False dichotomies; what's wrong with you people?!


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-9 of 9 posts in this discussion
Initial post: May 22, 2007 9:32:30 PM PDT
Reason and religion are not incompatible; never have been, and never will be. They are simply two aspects of experience, two lenses through which the inner and outer world are apprehended. Reason and logic are wonderful, but will BY DEFINITION remain forever unable to explain or account for - much less accept- visceral experience lacking a material stimulus. The numinous (which included religion, spiritualism, ooga-booga stuff, etc) is also wonderful, but beyond its neurophysiological correlates during the experience itself, has nothing to do BY DEFINITION with logico-deductive neo-cerebral processes. This debate cannot ever have a winner, because the notional conflict is spurious.

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2007 1:53:13 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on May 23, 2007 1:53:43 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2007 2:02:49 PM PDT
jimsy says:
it is very easy to solve this debate. pray to your god to show itself and all will be solved. it does answer prayers, right?
easy as that.

In reply to an earlier post on May 24, 2007 6:14:20 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 24, 2007 7:17:24 PM PDT
Graeme says: "Reason and logic are wonderful, but will BY DEFINITION remain forever unable to explain or account for - much less accept- visceral experience lacking a material stimulus."

Your defense only works if and only if the "visceral experience" remains undefined and if you accept that all religions are equally right. The minute that a person defines this "visceral experience" as coming from a certain god, then your argument falls to pieces because this "visceral experience" is the same on a psychological level for believers in Allah, Jesus, or Zeus. By definition, these religious traditions are mutually exclusive. They each claim monopoly on "truth."

So, on a semantic level, your claim that "Reason and religion are not incompatible" is false because religion is an attempt to codify and crystallize (therefore injecting reason) into the otherwise elusive, ephemeral and irrational spiritual experience. You can claim that reason and a generic spirituality are compatible, but you cannot claim the same for reason and religion.

And besides, spirituality reduces to psychology so even it too can be analyzed within a rational and reasoned framework. I think you may wish to re-evaluate just who here is drawing the false dichotomies.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 20, 2007 12:23:28 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 20, 2007 12:26:38 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2007 7:16:27 AM PST
Paul Carr says:
It strikes me that a much, much simpler explanation is that the putative deity does not exist, and so prayer is not efficacious.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 11, 2007 12:54:50 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 11, 2007 12:56:15 PM PST
Tiercel says:
Isn't that convienent. If you so-called believers would spent as much time doing "good works" as you spend defending your mythology, our world would be a much finer world!!!

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2007 5:55:15 PM PST
Dog Boots says:
And how would you distinguish this from the possibility that God just isn't there?

Posted on Apr 17, 2009 11:59:53 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 11, 2009 9:02:23 AM PDT
WolfPup says:
<<Paul Carr says:
It strikes me that a much, much simpler explanation is that the putative deity does not exist, and so prayer is not efficacious. >>

Super late response!

Besides that, the bible explicitly claims that with an infinitesimal amount of faith we can do things more miraculous than those depicted in the bible, and that we can do basically anything. If that's not open to being scientifically evaluated...
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Participants:  8
Total posts:  9
Initial post:  May 22, 2007
Latest post:  Apr 17, 2009

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about
God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist
God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist by Victor J. Stenger (Hardcover - January 25, 2007)
3.8 out of 5 stars   (125)