• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Is agnosticism intellectual cowardice?

dopaminedump said:
I believe rationalism breeds truth and free thinking. Seeing everything how it is. Can you elaborate on your previous statement. im very intrigued.
Click to expand...

yes i agree with your point-of-view.

what i meant was that there must be the irrational, to use ones rationale. i wish others would attempt to rationalize more.

there must be a user to operate the computer, or it would be useless.
 
The "computer" doesn't exist in nature. There's just no biological analogy for it, so I don't see how your 'pure-rationality' is relevant to the human condition.

Rational thought doesn't exclude fascination with the unknown - in fact that fascination is what drives us rationalize. For the longest time non-belief in God was deemed irrational, and then our curiosities got the better of us.
 
MrGrunge said:
The "computer" doesn't exist in nature. There's just no biological analogy for it, so I don't see how your 'pure-rationality' is relevant to the human condition.

Rational thought doesn't exclude fascination with the unknown - in fact that fascination is what drives us rationalize. For the longest time non-belief in God was deemed irrational, and then our curiosities got the better of us.
Click to expand...



pure-rational you asked.

pure-irrational: careless, hot, totally in-deceive, everything but itself.

the only biological explanation i think, atm, for 'pure-rational' would be a systematic course of nature with no cognitive awareness of the surrounding environment.

a river makes its course; the living organisms surrounding it utilize its features.
 
panic in paradise said:
yes i agree with your point-of-view.

what i meant was that there must be the irrational, to use ones rationale. i wish others would attempt to rationalize more.

there must be a user to operate the computer, or it would be useless.
Click to expand...

So if I understand this correctly that means for example I irrationally (w/ no evidence) claim there's no god and claim it to be rational. . .
 
dopaminedump said:
atheism breeds rationalism
Click to expand...
it tends to, but rationalism is stronger at breeding atheism.

panic in paradise said:
rationalism breeds escapism
Click to expand...
only in those who fear reality qua reality.
and, for those who do, the answer isn't "rationalize then escape", it's "escape by never rationalizing in the 1st place".

panic in paradise said:
thoughtless, cold, totally undeceive, nothing, a computer i suppose.
Click to expand...
WTF is up with the (admittedly pervasive, culturally) notion that things like rationalization, or logic, are "cold" and not beautiful? Like, do people really think the cosmos are less beautiful to scientists than to religious folk?
I know it's (almost never) intended to come across as such, but i find that line of thinking almost insulting.

MrGrunge said:
The "computer" doesn't exist in nature. There's just no biological analogy for it, so I don't see how your 'pure-rationality' is relevant to the human condition.

Rational thought doesn't exclude fascination with the unknown - in fact that fascination is what drives us rationalize. For the longest time non-belief in God was deemed irrational, and then our curiosities got the better of us.
Click to expand...
don't be obtuse, you understand the computer analogy mrgrunge :|
and ya that's quite on-point. in the same way religious nuts fascinate themselves with man/society through religious texts, the TRULY enlightened use science and other methods that are actually accurate.

oh my science, i'm sure this post'll get some flaming ;PP
 
Last edited by a moderator:
bmxxx said:
don't be obtuse, you understand the computer analogy mrgrunge :|
Click to expand...

If you're referring to the 'human brain', then I must disagree. That analogy is not even close to accurate.

EDIT: LOL, I just noticed your edit. No worries man, half of the people on this site call me "McGrunge" - I just stopped correcting them a long time ago :D
 
bmxxx said:
WTF is up with the (admittedly pervasive, culturally) notion that things like rationalization, or logic, are "cold" and not beautiful? Like, do people really think the cosmos are less beautiful to scientists than to religious folk?
Click to expand...

i was asked about "pure rational".

that is totally lacking free and original thought like a robot.


_________
there is no chance for wisdom if no mistake can be made.
 
Last edited:
if we're gonna get literal i'm unsure what differentiates "pure rationale" from "rationale"; "pure" would be implied/implicit, and is redundant.
semantics and "close enough" language destroy p&s talks :| (NOT referring to you, or even this thread. just ends up being why p&s threads get boring / stale-mated.
 
panic in paradise said:
i was asked about "pure rational".

that is totally lacking free and original thought like a robot.


_________
there is no chance for wisdom if no mistake can be made.
Click to expand...

But people aren't robots and robots don't indulge in escapism, so I don't see how that applies to your original statement of "Rationalism leads to escapism". People don't have the capacity to be "pure-rational" because they are constantly affected by their own unconscious biases and prejudices (ie, the irrational).
 
MrGrunge said:
But people aren't robots and robots don't indulge in escapism, so I don't see how that applies to your original statement of "Rationalism leads to escapism". People don't have the capacity to be "pure-rational" because they are constantly affected by their own unconscious biases and prejudices (ie, the irrational).
Click to expand...

there are many forms of escapism; most of which are irrational but presented as rationale. those presented forms of rationale escape are mostly transgressions, and what is escaped into in such a manner are bits of irrelevant information.

an example could be how with many television shows we watch others watching tv, being humorous and communicating with each other, and those watching not communicate further with one another and so the example set stays as is.
 
I haven't read all the replies to this thread, but I consider agnosticism to the most reasonable approach to spirituality/religion. Nobody can prove the existence of a god or higher power, but nor can anyone prove the non-existence of one either. The way I see it, atheism requires almost as much faith as theism does. I'm an agnostic, simply because I believe the existence and nature of a higher power is unknowable by reason, and cannot be verified by anything except subjective experience. It's certainly far from "intellectual cowardice."
 
agnosticism is the only logical choice - but not some "halfway" agnostic, giving equal validity to god/no-god. strong-agnosticism is by far the most logically defensible position.
and whether or not one's agnosticism is cowardice depends entirely upon how and why they arrove (lol that's not a word..) at their decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top