Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-21-2019 8:02 PM
21 online now:
AZPaul3, kjsimons, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (4 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,001 Year: 5,038/19,786 Month: 1,160/873 Week: 56/460 Day: 56/91 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
161718
19
2021Next
Author Topic:   Do animals have souls?
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3100
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 271 of 303 (337162)
08-01-2006 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by New Cat's Eye
07-20-2006 4:05 PM



I think that the soul lacks properties that are able to be experimented on, scientifically. Perhaps we could have a philosophical experiment, if thats possible.

The problem with something that is unobservable, untestable, and non-detectable, it has a strong resemblance to something that is non-existent.

Edited by ramoss, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-20-2006 4:05 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2006 1:22 PM ramoss has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 272 of 303 (337392)
08-02-2006 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by kalimero
07-31-2006 2:43 PM


then you are trying to say that you are both skeptical and not skeptical {faith} of the "soul" at the same time - this is of course a logical contradiction.

Yes, this is what I'm saying.
I don't think it is neccessarily contradictory, but it might be a little illogical. I don't have a problem with having religious beliefs that are formally illogical. Formal logic has its place and religion is not it.

all I said was that your use of the word faith, if used to describe your experience correctly, is contradictory to a skeptical point of view (giving it another thought) - you cant do them both.

Well, I have done both.

I took a skeptical view of the soul and realized that it was not a parsimonious explanation. This didn't remove the feeling that I do, in fact, have a soul. I looked into the scientific explanations for said feeling and determined that the existance of the soul is compatible with their findings and not ruled out. I also saw that this area of science is underdeveloped and difficult to "put a finger on", so to speak type. So, from my skeptical point of view and my feelings, I determined that I most likely do have a soul and on top of that, I have faith that I have a soul.

I don't see the contradiction, but I do see how I could be being illogical.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by kalimero, posted 07-31-2006 2:43 PM kalimero has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by kalimero, posted 08-02-2006 3:38 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 273 of 303 (337397)
08-02-2006 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by ramoss
08-01-2006 7:45 AM



I think that the soul lacks properties that are able to be experimented on, scientifically. Perhaps we could have a philosophical experiment, if thats possible.

The problem with something that is unobservable, untestable, and non-detectable, it has a strong resemblance to something that is non-existent.

That certainly is a problem. I think it could be considered a fault of science, or positivism, that without detection, things are assumed to not exist. Now, I understand why parsimony is important and agree, but there does seem to be some limitations to science.

The counter argument could be that we'd have to assume that everything exists if we don't assume that nothing exists without detection. I think this is a little overboard. There are things that people profess to exist that science has not dicovered and I think its important for science to continue to assume theses thing do not exists, but I don't think its good for other people to completely write these people off because science doesn't see it.

Assuming that something exists that is unobservable, untestable, and non-detectable (without getting into how), would it be completely unknown to science? Would science fail in the discovery of this thing? Should we only believe in things that science can find? Should we take that assumption, without scientific detection things don't exist, and apply it to our entire lives?

I'd say no, because, to me, it seems like my soul does exist. While this might be some sort of detection, it isn't recognized by science, so it is assumed to not exist. I don't think I should go ith science on this one. Especially when my soul is apparent to my self. I just wouldn't be being honest with myself. That is when science becomes a religion.

ABE:

I don't think you should reply here because it is too off topic. I proposed a new topic that you should reply too if it is approved. It is titled "Can parsimony turn science ito a religion?"

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by ramoss, posted 08-01-2006 7:45 AM ramoss has not yet responded

kalimero
Member (Idle past 551 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 274 of 303 (337417)
08-02-2006 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by New Cat's Eye
08-02-2006 1:07 PM


I don't think it is neccessarily contradictory

Please provide an example.

but it might be a little illogical

Whats the difference between "a little illogical" and just plain illogical?

I don't have a problem with having religious beliefs that are formally illogical.

"formally illogical" as opposed to what? Is there another kind of logic I dont know about?
This is exactly what I am saying about faith, it doesnt matter wheather you are illogical or not.

Formal logic has its place and religion is not it.

So your saying that religion is 'formaly illogical'?

Well, I have done both.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=skepticism
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith

Read the two definitions and tell me they are not contradictory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2006 1:07 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2006 5:03 PM kalimero has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 275 of 303 (337440)
08-02-2006 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by kalimero
08-02-2006 3:38 PM


I don't think it is neccessarily contradictory

Please provide an example.

My story in the post you replied to was the example.

but it might be a little illogical

Whats the difference between "a little illogical" and just plain illogical?

I dunno, your gonna have to ask robinrohan :laugh:

But seriously, a contradiction is totally illogical, but something that is not positively illogical, but based on poor logic or not from a logical conclusion, would be a little illogical, IMO.

I don't have a problem with having religious beliefs that are formally illogical.

