|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Do animals have souls? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 612 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
I think that the soul lacks properties that are able to be experimented on, scientifically. Perhaps we could have a philosophical experiment, if thats possible.
The problem with something that is unobservable, untestable, and non-detectable, it has a strong resemblance to something that is non-existent. Edited by ramoss, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
then you are trying to say that you are both skeptical and not skeptical {faith} of the "soul" at the same time - this is of course a logical contradiction. Yes, this is what I'm saying.I don't think it is neccessarily contradictory, but it might be a little illogical. I don't have a problem with having religious beliefs that are formally illogical. Formal logic has its place and religion is not it. all I said was that your use of the word faith, if used to describe your experience correctly, is contradictory to a skeptical point of view (giving it another thought) - you cant do them both. Well, I have done both. I took a skeptical view of the soul and realized that it was not a parsimonious explanation. This didn't remove the feeling that I do, in fact, have a soul. I looked into the scientific explanations for said feeling and determined that the existance of the soul is compatible with their findings and not ruled out. I also saw that this area of science is underdeveloped and difficult to "put a finger on", so to I don't see the contradiction, but I do see how I could be being illogical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I think that the soul lacks properties that are able to be experimented on, scientifically. Perhaps we could have a philosophical experiment, if thats possible.
The problem with something that is unobservable, untestable, and non-detectable, it has a strong resemblance to something that is non-existent.
That certainly is a problem. I think it could be considered a fault of science, or positivism, that without detection, things are assumed to not exist. Now, I understand why parsimony is important and agree, but there does seem to be some limitations to science. The counter argument could be that we'd have to assume that everything exists if we don't assume that nothing exists without detection. I think this is a little overboard. There are things that people profess to exist that science has not dicovered and I think its important for science to continue to assume theses thing do not exists, but I don't think its good for other people to completely write these people off because science doesn't see it. Assuming that something exists that is unobservable, untestable, and non-detectable (without getting into how), would it be completely unknown to science? Would science fail in the discovery of this thing? Should we only believe in things that science can find? Should we take that assumption, without scientific detection things don't exist, and apply it to our entire lives? I'd say no, because, to me, it seems like my soul does exist. While this might be some sort of detection, it isn't recognized by science, so it is assumed to not exist. I don't think I should go ith science on this one. Especially when my soul is apparent to my self. I just wouldn't be being honest with myself. That is when science becomes a religion. ABE: I don't think you should reply here because it is too off topic. I proposed a new topic that you should reply too if it is approved. It is titled "Can parsimony turn science ito a religion?" Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kalimero Member (Idle past 2445 days) Posts: 251 From: Israel Joined: |
I don't think it is neccessarily contradictory
Please provide an example.
but it might be a little illogical
Whats the difference between "a little illogical" and just plain illogical?
I don't have a problem with having religious beliefs that are formally illogical.
"formally illogical" as opposed to what? Is there another kind of logic I dont know about?This is exactly what I am saying about faith, it doesnt matter wheather you are illogical or not. Formal logic has its place and religion is not it.
So your saying that religion is 'formaly illogical'?
Well, I have done both. http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=skepticismFaith Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster Read the two definitions and tell me they are not contradictory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I don't think it is neccessarily contradictory
Please provide an example. My story in the post you replied to was the example.
but it might be a little illogical
Whats the difference between "a little illogical" and just plain illogical? I dunno, your gonna have to ask robinrohan But seriously, a contradiction is totally illogical, but something that is not positively illogical, but based on poor logic or not from a logical conclusion, would be a little illogical, IMO.
I don't have a problem with having religious beliefs that are formally illogical.
"formally illogical" as opposed to what? Is there another kind of logic I dont know about? quote: Do people always do your homework for you?[/sarcasm] This is exactly what I am saying about faith, it doesnt matter wheather you are illogical or not. I think it does. If it was a logical contradiction (illogical) then I'd have a problem with it. But if it just wasn't based on the logical conclusion (what I meant by a little illogical) then I don't have a problem with it. Because religions don't have to comply with formal logic, thats not its place.
Formal logic has its place and religion is not it.
So your saying that religion is 'formaly illogical'? Yeah, don't you think it is?
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=skepticism Faith Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster Read the two definitions and tell me they are not contradictory.
I read them both and don't see how they are neccessarily contradictory. I was skeptical about the soul, then I figured that it does exist, now I have faith in it. What's the problem?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kalimero Member (Idle past 2445 days) Posts: 251 From: Israel Joined: |
This is exactly what I am saying about faith, it doesnt matter wheather you are illogical or not.
I think it does. If it was a logical contradiction (illogical) then I'd have a problem with it.So your saying that religion is 'formaly illogical'?
