I don't think that's true. Rationality is objective. The rationale behind an idea should be clear to everybody, whether they accept/believe the idea or not. Accepting an idea is based on the premises behind the idea, not on the reasoning.
Of course, it is still possible to be irrational about any part of the process.
All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
But there's nothing wrong with their premises, is there? Volcanoes smoke and glow and emanate heat. Forges do the same. Blacksmiths work in forges. Reasoning logically they (we will assume they reasoned, for the sake of argument, rather than taking it on faith, since I have no idea of their real thoughts on the matter) developed the idea of Hephaestus. What's wrong, the logic or the premises?
Since all of the things that supposedly had a "creative intelligence" behind them, from ancient aliens helping the Pharaohs build pyramids to the evolutionary development of our species, turned out not to have anything supernatural involved, I tend to think there was nothing supernatural involved.
But I'm willing to be convinced if there is evidence out there.
quote:The deeply buried Cardenas Basalt occurs among the oldest strata of Grand Canyon. This basalt has been assigned to the Precambrian strata of the Unkar Group, which contains the lowest and hence oldest strata of the Grand Canyon. Some geologists have suggested an "age" of more than one billion years.
The western Grand Canyon lava flows [Cenozoic] are among the youngest formations of the Grand Canyon. The youngest flows came from volcanoes on the Uinkaret Plateau north of the Colorado River.
The ICR are arguing about the ages of the strata, but they are not claiming the lava was anything other than strata laid down over sedimentary layers (with later sedimentary layers on top).
How is the Supernational being involved? - Quite simple. The Supernatural is performing the Choice of the actual variant of the strictly "natural" development.
Used to be some deity was mucking about, perpetually getting her hands dirty with forming humans out of dust or slicing out a rib and somehow changing a Y-chromosome to X while cloning that first human. Now the religionists are having their Supreme Being develop the specs of Kepler's Law or fiddle with the charge on the electron way way back billions of years ago when there was nobody around to witness it.
The rationale behind an idea should be clear to everybody, whether they accept/believe the idea or not.
This is normally a logical statement. The premise brought up often by atheists and agnostics is that any "God" worth His salt(and light) should reveal Himself to all and not just some. The intellectual batle lines are drawn. One side flies the flag of faith. The other side flies the flag of evidence. Matt Dillahunty haggles it out with an unprepared and confused Christian caller on one of his many shows:
Matt does mention that every bit of evidence ever obtained is the result of personal experience. Many Christians, myself included, would argue that we have satisfactory evidence based on our personal experience but our critics, you among them, would counter with the idea that subjective personal experience is not evidence--that evidence must be objective. And round and round we go.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity. In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile
what we say about evidence rather than what you claim we say about evidence
Phat writes:
Many Christians, myself included, would argue that we have satisfactory evidence based on our personal experience but our critics, you among them, would counter with the idea that subjective personal experience is not evidence--that evidence must be objective.
Not quite yet again Phat. We don't say it is not evidence but rather it is only evidence that you believe what you claim.
There is no way your personal experience can be evidence that can be tested or validated or reproduced or duplicated by all others.
Personal experience is evidence but evidence of little or no value beyond the individual involved where other evidence, evidence that can be tested and confirmed independently is of value beyond just the individual.
Re: what we say about evidence rather than what you claim we say about evidence
But scripture even alludes to the fact that not all will understand, whereas the evidence based skeptics claim that in order to be valid, the understanding must be seen by all.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity. In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile
But there's nothing wrong with their premises, is there?
It doesn't matter. We're talking about the reasoning, not the premises. Whether the premises are right or wrong does not affect the reasoning. You can have good reasoning from good premises or bad premises.
Sarah Bellum writes:
What's wrong, the logic or the premises?
That's what I've been trying to pry out of you. If you think there was something wrong with their reasoning, what the hell was it?
All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
quote:It doesn't matter. We're talking about the reasoning, not the premises.
But wait, you said before that good reasoning combined with bad premises could lead to incorrect conclusions. Since there aren't any thunder gods or volcano gods etc. and you claim their reasoning is sound you must have some argument with their premises.
... you said before that good reasoning combined with bad premises could lead to incorrect conclusions.
Yes. Logic 101.
Sarah Bellum writes:
Since there aren't any thunder gods or volcano gods etc. and you claim their reasoning is sound you must have some argument with their premises.
I didn't claim their reasoning was sound. I said it could have been sound. I'm still waiting... and waiting... and waiting... for you to point out what you think was wrong with their reasoning.
All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
Re: what we say about evidence rather than what you claim we say about evidence
Phat writes:
But scripture even alludes to the fact that not all will understand, whereas the evidence based skeptics claim that in order to be valid, the understanding must be seen by all.
Oh good grief!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That too does not even rise to the level of word salad. It's at best a classic Harold Hill parody.
I didn't claim their reasoning was sound. I said it could have been sound.
So this has all been a futile exercise in useless speculation? All because you want to pretend that the idea of a deity is not irrational, under some weird, convoluted conditions?
I've been assuming, for the sake of argument, that the people who believed in the thunder gods, the volcano gods, etc. were reasoning logically, by their standards. Here's what I wrote, if you forget:
sarah bellum writes:
we will assume they reasoned, for the sake of argument, rather than taking it on faith, since I have no idea of their real thoughts on the matter
It doesn't matter what their thinking processes were! The idea of a deity is not a rational one, as I hope I've demonstrated, and no appeal to the intelligence or the rationality of neolithic people will change that.
™ Version 4.2
