a sufficient substitute?”

“Yes, there is a substitute and it is vastly more than that. It is a fellowship in Thinkers Anonymous. There you will find release from care, existentialism, intellectualism and worry. Your imagination will be put back in its box. Life will mean nothing at last. The blankest years of your existence lie ahead. Switch on Fox and exist once more.”




More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 26, 2006 11:54 AM

ANTIMASON


i spend a lot of time reading, and thinking and researching and contemplating about things, like everyone here.. but most of all my faith. id almost say im devoted to it, since ive made it my interest to understand prophecy, christianity and occultism, and ancient mythology and how it all relates. i try not to take it personally anymore when people say that religion and thought are oxy morons; i guess Mans origins, as far back as is documented, are irrelevant in understanding the world, and have no scientific value. thats their stance, plain and simple. i choose to be a little more openminded, considering we essentially know next to nothing about the whole of our universe, extra dimensions or the variable nature of our reality. it costs me nothing to have my faith, i may resist or lose the urge to act inappropriately sometimes...but ive gained much more then ive lost; ive lost nothing. what is gained by disbelieving in a god? its been said before, science and God are not mutually exclusive

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 26, 2006 11:57 AM

ANTIMASON


double post-

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 26, 2006 12:33 PM

HKCAVALIER


All you pansy, so-called "thinkaholics" make me sick. Blaming all your problems on thinking! Thinking's just a crutch for you people! Take some responsibility! Truth be told, I bet yer all just a bunch o' lightweights who can't hold their think!

I could think the whole lot of ya under the table and still pick up a frickin' vollume o' Schopenhauer!

And don't tell me it's a disease!

"Oh, b-but, I can't control my thinking--it's a disease!"

I TOLD YOU NOT TO TELL ME THAT! No one made you think your first thought, did they? Huh? You think you have a problem with thinking, then quit. Simple as that. That's what we call a "no-brainer."

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 26, 2006 12:52 PM

SOUPCATCHER


When I was younger I could never afford to think the good thoughts. I was stuck thinking poor, thin thoughts that didn't satisfy me. After a night of thinking these inferior thoughts I would often wake up in the morning with my head hurting. Now, because I only sample the rich deep thoughts, the quality of my thinking experience has vastly improved.

They say that thinking alone shows you have a problem. But I always say that somewhere in the world there is someone thinking with me. So I'm never really alone in my thoughts.

I'm one of those who are a thinker and a joker. I find the two go hand in hand. Many of my friends only joke when they think. Otherwise, they wouldn't be caught dead with a joke.

There's a lot of people who don't like joking. Especially around meal times. Used to be you could joke all you wanted after enjoying a great dinner. Now they make you take your jokes outside.

And I would really advise against joking after sex. It may seem the most natural thing to do, but your partner might not appreciate it as much as you do.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 26, 2006 1:44 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I too want to share my experience. Sometimes it's of thinking so much it gives me a headache. Of waking up from my thoughts confused, and all wondering of the world around me.

Sometimes the urge to think comes on me all of the sudden - but many times it's there, in the background, waiting.

This thinking has so taken over my life, I don't even care what I think, or how, or when. Whether it's a snap retort or long-steady pondering.

Yes, I deserve the scorn of those righteous middle Americans who don't know much about art but know what they like. Who don't know much about history, or biology, or trigenometry.

There's words for people like me, but usually it's geek.

And yet, despite scorn heaped on me, I know I will never stop --- thinking.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 26, 2006 2:31 PM

DREAMTROVE


This thread is pretty funny, I guess y'all got a serious problem. But not to worry. Big pharm has come out with a new solution: Oblivirin IQ.

Oblivirin is a new hypo-dextrocylicphenylamide with the chemical name 2-phenyl-dextroretrosupidine. Proponents of the drug promise that it will stop thoughts right in their tracks. Early tests on rats show that with an intravenous injection of 2CCs of .1% 2-phenyl-dextroretrosupidine, button pressing decreased by more than half, escape attempts were down 77%, and nest-keeping was altogether abandoned.

