Essay talk:What has not been proven is not always disproven

I can't quite get a handle on what you're saying, but it seems to be that we should willfully embrace irrational beliefs to balance out our rational use of science & logic. & That's just very silly. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:50, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

What I am saying is that a human being, by our nature, cannot live as a purely rational one. See the balance section. An irrational belief is one that is not logical. See the adultry example. Rationality is very, very good, but must be balanced with ethics, philosophy, etc. Those things are irrational. --<choose>

<option>^Input The Resistor^Output</option> <option>Coyote^{Over 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages}</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 10:55, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

There's no empirical basis for "must be balanced" - it's just your opinion. There are plenty of rational non-religious reasons why adultery is usually regarded as harmful. Plus you seem to be citing Stephen Jay Gould as a religious scientist - from what I've read, I think he was agnostic at most. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:59, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

This essay screams of someone who hasn't thought out their views but desperately wants attention. Learn first, then teach. Z3ro^talk 11:02, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

I will change that, thank you. However, any thing that does not use pure logic is irrational. Many people here seem to think that all irrational things are religious. That is not true. Ethics, if you cannot jusitify them using logic, are not rational. --<choose>

<option>^Input The Resistor^Output</option> <option>Coyote^{Over 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages}</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 11:03, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Ethics are always justified using logic, irrespective of whether that logic relates to religion or real world concerns. "philosophy does not make statements about the real world" Oh really? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel}

My dictionary wasn't very helpful. And if I say, 'I should not eat meat,' that does not use logic. It is an ethic. --<choose>

<option>^Input The Resistor^Output</option> <option>Coyote^{Over 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages}</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 11:07, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

No, chosing not to eat meat is a choice. If you say "I should not eat meat because it hurts animals", that is an ethic, and based on logic. Z3ro^talk 11:15, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

(EC) I assume you have some reason for not eating meat, whether you consider it cruel or animals or just don't like the taste, and that link from a premise to the conclusion "I should not eat meat" is an application of logic. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:15, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

It won't be long before someone starts crowing that atheism isn't rational and that it's a religion or something stupid like that. Oh, wait... Bondurant 12:11, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Congratulations. A Good Start on the road to Truth. I can Not Understand why you did not Explicitly mention NOMA though.--Tolerance 13:37, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Perhaps because NOMA is a sneaky get out from having to use logic and reason? _and marmite 14:16, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

But the Reference to Gould is clearly a nod to NOMA. Why not be Open about it?--Tolerance 15:10, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Soooo, I read the essay, and it says nothing. there is no point, no focus, no conclusion. I don't get what you want us to say, think or do. I think that the human animal's brain needs something like philosophy "why" to parallel science's "what". But I"m not even sure that is what you are saying... --En attendant Godot_{"«Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta. V.Nabokov»} 14:41, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

(Just an aside, but Weasel, ethics are not always done rationally. There is an entire field of philosophy "Feminist Ethics" to debunk the idea that you can ground ethics in the world of rationality and just set aside all that icky - girly emotional stuff that is inherent in any ethical decision anyone ever makes)--En attendant Godot_{"«Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta. V.Nabokov»} 14:11, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

That is rather ridiculous; you mean that it is conceded that men and women have psychological differences? Cubic evil Hoover! 16:01, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Nag of Four

It currently has four members, so the addition of you would make it the Nag of Five. Cubic evil Hoover! 12:39, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

I feel that CUR would make an Excellent Addition tot he NAG.--Tolerance 13:35, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

If one of you is going to give the title to him, feel free, but we won't recognise a fifth member. Cubic evil Hoover! 14:45, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

I did not know that you Spoke on Behalf of RWW now.--Tolerance 15:10, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Nx and I are in charge now, but I concede that the phrasing was poorly-chosen. Cubic evil Hoover! 15:57, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

religion and science are compatible

I would argue that religion and science are indeed compatible. It's just that no known religion is scientific. If there was a god and he was actually interested in proving himself, he could allow for scientific ways of doing so.

Sorry, this is gibberish

One thing I've learned from my (very limited) training in philosophy is this: you have to be very clear with your terms and definitions. What we have in this essay is a total mixup of three terms. Firstly, "Spirituality is the speculation of a person's mind." The study of "mind" is in fact called philosophy of mind, which is often a far different concept from "spirit," which is transcendent. "Religion" is organized and/or codified spiritual views (when it doesn't verge into the physically testable). "Philosophy" is thrown around in two different ways. Firstly, there is the study of problems of mind, matter, time, God, etc..., the body of knowledge and argument, if you will. Then there is anyone's "philosophy", their idiosyncratic set of ethical, moral, spiritual views and so forth, which is rarely a process or study. Thus anyone's "spirituality" is part of their "philosophy," and their "religion" is merely their spirituality/philosophy if it fits into an organized social structure. Claiming that people need a "balance" of these is absurd, since you're just labeling idiosyncratic views variously as philosophy, spirituality, and religion without rhyme or reason.

Then we have your "balance" paragraph... ugh. "Since most of us conclude adultry is wrong, we are using the irrational parts of our brains. Irrational does not mean crazy, inane, or insane. It means not rational, as in not scientific." Leaving aside the nonsensical "Irrational parts of our brain," we conclude adultery is wrong based on experience of social harm. This is rational. Spreading one's own genes is not rational. It does not use reason, but relies upon biological impetus.

Furthermore, rational does not mean scientific. Science deals with empiricism, not mere rationalism. The study of philosophy aims continually to use pure logic, reason, etc., but it is not scientific in any sense of the word, due to the total lack of empiricism. 15:15, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

It's also taking a very simplistic view on why we think things are wrong (as is your comment, actually). Whole fields of philosophy, study of religion, psychology, and anthropology are devoted to understanding why we think the way we do about ethics. We seem as a species to know it's wrong to "kill in cold blood", but why? Have we always thought so? Is it a social benefit, or a "piggy back" to some other evolutionary trend. Does society so impact us that we cannot separate "my morals" from "society's morals?" Everyone has theories, but before someone can really write about balance (above and beyond their own experience, that is), they need to at least spend some time talking about where they think our morals and ethics come from.--En attendant Godot_{"«Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta. V.Nabokov»} 15:26, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Well, I Know where mine Come From.--Tolerance 15:32, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Well, I Know what Actually Works. Neveruse513 15:35, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Tolerance, you are claiming that you know more than 4 or 5 major fields in science and philo and psychology know? my oh my - isn't that special.--En attendant Godot_{"«Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta. V.Nabokov»} 15:46, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Such is the Power of Faith.--Tolerance 15:52, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Tolerance, I'd really like You to respond to the above section. Neveruse513 15:58, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Ummmm ... Could you be More Specific? Everything is above this Line (at the moment). But I can not see anything that Urgently needs a Response from me.--Tolerance 16:22, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Sorry that wasn't clear enough. Please respond here. Neveruse513 16:29, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

(undent)The question seems to be "where do your morals come from?" - but this is a much bigger discussion than should be done here. Silver Sloth 16:26, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Since I am now completely awake, I realize that it is gibberish. Here is something I hope makes more sense. --<choose>

<option>^Input The Resistor^Output</option> <option>Coyote^{Over 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages}</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 11:52, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Rewrite

Why replace an essay with a completely different essay on a different subject in the same location? You've pretty well invalidated this talk page since all the comments above refer to an essay that is no longer here. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 04:49, 13 April 2009 (EDT)