Muslims and terrorism, do they just accept it?

[WTFH]

So you're reasoning with me that its reasonable to question reason? That doesn't lead to progress - that leads to mental retardation.

If you don't question reason, you don't advance - you, S.O., have blind faith in reason, and refuse to accept that current reason/logic may not be correct.


Reason said the earth was flat.
Anyone who questioned that was obviously mentally retarded.


Reason said the earth is the centre of the universe.
Nope, not allowed to question reason on this one.


Reason said that life was spontaneous generation (Aristotle's idea, held by some scientists as reason until the 18C).
Must be true, it was reasonable.


Reason said the earth was expanding.
This has to be true, but climate change is probably causing it to shrink - according to reason.

Reason said that light was transmitted by luminiferous aether.
A mysterious substance that doesn't exist, but reason said it did.


Reason said that phrenology was a science.
After all, it's not brain surgery.


Einstein reasoned for the static universe.
Daren't question reason there, then.


If people did not question reason, the human race would not progress, and people who refuse to question reason are doomed to be left behind.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Nice to see that you're still regarding your definitions and understandings as the only correct ones. Even the rationalwiki states that not all faith is blind faith. Notwithstanding Bertrand Russel's contention that faith with evidence is no faith at all, which is really a matter of semantics.

IrrationalWiki aside


I deliberately constructed my argument in such a way as to define my terms. I also clarified later because some people either don't read properly or are a little slow.

So you're a sophist attacking a straw man.

No, it's based on your subjective view of what objective reality is. But it's not just you, everyone's view of what is objective is necessarily subjective.

That's just sophistry wrapped in nihilism.

"Heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones". "A force is required to maintain steady movement".

These were both true in context. But i'll pretend they weren't for the sake of your argument...

"Everything revolves around the Earth". All reasoned views formulated first by Greek philosophers, and held as reasonable for hundreds (thousands?) of years. Until some bugger came along and questioned them.

So reason brought about certain understandings. Then faith made it taboo/unpleasant to question them for hundreds/thousands of years, and then reason improved upon those ideas even further.

So what's your point?



'Questioning reason' is like 'illuminating light'. Reason is the source of questioning. Your argument is circular.

[WTFH]

So reason brought about certain understandings. Then faith made it taboo/unpleasant to question them for hundreds/thousands of years, and then reason improved upon those ideas even further.

It appears you have an unreasonable knowledge of history - i.e. it's based on you believing (or perhaps having too much faith) in a dating system which puts ALL religious ideas as AFTER Greek philosophy.
As any reasonable person will tell you, that is not true.

'Questioning reason' is like 'illuminating light'. Reason is the source of questioning. Your argument is circular.

You're the one who calls people "retarded" if they dare question any of your beliefs. You have a very strong faith, I must say. It's based entirely in the closed-minded belief that you are correct and anyone who questions your reasoning is wrong.

As I stated earlier, blind faith is a dangerous thing.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Reason said the earth was flat.
Anyone who questioned that was obviously mentally retarded.



Reason said the earth is the centre of the universe.
Nope, not allowed to question reason on this one.


Reason said that life was spontaneous generation (Aristotle's idea, held by some scientists as reason until the 18C).
Must be true, it was reasonable.


Reason said the earth was expanding.
This has to be true, but climate change is probably causing it to shrink - according to reason.

Reason said that light was transmitted by luminiferous aether.
A mysterious substance that doesn't exist, but reason said it did.


Reason said that phrenology was a science.
After all, it's not brain surgery.


Einstein reasoned for the static universe.
Daren't question reason there, then.

Wrong on almost all counts. Reason suggested that they were good guesses/approximations/optimisations/assumptions until more evidence is collected that indicates otherwise. That's how science works, btw.

Where that wasn't true is where faith or unreason intervened. Where truth was not valued then ideas like an earth-centric universe persisted beyond reason.

As an aside, remember too that Aristotle believed in a prime mover.

If people did not question reason, the human race would not progress, and people who refuse to question reason are doomed to be left behind.

Like I said to NAT, reason is the source of questioning. Your argument doesn't make any sense (it's circular).

Faith, on the other hand, by definition, requires no questioning. As soon as you start questioning faith, you start reasoning instead.

[NotAllThere]

Are you saying that the use of reason is not to be questioned?

[WTFH]

Wrong on almost all counts. Reason suggested that they were good guesses/approximations/optimisations/assumptions until more evidence is collected that indicates otherwise. That's how science works, btw.