Ask your physician about Oblivirin.
Side effects may include drowsiness, headache, nausea and watching daytime TV.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 26, 2006 5:26 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
"Oh, b-but, I can't control my thinking--it's a disease!"

See, it is this kind of insensitivity that makes thinkaholism awareness so important.

You don't KNOW what it is like not to be able to control your thinking. I started in grade school--yep, grade school. Hiding dictionaries in my locker. Keeping Roald Dahl books under the mattress. Despite the school system's best efforts to protect me from exposure to thinking, just a little slip on their part (they let me go to the library during recess) started an uncontrollable and shameful hunger I've had to endure my whole life.

I would give anything to be able to turn on the news and believe everything they say without question. Listen to a presidential address without snickering. Not fall in love with clever shows on FOX that get cancelled in mid-season. You know how painful it is not to fit in?

It took me a long time to admit that I have a problem. Please show some compassion next time you talk to a thinkaholic.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 1:39 AM

FREMDFIRMA


*on floor, holding stomach, choking on inhaled coffee and laughing his ass off*

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 4:47 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Yeah, this is a pretty funny thread. Who woulda thought RWErs would have it in them?

Imagine what we could do with "Do you have a linking problem?" Irresistible urges to find links everywhere. Carrots and car accidents. Government and flatulence.

Or how about this: Do you have a stinking problem? Haha.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 8:18 AM

SIMONWHO


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:

Originally posted by SimonWho:
Like many, he finds religion a great substitute for thinking and hopes one day all Americans will do the same.



Really, now--do you mean to imply that one cannot be a serious thinker and also be religious?



No, I mean to state that George W Bush wants people to replace intellectual thought on certain matters with religious beliefs.

Although obviously logical thoughts are the natural enemy of nearly every religion.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 9:42 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SimonWho:
Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:

Originally posted by SimonWho:
Like many, he finds religion a great substitute for thinking and hopes one day all Americans will do the same.



Really, now--do you mean to imply that one cannot be a serious thinker and also be religious?



No, I mean to state that George W Bush wants people to replace intellectual thought on certain matters with religious beliefs.



Although I do agree that this very well could be the case, it does seem like you're setting up intellectual thought and religious belief as being mutually exclusive and opposing things--especially when you say something like:

Quote:

Although obviously logical thoughts are the natural enemy of nearly every religion.



Are you trying to be offensive? I'll grant that it may be the case that I'm too sensitive on this issue. As a Christian and a philosopher, I am ridiculed with alarming frequency by both fellow philosophers (for being a Theist) and fellow believers (for being a philosopher)--so I may be over-sensitive on this issue. But I just don't see how saying that logical thinking is the "natural enemy" of religion could be taken in any other way. I imagine that if I claimed that logical thinking was the "natural enemy" of liberal thought, you'd cry foul, both because you disagree with that premise and because that's a blatently inflammatory remark. The same goes for me in this case. I can't see how that claim is anything other than arrogant and offensive. Am I misinterpreting in some way?

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 1:03 PM

SIMONWHO


I'm not saying religions have to be wrong, I'm just saying if you apply logical thought, you generally get a very different answer.

For example, you pick up the Bible and read the account of creation in Genesis. Two possibilities leap to mind:

1. God created the world in 6 days and faked vast amounts of scientific evidence to suggest otherwise.

2. A religious leader was once asked how the world came into being and made up what all that stuff about the Garden of Eden, etc, etc. The tale gets retold a few hundred times and then is transcribed.

Which one is the logical answer?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 1:17 PM

SIMONWHO


Just to add - I'm not saying all religions are wrong. It's just they're matters of faith and belief, not logical thought.

The only way for a belief in God to be part of logical thought is for evidence that absolutely proves the existence of an omnipotent being. A bunch of guys 2000 years ago saying that their friend definitely definitely came back from the dead does not fall under this category.

And doesn't the fact that your religious friends oppose your philosophising so strongly rather back up my point?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 1:50 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SimonWho:
1. God created the world in 6 days and faked vast amounts of scientific evidence to suggest otherwise.

