Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

If it makes you comfortable to think I am terrified by that thought...think it, Neo.

That was me pulling your chain and you know it.
My sincere wish is that you not be terrified.

@Frank Apisa,

It's all a question of how MUCH evidence you need to reach a conclusion. Some people jump to conclusions, while others can remain skeptic forever, to a fault really, like the global warming skeptics or the holocaust doubters... In any case, every time you reach a conclusion, you have to make a leap of faith. In other words, the evidence is never 100% enough to conclude one way or another, so you either make that leap of faith of you don't conclude anything. My guess is that you take that leap more often than you are aware of.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

I never cared much for putting intuition and instinct in the same boat.
The same fleet, yes, but not so closely connected. I have come to see how other do, so I adjust.
For the uninformed, it muddies the waters, to continue the metaphor.

For one thing, to me instinct is immediate, the genes kick in and it happens.
Intuition, is developed, as you say, a "distillation."
I would say we are straight up in agreement.

I put this in a different thread, it bears repeating:
Einstein quotes:
"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."

"The only real valuable thing is intuition."

"The intellect has little to do on the road to discovery. There comes a leap in consciousness, call it Intuition or what you will, the solution comes to you and you don't know how or why".
- Albert Einstein
~ ~
Steve jobs:
The people in the Indian countryside don’t use their intellect like we do, they use their intuition instead, and the intuition is far more developed than in the rest of the world… Intuition is a very powerful thing, more powerful than intellect, in my opinion. That’s had a big impact on my work.
Western rational thought is not an innate human characteristic, it is learned and it is the great achievement of Western civilization. In the villages of India, they never learned it. They learned something else, which is in some ways just as valuable but in other ways is not. That’s the power of intuition and experiential wisdom.”
http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2012/01/11/intuition-vs-rationality/

1 Reply

@BeHereNow,

Linking intuition to instinct demeans intuition as something mechanical. Pointcarré (French mathematician) considered instead that intuition is the result of massive analysis and parsing of accumulated experience and thoughts, but done unconsciously, eg during sleep. Many intuitions spring at you while waking up.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

I disagree; intuition is the product of 24/7 of our lives.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Maybe yours

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I am not saying otherwise, just that the brain may be better at doing the leg work while it's not too busy doing something else.

0 Replies

@BeHereNow,

BeHereNow wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

BeHereNow wrote:

Quote:
Frank A I have no idea if what we call the real world...is actually the REAL WORLD...or if it is an illusion.
I saw this and it made me think of Henri Bergson and others.
Below is a quote, not from Bergson, but in connection to him.
Just food for thought.

"It is impossible to know Reality through logic and science. It is known only in intuition which is a direct vision and experience transcending intellectual processes and scientific observations and reasonings. The elan vital is a creative spirit which defies the attempts of the mathematical manner of approaches to it, and demands a deeper sympathy and feeling which will enter into its very essence. In intuition we comprehend the truth of things as a whole, as a complete process of the dynamic life of the spiritual consciousness. Instinct is nearer to intuition than is intellect. Intuition is instinct evolved, ennobled and become disinterested and self-conscious. Instinct, when not directed to action, but centred in knowledge, becomes intuition. Intuition has nothing of the mechanistic and static operations of the logical and the scientific intellect. Intellect is the action of consciousness on dead matter, and so it cannot enter the spirit of life. Any true philosophy should, therefore, energise and transform the conclusion of the intellect with the immediate apprehensions of intuition. Reality has to be lived, not merely understood. "

The enlarged part is absurd, BHN.

Since you do not like "blind guesses", shall I assume you have spent some great amount of time investigating this notion of 'intuitive knowledge"?

From your response, I think not.
If you are the type of person who rejects new ideas out of hand, without proper consideration, might you be irrational?

Oh, I am definitely not irrational, BHN.

While I am not sure what you mean by "reject out of hand"...if you mean that I rejected the notion without giving it plenty of thought...you are wrong.