"formally illogical" as opposed to what? Is there another kind of logic I dont know about?

quote:
from wiki:
Informal logic is the study of natural language arguments. The study of fallacies is an especially important branch of informal logic.

Formal logic is the study of inference with purely formal content, where that content is made explicit. (An inference possesses a purely formal content if it can be expressed as a particular application of a wholly abstract rule, that is, a rule that is not about any particular thing or property. We will see later that on many definitions of logic, logical inference and inference with purely formal content are the same thing. This does not render the notion of informal logic vacuous, since one may wish to investigate logic without committing to a particular formal analysis.)

Symbolic logic is the study of symbolic abstractions that capture the formal features of logical inference.


Do people always do your homework for you?[/sarcasm]

This is exactly what I am saying about faith, it doesnt matter wheather you are illogical or not.

I think it does. If it was a logical contradiction (illogical) then I'd have a problem with it. But if it just wasn't based on the logical conclusion (what I meant by a little illogical) then I don't have a problem with it. Because religions don't have to comply with formal logic, thats not its place.

Formal logic has its place and religion is not it.

So your saying that religion is 'formaly illogical'?

Yeah, don't you think it is?

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=skepticism
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith

Read the two definitions and tell me they are not contradictory.

I read them both and don't see how they are neccessarily contradictory. I was skeptical about the soul, then I figured that it does exist, now I have faith in it. What's the problem?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by kalimero, posted 08-02-2006 3:38 PM kalimero has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by kalimero, posted 08-03-2006 9:19 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

kalimero
Member (Idle past 551 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 276 of 303 (337647)
08-03-2006 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by New Cat's Eye
08-02-2006 5:03 PM


This is exactly what I am saying about faith, it doesnt matter wheather you are illogical or not.

I think it does. If it was a logical contradiction (illogical) then I'd have a problem with it.

So your saying that religion is 'formaly illogical'?

Yeah, don't you think it is?

Yes I do, does this mean that you have a problem with religion?
Or maybe religion is an informal logic?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2006 5:03 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-04-2006 11:31 AM kalimero has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 277 of 303 (337921)
08-04-2006 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by kalimero
08-03-2006 9:19 AM


Yes I do, does this mean that you have a problem with religion?
Or maybe religion is an informal logic?

I don't have a problem with religion because I don't think religion has to pass the 'logic test', especially if god has magic powers.

Like I typed before, religion can be a little illogical, no problem, the problem comes in when there are stark contradictions, when its very illogical.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by kalimero, posted 08-03-2006 9:19 AM kalimero has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by kalimero, posted 08-05-2006 3:05 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

kalimero
Member (Idle past 551 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 278 of 303 (338109)
08-05-2006 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by New Cat's Eye
08-04-2006 11:31 AM


I don't have a problem with religion because I don't think religion has to pass the 'logic test', especially if god has magic powers.

Why do you think that? Why is religion excluded from logical scrutiny?

Like I typed before, religion can be a little illogical, no problem, the problem comes in when there are stark contradictions, when its very illogical.

So being a little illogical is o.k.? Oh, why didnt you grade my physics test? I would have gotten a higher score for sure. :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-04-2006 11:31 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 08-07-2006 11:19 AM kalimero has responded
 Message 283 by Ben!, posted 08-07-2006 5:59 PM kalimero has responded
 Message 285 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-08-2006 11:55 AM kalimero has responded

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 3958 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 279 of 303 (338363)
08-07-2006 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by kalimero
08-05-2006 3:05 PM


Why do you think that? Why is religion excluded from logical scrutiny?

If I may,
Logic has it's place. Logic applied where it has no meaning sucks the life out of that which brings joy.

I do not:
listen to or create music using logic.
decide to put burgundy in my home made spagetti with logic.
watch the clouds roll by and imagine what they look like with logic.
Logic is for the practical.
Joy is for living. Religion brings many people joy.
A life without logic is do-able
A life without joy is no life at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by kalimero, posted 08-05-2006 3:05 PM kalimero has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by nator, posted 08-07-2006 11:26 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not yet responded
 Message 282 by kalimero, posted 08-07-2006 2:02 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 277 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 280 of 303 (338365)
08-07-2006 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by 2ice_baked_taters
08-07-2006 11:19 AM


quote:
A life without logic is do-able

Not really.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 08-07-2006 11:19 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by ramoss, posted 08-07-2006 12:54 PM nator has not yet responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3100
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 281 of 303 (338372)
08-07-2006 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by nator
08-07-2006 11:26 AM



quote:
A life without logic is do-able

Not really.

I am not sure you are right. There are plenty of examples right on this very forum.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by nator, posted 08-07-2006 11:26 AM nator has not yet responded

kalimero
Member (Idle past 551 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 282 of 303 (338385)
08-07-2006 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by 2ice_baked_taters
08-07-2006 11:19 AM


Joy is for living. Religion brings many people joy.

