|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Orphelin@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Can you find any proof of any validity of any religion, excepted those
> provided by the believers ?
Aha - we've ventured into philosophy now <g>. First off, I'm no big fan of
"organized religion," to put it mildly. However, I found Chuck's original post to
deal more with trading psychology than anything else, and that part of it was very
good. Religion in this context is a bit more metaphorical than many seem to be
grasping, and the use of Christianity appears to be more in the name of analogy
than anything else.
As far as "proof" of such "validity" goes, it's difficult to find sympathy among
another sort of believers, those whose religion involves various forms of
physicalism - and no, Virginia, we're not going to prove anything like this under
a system of presuppositions specifically designed to rule it out. For instance,
in assuming that the known laws of physics are the limit of proof, obviously
phenomena that transcends them will be discarded as unsubstantiated. This is
viciously circular, however, and this narrow view of "reality" fails to adequately
explain, or even allow for the possibility of explanation, of everyday phenomena
such as that of the "mental realm." "Science" certainly has its place, but in its
zeal it seeks to overextend itself by declaring itself the sole "God" by decree,
much in the same way that monotheism does. I will say, though, that the devoutly
"religious" are often as narrow-minded as the physicalist - both clutching to
their particular assumptions and dogma, and seemingly unwilling to seek out or
even entertain different perspectives.
> Life is often difficult, thinking do not always help, and all of us know that
> life ends with death.
We do? <g> Actually, the notion of consciousness being essentially linked with
biological conditions is absurd, This flows from another feeble attempt at
assuming away the alternatives, and then casting them off as not fitting the
model.
> Human beings are not made of widsom, therefore the need to build a religion,
> more comfortable than nothing.
In a sense this is true - it may be that a lot of people's view of the
"supernatural" is distorted, but this hardly leads to excluding its possibility -
much in the way that scientists postulate theories to try to explain phenomena to
the best of their present knowledge, and while the theories may not be correct at
the time, this doesn't mean that the phenomena they are studying doesn't exist.
> IWhat is annoying with believers it that they try to convert you to their
> beliefs.
> They are alway right because they believe, so if you do not, you are wrong for
> them.
True enough. The same can be said of physicalists though - and your diatribe here
is a good example of this.
> They are able to build logical discurse (like the one I'm responding to), but
> a closer examination shows that it seems to be logical only at a first
> glance.
Logic involves the conditions governing the relation of propositions. I suspect
you mean "reason" here. I invite you to take a hard look at your fundamental
assumptions about existence, and see if they actually do conform to reason like
you assume. Ultimately, it will come down to a blatantly circular appeal such as
"all that fits our model exists, and that which does not is excluded." However,
the concept of non-existence must be modal to make any sense - i.e. what does not
exist cannot thus be conceived - so it comes down to the particular qualities of
existence - and you are saying essentially that certain phenomena do not possess
the qualities which would enable them to fit your world view - which essentially
says nothing.
> In a nutshell, "to believe" is incompatible with "to doubt", and also with
> "to prove".
> This is the reason why rational thinking will always fail with believers vs
> non believers.
Hmmm. It seems that you are casting off perspectives other than your own as
*mere* belief, as opposed to what you *know*. For starters, how these terms are
defined are going to influence the discussion greatly (i.e. what is the difference
between them? What is it to know something? etc.), While this is far too much to
delve into here, a good place to start is with phenomenology - which is an
entirely neutral starting ground as far as the basis of knowledge. I suggest you
start with Husserl - who every scientist should study, if only to allow the
possibility that their crusty beliefs may have the chance to be loosened up a bit
<g>.
Regards,
A.J.
|