2. A religious leader was once asked how the world came into being and made up what all that stuff about the Garden of Eden, etc, etc. The tale gets retold a few hundred times and then is transcribed.

Which one is the logical answer?

A thoughtful person would probably conclude that neither is correct, and that a true answer is a good deal more complex then you’re making it appear. Myths do not emerge because someone invented an answer on the spot to a question he didn’t know, but rather through generations of oral traditions that depict in at least some truth the struggle of a people throughout their history to understand their environment. And if god did create the world, there is no reason to conclude that any scientific evidence needed to have been “faked,” but rather that scientists, having never created a world themselves, are necessarily unfamiliar with how to tie the existing evidence to a divine creation, which is a limitation of science, not god.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 2:06 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by SimonWho:
It's just they're matters of faith and belief, not logical thought.

There is a difference between alogical and illogical. One is outside the purvue of logic, and the other violates the principles of logic.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 2:21 PM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SimonWho:
I'm not saying religions have to be wrong, I'm just saying if you apply logical thought, you generally get a very different answer.

For example, you pick up the Bible and read the account of creation in Genesis. Two possibilities leap to mind:

1. God created the world in 6 days and faked vast amounts of scientific evidence to suggest otherwise.

2. A religious leader was once asked how the world came into being and made up what all that stuff about the Garden of Eden, etc, etc. The tale gets retold a few hundred times and then is transcribed.

Which one is the logical answer?



Well, Simon, great question! To be all logical-like, you've committed the (informal) fallacy of false-dilemma: you've presented two options as if one or the other must be true, when in fact, both could be false ( http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html ). In the above, you're proposing one of two options: a concrete-literal 24-hour-day creation model (hereafter "Young-Earth Creationist Account" or YCA) of the fundamentalist type, or a made-up creation account (hereafter "Fictious Account" or FA)--and presenting these as the only two live options, one of which must be true. But obviously, these can't be our only two options: it could be the case that they are both false! Assume for the sake of argument that Augustine was correct in positing that God created the earth fully formed in one immeasurable instant. If that were the case then both the YCA account is false (because instead of 6 24-hour days of creation there was a single immeasurable instand) and the FA is false (because if God created, then the Genesis account is not fictitious). Or what if we assumed that the "days" of the Genesis creation account were 1,000 years long--again, that would make both the Young-Earth Account false (because the days weren't 24 hours) and the Fictitious Account false (because the creation story wasn't made up). It would appear that while one or the other of your two accounts may be true, it's equally possible that they could both be false. And if that's the case, then there is some other account (or accounts) that must be put in the pool of live options.

One account that I'd like to propose as a live option is the Day-Age Account (DAA). This view posits that given the fact that the ancient Hebrew language only had a vocabulary of about 3,100 words (as opposed to 4.1mil in English), each word had multiple literal definitions {1}. The Hebrew yom can mean "24-hour day" as the fundamentalists interpret it, but it can also mean "a long but finite period of time" {2}. The DAA proposes that God's creative activity took place over the course of billions upon billions of years, (granting the scientific veracity of such things as the astronomical age of the universe--about 14b years--and the geological age of the earth--about 4.57b years). Thus the earth looks old because it is old--profoundly old. There is some debate in the DAA camp about exactly how God worked during that incredibly long time-span (for instance, did He give evolution its initial push and stand back? Did He direct its every turn? Did He mold our solar system precisely, or allow it to accrete randomly?), but, really, those things are irrelevant to the scope of this argument, because the DAA account is one account for which, if true, would prove both the YCA account false (because the cosmos was not created in 6 24-hour days) and the FA false (because the creation account was not made up).

