Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: donjuan_demarco who wrote (2258)	10/22/2000 8:26:29 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

But it is a contingent faith, isn't it? I, for example, accept that I live in a human "box"- limited by my human senses and reason. And the knowledge of my whole species is so limited. I accept that what I perceive may not be the truth- but I use my reason and experience because they've been very good guides so far. If I were to leap out and choose faith- what faith would I pick? That would be another leap wouldn't it? At least my experience is MINE. It is a single leap to accept what I see as reality as reality- even if I accept it relatively. If I were to accept what some religion TELLS me is true, in a book for example, that's a double leap. I'm not only accepting my perception of a book, I'm accepting the perception of the people who wrote the book as well- now THAT'S tenuous. IMO

To: donjuan_demarco who wrote (2258)	10/22/2000 8:30:38 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

None of them (logic, science, and reason) have any real value, and to belong to the church of logic requires a leap of faith. Yeah, it is ultimately a leap of faith that Logic produces anything. I use it on a day to day basis but there is no proof in my opinion that C = A AND B is universal, unaltering or absolutely provable. I would strongly disagree that logic, science and reason are Santas that don't bring gifts. Studying the mechanism helps you remove some of the mystery, but not all the mystery. You are communicating with me now through the proven powers of this "religion" as you call it. I make distinctions between religions and philosophies. Those things you name are philosophies where religions must be dogmatic because they may profess "truths" that can't be tested, must be believed and don't have to be reproduced. They may also be in conflict with observable facts, yet this poses no problem for their adherents. That would be a big problem for an "adherent" of science.

To: donjuan_demarco who wrote (2258)	10/22/2000 8:50:19 PM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 28931

Personally, I feel that logic is a religion. I also feel that science and reason are religions (I guess all three are part of the same religion). None of them have any real value, and to belong to the church of logic requires a leap of faith. I don't agree that none of them have any real value. Science and logic provide real value by providing effective solutions to real-world problems. If you have an infected wound, what will serve you better, prayer or antibiotics? An example I've used before on SI: Imagine two tribes. Both raise corn as a staple crop. Both have observed that some ears of corn have lots of fat kernels, others are pretty skimpy. Both want a higher percentage of good ears. Tribe A, being religious, pursues this goal by offering the best ears to their religious intermediary, hoping that his supplications will bring the blessings of the spirits upon their crop. Tribe B, having observed the reproduction of humans and livestock long enough to deduce the basics of heredity, decides to use the best ears for seed stock. Who prospers, tribe A or tribe B? If you answer "tribe B", you get a point. If you answer "tribe A's religious intermediary", you get 10.