quote:

Suspect would have been a better choice, yes. It would then call into question "definitely," though. It's also rooted in belief vs. a logical causality, which was the context in which you raised the point, a contradiction.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika

quote:


I find that honesty refreshing, if sometimes vexing.

You appear to be more subtle in your line of argument and in your biases.

Frankly, I think you have no idea how to have discussion with someone with an open mind. I have no hidden agenda and I admitted my biases from the start. I am not subtle in stating them.

You continue to think that I'm trying to attack you when I'm simply trying to have discussion. FYI, I don't attack like a shark ;-)

- LA

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika

quote:

Suspect would have been a better choice, yes. It would then call into question "definitely," though. It's also rooted in belief vs. a logical causality, which was the context in which you raised the point, a contradiction.

True. As for the rest of your post, MM, if I could give up my day job and just research everything my heart desired, I would. When I say it is not my area of study, it isn't a cop out, it's a question of time management and focussing getting this doctorate finished ;-)

- LA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

I cannot prove (and at this time do not wish to prove) that is causality between being an atheist and being a critical thinker. I do however believe that there definitely is a correlation.

Much more accurately, there could be a correlation. It's a possibility, not a certainty as you present.

I didn't say I had proof that there was a correlation. I said that I believed and in retrospect, a better word would have been I suspect.

As this is not my area of research, I'll have to wait for someone else to do the study.

- LA

Suspect would have been a better choice, yes. It would then call into question "definitely," though. It's also rooted in belief vs. a logical causality, which was the context in which you raised the point, a contradiction.

Granted, you aren't going to study this yourself. But I've little patience for the "this is not my area" disclaimer I hear so often in academia, as if educated people are unable to access the books and articles the rest of society reads. Maybe that's just my bias as a writer, where research is key. At the very least, those who take that tact should then refrain from making claims in that area, especially when only supported by consequently running back to "not my area."

This thread illustrates one of the points Poe explores. The Minister, a very accomplished and very clever operator, falls for an obvious "Look over there!" type ploy while Dupin pulls the same substitution the Minister pulled on the "certain personage." Doesn't that seem incredibly suspect--especially given that he knows Dupin is her partisan and lover, as well as his political and perhaps romantic rival? How could such a smart man be so fantastically foolish?

Same reason the Prefect, whom we are told is the best at what he does, fails to solve a mystery right in front of him. Both are blinded by emotion and overconfidence. The Prefect laughs more and more when Dupin explains that the problem might be more simple. The Minister is so smug and power-drunk he doesn't even consider the possibility someone could trick him.

Poe goes on to explore another point relevant to this thread--different ways of knowing, of thinking, of analysis, which he separates into poetry and mathematics. The Prefect finds poets fools, and is unable to make the mental leaps necessary to see past his own extremely thorough and meticulously methodical approach (much like seeing science as the end all and be all). Both Dupin and the Minister, on the other hand, are expert poets and mathematicians--we are told they've published monographs on both. Dupin solves the mystery, despite his emotional attachment (romantic involvement), by detachment--the narrator asks for details, Dupin calmly adds, "Or not." He waits for the Prefect to raise the issue even when the letter has already been regained. He calmly leaves the allusion to Atreus and Thyestes in its place, without gloating, allowing the Minister to continue his blackmail, but without the leverage he thinks he has--this will end the Minister's career. How does the Minister not see this? Dupin gets him laughing (like the Prefect), and allows the Minister's ego to blind him to what's happening right in front of him. Delicious irony.

What we have here are strings of false dilemma (either/or reasoning) fallacies. Religion and science are not diametrically opposed--or if they are, make a case for it. Science is not the only way of knowing. Yes, if I claimed to have logically established something, then that's neither scientific nor reasonable. But to deny any other ways of knowing belies experience. As long as we don't present false claims and conclusions from that experience, it's a valid way of exploring the world--without this, we'd even have to toss the atheist religions (Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc.). If someone said "I've proved the nature of Tao," then yes, unreasonable. But to say "There's an apparent energy that works when we tap into it" as a matter of experience, along with "We do not know what it is or from whence it comes" is reasonable. And we've plenty of examples of understanding we can't explain--the Aborigine's "Dream Time," for example. They can demonstrate it; we don't understand it.

I have great respect for science. But as an accomplished musician, I also know we can think and experience well in other means. To deny this is to deny our own experiences.

If someone said, "I had this experience, and this proves there's a God," then yes, I'd agree this is not a logically sound conclusion in the demonstrable scientific sense. If someone said, "I had this experience; I believe it is because of a God," I also have no real problem with this presented as a matter of personal belief. When someone can say, "I had this experience. I can't explain it, but I can show you how to have the same experience," we have to accept this as demonstrable and replicable--two main tenets any scientist would respect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika

quote:


I find that honesty refreshing, if sometimes vexing.

You appear to be more subtle in your line of argument and in your biases.

Frankly, I think you have no idea how to have discussion with someone with an open mind. I have no hidden agenda and I admitted my biases from the start. I am not subtle in stating them.

