Skip to main content

View Diary: More Republican demographic death spiral: 'No religion' a plurality among Americans 18-30 (145 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  neither secularism nor religion should be (0+ / 0-)


    organization as a community is fine.

    •  What's wrong with secularism? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril, sagesource

      Replacing tradition or faith with reason is a good thing.  Without the secularist movement of the Enlightenment we wouldn't be the country we are today.

      "It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said." "The War Prayer" by Mark Twain

      by Quanta on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 12:47:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  did I say there was something wrong with (0+ / 0-)


      •  and faith and reason aren't remotely (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Remove Kebab, historys mysteries

        mutualy exclusive--it disappoints me that so many people on both sides have trouble understanding that.

        •  Hmm. (0+ / 0-)

          I have never understood this sentiment.

          Faith is belief without evidence. Reason is the formation of beliefs by drawing logical conclusions based on evidence. You really can't do both at the same time.

          Seems like this is more the kind of thing people tell themselves when they just want to believe things they can't support with reason, but also want to seem smart.

          Certainly on a given issue, the two ways of thinking are mutually exclusive.

          Maybe you're just advocating compartmentalization?

          •  no, mudfud27. (0+ / 0-)

            you really need to let go of some extremely black and white preconceived sentiments if you're going to engage in this sort of conversation.  That's not the way the world works.  There are some beautiful Bradbury quotes to this effect--if I have time I will dig them up.

            •  Please (0+ / 0-)

              Do explain to me "how the world works." Can't wait to be magically mystified.

              I did notice, of course, that you couldn't refute what I actually said.

              I think if you're going to engage in this sort of conversation you'll need to let go of some extremely mushy-headed, ill-defined feel good sentimentality and explain how what you propose could possibly be the case using concrete examples and logical thought. I suggest you use more than beautiful Bradbury quotes if you intend to be taken seriously.

              •  onus is on you. You claim that you 'can't' (0+ / 0-)

                do both at the same time.

                You can't?  

                Why not?

                I don't think that insulting me does much to bolster your point of view, does it?

                and yes, it's far more obnoxious than my fairly tame 'not how the world works' bit.

                •  I did. (0+ / 0-)

                  You can't "do both at the same time" because, as I explained, they are opposites of one another. "Faith is belief without evidence. Reason is the formation of beliefs by drawing logical conclusions based on evidence." If you draw conclusions with one method, the conclusions are drawn and the other method was not used.

                  There is a large body of evidence from dispirate fields including neurocognitive research (I am a neuroscientist), economics, psychology, and game theory which explores the ways in which people make decisions and form their beliefs. Acceptance of authority, prayer, exploring divine revelation, divination, and so forth are all methods employed in "religious thinking". These methods are specifically excluded in models like rational choice models.  

                  Articles of faith, by their very definition, are accepted with little or no evidence-- many are actually contrary to available evidence. This would be the opposite of rationality, and one cannot simultaneously seek and not seek evidence.

                  Articles of faith are are accepted without studying competing views, whereas a rational or scientific mode of thought seeks to compare and test the available conclusions whenever possible. One cannot simultaneously seek out and not seek out such views.

                  Similar points can be made about the type and levels of certainty people have in their articles of faith, and about those for which they gather evidence and make decisions. One cannot be simultaneously a "true believer" and open to being persuaded by new evidence.

                  Do you understand?

                  You were both extremely condescending and wrong in your response. I'm sorry if you felt insulted by mine, but it seemed warranted given the combination. I admit that I haven't been so condescended to since at least around the time I obtained my second doctoral degree so maybe I was just surprised by it.

                  In any case, you made the claim that you were going to demonstrate for me this ability to "dualthink" as well as "how the world works". I was hoping to see these wonders in your reply but only saw you whining that I hurt your feelings. I always like learning new things, so I anxiously await the groundbreaking neurocognitive findings only you seem to have at your disposal-- and the "world working" data sounds thrilling. Please, have at it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site