{1} The Genesis Debate, 125, ed. Norman Geisler
{2} A Matter of Days, 73, Hugh Ross

I think that the real root of your trouble with religious thinking is not so much logic as such, but your axiological commitments. If I may make the assumption, I would venture to guess that you are a material monist--that is, that you believe that only physical things exist. This view rises largely from the explanatory power of science--and to be fair, science has explained many things that once seemed to be nothing short of miraculous (e.g. a solar ecclipse). But the fact that science has uncovered causal laws governing the physical world, and has shown some things that were formerly explained by supernaturalism does not justify the further claim that only physical things exist. The physical sciences themselves cannot disprove that non-physical things exist because of the very nature of science itself: it can only know (or theorize) out of the basis of empirically-gathered data, and unfortunately for science's claim to material monism, non-physical things just aren't available for empirical, physical examination!

Furthermore, setting up religion against science, as you seem to ("God created the world in 6 days and faked vast amounts of scientific evidence to suggest otherwise") doesn't give much credit to religious thinkers. I'm religious, I believe that God created, and I believe that the universe is profoundly old, that species have increased in number and complexity over about 250mil years, and that survival of the fittest is an apt description of the way that life operates. And I believe that all of these propositions can be integrated seemlessly and without contradiction--logically, you might say.

So again, I must come back to the point of asking you if you meant intentionally to offend. I'm certainly not about to accuse you of being anti-logical, anti-scientific or anti-intellectual on the basis of your beliefs. You have no right to do so to me.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 2:40 PM

SIGMANUNKI


@SimonWho:

Don't you find it interesting that you've come up with an example to make a point (not necessarily stating that these are the only two options), and people completely missed that? That they are picking apart the way you are arguing and not discussing the point itself?

I find that interesting at least.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 2:41 PM

ANTIMASON


thats interesting... but you make a good point; the key message of the bible is that our earthly, physical bodies are only temporary, and are more or less vessels for our souls to manifest in the third dimension. the exciting concept though is the ressurrection, or Mans redemption, when we return to our "pre-fall" state, which is described as eternal(immortal), perfect, and in relationship with the living God. there are some who believe that this story of Man in our current stage is detailed by the Zodiac, of which a full cycle represents Mans prophesied redemption ( i dug up this link as an example; im curious for the opinions of the more scientifically inclined http://www.mt.net/~watcher/newun.html ). i realize the bible appears simplistic at a glance, but the more time committed to researching its different facets, the more intriguing it becomes

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 2:52 PM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
[B]@SimonWho:

Don't you find it interesting that you've come up with an example to make a point (not necessarily stating that these are the only two options), and people completely missed that? That they are picking apart the way you are arguing and not discussing the point itself?

I find that interesting at least.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"



An argument that is fallacious is self-defeating. If SimonWho wants to advance a new argument that avoids the fallacy of false dilemma, I'd be happy to address that argument. But logically speaking, the moment a hole appears in the logic of the argument, the entire argument collapses, because it no longer functions properly. I refuse to select one of Simon's two alternatives because they are quite clearly not the only two alternatives--that being the case, I select neither and point out the fallacy instead.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 3:14 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
Well, Simon, great question! To be all logical-like, you've committed the (informal) fallacy of false-dilemma:

ROFL. Oh my...catching my breath...

THAT will teach ya to argue with a philosopher. Don't accuse a philosopher of being devoid of logic.

That was good, Causal. I sympathize with your position of being misunderstood by both religious folk and fellow philosophers. Wish people weren't so prejudiced and narrow in their world views sometimes.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 3:14 PM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SimonWho:
The only way for a belief in God to be part of logical thought is for evidence that absolutely proves the existence of an omnipotent being. A bunch of guys 2000 years ago saying that their friend definitely definitely came back from the dead does not fall under this category.