And what is a good guess/approximation/optimisation/assumption, but FAITH that the idea is close to correct.

Faith, on the other hand, by definition, requires no questioning.

By your definition, maybe. Doesn't mean your definition is correct. Many people who have faith - whether that is religious, scientific or whatever, actually have that faith because they started questioning, not the other way round. Your definition is flawed.


You started out by saying anyone who gets their morality from a book is wrong.
You switch wording from "book" to "revelation" when it suits your argument - i.e. your reasoning is based on twisting logic.
You claim that all religions started after the Greek philosophers.
What else would you like me to point out about the logically incorrect position you are in?

Are you saying that the use of reason is not to be questioned?

No, he's just arguing that anyone who disagrees with his belief is wrong and he will religiously fight to the death to defend his belief, no matter how reasonable you and I are.

[SpontaneousOrder]

It appears you have an unreasonable knowledge of history - i.e. it's based on you believing (or perhaps having too much faith) in a dating system which puts ALL religious ideas as AFTER Greek philosophy.

Are you talking to me or NAT? NAT said the greeks thought it up first.

That aside, if you're suggesting that those ideas were spawned from faith, then you'll have to explain. Or are you saying that God told us about a geocentric view of the universe, and we had faith in that, and then we subsequently proved him wrong?

As any reasonable person will tell you, that is not true.

Are you sure that's shouldn't be questioned?

You're the one who calls people "retarded"

No, I didn't.

if they dare question any of your beliefs.

I prefer to call them understandings.

You have a very strong faith, I must say. It's based entirely in the closed-minded belief that you are correct and anyone who questions your reasoning is wrong.

Some actual arguments, and less ad-hom, would be more compelling.

As I stated earlier, blind faith is a dangerous thing.

As I pointed out originally, and clarified later, this whole argument is regarding blind faith, rather than trust or educated guessing.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Are you saying that the use of reason is not to be questioned?

Reason is either a verb, or a noun naming the process referred to by that verb. So I'm not sure the question makes sense, but yes. I suppose so.

And given that the use of reason is the source of questioning, then questioning reasoning is a contradiction in terms.

[SpontaneousOrder]

And what is a good guess/approximation/optimisation/assumption, but FAITH that the idea is close to correct.

Lol. No. it's an understanding that that guess/approximation/optimisation/assumption is sufficiently likely that it can for all practical purposes be considered to be true, or is the best idea we have so far.

No scientist has faith that the steel staircase won't collapse underneath them - they know that it's sufficiently unlikely to not be considered a risk.

By your definition, maybe. Doesn't mean your definition is correct. Many people who have faith - whether that is religious, scientific or whatever, actually have that faith because they started questioning, not the other way round. Your definition is flawed.

Yeah... I can't argue with that. It's absurd. But more importantly you're confusing correlation with causation again.

You started out by saying anyone who gets their morality from a book is wrong.
You switch wording from "book" to "revelation" when it suits your argument - i.e. your reasoning is based on twisting logic.

My OP used the word revelation by way of clarification of the point. So where is the 'switching'?

Your dishonesty is what is twisted.

You claim that all religions started after the Greek philosophers.

No I didn't. Quote please.

What else would you like me to point out about the logically incorrect position you are in?

Any single point will do. So far all you've given are straw men & ad homs. I've refuted every single one, and you simply move on and invent another.

That's a significant character flaw. I'd call it evil but you don't believe in objectivity when it comes to morality.

No, he's just arguing that anyone who disagrees with his belief is wrong and he will religiously fight to the death to defend his belief, no matter how reasonable you and I are.

You keep using the word reasonable while arguing against the primacy of reason.

And I'm not arguing that anyone who disagrees is wrong (although I would do so long as they couldn't sow otherwise) - in this case I'm allowing someone who can't, and doesn't want to, string a coherent thought together to make an exhibition of their wilful ignorance for all to see.

As soon as you stop asking me to consider the merits of self-contradictory statements I'll take you seriously.

[WTFH]

Lol. No. it's an understanding that that guess/approximation/optimisation/assumption is sufficiently likely that it can for all practical purposes be considered to be true, or is the best idea we have so far.

No scientist has faith that the steel staircase won't collapse underneath them - they know that it's sufficiently unlikely to not be considered a risk.

And a non-scientist? For example, a child. If they do not know that it is sufficiently unlikely, what do they rely on?