Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6 ... 13  Next

It's not arrogant. It's just wrong. I could easily demonstrate that the Garden of Eden is logically possible. Unlikely. But possible.

Logic is based on unproved axioms that we assume to be true. So you can only find the truth with logic if you've already found it without it.

   

I'm going to have to agree to disagree.

I think logic is for all it's faults still one of the most useful tools for ascertaining what is likely to be true and in some cases what is impossible.

It's very true that deductive systems of reasoning have their limits and cases can clearly be made for inductive argument.

Just because one can use a hammer instead of a pair of pliers to remove a nail sticking out of a wall it doesn't make the hammer a less effective tool.

   

I didn't say logic wasn't useful. I said (in the case of deduction) it was ultimately based on the belief that its axioms are true, even though they are unproven. I.e, it is faith-based.

Logic cannot ascertain that the Garden of Eden is impossible. Indeed if you can imagine a scenario where the Garden off Eden follows the laws of physics of this universe, then you can imagine a collection of atoms whereby such would be the case. If the universe is infinite--which does not contradict any logical axiom--then that collection of atoms (the Garden of Eden) exists somewhere. In fact, it exists an infinite amount of times.

   

your totally right and that's why I use Occam's razor. It's why I don't buy it. The only claim I'm making is that I find it unbelievable.

If someone however is going to claim that the garden of Eden is true then they are making a claim and the burden of proof....

   

al·le·go·ry noun \ˈa-lə-ˌgȯr-ē\
plural al·le·go·ries

Definition of ALLEGORY

1: the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence; also : an instance (as in a story or painting) of such expression

2: a symbolic representation : emblem

   

So you believe immortality is possible for humans?

   

I certainly do. It's possible for jelly fish and cancer cells.

Some oncologists figure we'll beat aging before we beat cancer.

I don't believe in the Garden of Eden or anything close to the Judeo-Christian God.

To quote my blog:

   

Which part? Godel's Incompleteness Theorem? The basis of logical deduction on unproved axioms? Or the Problem of Induiction?[/quote]

The bolded is what is Incorrect.

   

In the matter of the research article forgive me if I'm somewhat indifferent to it and that it just seems another case in a long string of cases of confirmation bias to me.

A bunch of people who don't have a religious faith find fault with people who do.

There's just nothing new about this to me as I've heard it all before.

It's also selective in that the topic of analytical thinking is aimed solely at religion.

I firmly believe that for many non-religious types they evidence belief systems that are absent of analytical thinking when it comes to their perceptions of science and politics.

Mr. Canada, for instance, continues to assert Marxism despite an abundance of 'real world testing data' that shows the system to be a devastating failure. A declining number of people on this forum continue to assert catastrophic, man-made global warming prophecies despite the hard evidence to support such a belief and despite the abundant evidence that too many pro-AGW climatologists have altered raw data to make it conform to their prophecies.

Analytical thinking would require individuals to be, well, analytical and to look at the facts of these two topics, look at the outcomes of various projections, and to see if the two proposals withstood the test of time.

Such thinking would also heavily weigh the implications of leaders in both proposals being caught falsifying data because if the proposals were inherently sound then wouldn't they be supported by actual data?

In sum, it seems the authors of the study only care to take exception with belief systems they oppose anyway.

   

It just goes to show how we need to define terms when arguing about this stuff. The garden of Eden was eternal - no aging, no death, just everlasting existence. Taken literally, I think it conflicts with anything we know about the universe. Logically you can't disprove it, like you really can't prove the absence of anything. But you have to buy into a whole different cosomology to take the garden of eden literally.

   

Question. If analytic thinking can decrease religious belief, which is intuitive thinking, then wouldn't it also follow that analytic thinking can decrease overall intuitive thinking?
And if that is the case, do we really wanna suppress our intuitive thinking?

   

good question. I don't think we do, I think it's a matter of finding the balance.

   

False premise. Why would you think religious thinking is intuitive? I can't think of single aspect of any religion that is anything but completely counter-intuitive.

   

From the study itself

   

I do think the researchers are mixing up some terms here. I don't think a literal reading of genesis is intuitive. What's intuitive is as Lemmy pointed out, the allegory behind it. That does have the feel of truthiness behind it. But then fundamentalists, who've actually swallowed the idea that only analytical thinking is valid, use a twisted version of that to say that Genesis is literally true. And I think the researchers confound these two aspects of religion.

The fundamentalist reading of the bible is a new phenomenon of the last couple of hundred years tops. Before that people understood that it was to be taken metaphorically.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6 ... 13  Next