http://www.uoguelph.ca/news/2009/06/human_brain_stu_1.html
As I read this, I couldn't help noticing the unspoken assumption that only rational or empirical beliefs can be
In passing, however, I'd like it to be noted that Dr. Davis is one heckuva rockabilly guitarist.
As I read this, I couldn't help noticing the unspoken assumption that only rational or empirical beliefs can be
true... and how it furthermore sidesteps the fact that such a viewpoint is itself an article of faith.
In passing, however, I'd like it to be noted that Dr. Davis is one heckuva rockabilly guitarist.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-09 03:33 pm (UTC)Granted, but he uses and as examples of the delusional thinking that he says we need to abandon -- implying that there can be no truth or substance to such beliefs. Can we call it a subtext that I painted in primary colours here?
Just so. Any system of belief or thought, even math, derives from at least one axiom (usually more than one). And by definition, there is no way to deduce the truth of an axiom. You have to choose your starting point based on what boils down to faith.
To reject someone else's axioms on the basis of your own, is at the heart of intolerance, religious or otherwise.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-09 03:48 pm (UTC)You could make another case about what he thinks, though... something like
"Since we haven't demonstrated Heaven exists through a rational analysis, we can't know there is such a place or state of being. So thanking Heaven is premature, though possibly correct."
This is somewhat different from, and more open-minded than,
"There is no Heaven. Therefore, thanking Heaven is meaningless."
But I think you're right, and he actually means the second.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-09 03:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-09 03:58 pm (UTC)That I could ever have thought they would, enough to plunk down seven bucks, was an act of faith.