Quote:
Originally Posted by LEMONZEST
Cool thread bunny, thanks for taking the time.
You have mentioned previously you base your morality on axioms
Definition of AXIOM
1: a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit
2: a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : postulate 1
3: an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth
See axiom defined for English-language learners »
See axiom defined for kids »
The more I discuss philosiphy/religion in RGT the more I think ones views are largely made up of axioms, or things one sees as self evident.
In a sense IMO it seems pointless to debate re God because God is self evident (or not depending on your viewpoint).
Take for example the beauty of a sunset. The sunset's beauty is an axiom which cannot be refuted and is highly subjective in nature. It seems senseless to debate agianst an axiom another person holds.
Yeah me too - I dont really argue with theists about their axioms. (People get really cross with NotReady from time to time and I think it's largely because they dont get this - they want to argue about his axioms and he's pretty good at arguing about theirs.
)
Where I think debate is useful is in
clarifying exactly what one's axioms are. We have a human tendency to think of our own starting position as 'logical' when, almost by its very nature, it really isnt. It's just what seems right to us. I think half the time the debates about logic are missing the mark because the two sides are adopting different starting points without being explicit about them.
Sometimes, when the other guy points out what you are taking as self-evident, you realise that there may actually be an argument to support your viewpoint. Other times, you may realise that a rock-solid argument does, in fact, rest on very shaky foundations.
Quote:
I share your experiences of having that silent companionship to varying degrees in my life. It is interesting how that sense is very strong at times an at other times is non existent.
Anyway I am not really making any real arguments in this post, kind of just rambling re some conclusions I have arrived at.
The beauty of a Low Content thread. No expectations.
Quote:
Christianity aside, I still think it is more likely there is intelligent design than not. I am not sure what would be necessary to change this axiom/belief I hold.
I think you should change your language. I think you should say intelligent design is more plausible to you, not more likely. In my mind, likelihood is about probability - a mathematical concept which requires precision, calculation and decent understanding of the situation. We're just not in a position to say whether laws of nature being designed is more or less probable (likely) than them being a random occurrence.
Plausibility is a more subjective and more appropriate term, in my view. If you say you find ID more plausible than naturalism, I think you are making essentially the same point but acknowledging the subjective, judgemental nature of that determination. Probability is a matter of fact - given what we know about a situation, there
is an answer as to which of several options is more likely (quite distinct from what the actual state of affairs is - the least likely option may turn out to be the correct one, it just wont happen very often).
We can disagree about what is more plausible.