The Deep Nonsense is winning the war
unfortunately this country is increasingly leaning towards martin luther’s take on reason:
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”
― Martin LutherThat is not a great quote to use fyi (I mean this one here by Martin Luther - whereas the one from Carl Sagan is fantastic imho:-).
I have heard an analogy in that it is like saying that the Mind is one’s greatest adversary to a child learning how to swim - true, but when quoted out of the surrounding context (in this case iirc it was Reason alone, unaided by Faith - or something to that effect but I could be misremembering so don’t take this part as… well… gospel, pun intended:-) really comes off super poorly. Similarly with wanting to exercise - “Mind” here does not mean merely “mind” as in mental faculties, just as “Reason” != “reason”.
Also the quote is disputed as even coming from Martin Luther himself rather than one of his students.
More at https://randalrauser.com/2011/10/quote-others-the-way-you-would-have-them-quote-you/ in case it helps.
Now a quote of my own (by me, from right this second): if we want to rise above the teeming unwashed masses and truly use Reason, then we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard (than those we accuse of not doing such). It’s just a thought: do as you will with it.
it’s incredible to me how someone can take
Reason is a whore… never comes to the aid of spiritual things
and turn it into some weird word salad that has some completely different meaning than what the quote literally says. because, as usual, “oUt Of CoNtExT”
also, who cares who said it? the message is the message regardless if it came from martin luther or some rando pulled it out of their ass 10 minutes ago-- and it’s the direction this country is heading
finally, “a higher standard” of reason-- the people i’m talking about defenestrate reason, logic, facts, evidence-- everything one would use in the process of critical thinking, in favor of faith, which literally means believing something to be true just because you want it to be. there IS NO standard there. using reason AT ALL means one is rising above them
do as you will with whatever you want
How we know what we know is just as important as what we know - or arguably even more so.
literally means believing something to be true just because you want it to be
Exactly. We shouldn’t do that.
“In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am englightened by my intelligence.”
That’s a terrible counter argument. “Oh maybe he meant something different, you might not know the context surrounding how he plainly said it in 8 different ways you just quoted”
Is this what Christian academia is like? How pathetic.
funny how apologists rarely apologize
It’s certainly an argument I’ve heard a lot when talking about inconsistencies in the Bible. Usually it’s blamed on translation, missing context, or exaggerated retellings. It was written by many different people who weren’t necessarily talking to each other after all. I have a hard time taking any of it seriously.
But not this bit of the bible. There can’t be any translation errors, missing context or exaggeration on this bit specifically because we like this bit.
A gay made me uncomfortable. That was god talking to me, you know. :/
That’s the thing that bothers me most with religious folks.
Their feelings are interpreted as the will of god.
“This person held this opinion”
“There are several reasons that may be an inaccurate and reductive account of that person’s opinions and of historical events in general”
“Okay but, for real, that’s so wishy washy bro. Context? That’s just, like, a term. How pathetic.”
You’re making a great case for the Catholic Church burning uneducated people alive for voicing opinions.
You’re making a great case for the Catholic Church burning uneducated people alive for voicing opinions.
tf?
There’s a button for that.
I felt that it didn’t quite express the sentiment adequately.
In some cases context is definitely relevant, but for religion one’s it’s often:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=PK7P7uZFf5o
This country of Lemmy?
*edit: not.uk
Not yet…
We known since our very inception that balanced takes are the most healthy and efficient path forward from Aristotels Golden Mean to Taoist’s balance in all things and this awesome quote by Carl Sagan here as well.
Yet here we are, in a time where it should be the easiest option we have all sort of idiots from alt right to tankies. The fact that these people have such strong voices is simply degeneration no matter how you look at it.
While I agree that most things require a compromise of two extremes, it is also important to acknowledge how they could result in worse outcomes.
Eg 1: You are sick; the doctor prescribes antibiotics. But you have some concerns about them so you only take it until you feel better.
