Debating a theist: What am I doing wrong?

[rocketdodger]

[*]In order to get out of such endless loops, at some point we have to resort to an essentially non-rational solution to the comprimise, and hence the problem.
[*] Therefore even rational people [in a weaker sense that includes heuristic or probablistic reasoning] will resort to non-rational decision making at times.

But isn't resorting to irrational methods of decision making in order to exit an infinite loop a very rational thing to do?

Ultimately, everything a rational person does is in their own self interest, according to some perspective.

 

[rocketdodger]

Oh yeah, and ultimately everything they do will be rational, according to some perspective.

 

[nescafe]

But isn't resorting to irrational methods of decision making in order to exit an infinite loop a very rational thing to do?

Well, if I thought so I would not have included it in the chain of reasoning.

Ultimately, everything a rational person does is in their own self interest, according to some perspective.

It is that "some perspective" bit that makes it all fall down for me. Without knowing all the salient details if someone else's perspective, how can you tell whether or not they are rational? How can you know that all the details you think you know are salient?

If we view human rationality as a continuum rather than a pair of binary opposites that problem vanishes, but then so does the rational vs. irrational (or thinkers vs. nonthinkers) worldview. Which, in my opinion, is no great loss.

 

[rocketdodger]

It is that "some perspective" bit that makes it all fall down for me. Without knowing all the salient details if someone else's perspective, how can you tell whether or not they are rational? How can you know that all the details you think you know are salient?

Well I would go one step further than Rand and say that all people are rational, given a certain viewpoint, and they always act in their own interest, given a certain viewpoint.

As far as I can tell it is impossible to find something that a person has done that cannot in any way be attributed to their self interest. Thus, so far, the model is correct.

 

[Dr Adequate]

This model cannot be proven correct, but at the same time it has been impossible for anyone to come up with a counter-example (a rational behavior that is not in one's self-interest yet is exhibited).

The strength of the model is that "self-interest" can be measured in any way we choose. This is also the reason why finding a counter example has been impossible so far.

Excuse me --- you're boasting that your "model" is in principle unfalsifiable?

How sweet. Come back when you have an idea with content.

 

[elliotfc]

As far as I can tell it is impossible to find something that a person has done that cannot in any way be attributed to their self interest. Thus, so far, the model is correct.

That's because we can never conclusively measure self-interest! If someone claims to be doing something *not* out of self-interest, you'll skeptically and cynically disagree with them. Anybody can find several reasons for why *another* individual would do something...you assume the ones that are connected to self-interest are true.

No...it *is* possible to find deeds that are not done out of self-interest. It is also possible to override those with constructed or assumed reasons which indicate the opposite. It's all a matter of how the explainer wants to explain them.

Another thing...I think I'm following you...rational people are rational people because they act out of self-interest...as far as they know. But, there is another standard which you have to judge raionality, because you have also asked how rational people can be expected to deal with irrational people.

So...an irrational person is someone who asks rationally as far as they know, but not rationally as far as other people know (the truly rational people, the people who know as far as they can now and farther than other people who can't know any farther due to stupidity or unintelligence or whatever). And the standard for rationality can be found in the intelligent judgers, a small percentage of the population of which you are a sterling example. I'm not passing judgment on your notions here (at least not yet). Do I have it about right?

-Elliot

 

[rocketdodger]

No...it *is* possible to find deeds that are not done out of self-interest. It is also possible to override those with constructed or assumed reasons which indicate the opposite. It's all a matter of how the explainer wants to explain them.

Yep. Although I think you discount it a little too much, because it is important for some people to realize that all the deeds they do and consider "righteous" are actually done out of self interest in most cases.

So...an irrational person is someone who asks rationally as far as they know, but not rationally as far as other people know (the truly rational people, the people who know as far as they can now and farther than other people who can't know any farther due to stupidity or unintelligence or whatever). And the standard for rationality can be found in the intelligent judgers, a small percentage of the population of which you are a sterling example. I'm not passing judgment on your notions here (at least not yet). Do I have it about right?

Almost, except I wouldn't claim to be truly rational, only more rational. All I am talking about is a simple measure of how much a person can accomplish compared to how deluded they must be to consider themselves as having accomplished it.

 

[rocketdodger]

Excuse me --- you're boasting that your "model" is in principle unfalsifiable?

How sweet. Come back when you have an idea with content.

Observe that I did not say "in principle unfalsifiable," I merely said that no counter-example has been found so far.

If you dispute this, then you are free to provide such a counter-example. Until that time, I consider the model to be correct.

 

[elliotfc]

Yep. Although I think you discount it a little too much, because it is important for some people to realize that all the deeds they do and consider "righteous" are actually done out of self interest in most cases.

Why is it important for people to realize that?

Or...why is it important to have the correct label for the motivation behind deeds?

I actually agree with you...but I think that acting righteous and acting in one's self-interest actually go together. Which is a good thing. Meaning, it's designed that way.

Almost, except I wouldn't claim to be truly rational, only more rational. All I am talking about is a simple measure of how much a person can accomplish compared to how deluded they must be to consider themselves as having accomplished it.