I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you've never taken a scientific reasoning course, or a course in symbolic logic. Because you seem to be making a number of basic logical mistakes. This time, it's a whopper: you're positing that absolute proof (based on evidence) is necessary for something to be considered logical. Science is based on inductive reasoning--it proceeds from empirical observation, to hypotheses based on those observations, to tests of those hypotheses, to theories based on those tests--but one can never use inductive reasoning to establish something absolutely, because it proceeds from observation--and it could always be the case that the observations are flawed or incorrect in some way. So insted of absolute certainty, inductive reasoning relies on probability--if something is more probble than not, it may be said to be true in the inductive sense. Science consistently revises its theories on this basis--in fact, one of the great strengths of science is precisely because it does not claim to have established something with absolute certainty--that's why we no longer have the Plum Pudding model of the atom, or the static view of the universe. Scientific theories are not absolutely certain: they change and evolve over time (and are sometimes discarded) as new observations are made. The provisional nature of scientific reasoning (based on inductive logic) does not make it illogical. So if absolute certainly is your criteria for "logical thought" (as you conceive it), you're going to have to throw out nearly all science (except certain a priori principles like basic math and the Law of Non-Contradiction). And my guess is that you're not about to do that. So if you'll accept science as part of your "logical thought" in spite of the fact that it is not known with absolute certainlty, you can't very well deny the inclusion of God on that basis.

Now, given that, there are a number of arguments on either side of a probabilistic account of the resurrection account. Keep in mind now, these probabilistic arguments rely on the same kind of reasoning that science does: they can't be established with absolute certainty--but they do proceed on the basis of logic.

Quote:

And doesn't the fact that your religious friends oppose your philosophising so strongly rather back up my point?



Not at all. Your syllogism seems to go something like this:

1) Some religious people are illogical.
2) Therefore, religion is illogical.

But it's plain that that conclusion doesn't follow! You are committing the fallacy of composition: if an individual X has a certain property, than all things of class X have that property. But that's obviously not true. Individual humans have blond hair, but you wouldn't be justified concluding that all humans did! Similarly, you're arguing here that some of my Christian friends are illogical, therefore, all things Christian must be illogical. That conclusion does not follow from the premise that some of them do.



And contra Sigmanunki, the point here is not to debate the logicality (if I may) of individual religious doctrines, but to inquire whether religion is accessible to logical thought (which I maintain that it is).

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 3:15 PM

CAUSAL


Double post!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 3:27 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
That they are picking apart the way you are arguing and not discussing the point itself?

That's because THE WAY he made his point IS his point.

His point is this: religious thought and logical thought are mutually exclusive. They are separate and non-intersecting domains. Then he gave an example of one, a religious thought vs. two, a logical thought, both of which do not intersect.

What people are arguing is that those two thoughts are not the only options available. There might be all of the above, none of the above, 3rd and 4th thoughts that are both religious AND logical that he chose not to include.

Showing how his example is fallacious shows how his point is likewise fallacious. To artificially separate religion and logic into two mutually exclusive camps ignores a lot of logically valid options and possibilities.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 3:27 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
thats interesting... but you make a good point; the key message of the bible is that our earthly, physical bodies are only temporary, and are more or less vessels for our souls to manifest in the third dimension. the exciting concept though is the ressurrection, or Mans redemption, when we return to our "pre-fall" state, which is described as eternal(immortal), perfect, and in relationship with the living God. there are some who believe that this story of Man in our current stage is detailed by the Zodiac, of which of a full cycle represents Mans prophesied redemption ( i dug up this link as an example; im curious for the opinions of the more scientifically inclined http://www.mt.net/~watcher/newun.html ). i realize the bible appears simplistic at a glance, but the more time committed to researching its different facets, the more intriguing it becomes

My understanding is that the current Zodiac signs originated in the first century BC, which would have made it much too late to have influenced Ezekiel, which is dated to the sixth century BC. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t some astrological mythology present in the meaning of the books of the Bible, since ancient astronomy was closely tied to religion and many cultures developed their own astronomical coordinate system based on ecliptic constellations. I’m not familiar enough to be able to say what that mythology is however. But I do agree that the books of the Bible are far more complicated then people who are unfamiliar with them often gather. They aren’t stories invented on the spot, but rather oral traditions hundreds, sometimes thousands, of years in development, influenced by multiple cultures and the thoughts, observations and beliefs of hundreds of people. And that’s going to be true independent of any divine explanation.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 4:03 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Showing how his example is fallacious shows how his point is likewise fallacious.