Yeah, don't you think it is? Yes I do, does this mean that you have a problem with religion?Or maybe religion is an informal logic?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Yes I do, does this mean that you have a problem with religion? Or maybe religion is an informal logic? I don't have a problem with religion because I don't think religion has to pass the 'logic test', especially if god has magic powers. Like I typed before, religion can be a little illogical, no problem, the problem comes in when there are stark contradictions, when its very illogical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kalimero Member (Idle past 2445 days) Posts: 251 From: Israel Joined: |
I don't have a problem with religion because I don't think religion has to pass the 'logic test', especially if god has magic powers. Why do you think that? Why is religion excluded from logical scrutiny?
Like I typed before, religion can be a little illogical, no problem, the problem comes in when there are stark contradictions, when its very illogical. So being a little illogical is o.k.? Oh, why didnt you grade my physics test? I would have gotten a higher score for sure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5851 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
Why do you think that? Why is religion excluded from logical scrutiny?
If I may,Logic has it's place. Logic applied where it has no meaning sucks the life out of that which brings joy. I do not:listen to or create music using logic. decide to put burgundy in my home made spagetti with logic. watch the clouds roll by and imagine what they look like with logic. Logic is for the practical. Joy is for living. Religion brings many people joy. A life without logic is do-able A life without joy is no life at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Not really.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 612 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: Not really.
I am not sure you are right. There are plenty of examples right on this very forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kalimero Member (Idle past 2445 days) Posts: 251 From: Israel Joined: |
Joy is for living. Religion brings many people joy. That is irrelivent. Science also brings joy but you wouldnt say that thats why it doesnt need logic. Religion presumes to know thing that are in the realm of science (the creation of life, the source of conscience...) therefore it should require logic to put together hypotheisis and evidence.IMO religion gives joy just like drugs bring joy - through false hope. (but thats off topic)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1399 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
So being a little illogical is o.k.? Oh, why didnt you grade my physics test? I would have gotten a higher score for sure. What makes you think that something MUST be logical? Humans aren't logical in their everyday lives, so ... why would you expect anything to be logical? Science is an attempt to overcome our illogical nature, our illogical bodies that produce illogical minds. Most "logic" people use is simply trying to avoid cognitive dissonance. Some people's arguments actually turn out to be logical, usually due to great practice. Many arguments turn out to be illogical or based on false premises. Life is nothing like a physics test. Except maybe that when you get to the end of either one you wind up feeling crappy With that said,
Why do you think that? Why is religion excluded from logical scrutiny? What is the purpose of putting religion under logical scrutiny? Even if illogical, religion does serve many purposes. There's at least one open thread if you want to discuss the purpose of religion. Regardless, all religion has to do is avoid causing cognitive dissonace in it's memebers. For believers, it doesn't have to be logical. I think religious and non-religious people alike make the mistake of not understanding what we really are. Both tend to be idealists in my experience.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kalimero Member (Idle past 2445 days) Posts: 251 From: Israel Joined: |
What makes you think that something MUST be logical? Because that is what allows me to explain it and make predictions about it. logic is what ties the over all expanation (theory/hypotheisis) with the actual evidence.
Humans aren't logical in their everyday lives, so ... why would you expect anything to be logical? Humans are not logical, but should strive to be logical for the reasons writen above. but whet somebody says that being illogical is o.k. when there is a logical alternative, then thats like saying: "I dont want to know how this works I'm just glad (joyfull) it does" - which is just ignorant.
Some people's arguments actually turn out to be logical, usually due to great practice. Many arguments turn out to be illogical or based on false premises. If we used only illogical arguements to try to understand the universe - what is the probability that we will get it right?What is the probability if we use logical arguements? There are an infinite amount of illogical arguements making the probability of getting the one we choose, arbitrarily, right - just about zero. Logical arguements, although coming from an illogical body, have the advantage of disreguarding any obviously illogical arguements, by them being not comletely arbitrary, and thus have a better chance of actually being right. What is the purpose of putting religion under logical scrutiny? Even if illogical, religion does serve many purposes. Would you say the ends justify the means in this case? Especially when religion tries to not only "make people happy" (which I also think is mot bad but misguided) but also to make very arbitrary (obviously illogical) arguements about the way the universe works.
Regardless, all religion has to do is avoid causing cognitive dissonace in it's memebers. But it does do that by this definition:Cognitive dissonance Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster when it tries to argue 'incongruous beliefs and attitudes' (the bible for example). For believers, it doesn't have to be logical.
Hence the circular reasoning in religion.
I think religious and non-religious people alike make the mistake of not understanding what we really are. Both tend to be idealists in my experience. You object to idealizing but you also know "what we really are"?I never said I was completely logical, just stiving for it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I don't have a problem with religion because I don't think religion has to pass the 'logic test', especially if god has magic powers.
Why do you think that? Why is religion excluded from logical scrutiny?
Why do you think it should? I mean, according to the religion, God has magical powers. How would you hold that up to logical scrutiny? You'd just conclude he didn't exist, I guess. But for those who believe he does, what is logic going to do for anything about God? Why should they have to?
So being a little illogical is o.k.? Oh, why didnt you grade my physics test? I would have gotten a higher score for sure.
Thats retarded. Don't you remember me typing something like that religion could be a little illogical but not science?, IIRC
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024