I think it is very important to you to consider yourself as more rational than most people, and I think it is very important to consider that most people are deluded, or delusional. Your theories follow from these starting points.

Just my opinion, I'm sure you're a swell guy.

-Elliot

 

[rocketdodger]

Why is it important for people to realize that?

Or...why is it important to have the correct label for the motivation behind deeds?

Because alot of people harbor massive internal turmoil that is a result of them doing things that are arbitrarily considered "bad" in their circles. It would be much healthier to admit to themselves the correct nature of all their actions, at least then they could benefit from the feelings of integrity.

I think it is very important to you to consider yourself as more rational than most people, and I think it is very important to consider that most people are deluded, or delusional. Your theories follow from these starting points.

I don't see why you would say that after I have explicitly said I am a subjectivist. Being more or less rational than others doesn't matter a hoot to me -- being as rational as I can is what matters.

And my theories do not follow from what you label my "starting points," it is the other way around. What don't you understand about how I measure rationality, as declared in the previous post? More-rational people get more done and don't need to delude themselves to see it, less-rational people get less done and need to delude themselves to see it.

More rational -- using farming to improve crop yield, which is easy to see.
Less rational -- using prayer to improve crop yield, which only has results if one is delusional.

More rational -- using medicine to heal the sick, which is easy to see.
Less rational -- using prayer to heal the sick, which only has results if one is delusional.

More rational -- using weapons to defeat enemies, which is easy to see.
Less rational -- using prayer to defeat enemies, which only has results if one is delusional.

More rational -- using engineering to create buildings, which is easy to see.
Less rational -- using prayer to create buildings, which only has results if one is delusional.

 

[elliotfc]

Because alot of people harbor massive internal turmoil that is a result of them doing things that are arbitrarily considered "bad" in their circles.

Right. I guess that's a matter of choice though. You can stop doing the bad things, or ditch the morality.

It would be much healthier to admit to themselves the correct nature of all their actions, at least then they could benefit from the feelings of integrity.

I dunno. I guess you're looking at this from a purely emotional standpoint (forgetting the bit about you having the nature of all actions all figured out). I don't think theists are driven by a pursuit of the most contented emotional state, and as for feelings of integrity, you can be an emotional wreck with an absolute sense of integrity, I don't think that integrity is contingent on emotional health.

I don't see why you would say that after I have explicitly said I am a subjectivist. Being more or less rational than others doesn't matter a hoot to me -- being as rational as I can is what matters.

OK.

More-rational people get more done and don't need to delude themselves to see it, less-rational people get less done and need to delude themselves to see it.

Thank you for your examples, they demonstrate that the so-called less rational types are a minority of people, I thought you considered them to be a majority.

-Elliot

 

[rocketdodger]

Thank you for your examples, they demonstrate that the so-called less rational types are a minority of people, I thought you considered them to be a majority.

I said non-thinkers were a majority, not irrational people.

To be a thinker, you have to look at many such examples, and realize consciously that the best way to get where you want to go is to think about it. There are, unfortunately, very few who make it that far. I am sure you would dispute this but the rest of the world is pretty startling evidence in favor of my conclusion.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Observe that I did not say "in principle unfalsifiable," I merely said that no counter-example has been found so far.

But the reason you gave was that "the strength of the model is that "self-interest" can be measured in any way we choose." Until you choose some particular way, your theory is unfasifiable and without empirical content.

So long as you are free to redifine the term as you please, then there is no point in trying to advance a counter-example. If you will clearly give a distinction between (a) the ends that people pursue; (b) their self-interest; then I think I could undertake to supply you with a counterexample, namely the pursuit of any means suited to achieving an end which lies in class (a) but not in class (b).

 

[elliotfc]

I said non-thinkers were a majority, not irrational people.

To be a thinker, you have to look at many such examples, and realize consciously that the best way to get where you want to go is to think about it. There are, unfortunately, very few who make it that far. I am sure you would dispute this but the rest of the world is pretty startling evidence in favor of my conclusion.

I dispute this because I am a thinker.

The best way to get where you want to go, you say. Well, maybe they want to go somewhere else. Best way? Matter of opinion.

Are you different then the majority of people? Surely. I don't think the majority of people give a damn about defining others to be beneath them intellectually.

-Elliot

 

[rocketdodger]

So long as you are free to redifine the term as you please, then there is no point in trying to advance a counter-example. If you will clearly give a distinction between (a) the ends that people pursue; (b) their self-interest; then I think I could undertake to supply you with a counterexample, namely the pursuit of any means suited to achieving an end which lies in class (a) but not in class (b).

Ok lets let any of the standard definitions (those generally agreed upon) for "self-interest" apply.

I understand your "template" counterexample, and that is what most people say to argue against this model. But can you come up with an actual instance of it? I have tried very hard and I haven't been able to so far.

 

[rocketdodger]

I dispute this because I am a thinker.

