Posted by:
ificouldhietokolob
(
)
Date: July 24, 2017 04:19PM
veritessalee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hello,
> I'm more than happy to address your concerns. It
> sounds like you primarily dislike my use of the
> word "intellectual." My main reason for choosing
> that word is to connote that I read content
> produced by other humans from both sides of a
> debate, thought about what they said, and then
> drew my own conclusion. Critically thinking about
> the work of others is "intellectual" and not
> "emotional." Many of the books I cited have a
> mixture of "logical arguments" and "personal
> experiences".
Thanks for the reply.
I've read every one of the books you had up there. My point very simply was that while you may find the emotional content compelling -- which is entirely subjective and entirely up to you -- the "logical arguments" aren't. Logical, that is. They're sometimes subtly, sometimes outrageously fallacious. Lewis being on the outrageous end :)
> I did find some of the logical
> arguments compelling after thinking about them; it
> is perfectly within your rights to find those
> arguments stupid after you consider them yourself,
> but I don't think that makes you any "more
> intellectual" or "less intellectual" than I am.
I didn't call any of them "stupid," nor did I say or imply that I was any more intellectual than you.
It's simply a fact that the "logical arguments" listed aren't logical because they contain fallacies -- one of the wonderful things about logic is that it isn't subjective, that fallacies negate the logic of an argument, and that what fallacies are and which are used are subject to clear "rules."
> You looked at the same arguments - you just drew a
> different conclusion. I work full-time as a
> scientist at a major research university and fully
> understand the difference between "thinking" and
> "feeling" about something.
I (and many others) consider them as the logical arguments they claim to be, and given the rules of logic, point out their failing as such. I haven't got a clue what reasons you used to consider them valid logical arguments -- so I won't presume to know. I'll just point out that they're not, that it's a demonstrable fact they're not, and that your achievements in science and/or other areas -- while admirable -- don't prevent you from making logical errors in reasoning. You might consider going over them again with a more objective eye, or not -- up to you. But the errors are there.
> I also did mention in
> my blog post several subjective experiences that
> are not "intellectual" but rather
> emotional/spiritual, and I mentioned clearly that
> these were part of my decision process. So I am
> not trying to "hide" that there were emotional
> components to my decision.
Yes, I know, I read your post. I hope you noticed that I didn't imply in any way that you were attempting to "hide" those.
> My decision was a
> mixture of logical thinking and emotions.
> I don't
> think that makes it any less valid.
I also didn't at any point question the "validity" of your decision, in fact I made it a point to say that it WAS your decision, and that whatever your decision was for you is fine.
My issue is simply declaring demonstrably fallacious logical arguments themselves as logically valid arguments. They're not.
> To draw a
> parallel between science and religion, there are a
> lot of times in science when the next step is a
> clear, logical outcome of previous steps; but
> there are times, too, when you just "have a
> feeling" that something is going to work, and you
> try it. The discoveries you make after trying
> something on a "gut feeling" are no less valid
> than the discoveries you make after trying
> something logical.
If the discovery is backed by ample evidence, and the scientific method has been followed, absolutely.
If the discovery is claimed using fallacy, and without verifiable evidence, that's a different story. :)
> Similarly for my personal take
> on religion. I am not attacking your beliefs at
> all...
Nor was I attacking yours...
> I am merely stating my own beliefs. I am sure
> that you also have put an immense amount of
> thought (and probably, being human, some emotions
> too) into deciding what you believe.
My decision was not to "believe." Anything. But to only accept claims based on evidence, with little or no emotion. To see the universe as it can be demonstrated to be, not by what I (or anyone else) wants it to be.
Your decision was different. As I said, if that works for you, great. Enjoy. It's up to you if you want to reconsider the "logical arguments" again...or not. Whether you do or don't, there's no harm pointing out fallacies in them, is there? That's just being honest and open, right?