This issue of what we "know" and what we "guess" is something I have spent a tremendous amount of time on...and I consider my comments on it to be well-considered.

But I am willing to give you this: Rather than present it as a certainty that we do not gain "knowledge' from intuition, I will (once again) state why I question it.

Intuition leads individuals to definitionally divergent and incompatible conclusions.

Some people intuit, as I said before, that gods exist.

Some intuit, as I said before, that there are no gods.

Either there are gods...or there are not.

Intuition has not informed on the issue...but intuition is presented as an informer.

The statement you presented, as I said before, is absurd.

Quote:

As I said somewhere, sometime, I am no evangelist.

I'll take you at your word on this for now. We'll see how things go.

Quote:

Science, which strives so hard to answer all questions, really just raises more questions.

Yup, which is what I expect it to do.

Quote:

If you seek the explanation that all reasonable persons agree to, you will die trying.

I would never do that...so I am not sure if you are addressing it to me in error...or if you meant the "you" as a universal.

Quote:

If you seek the explanation that satisfies your own mind, you must open doors.

This sounds like pap to me...but if you want to elaborate on it, I'm certainly willing to listen.

Quote:

This may not seem like much, after 45+ years of asking questions, but it is all I have to offer at this time.

I'm 77 years old...and I have been asking questions for a lot longer than 45 years.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

I totally agree with you (and/or Bergson) about the importance of intuition, and find it very strange that some people can dismiss it entirely.... I would disagree about it being that closed to instinct though. To me, intuition is a distillation of individual experience. Instinct may be similar but at another level: a distillation of the experience of the entire species plus its ancestors.

He didn't say intuition was important, Olivier...he said it is the vehicle through which we KNOW things.

It isn't...or at least I see no evidence that it is. I'd be interested in hearing what evidence is supposed.

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
If it makes you comfortable to think I am terrified by that thought...think it, Neo.
That was me pulling your chain and you know it.
My sincere wish is that you not be terrified.

You wish is granted, Neo.

And that was me merely letting you know what the weather is like back here! Wink

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

It's all a question of how MUCH evidence you need to reach a conclusion. Some people jump to conclusions, while others can remain skeptic forever, to a fault really, like the global warming skeptics or the holocaust doubters... In any case, every time you reach a conclusion, you have to make a leap of faith. In other words, the evidence is never 100% enough to conclude one way or another, so you either make that leap of faith of you don't conclude anything. My guess is that you take that leap more often than you are aware of.

I take that leap even more than you suppose, Olivier...and I understand that I do.

But when having a discussion of the true nature of REALITY...I set a different standard...for myself and for the people with whom I am discussing.

I suspect you do also.

1 Reply

I have absolutely no problem with intuition...and I use my intuition regularly to make decisions...more than most people, I suspect.

But to assert that we KNOW things by intuition...is a step too far.

I am willing to discuss it with anyone who thinks me irrational for feeling that way.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I Agee !

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Your standard is just to say "I don't know". And that is true at the most fundamental level, yet it fails to be of any use in real life. It's exactly like CM's "non-duality": true on the face of it, but so general and all-encompassing that it becomes useless, in that it can never discriminate between any two competing proposals or ideas.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

And that was me merely letting you know what the weather is like back here!

My sister in law is going to freeze her tush at the Super Bowl, a rabid 'Hawks fan.

I will watch in opulent comfort at my son in law's house with copious snacks and brews at the ready. May you also be ready, Frank.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Your standard is just to say "I don't know".

Only on things I do not know. You do realize that, right?

Quote:

And that is true at the most fundamental level, yet it fails to be of any use in real life.

I respectfully disagree. Acknowledging that you do not know is a valuable function of life. In many cases (in certain areas) it frees you from trying to defend guesses about what you do not know...when you know damn well they are just guesses.

You can still make the guesses (if you want)...but defending a guess or an opinion is no big deal. You are acknowledging that it is a guess.