You continue to think that I'm trying to attack you when I'm simply trying to have discussion. FYI, I don't attack like a shark ;-)

quote:

Actually, you just completely ignored the rest of that post.

quote:

I am not attempting to attack you back, although I can imagine that I make you uncomfortable with my observations. 

quote:

One of the most difficult things for a person to see is their own unconscious biases. We all attempt to have an "open mind", yet we all fail. We are, after all, only sinful humans.

quote:

I can imagine that I make you uncomfortable with my observations. One of the most difficult things for a person to see is their own unconscious biases. We all attempt to have an "open mind," yet we all fail.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Semantics. You are smarter than that, when you want to be.

Firm is right, and I'm leaving it at this:

quote:

I can imagine that I make you uncomfortable with my observations. One of the most difficult things for a person to see is their own unconscious biases. We all attempt to have an "open mind," yet we all fail.

Poe is right. Ego blinds one to reason.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys

quote:

ORIGINAL: taleon

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika

Perhaps what I'm really critical here is the quality of the argument.

I agree that those who look at the Bible critically are doing a better job than those who use the "because it says so in the Bible"-argument and stop thinking right there. But that's just a matter of scale. Critical thinking demands that you go further than that. It asks you to re-evaluate the basic assumption whether there is a God. In fact, it demands you re-evaluate all your assumptions, and that goes for both secularist and those of faith.

For example, I think most of us here agree democracy is a good thing, perhaps even sacred. Some of us might be willing to defend it with our lives. But why, exactly? Is it really worth dying for? Here is another one: I think most of us will value our mobility greatly, especially our "right" to drive cars. That right causes 42000 casualties per year in Europe alone. So, should we take the car or use public transport en masse? Mind you, those were rhetoric questions, I don't want to talk about those issues (well, at least not in this thread).

I just want to point out that we all have our assumptions, and I daresay that often we haven't actually examined them critically (nor can we, even if we tried). Rather, we are greatly influenced by what our peers are doing, and the zeitgeist in general. We seem to copy the morals and ideas of the time, of our family, of our friends and surrounding culture, and quite often, we simply leave it at that.

quote:

I find it unnerving that people quote to what it is in and not in the bible.

So do I, but what unnerves me more that I, and many with me, too (more often than not) will mindlessly quote the prevailing paradigm of the moment. Despite being exposed to science and reason. Despite being brought up with all the principles of the Enlightenment. That worries me, frankly.

If anything, those who literally believe the Bible make that problem clearly visible... but it doesn't stop there. To me it is not only the quality of the argument that matters, but also the domains we are willing and capable to critically examine.

All of it a good post.

On the last part: It's odd to watch the high thinkers do the same thing in regards to religion and God.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Not condescending at all. Quite the contrary--stating the themes played out here as related in Poe.

If you feel threatened, it's understandable, as already explained--but the reason isn't external.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Not condescending at all. Quite the contrary--stating the themes played out here as related in Poe.

If you feel threatened, it's understandable, as already explained--but the reason isn't external.

And as I have already explained it to you, at no point while discussing this thread, or any other thread for that matter, did I feel threatened. That's not how my mind works.

I finished my last post by stating that I felt good about all this.So please, do stop projecting. It is highly unappreciated.

- LA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Not condescending at all. Quite the contrary--stating the themes played out here as related in Poe.

If you feel threatened, it's understandable, as already explained--but the reason isn't external.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika

No, you don't make me uncomfortable in the least to be honest.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Not condescending at all. Quite the contrary--stating the themes played out here as related in Poe.

If you feel threatened, it's understandable, as already explained--but the reason isn't external.

And as I have already explained it to you, at no point while discussing this thread, or any other thread for that matter, did I feel threatened. That's not how my mind works.

I finished my last post by stating that I felt good about all this.So please, do stop projecting. It is highly unappreciated.

- LA

Good grief.

Read this last post and mediate on the irony.

Attacking me isn't going to make you feel better.

And as Firm has explained, no one is attacking you.

quote:

I didn't feel as though anyone was attacking me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika

No, you don't make me uncomfortable in the least to be honest.

This doesn't surprise me.

Considering human nature, it is not unexpected that an open-minded individual would feel some level of discomfort when they are faced with information that appears fly in the face of their own preconceived ideas.  It serves as a catalyst to further critical thinking... prompting the to examine their reasoning in an attempt to reconcile their existing beliefs with the new information.

It might not be a laborious process based on the new information, but an important one for individuals who seek self-awareness.

In my experience, individuals who are blinded by their unconscious biases or are arrogantly confident in their convictions are rarely bothered as they are not in the least open to even considering challenging information.

You claim to have raised this issue with the intent of seeking information because you don't have all the answers.  It appears, however, that you only want confirmation of your own beliefs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

I didn't feel as though anyone was attacking me.

And yet you've said so, repeatedly, throughout the thread.

Whatever.

quote:

Firm, MM and yourself can keep projecting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Firm, MM and yourself can keep projecting.

Keep playing this game. Eventually, you'll figure out it's not working.