declaring reason -- FawnDoo's Cavalcade of Whimsy

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 02:36:08 04/13/03 Sun
Author: Goktimus Prime
Subject: declaring reason
In reply to: Perceptor II 's message, "Logic and religion" on 21:45:13 04/12/03 Sat

I have also observed that a common practice among those who like to debate religion is to ask a question of those who have different religious beliefs, and then when those questioned explain their logical the one who asked the question will declare their line of reasoning to be invalid due to the fact that they include their religious beliefs.

I am not invalidating aforementioned religious reasons based solely on the fact that they are religious, but because they are devoid of logical rationale.

Essentially, the questioner is never really interested in understanding where the other side is coming from, just in inflating his own ego. All that's accomplished from such "debates" is a lot of angry feelings, a lot of yelling, and one or two people getting swelled heads.

Well, so far nobody's been yelling at each other here, and I'd hope that you'd know me better than someone who goes skulking around message boards looking for an excuse to "inflate" my ego. I merely opened the debate because the opportunity presented itself to me.

I'm merely looking for a genuine answer to my question -- and while I admit that I am skeptical that I might find it -- I am simultaneously not completely dismissive of it either.

As I've said before numerous times, the one thing which distinguishes our species is our ability to rationalise and reason. The reason why we established modern notions of liberty and freedom of speech was to further our quest for the truth. I'm not saying that I hold all the answers to the universe, but it's clear that when 19th Century Christian and Muslim scholars assembled in Spain, that they saw past their differences (which seems to be an increasing problem amongst today's Christians and Muslims) and united to form the academic institution of the University so that scholars may gather an embark on a scholastic quest to find the truth. This is why the highest award attainable at a university is a Philosophy Doctorate, even if you're not a Doctor of Philosophy -- because the university, representing a community's seat of knowledge, was founded by philosophers. The same philosophers who gave us modern notions of liberty and freedom. Oh yeah, I've already said that.

And is it inherently wrong for a person to question a subject from a viewpoint of skepticism and cynicism? Why would that enrage someone unless they continued to impose their skepticism and cynicism in lieu of being presented with convincing counterarguments. In the arena of academic debate, we will always be confronted with opponents who will be skeptical and cynical of our own viewpoints -- after all, why would someone debate against a POV if they weren't utterly convinced by it in the first place?

That's not at all to say that they're not interested in discovering where the other person is coming from or to say that they're only debating the issue to somehow inflate their own ego. It might be if the person is unjustly dismissive afterwards, but I do not believe that I have been.

I will openly concede defeat in an argument and even reconsider my own views if I am presented with a convincing counterargument. After all, that IS the original intent of allowing free speech.

Furthermore, as rational agents, we all ought to have some kind of justifications for the things we do and believe in life.

Let's take a non-religious example, just to calm things down a notch... let's look at toy collecting.

I'm sure everybody here has been challenged by people who question why a grown adult would continue to collect and play with toys. What is your usual retort to such challenges? Do you become angry and accuse the other person of simply starting an argument for argument's sake? For me, it demands on their response.

My father for example has NEVER been comfortable with the fact that I am a Transfan, nor will he ever sit down and argue it rationally with me. As far as he's concerned, it's all a waste of time, money and energy. And it is a hobby which consumes time, money and energy. Yet my justification for it is a simple one: it's fun. I derive a lot of pleasure from collecting and playing with Transformers. I enjoy looking at the way they're sculpted, and I enjoy the stimulation of transforming each toy into their various modes. I like the way my toy room looks surrounded by hundreds of Transformer toys (400-500? I need to do a recount, but not in Florida).

Yes, it does cost a lot of money collecting a lot of toys, especially considering that I collect toys released here and in Japan. But that's why I have a job. I work hard, I play hard. Generation X! :p
I'm not squandering all my money on something self-destructive like drugs. And I do maintain a reasonably balanced lifestyle with other interests, sports etc.

This is how I explain my hobby to those who ask. And though they may not agree with being a toy collector, they can at least understand and appreciate the lifestyle I've chosen. Neither of my housemates are heavy toy collectors -- one of them is a casual collector of "statues" (e.g.: MacFarlane Toys) and my other housemate doesn't collect anything. But they both think that my Transformers collection is cool.

My mother doesn't necessarily think it's cool, but she does understand the pleasure I get from it, so she doesn't berate me about it. My father on the other hand will never understand and he regularly gets on my case about it.

So when someone questions your belief, expect them to have some skepticism and cynicism in them -- they would not be questioning you about it otherwise, nor would you derive the same amount of pleasure presenting your case -- why bother persuading someone who already virtually agrees with you? Just because a person is skeptical of your belief doesn't mean that they have a personal hatred towards you, but merely the fact that they are skeptical of what it is that you profess.

And there's nothing wrong with that. We're all skeptical of something.

But as a rational agent -- a human being -- you have the special ability to justify your beliefs. To explain to people why you believe what it is that you believe. You don't have to persuade the other person to agree with your belief, but to at very least, understand your belief -- to understand where it is that you're coming from.

Getting irate whenever your religious beliefs are challenged won't do you any good. In fact, they can serve to perpetuate the image of Christian fascism -- the notion that Christian law is infallable and cannot be debated... sounds and awful lot like a dictatorship to me.

You can make Christians look a lot better by actually sticking to your guns and following the debate through.

Nobody's throwing personal insults at anybody here. People are disagreeing, but it's remained a calm and reasonably rational debate (lest FawnDoo come and reign much thread deletion upon our heinies!).

I saw more emotions flying during the discussion about the War in Iraq than on this thread anyway. ;p

I believe the only real time you need to back out of a debate is if:
(1) you no longer have anything valid to contribute to it.
(2) the other party is clearly not serious or interested in the topic at hand.

Now, I've asked it before -- why does Christianity view gay love as being wrong/invalid?

The only answers I've been presented so far have been:
(1) Gay love is wrong because it does not lead to procreation.
(2) It is against the law of God/the Church.

I have dismissed these arguments, NOT merely for the sake of dismissing them, but because NEITHER of them satisfactorily answer the question. The first answer qualifies why gay sex is incorrect for the purposes of procreation, and the second answer merely states the obvious -- that Christianity is opposed to homosexuality. It's very much a "because it's wrong" kind of answer.

But NEITHER of them actually tell me WHY Christianity is opposed to it.

I already know that Christians view homosexual relationships as wrong -- don't tell me something I already know. What I don't know -- and the answer that I am seeking here is why is it wrong?

I do NOT know how you observed this question and came to the conclusion that I'm not interested in where Christians are coming from or that I'm just trying to inflate my own ego. Honestly.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Perceptor has a point. -- WarCore, 03:35:07 04/13/03 Sun
My ONLY commentary on this thread -- Icon, 13:53:38 04/15/03 Tue