Question. How can a rational person be theistic and not believe in fairies?

[Mole]

We are masters at ritual, just as we are masters at food. Our ritual is the equivalent of fast-food: ubiquitous, cleverly packaged and sold, but with limited nutritional value. This is what I mean by doing a poor job at it. We do not make focused and deliberate use of it to aid and enrich our lives (even when we think we do).

Forgive me for continuing the argument, but you live in the midst of it. Why do you think you can see it?

 

[Cellmold]

Forgive me for continuing the argument, but you live in the midst of it. Why do you think you can see it?

But surely your position could be extended to any culture and it's rituals? If that is the case how could anyone see their own rituals?

And if no one can see their own rituals, why then would anyone be able to understand or be expected to understand the points of someone outside who is presenting these rituals? Following on from this; what then would be the point of showing people something they are incapable of seeing?

If it is worth showing to them, then they are not incapable.

Also if this is not applicable to just any country, (which of course you have not said but im anticipating a thought), then it is a product of a skewed bias towards a singular one, in which case the validity of the view is lessened.

 

[ehcriktic]

Why do you believe in an immaterial nonphysical God-being, which can't be observed through scientific investigation, but you dismiss the idea of (mostly) immaterial, (mostly) nonphysical nature spirits called fairies which can't be observed through scientific investigation?

Theists believe their existence is reliant upon the existence of God. If we exist than God must, too, exist.

This reliance is not the case for fairies.


Also, a question to the very many of you who said that human beings are not rational. What would you say of an irrational human being who says that human beings are not rational?

 

[RaptorWizard]

Also, a question to the very many of you who said that human beings are not rational. What would you say of an irrational human being who says that human beings are not rational?

This is a paradox. If an irrational man says humans aren't rational, then humans on their highest form would be rational, since a man who is irrational obviously must have flawed perceptions on the matter, though this irrational human, though he may in comparison to all other life on Earth be rational would, at least in comparison to the highest forms of humans, be irrational, kind of like in Einstein's theory of relativity, where absolute categories and definitions are all subjective and based upon points of reference, hence the irrational could be seen as rational from another angle.

 

[garbage]

In other words, rationality isn't binary.

 

[greenfairy]

When we live inside a myth, it becomes invisible.

For instance, if we are American, the myth of Americanism is entirely invisible.

And if the myth is invisible, the means of propagation, i.e., propaganda, is also invisible.

In fact the myth of Americanism has the greatest and most successful propaganda system the world has ever seen. And it is called Hollywood and advertising.

Well that's kind of true; it's just not a myth in the traditional sense.

Theists believe their existence is reliant upon the existence of God. If we exist than God must, too, exist.

This reliance is not the case for fairies.

Yeah ok, so creation/causation argument again. Which I think is weak, since you could make a better argument for Nature being the creator and the Universe creating itself (and what created God? Did s/he create him/her/self?); but nevertheless answers the question about what people think is a rational justification.

Also, a question to the very many of you who said that human beings are not rational. What would you say of an irrational human being who says that human beings are not rational?

It is a true observation from many points of view. Someone who is irrational most of the time can make true observations. Just as an unintelligent person can recognize both intelligent and unintelligent people. And if it's not true it is a matter of opinion, and anyone can have an opinion.

 

[Sniffles]

(and what created God? Did s/he create him/her/self?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAG08ptsAj0

The First Cause is called such for a reason. One can also go by Aristotle's description of God as "the unmoved mover". Otherwise you have infinite regress. The only real alternative then is to argue for an eternal universe(and even then that wouldn't necessarily prove a problem for theism).

 

[Coriolis]

Forgive me for continuing the argument, but you live in the midst of it. Why do you think you can see it?

Because I can and do. I recognize what you are describing, and have seen many other like examples. The more one sees, the more one becomes able to see, by learning what to look for.

In other words, rationality isn't binary.

Rational thought without accurate observations is as useless as observational skills without the ability to apply reason.

 

[greenfairy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAG08ptsAj0

The First Cause is called such for a reason. One can also go by Aristotle's description of God as "the unmoved mover". Otherwise you have infinite regress. The only real alternative then is to argue for an eternal universe(and even then that wouldn't necessarily prove a problem for theism).

Yeah I'm familiar with the infinite regress. I guess an eternal universe is the only solution, which is pretty much the way I see it. The only way I can't see that being a problem for the God idea is if God and the eternal universe are the same thing. I don't believe in a first cause. The problem with the argument is that if we are positing a first cause, then we are at the same time positing a causal chain, which has an arbitrary starting point; if it has a starting point, presumably it has a finishing point. And if it doesn't, then it goes infinitely in one direction; if it goes infinitely in one direction it essentially goes infinitely in the other direction, depending on a continuous future reference point. It's kind of non-cohesive. I mean, you're basing the argument on the universality of causation, but coming to "everything has a cause- except this one thing," which makes "everything has a cause" not true. If you believe in non-causality at all, you don't really need a first cause.