If you take it that step further, however, you find yourself defending a guess that you have disguised using the word "belief"j...and things get absurd.

Quote:

It's exactly like CM's "non-duality": true on the face of it, but so general and all-encompassing that it becomes useless, in that it can never discriminate between any two competing proposals or ideas.

I cannot comment on this, because I do not accept the premise that it is true on the face of it.

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
And that was me merely letting you know what the weather is like back here!
My sister in law is going to freeze her tush at the Super Bowl, a rabid 'Hawks fan.

I will watch in opulent comfort at my son in law's house with copious snacks and brews at the ready. May you also be ready, Frank.

Football is a game that was meant to be viewed on a large high-definition television screen...preferably in a room heated by a wood burning stove.

I am going to watch the Super Bowl on our LG hi-def TV in our living room with the wood burning stove going hot!

Anyone going to that game who does not have access to one of the luxury boxes is in for some very painful toes.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

How can you "know" anything, Frank, if you don't even "know" that the world as we perceive it is real? Face it: you just don't know anything about the world.

Quote:

I respectfully disagree. Acknowledging that you do not know is a valuable function of life. In many cases (in certain areas) it frees you from trying to defend guesses about what you do not know...when you know damn well they are just guesses.

Acknowledging ignorance is a valid function on a purely intellectual plane, but not when you have to make rapid choices based on insufficient information, aka in real life. Like when driving a car and seeing a truck that appears to be on collision course with your car, there's no use in acknowledging that you are not entirely certain the truck actually exists. You'd better try and avoid the truck, irrespective of what you can be certain to know philosophically.

Life requests that decisions be frequently made based on insufficient information. That, or you'll die or suffer dearly because you failed to act in time. Our mind is well-suited for this: it does not require 100% certainty in order to "feel" sure about something. That "feeling sure" can be deceptive of course, but without it we would never act decisively and we wouldn't stay alive for long.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

How can you "know" anything, Frank, if you don't even "know" that the world as we perceive it is real? Face it: you just don't know anything about the world.

I have discussed this several times...and I think with you a couple of times. I am willing to use the word "know" in the sense of "I know my first name is Frank"; "I know the capital of New Jersey is Trenton."

I understand the difficulty with knowing anything. But that does not impact on what I was saying.

Quote:

Quote:
I respectfully disagree. Acknowledging that you do not know is a valuable function of life. In many cases (in certain areas) it frees you from trying to defend guesses about what you do not know...when you know damn well they are just guesses.

Acknowledging ignorance is a valid function on a purely intellectual plane, but not when you have to make rapid choices based on insufficient information, aka in real life. Like when driving a car and seeing a truck that appears to be on collision course with your car, there's no use in acknowledging that you are not entirely certain the truck actually exists. You'd better try and avoid the truck, irrespective of what you can be certain to know philosophically.

Life requests that decisions be frequently made based on insufficient information. That, or you'll die or suffer dearly because you failed to act in time. Our mind is well-suited for this: it does not require 100% certainty in order to "feel" sure about something. That "feeling sure" can be deceptive of course, but without it we would never act decisively and we wouldn't stay alive for long.

[/quote]

As I said...in the "real life" (which may not be real)...I deal with the word "know" in a different way than when dealing with it in discussions of religion or philosophy.

I hope you can come to understand that.

I do not know (in any sense of that word) what the true nature of the REALITY of existence is.

I do not know (in any sense of that word) if there is a GOD.

I do not know (in any sense of that word) if there are no gods.

I do not know (in any sense of that word) if all of what we call "the real world"...is actually the real world...or if it is just an illusion.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Another perspective that has value in "real life."
What we perceive is what is in fact true to us; it doesn't matter what others think. We make decisions based on our subjective beliefs all the time; that's all the proof we need. Some people have one dimensional understanding of life, and think their definition is the "only one."

TNCFS

0 Replies

Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know