That is irrelivent. Science also brings joy but you wouldnt say that thats why it doesnt need logic. Religion presumes to know thing that are in the realm of science (the creation of life, the source of conscience...) therefore it should require logic to put together hypotheisis and evidence.
IMO religion gives joy just like drugs bring joy - through false hope. (but thats off topic)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 08-07-2006 11:19 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not yet responded

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1729 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 283 of 303 (338404)
08-07-2006 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by kalimero
08-05-2006 3:05 PM


So being a little illogical is o.k.? Oh, why didnt you grade my physics test? I would have gotten a higher score for sure.

What makes you think that something MUST be logical? Humans aren't logical in their everyday lives, so ... why would you expect anything to be logical?

Science is an attempt to overcome our illogical nature, our illogical bodies that produce illogical minds. Most "logic" people use is simply trying to avoid cognitive dissonance. Some people's arguments actually turn out to be logical, usually due to great practice. Many arguments turn out to be illogical or based on false premises.

Life is nothing like a physics test. Except maybe that when you get to the end of either one you wind up feeling crappy :P

With that said,

Why do you think that? Why is religion excluded from logical scrutiny?

What is the purpose of putting religion under logical scrutiny? Even if illogical, religion does serve many purposes. There's at least one open thread if you want to discuss the purpose of religion. Regardless, all religion has to do is avoid causing cognitive dissonace in it's memebers. For believers, it doesn't have to be logical.

I think religious and non-religious people alike make the mistake of not understanding what we really are. Both tend to be idealists in my experience.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by kalimero, posted 08-05-2006 3:05 PM kalimero has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by kalimero, posted 08-07-2006 6:52 PM Ben! has not yet responded
 Message 286 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-08-2006 11:58 AM Ben! has not yet responded

  
kalimero
Member (Idle past 551 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 284 of 303 (338415)
08-07-2006 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Ben!
08-07-2006 5:59 PM


What makes you think that something MUST be logical?

Because that is what allows me to explain it and make predictions about it. logic is what ties the over all expanation (theory/hypotheisis) with the actual evidence.

Humans aren't logical in their everyday lives, so ... why would you expect anything to be logical?

Humans are not logical, but should strive to be logical for the reasons writen above. but whet somebody says that being illogical is o.k. when there is a logical alternative, then thats like saying: "I dont want to know how this works I'm just glad (joyfull) it does" - which is just ignorant.

Some people's arguments actually turn out to be logical, usually due to great practice. Many arguments turn out to be illogical or based on false premises.

If we used only illogical arguements to try to understand the universe - what is the probability that we will get it right?
What is the probability if we use logical arguements?
There are an infinite amount of illogical arguements making the probability of getting the one we choose, arbitrarily, right - just about zero.
Logical arguements, although coming from an illogical body, have the advantage of disreguarding any obviously illogical arguements, by them being not comletely arbitrary, and thus have a better chance of actually being right.

What is the purpose of putting religion under logical scrutiny? Even if illogical, religion does serve many purposes.

Would you say the ends justify the means in this case? Especially when religion tries to not only "make people happy" (which I also think is mot bad but misguided) but also to make very arbitrary (obviously illogical) arguements about the way the universe works.

Regardless, all religion has to do is avoid causing cognitive dissonace in it's memebers.

But it does do that by this definition:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/cognitive+dissonance
when it tries to argue 'incongruous beliefs and attitudes' (the bible for example).

For believers, it doesn't have to be logical.

Hence the circular reasoning in religion.

I think religious and non-religious people alike make the mistake of not understanding what we really are. Both tend to be idealists in my experience.

You object to idealizing but you also know "what we really are"?
I never said I was completely logical, just stiving for it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Ben!, posted 08-07-2006 5:59 PM Ben! has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-08-2006 12:06 PM kalimero has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 285 of 303 (338499)
08-08-2006 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by kalimero
08-05-2006 3:05 PM


I don't have a problem with religion because I don't think religion has to pass the 'logic test', especially if god has magic powers.

Why do you think that? Why is religion excluded from logical scrutiny?

Why do you think it should? I mean, according to the religion, God has magical powers. How would you hold that up to logical scrutiny? You'd just conclude he didn't exist, I guess. But for those who believe he does, what is logic going to do for anything about God? Why should they have to?

So being a little illogical is o.k.? Oh, why didnt you grade my physics test? I would have gotten a higher score for sure. :)

Thats retarded. Don't you remember me typing something like that religion could be a little illogical but not science?, IIRC


This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by kalimero, posted 08-05-2006 3:05 PM kalimero has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by kalimero, posted 08-08-2006 1:36 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

RewPrev1
...
161718
19
2021Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019