 

[Mole]

But surely your position could be extended to any culture and it's rituals? If that is the case how could anyone see their own rituals?

Quite so.

For example, we can't see the universe because we are inside the universe. So the universe is invisible to us. We can infer properties of the universe, but it remains forever unseen.

To generalise, this means that any environment is invisible, for when we are in an environment, we can't see it from the outside.

So Australia is invisible to me as American is invisible to you.

And as print is becoming the content of the electric media, like right in front of us now, so print is becoming visible but the environment of the electronic media is invisible.

 

[Mole]

Well that's kind of true; it's just not a myth in the traditional sense.

It's parochial to think there are only traditional myths, when there are modern myths as well.

All it means is that modern myths are invisible to you becaue you live inside them.

 

[Mole]

Because I can and do. I recognize what you are describing, and have seen many other like examples. The more one sees, the more one becomes able to see, by learning what to look for.

All environments, by their nature, are invisible. So it is impossible to extrapolate from what we can see to the invisible.

 

[Mole]

Theists believe their existence is reliant upon the existence of God. If we exist than God must, too, exist.

This reliance is not the case for fairies.

Also, a question to the very many of you who said that human beings are not rational. What would you say of an irrational human being who says that human beings are not rational?

But why is God invisible? God is invisible because God is our environment and all environments are invisible until this environment becomes the content of a new environment. And so far God has not become the content of a new environment and so remains invisible.

 

[greenfairy]

It's parochial to think there are only traditional myths, when there are modern myths as well.

All it means is that modern myths are invisible to you becaue you live inside them.

Invisible to most people. Although you are right in that it's probably impossible to 100% detach from the influence of one's native culture.

 

[Mole]

Invisible to most people. Although you are right in that it's probably impossible to 100% detach from the influence of one's native culture.

But look in my eyes and see yourself reflected.

Don't recognise your reflection? Or perhaps you don't like what you see?

 

[greenfairy]

But look in my eyes and see yourself reflected.

Don't recognise your reflection? Or perhaps you don't like what you see?

I don't know what you're getting at.

 

[Coriolis]

All environments, by their nature, are invisible. So it is impossible to extrapolate from what we can see to the invisible.

But look in my eyes and see yourself reflected.

Don't recognise your reflection? Or perhaps you don't like what you see?

You can't have it both ways. Either we can distance ourselves enough from our own environment to see it, or we cannot. It is only because we can that your remarks here have any value. You are correct in identifying observations of true outsiders as helpful in the attempt. It is much harder (though not impossible) to get this perspective on one's own.

 

[Cellmold]

Quite so.

For example, we can't see the universe because we are inside the universe. So the universe is invisible to us. We can infer properties of the universe, but it remains forever unseen.

To generalise, this means that any environment is invisible, for when we are in an environment, we can't see it from the outside.

So Australia is invisible to me as American is invisible to you.

And as print is becoming the content of the electric media, like right in front of us now, so print is becoming visible but the environment of the electronic media is invisible.

I agree for the most part, although I am not American and my own culture puzzles me so.

I do not believe that a countries culture and it's myths are completely hidden from all it's inhabitants, however this depends upon how immersed in that culture an individual is and how objective and final they take their culture to be.

 

[garbage]

But what Godded God?

Regarding fairies, I'm surprised at the lack of mention of Russel's teapot.

I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.[2]

Conterarguments, starting from those in the Wikipedia article, are also worth a look.

Philosopher Brian Garvey argues that with regard to the teapot, the analogy fails because the believer and non-believer are simply disagreeing about one item in the universe and may hold in common all other beliefs about the universe, which is not true of the atheist and the theist.

The literary critic James Wood, without believing in God, says that belief in God "is a good deal more reasonable than belief in a teapot" because God is a "grand and big idea" which "is not analogically disproved by reference to celestial teapots or vacuum cleaners, which lack the necessary bigness and grandeur" and "because God cannot be reified, cannot be turned into a mere thing"

 

[Mole]

I don't know what you're getting at.

Being inter-subjective, I can see myself in your eyes and you can see yourself in my eyes.

Babies, for instance, find their sense of self in their mother's eyes. The mother mirrors the self back to the baby.

And our brain has mirror neurons to do just this.