Wrong. False does not necessarily equal false in this context; we are not talking absolutes.

Also, all he said was "Two possibilities leap to mind:" This does not say that only two possibilities exists. Just that two poped into his mind.

Why do you have to read so much into it when those things don't necessarily exist (nor does the evidence support it).

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 4:05 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:

I refuse to select one of Simon's two alternatives because they are quite clearly not the only two alternatives--that being the case, I select neither and point out the fallacy instead.




Well Simon never said that they were the only two either. So, where does that put you?

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 4:15 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Well Simon never said that they were the only two either. So, where does that put you?

Simon gave two loaded alternatives and asked that a choice be made between. It was a trick question.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 4:16 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Why do you have to read so much into it when those things don't necessarily exist (nor does the evidence support it).

Huh?

Do you agree with my interpretation that his point is that religion and logic are mutually exclusive? Did I read too much into that?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 4:55 PM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:

I refuse to select one of Simon's two alternatives because they are quite clearly not the only two alternatives--that being the case, I select neither and point out the fallacy instead.




Well Simon never said that they were the only two either. So, where does that put you?



In a very Book-ish place, I suppose (punny, punny!) Can I assume that you said that with the same sneer that he did?

I have a to agree with others: Simon gave two alternatives and asked me to pick one. That's the very definition of false dilemma. He didn't give any alternative, he just said, "Pick one". And the thing of it is, when you're debating logic, the argument is the point! Logic revolves around making valid arguments. A valid argument (philosophically speaking) is one in which the conclusions are guaranteed to be true, if the propositions are true ( http://www.iep.utm.edu/v/val-snd.htm ). Note that there's nothing about the actual truth of the propositions in there. Another way to put it is that an argument is valid when: the conclusions would follow necessarily from the premises IF the premises were true. Here's a logically valid argument: 1) If the moon is made of green cheese, pigs can fly; 2) the moon is made of green cheese; therefore, 3) Pigs can fly. This argument is valid because IF the premises were true, then it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false. It seems pretty obvious that they are both false--but if they were both true, then we'd have flying pigs. So one way to defeat someone's argument is to show that his argument is invalid on some point. Simon's argument was invalid (regardless of whether the premises were true) because it committed a fallacy: false dilemma. If Simon feels his premises are true, then he needs to use them in a valid argument; if not, the conclusion does not follow, regardless of the truth of the premises. For example: 1) The nation of Spain has a city called Madrid; 2) Madrid is a city in the state of Iowa; therefore, 3) Iowa must be a part of Spain. Both those premises are true. There is a city in Spain called Madrid, as well as a city in Iowa called Madrid. So why doesn't it follow that Iowa is part of Spain? Because of the fallacy of equivocation: the "Madrid" of premise 1 is not the same as the Madrid of premise 2. So it's pointless to argue about the premises (for instance, throwing up maps of Spain, or listing Spanish provinces) because the argument isn't even valid to begin with! (Of course, this skips over the stronger concept of logical soundness--follow the link above if you want to read about that.)

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 5:15 PM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Showing how his example is fallacious shows how his point is likewise fallacious.




Wrong. False does not necessarily equal false in this context



Actually, it's pretty interesting: you're both right in a way.

Sigma is right in that the identification of a fallacy doesn't mean that the conclusion (or even the premises) is false (that is, showing that his argument was invalid doesn't change the fact that the truth-values of his propositions are fixed). Pointing out invalidity does not make a proposition become false.

But CTS is right to ignore Simon's conclusion. Because as previously mentioned, truth values are fixed; our arguments don't change that. What arguments can do, though is give compelling reasons to believe that a truth value is either true or false. Arguments justify our beliefs about propositions. In a way, arguments are intended to help us figure out what those truth values are. But if an argument is fallacious, we have absolutely no business using it to form our beliefs, because it's not good reasoning. Take, for example, the following: 1) George W. Bush is the president; 2) As I type this it is night time in Iowa; therefore, 3) the Earth orbits the Sun. Now all three of those propositions are true, but you would be a fool to believe #3 on the basis of #1 and #2, because #3 does not follow from them. Similarly, I would be a fool to accept Simon's conclusion, because it does not follow from his premises. He might be right (and he might be wrong, of course, thanks to the Law of Excluded Middle), but I'm not justified in believing that he is right until he gives me a good argument that that is the case.

