Relationship: Brain Chemistry and Cognitive Bias
- Thread starter Buddy
- Start date
Anyway. From now on i am trying to see things with the believers eyes and afterwards I try to reflect the collected data most critically, also by the use of my networking skills. Correct me if I am wrong.
I have the idea of turning the info in this thread into an article for the FOTCM site:
http://paleochristianity.org/
I've started putting interesting things there. I hope that ya'll won't mind if I amalgamate things from this thread into said article.
http://paleochristianity.org/
I've started putting interesting things there. I hope that ya'll won't mind if I amalgamate things from this thread into said article.
Buddy
The Living Force
Fine with me. I think I had come to understand the subtlety in the article with regard to the 'believers'. It looks to me that when the referent for 'believers' refers to the deluded monotheists, the outcome has one meaning: "They're too doped up! and won't use rational reflection anyway".
But when the referent for 'believers' is an individual (like Gödel1, perhaps) who is capable of reflection, uses it, sees rationality and spirituality as the same thing in a consistent Universe, then the outcome changes meaning to the one you're onto, osit. Do I have it right?
Of course, my mind could just be in self-calming mode over the issue, at the moment, for all I know, so I'd appreciate any further insights.
---------------------------------------------
1Kurt Gödel was a convinced theist. He rejected the notion that God was impersonal. He believed firmly in an afterlife, stating: “I am convinced of the afterlife, independent of theology. If the world is rationally constructed, there must be an afterlife."
[quote author=_http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/tabid/68/id/9796/Default.aspx]
Kurt Gödel's Mathematical and Scientific Perspective of the Divine: A Rational Theology:
“However, as Bertrand Russell observed, it is much easier to be persuaded that ontological arguments are no good than it is to say exactly what is wrong with them” (Oppy, 2002). Yet, “those who find the assumptions of the ontological argument suspicious should ask themselves whether their suspicion is based […] on an unwillingness to accept the conclusion of the argument” (Small, 2003: 25). Likewise, those in favor of the argument should ponder whether they have been lenient in their philosophical rigor. Ultimately, however, existence is independent of belief. We may argue for eternity whether God exists or not and it will not affect God’s existence. However, it may affect ours.
We should not be naïve and think we can convince any purportedly rational being to accept theism. In spite of all our efforts in attempting to rationally prove the existence of God, we must agree that we may fail to convince even a single obstinate atheist shrouding his arguments with scientific or philosophical jargon. What is remarkable about Gödel’s theological inclinations is that whereas “ninety percent of philosophers these days consider it the business of philosophy to knock religion out of people’s heads,” said Gödel (Wang, 1996: 152), “he exploited the machinery of modern logic to reconstruct Leibniz’s ontological argument” (Yourgrau, 2005: 13).
Blaise Pascal, fundamental in the development of probability theory, might induce them to reconsider their position with his famed wager published in 1670:
God is or He is not. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in selecting ‘God is.’ If you win, you win all. If you lose, you lose nothing. Therefore, bet unhesitatingly that He is. (Pensées)
Hence, as an exponent of theism, Gödel is sempiternally victorious.
Edit: Just replace the anthropormorphic "God" concept with Divine Cosmic Mind.
But when the referent for 'believers' is an individual (like Gödel1, perhaps) who is capable of reflection, uses it, sees rationality and spirituality as the same thing in a consistent Universe, then the outcome changes meaning to the one you're onto, osit. Do I have it right?
Of course, my mind could just be in self-calming mode over the issue, at the moment, for all I know, so I'd appreciate any further insights.
---------------------------------------------
1Kurt Gödel was a convinced theist. He rejected the notion that God was impersonal. He believed firmly in an afterlife, stating: “I am convinced of the afterlife, independent of theology. If the world is rationally constructed, there must be an afterlife."
[quote author=_http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/tabid/68/id/9796/Default.aspx]
Kurt Gödel's Mathematical and Scientific Perspective of the Divine: A Rational Theology:
“However, as Bertrand Russell observed, it is much easier to be persuaded that ontological arguments are no good than it is to say exactly what is wrong with them” (Oppy, 2002). Yet, “those who find the assumptions of the ontological argument suspicious should ask themselves whether their suspicion is based […] on an unwillingness to accept the conclusion of the argument” (Small, 2003: 25). Likewise, those in favor of the argument should ponder whether they have been lenient in their philosophical rigor. Ultimately, however, existence is independent of belief. We may argue for eternity whether God exists or not and it will not affect God’s existence. However, it may affect ours.
We should not be naïve and think we can convince any purportedly rational being to accept theism. In spite of all our efforts in attempting to rationally prove the existence of God, we must agree that we may fail to convince even a single obstinate atheist shrouding his arguments with scientific or philosophical jargon. What is remarkable about Gödel’s theological inclinations is that whereas “ninety percent of philosophers these days consider it the business of philosophy to knock religion out of people’s heads,” said Gödel (Wang, 1996: 152), “he exploited the machinery of modern logic to reconstruct Leibniz’s ontological argument” (Yourgrau, 2005: 13).
Blaise Pascal, fundamental in the development of probability theory, might induce them to reconsider their position with his famed wager published in 1670:
God is or He is not. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in selecting ‘God is.’ If you win, you win all. If you lose, you lose nothing. Therefore, bet unhesitatingly that He is. (Pensées)
Hence, as an exponent of theism, Gödel is sempiternally victorious.
Edit: Just replace the anthropormorphic "God" concept with Divine Cosmic Mind.
celtic
Jedi Master
Correct me if i'm wrong but, I wonder if the two opposing brain hemispheres has some relation to the yin and yang symbol. On the left side you take time to reflect and think critically with reason and network. On the right side you observe pattern recognition and accept the new information as a possibility. Put two together you are able to keep the balance of reason and imagination.