But now the pathogen is still there, and it will rebound with new strength. (there’s also a chance it becomes resistant due to selective pressure and its survival)
Eg 2: Compromise of democracy and authoritarian state. Those countries’ governments tend to be more stable and enduring that are either of the two, but not a middle of the road. This is why the transition from one to the other is usually turbulent as well.
Fair point but I don’t think it applies here. Balanced doesn’t necessarily mean a compromise.
In your first example Golden Mean would be to take antibiotics until you are fully cured not less not more.
Same for your second example. Going too far in autocracy would could mean efficiency but also injustice and going too far into democracy could mean nothing ever gets accomplished due to endless indecision. This is exactly what elective democracy is so effective imo as it’s a Golden Mean of these two edges.
That’s what Golden Mean means - the center is where magic happens and the edges are always full of failure.
Oh so we should do exactly the right amount of things?
Depends on the type of distribution too. In some discrete cases there isn’t a mean value. A binary choice for example has no applicability of the golden mean. Like a two party system. If neither represents your values, you can only choose the one that mostly does. Which is not the optimal outcome, just the local maxima.
The golden mean argument also assumes that there is only one good soulution, where multiple equally good ones can exist too.
I think you fundamentally misunderstand Golden Mean if you argument against it with statistics and I’ll leave it here.
If I mix water and cement there is a distribution of the two, a ratio if you will. Just because statistics deals with distributions (of probabilities for example) doesn’t mean all distributions are in the field of statistics.
I’ll leave it at that.
Man you’re trying to solve metaphysics wirh ratios and cement and shit lol go away
As hard as it may be to believe, I can’t eat metaphysics for put a roof above my head with it. Even Plato didn’t sit on perfect abstract chairs or ate abstract apples.
Here’s another argument I thought of in the meanwhile:
-
If we accept that the rule of golden mean is universal, then it necessarily applies to itself. Thus, the correct use of the rule is somewhere between the absolutes of not applying it at all and applying it to everything. There are circumstances in which it shouldn’t be used.
-
If we don’t accept the rule as universally true, then there are circumstances in which it shouldn’t be used.
QED
-
There is also the assumption of the central importance of ideas, which is a rather deranged perspective when you think about it.
Don’t get me wrong, ideas have high utility, for memory and language and such, but still.
An idea is just a little thing, and any association between it and the rest of reality is purely contrived.
Yes, that’s why the skepticism and scientific method is needed
But the point of the scientific method is to get us high-quality ideas. How would that cure the derangement of an idea-centered perspective?.
Maybe if you removed the model-making part. Leave the primacy of observation and the utility of peer-review. Maybe.
In a way, yes, but the key point of the scientific method is testing and validating hypotheses to confirm existing models or theories.
Everything can be questioned in a sensible way, but if you’re going against the grain of established mountains of evidence, then you have to work just as hard to provide counter evidence or proofs.
The burden on proof for fantastical claims is on the person or persons making it.
Yes. Hypotheses. Ideas.
well sure, epistemology says we can never be absolutely certain of almost anything. But the alternative to ideas is… what exactly?
We can still observe and discuss methods for making observations.
That’s just like, your idea man
Yeah but it isn’t the key central focus of the deal anymore then. It’s just a convenient accessory.
Science: I say it is so because I can not disprove it.
Also science: I was able to disprove it, but what if…?
Grew up watching Sagan on PBS. After church let out. Isn’t that strange?
I have a deep-seated idea that dad (granddad really), went to church for social reasons, wasn’t a believer, but wanted his son to rise about religious thought. Some of dad’s dying, intimate thoughts, which my granduncle shared made me wonder. (I’m rather loose with my pronouns and family. Did that make sense?)
Anyway, dad encouraged me to learn about science and nature. Bought me a VIC-20, years of Ranger Rick subscriptions, and sent me to computer camp for two summers. Now I’m an atheist in my 50s and have an IT career. Go figure.
I’d kill to watch NOVA with him again.
“Keep an open mind … but not so open that your brain falls out” … often attributed to Carl Sagan but he got it from others before him.
“… keep their minds open—‘but not so open that your brains fall out.’”
That quote was always fun before it became a common reply to evidence based thinking instead of gut feeling basws thinking
