[FoRK] Poll: I would rather my daughter married a Muslim than
Stephen D. Williams
<sdw at lig.net> on
Thu Jun 21 17:41:40 PDT 2007
Lion Kimbro wrote:
> On 6/21/07, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 10:06:55AM -0700, Corinna Schultz wrote:
>> All this assumes rational arguments can dispel a belief system which
>> is not rational in itself, is not based on ratio, and was typically
>> acquired by irrational means. People have absolutely no issues believing
>> multiple mutually inconsistent things. They're even completely
> "Rational argument" rarely is; Instead, it's a defeasible reasoning
> People imagine that there's a firm rock, "rationality," that you can
> everything off of.
Scientific rationality is that rock. There will be plenty of mistakes,
but the process finds and corrects those.
> Utterly bonkers; It's just "reason" (rather than "rationality") at
> the bottom,
> and reason is not only convergent, but also intensely divergent. It
> creatively stretches out in all directions.
Rationality describes someone who has reasoned in a rational way. I.e.,
they have made defensible decisions at each step of the reasoning
process. They may be wrong, but they used the right process to get
there. Being rational and having rationality, to me and many others,
means being grounded in scientific reasoning, even if it's just called
> Given some framework, you can apply rationalizing within it. But the
> framework itself is based in reason and the world.
Please see my earlier terms: parrational vs. superrational. This is
exactly my point, however it is bunk to pretend that it's all relative.
You have science and you have supernaturalism. It's pretty easy to see
> Defeasible arguments against theism are just that: defeasible.
> Other stories can trump still other stories.
What would a defeasible argument be?
I would like to know what you think of "The God Delusion".
Does it change your mind about anything?
Does it seem like parrational thinking?
> You can take the arguments you don't like, and say, "Well, they're
> just not rational." Perhaps not rational to your reasoned purposes.
It's not a purpose, it is a process. Realism, reality, and science are
easily experienced, outside your head.
> But they're rational to *their* reasoned purposes.
>> Hence in practice, rational advocacy is a waste of everybody's time.
> I wouldn't go so far;
> A lot of times, I've been convinced of something, by an argument
> that I heard **years** ago. Or a number of arguments coalesce in
> my mind at the right time, and then, BAM, I'm convinced.
> So I think there's some value and merit in the process.
> But it's rarely instantaneous.
We hereby present you with these memes, for your later enjoyment and
More information about the FoRK