Quote:

we are not talking absolutes.



Actually, according to Simon, that's exactly what we're talking (or should be):

Quote:

Originally posted by SimonWho:
The only way for a belief in God to be part of logical thought is for evidence that absolutely proves the existence of an omnipotent being.





************************************************************************
Also, can I just take a moment to point out the deep, deep irony of having this debate given the way the thread started? (My apologies to CTS for hijacking the thread.)

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 6:47 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
Sigma is right in that the identification of a fallacy doesn't mean that the conclusion (or even the premises) is false

I concede that false arguments does not necessarily prove his conclusion false. But in THIS case, there is a direct parellel between his example and his reasoning. He is, in essence, defining religion and logic in such a way that the two domains do not intersect. By showing that his definition is faulty in his example, we show that his definition is faulty, period.
Quote:

Also, can I just take a moment to point out the deep, deep irony of having this debate given the way the thread started? (My apologies to CTS for hijacking the thread.)
Hehe, yeah the irony. But no apologies needed. This thread is for all of us who have thinking problems (and Causal, don't take any offense, but you seem to have it worse than any of us).

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 10:24 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Um, you do realize the voluminous and hostile response to the concept he expressed indirectly supports the claim, yes ?

Just sayin...

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 11:14 PM

SIMONWHO


It is not logical to put any trust in a third hand account written 60 years after the event as recorded by some very ignorant people 2000 years ago. It just doesn't make any logical sense.

If Jesus was a one-off, then it might be something worth debating but history is littered with countless people who performed miracles, inspired followers (to this day) and claimed to be divinely connected.

As much fun as it is to rewrite the Bible to fit with what we now know ("the flood skipped the Australian cave paintings because... um... God spared the aborginines as they hadn't heard the message..."), it is another classic example of facts being twisted to fit a theory rather than the theory fitting the facts (something science is often equally guilty of). Before we found out how old the Earth truly was, no preacher would argue that a "day" meant an unspecified period of time.

Perhaps a simpler question: how does religion make logical sense? From what basis can you argue in a purely logical manner that there must be a God?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 28, 2006 1:34 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Um, you do realize the voluminous and hostile response to the concept he expressed indirectly supports the claim, yes ?

Just sayin...

-Frem



The concept as originally expressed was that religion is an inherently illogical thing. Being that I just don't believe that that is so, I'm not simply go to let that go by. And if I want to defend the logicality (if I may) of religious thought, that is going to take somewhat more text than if I simply wanted to say, "nuh unh". I also have worked very hard to remain calm throughout this discussion (note that I've refrained from emotionally-based arguments or ad hominem attacks). So I have a hard time seeing what you're perceiving as "hostile" (although if by hostile you mean a vigorous defense of my position, well then, there are other problems).

And again, being that logic is the main thing that we've been discussing, your argument that my lengthy posts and my supposed hostility support the original proposition that religion is illogical doesn't follow. You seem to be saying, 1) Causal posts long comments, 2) Causal is hostile, therefore 3) Religion is illogical. But that doesn't follow from #1 and #2. As a matter of fact, I believe that if I've been anything in my posts, it's logical, which would rather destroy his original proposition.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 28, 2006 3:05 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Um, you do realize the voluminous and hostile response to the concept he expressed indirectly supports the claim, yes ?

Voluminous I see. Hostile? I don't see. And even if it were hostile, I don't see how that indirectly supports Simon's position. You will have to explain this one to me.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 28, 2006 3:30 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by SimonWho:
It is not logical to put any trust in a third hand account written 60 years after the event as recorded by some very ignorant people 2000 years ago. It just doesn't make any logical sense....
Perhaps a simpler question: how does religion make logical sense? From what basis can you argue in a purely logical manner that there must be a God?