Then why do you buy into cookie cutter religious dogma? I have already asked you once -- how did thought contribute to your christian beliefs? What was the thought process that led you to arrive at the conclusions you have?

The best way to get where you want to go, you say. Well, maybe they want to go somewhere else. Best way? Matter of opinion.

What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that if a person wants food, all the ideas that they might have about how to get it are subjectively equal? I don't understand what you don't understand here. If you want something, there are courses of action that will lead to you getting it and courses of action that will not. How can you tell me that whether one course of action is better than another is merely an opinion, then, if the goal is to get what you want?

Are you different then the majority of people? Surely. I don't think the majority of people give a damn about defining others to be beneath them intellectually.

First, as I have said, I am not defining anyone to be beneath me intellectually. Why do you keep trying to assert that I am? I am talking about results, and that is all that matters to me.

Second, if you think the majority of people don't care about defining others to be beneath them, then you really don't know much at all about human behavior.

 

[elliotfc]

Then why do you buy into cookie cutter religious dogma? I have already asked you once -- how did thought contribute to your christian beliefs?

I was a Christian. Then I wasn't a Christian, after some thought. Then I was a Christian again, after some thought. That's the short story.

What was the thought process that led you to arrive at the conclusions you have?

Several.
The most important was studying the earliest history of the Church, the earliest Christians, and the earliest theologians.
Second was an in depth study of the theology of Judaism.
Third was Chesterton.
Fourth was my estimation of the closest people in my life.
Fifth was my growing appreciation of spirituality in general.

That's approximate, but that's how I usually describe my re-attachement to Christianity.

As for my specific conclusions regarding Christianity, I can't even begin to estimate how much thought went into that. That's a fact, but I reckon you think that I don't think given that I'm a believer. Whatever.

What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that if a person wants food, all the ideas that they might have about how to get it are subjectively equal?

No. I was suggesting that some places that people want to go could include...heaven...non-tangible contentment...uncomfortable situations...living in a culture completely foreign to what one is used to...enlightenment independent of sensory experience. Any number of things that could be evaluated to be non-sensical to another.

I don't understand what you don't understand here. If you want something, there are courses of action that will lead to you getting it and courses of action that will not.

Agreed.

How can you tell me that whether one course of action is better than another is merely an opinion, then, if the goal is to get what you want?

Right back at you. How can you? That was my point. I'm trying to not be dogmatic about this.

First, as I have said, I am not defining anyone to be beneath me intellectually. Why do you keep trying to assert that I am? I am talking about results, and that is all that matters to me.

OK.

Second, if you think the majority of people don't care about defining others to be beneath them, then you really don't know much at all about human behavior.

If you say so.

-Elliot

 

[rocketdodger]

No. I was suggesting that some places that people want to go could include...heaven...non-tangible contentment...uncomfortable situations...living in a culture completely foreign to what one is used to...enlightenment independent of sensory experience. Any number of things that could be evaluated to be non-sensical to another.

Assume you are a monk. Do you have more time to pray if you have to forage all day for food in the forest or do you have more time to pray if all your food is already stored from the harvest of the crops you raised using thought?

Do you see why thinking is better now? Because survival trumps all other goals by definition -- a human must be alive in order to pursue any other endeavours -- and thinking makes survival easier, thus leaving more time and energy for the rest.

Right back at you. How can you? That was my point. I'm trying to not be dogmatic about this.

Ok. Assume the goal is to get into heaven. Helping people gets you there. Murdering people prevents you from getting there. So you are saying that the statement "helping people is better than murdering them if your goal is getting into heaven" is merely an opinion?

 

[joller]

We cannot have a scientific explanation for why physical laws are as they are since science operates under the assumption that reality is uniform. So you would then be saying maybe physical laws can be explained by physical laws. This is of course circular.

The uniformity of reality is required for life to exist.
Why are the physical laws as they are?
Well, my point of view is that it's just the way it is - just like 2+2=4. Why? Because it does. That's why the area of the square is what it is and not something else.
Why do we need a reason for why the physical laws are as they are?
Isn't it a fallacy of presupposition? There may as well be no reason.
it's like asking what happened before the big bang? Well, nothing - there was no before.

The theists God can be disproven in my opinion, using the approaches already described in this thread.
The deist God however, cannot be disproven. Since the deist's God doesn't intervene with the universe, we may as well assume he doesn't exist. It makes it all simpler, and doesn't change anything anyway.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Ok lets let any of the standard definitions (those generally agreed upon) for "self-interest" apply.

I understand your "template" counterexample, and that is what most people say to argue against this model. But can you come up with an actual instance of it? I have tried very hard and I haven't been able to so far.

Well, yes.

To take a trivial example, if I notice that I've been overchanged in a shop, I return the excess money.

This is not a self-interested action, yet my method of performing it is quite rational (i.e. appropriate to the end I have in mind) and does not involve fright wigs, lemon peel, hopscotch, flammable tubas, and a journey to distant Tibet --- instead, I point out the error and hand the money to the shopkeeper, which attains the end I have in mind, and does so efficiently, indeed, rationally.