Like I said, there is a big difference between alogical and illogical. Alogical is falling outside the boundaries of logic, and illogical is falling against the principles of logic.

The sheer existence of God and many other suppositions in religion are alogical. They fall outside the purvue of logic. This rests on the premise that there exist things logic can know, and there exist things logic can't know.

Most of the arguments I've seen in from the empiricism/rationalism camp come from the following positions: 1. These exists only the physical world. 2. Empiricism and rationalism are adequate for understanding the physical world in its entirety. 3. Empiricism and rationalism can explain ONLY the physical world. 4. Therefore ONLY the physical world exists. 5. Anything that cannot be explained empirically and rationally does not exist.

Well, logically, there are problems with that reasoning. Without getting into all that, let's skip to the end. It comes down to these questions: Do you accept as a premise that empiricism and rationalism are omniscient and all-knowing? Or that there exists only the physical world and nothing else?

But just because some of us answer NO to that question doesn't mean we don't use logic. For things that are alogical, logic doesn't apply. But there still remains PLENTY of ideas for which logic DOES apply, and where applicable, we still use logic to make arguments.

1. Some parts of religion are alogical.
2. Some parts of religion are logical.
3. Where logic applies in religion, some people are logical in their reasoning.
4. Where logic applies in religion, some people are illogical in their reasoning.

All Causal and I are saying is (Causal, forgive me for speaking for you), please don't label us "illogical" simply because we subscribe to a religion. Some of us really value logic (where it applies) and being called "illogical" feels insulting. That's all.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 28, 2006 3:44 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
All Causal and I are saying is...please don't label us "illogical" simply because we subscribe to a religion. Some of us really value logic (where it applies) and being called "illogical" feels insulting. That's all.



Yes! Exactly! Being called illogical is about the most dreadful insult imaginable to a philosopher. To imply that the scientific method is the only kind of "logical" thinking and that a monist worldview is the only "logical" worldview is far too narrow a way to define logic.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 28, 2006 4:21 AM

CITIZEN


Holding a position on Faith alone is not logical, to believe God exists is a belief based solely on faith and not logic. It is not Alogical it is illogical, faith is illogical.

One can both be logical and believe, but religion, although often containing philosophical elements, is not philosophy.

Your argument of scientists also being theists is an interesting one, since it's often said, by these scientists, that they have to compartmentalise their faith and their science, so really it proves the opposite of what you think.

Faith is not logical, it is the very opposite, this is not a bad thing, and by your framing it as such you set off from a false stand point. From your assumption that saying faith is illogical is a denegation of faith you base your argument on a false foundation.

Stop trying to shoe horn faith into a position it does not belong, faith and logic are opposites, and vastly different ways of looking at and understanding the world.

Like good and evil, yin and yang the whole is not complete without each other, but they are still opposites and to say faith is logical, or as you say alogical (assuming that if we had more data faith would be logical, which is practically absurd) is ridiculous.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 28, 2006 4:41 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
or as you say alogical (assuming that if we had more data faith would be logical, which is practically absurd) is ridiculous.

That is not what alogical means. It does not mean NOT YET understood by logic. It means outside the outer boundaries of logic, inherently and by definition.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 28, 2006 5:09 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
That is not what alogical means. It does not mean NOT YET understood by logic. It means outside the outer boundaries of logic, inherently and by definition.

Believing in something for which there is no evidence is outside the bounds of logic, because it's illogical. Alogical is a polite way of saying illogical.

By definitions of both alogical and illogical they are both described as the absence of logic, they're more or less the same thing worded differently.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 28, 2006 5:46 AM

SIGMANUNKI


double post

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 28, 2006 5:47 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Was gonna suggest that we Thinkers Anonymous folks should get together and elect a dunb guy President--

"oh, never mind..." we been there , done that.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:54 - 3414 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:49 - 11 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:45 - 56 posts
Elections; 2024
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:33 - 2075 posts
Long List of Celebrities that are Still Here
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:00 - 1 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL