Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

Back to the original topic:

God is just another ancient deity and I see no logic in staying open minded towards obvious superstition.

Do you suggest, then, that certain ideas (e.g. ) may be placed onto the Rejected pile without sufficient/conclusive reason, as this topic's OP describes? Or am I reading too much into your words...?

The point is always the same - that there are degrees of plausibility. There are potentially an almost infinite number of possible claims that can be made about a wide range of subjects so one must prioritise. That sometimes means 'casually dismissing an idea that doesn't conform to [my] views'. The less plausible an idea, the more "casual" the dismissal.

...It seems I wasn't. Finally, after all these posts, someone is trying to justify doing what I described. But one further clarification is in order:

Using the '3 piles' model — Accepted, Maybe and Rejected — do you suggest that some ideas may be taken from the Maybe pile (where all ideas start off), and "casually" placed onto the Rejected pile?

[Sculptor1]

Gee, have you so much to do that you can't be bothered actually reading what is said rather than getting triggered on buzzwords?

The OP stated:

We now get to my problem "with logic". There are some philosophers, and others too, of course, who will casually dismiss an idea that doesn't conform to their views and beliefs, but which cannot be disproved, and thereby dismissed.

I raised an example of this with religious claims - WHICH IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE OP. However, you unilaterally, and illogically, decided that it's not an appropriate example.

The point is always the same - that there are degrees of plausibility. There are potentially an almost infinite number of possible claims that can be made about a wide range of subjects so one must prioritise. That sometimes means 'casually dismissing an idea that doesn't conform to [my] views'. The less plausible an idea, the more "casual" the dismissal.

This whole thread is an waste of time.
PC seems to think that the version of some people, in his head, is tha only example worth talking about. Yet he has refused to explain what that example is.
I have offered a couple of probably examples, both of which he rejected when the argument looked like it was no going in the right directlion.
He's just not playing the game.

[Pattern-chaser]

Back to the original topic:

God is just another ancient deity and I see no logic in staying open minded towards obvious superstition.

Do you suggest, then, that certain ideas (e.g. ) may be placed onto the Rejected pile without sufficient/conclusive reason, as this topic's OP describes? Or am I reading too much into your words...?

The point is always the same - that there are degrees of plausibility. There are potentially an almost infinite number of possible claims that can be made about a wide range of subjects so one must prioritise. That sometimes means 'casually dismissing an idea that doesn't conform to [my] views'. The less plausible an idea, the more "casual" the dismissal.

...It seems I wasn't. Finally, after all these posts, someone is trying to justify doing what I described. But one further clarification is in order:

Using the '3 piles' model — Accepted, Maybe and Rejected — do you suggest that some ideas may be taken from the Maybe pile (where all ideas start off), and "casually" placed onto the Rejected pile?

Oh, and do you have a logical justification for your "casual" rejection, or is your decision, like so many human decisions, based on reasons that are not logical? I forgot to add this.

[Sy Borg]

Back to the original topic:

God is just another ancient deity and I see no logic in staying open minded towards obvious superstition.

Do you suggest, then, that certain ideas (e.g. 👆) may be placed onto the Rejected pile without sufficient/conclusive reason, as this topic's OP describes? Or am I reading too much into your words...?

The point is always the same - that there are degrees of plausibility. There are potentially an almost infinite number of possible claims that can be made about a wide range of subjects so one must prioritise. That sometimes means 'casually dismissing an idea that doesn't conform to [my] views'. The less plausible an idea, the more "casual" the dismissal.

...It seems I wasn't. Finally, after all these posts, someone is trying to justify doing what I described. But one further clarification is in order:

Using the '3 piles' model — Accepted, Maybe and Rejected — do you suggest that some ideas may be taken from the Maybe pile (where all ideas start off), and "casually" placed onto the Rejected pile?

Oh, and do you have a logical justification for your "casual" rejection, or is your decision, like so many human decisions, based on reasons that are not logical? I forgot to add this. 😳

What would be your logical justification for casually dismissing the existence of Santa Claus?

[Fanman]

Sy Borg,

What would be your logical justification for casually dismissing the existence of Santa Claus?

A nice person. Who gives freely and abundantly, going out of their way for the happiness of others without wanting anything in return? Logical impossibility.

[Pattern-chaser]

God is just another ancient deity and I see no logic in staying open minded towards obvious superstition.

Do you suggest, then, that certain ideas (e.g. ) may be placed onto the Rejected pile without sufficient/conclusive reason, as this topic's OP describes? Or am I reading too much into your words...?

The point is always the same - that there are degrees of plausibility. There are potentially an almost infinite number of possible claims that can be made about a wide range of subjects so one must prioritise. That sometimes means 'casually dismissing an idea that doesn't conform to [my] views'. The less plausible an idea, the more "casual" the dismissal.

...It seems I wasn't. Finally, after all these posts, someone is trying to justify doing what I described. But one further clarification is in order:

Using the '3 piles' model — Accepted, Maybe and Rejected — do you suggest that some ideas may be taken from the Maybe pile (where all ideas start off), and "casually" placed onto the Rejected pile?

Oh, and do you have a logical justification for your "casual" rejection, or is your decision, like so many human decisions, based on reasons that are not logical?

What would be your logical justification for casually dismissing the existence of Santa Claus?

If dismissal has a "logical justification", it is not "casual".

Evidence. The Santa Claus story is just that — a story. It was created as such, perhaps as a Christian (?) teaching-story or moral tale. There is no evidence for Santa's existence, which means little, as it might be only that evidence is lacking or undiscovered. But it's a contributory factor. Then there is the near-universal consensus that Santa was deliberately invented, as a children's story. There is also next-to-no-one who asserts Santa's existence. Overall, I believe there is sufficient evidence to reject the idea that Santa has actual real-world existence.

If asked to seriously consider the real-world existence of Santa, we might be a little more critical in our requirement for evidence. But no-one, myself included, is tempted to adopt such a formal approach. All the evidence suggests that Santa is a deliberate fiction, and little or nothing points in any other direction. So the non-existence conclusion seems justified.

But you answered my questions with a question, that I have answered. Now it's your turn?

Using the '3 piles' model — Accepted, Maybe and Rejected — do you suggest that some ideas may be taken from the Maybe pile (where all ideas start off), and "casually" placed onto the Rejected pile?

Oh, and do you have a logical justification for your "casual" rejection, or is your decision, like so many human decisions, based on reasons that are not logical?

Do you (logically) have sufficient reason(s) to add God to the Rejected pile? If so, what is it/are they?

[Sy Borg]

God is just another ancient deity and I see no logic in staying open minded towards obvious superstition.

Do you suggest, then, that certain ideas (e.g. 👆) may be placed onto the Rejected pile without sufficient/conclusive reason, as this topic's OP describes? Or am I reading too much into your words...?

The point is always the same - that there are degrees of plausibility. There are potentially an almost infinite number of possible claims that can be made about a wide range of subjects so one must prioritise. That sometimes means 'casually dismissing an idea that doesn't conform to [my] views'. The less plausible an idea, the more "casual" the dismissal.

...It seems I wasn't. Finally, after all these posts, someone is trying to justify doing what I described. But one further clarification is in order:

Using the '3 piles' model — Accepted, Maybe and Rejected — do you suggest that some ideas may be taken from the Maybe pile (where all ideas start off), and "casually" placed onto the Rejected pile?

Oh, and do you have a logical justification for your "casual" rejection, or is your decision, like so many human decisions, based on reasons that are not logical?

What would be your logical justification for casually dismissing the existence of Santa Claus?

If dismissal has a "logical justification", it is not "casual".

Evidence. The Santa Claus story is just that — a story. It was created as such, perhaps as a Christian (?) teaching-story or moral tale. There is no evidence for Santa's existence, which means little, as it might be only that evidence is lacking or undiscovered. But it's a contributory factor. Then there is the near-universal consensus that Santa was deliberately invented, as a children's story. There is also next-to-no-one who asserts Santa's existence. Overall, I believe there is sufficient evidence to reject the idea that Santa has actual real-world existence.

If asked to seriously consider the real-world existence of Santa, we might be a little more critical in our requirement for evidence. But no-one, myself included, is tempted to adopt such a formal approach. All the evidence suggests that Santa is a deliberate fiction, and little or nothing points in any other direction. So the non-existence conclusion seems justified.

But you answered my questions with a question, that I have answered. Now it's your turn?

Using the '3 piles' model — Accepted, Maybe and Rejected — do you suggest that some ideas may be taken from the Maybe pile (where all ideas start off), and "casually" placed onto the Rejected pile?

Oh, and do you have a logical justification for your "casual" rejection, or is your decision, like so many human decisions, based on reasons that are not logical?

Do you (logically) have sufficient reason(s) to add God to the Rejected pile? If so, what is it/are they?

I think the three piles system is not helpful. Dawkins 7-point scale for religious belief is more practical. For instance, if 1 represents total belief and 7 represents total atheism, then Dawkins places himself as a "6" when it comes to belief in God. In the Accepted, Maybe and Rejected piles, he would be listed as putting religions in the rejected pile, with no degrees of certainty or uncertainty.

It is pointless for me to answer your first question unless you give me specifics. Suggest examples and I will give my views.

For me, casual rejections don't need logical justification. It's usually very, very obvious, eg. Santa, flat Earth, faked Moon landing, belief that that Australia does not exist ...

As for God, as with Dawkins, I think it's as safe to dismiss God of the Bible as it is to dismiss Zeus or Odin. However, there may be some overall intelligence of the universe, just that Biblical writers painted that intelligence as being identical to that of a Middle Eastern man of 2,000 years ago. As mentioned before, it's possible that there are other dimensions or that prior universes left behind God-like beings, evolved over quadrillions of years. Still, I am very confident that, if a deity exists, it will be almost nothing like that which was described in the Bible or Koran.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think the three piles system is not helpful. Dawkins 7-point scale for religious belief is more practical. For instance, if 1 represents total belief and 7 represents total atheism, then Dawkins places himself as a "6" when it comes to belief in God. In the Accepted, Maybe and Rejected piles, he would be listed as putting religions in the rejected pile, with no degrees of certainty or uncertainty.

I take your points, and in general, I agree with them. But this discussion is about logic, where sliding scales can be less useful/informative.

It is pointless for me to answer your first question unless you give me specifics. Suggest examples and I will give my views.

This is the Sculptor1 approach to 'debate'. First you 'answer' a question with questions of your own. Then, if that doesn't work, you claim the question is too vague — or some similar term — to answer without clarification. And so on. This gets us nowhere, and I can't be bothered trying to push you into answering what was asked.

This isn't even about God, except by coincidence. It's about whether any idea/subject/proposition can be rejected without sufficient reason (where "sufficient reason" is reason enough to justify — logically — reaching a particular conclusion).

For me, casual rejections don't need logical justification. It's usually very, very obvious, eg. Santa, flat Earth, faked Moon landing, belief that that Australia does not exist ...

Logically speaking, all rejections — or acceptances, or just returning a 'maybe' to the Maybe pile of possibilities — need a "logical justification". Without it, one is merely 'reasoning' based on feeling, belief and opinion. There's nothing wrong with the latter, in most circumstances. But in a logical context, it is verboten.

Santa may be safely rejected for reasons I described only a few posts ago. Flat Earthers may be rejected by strong and plentiful contradictory evidence. Faked moon landing cannot be safely rejected, in logical terms, but it is not really credible. So I, personally, would leave it well alone, in the Maybe pile. If someone else cares to delve more closely, then good for them... Belief that Australia doesn't exist, like flat-earthers, can safely be rejected on the basis of strong and plentiful evidence, of which you are a part!

All of those are justified rejections; they are rejected for logically-sufficient reason.

The same logic must surely lead us to leave God on the Maybe pile, for there is not, nor will there ever be, logically-sufficient evidence to move it onto the Accepted or Rejected piles. Until God manifests in person, of course...



Casual rejection is laziness, IMO, and illogical too. Each and every step in a logical argument, or while following a logical chain of reasoning, must be backed by sufficient reason to take that step. Small or large, each step must be justified, or your argument is not logically-valid. That may not matter, in other contexts, but in this one, it does. A lot. Because without it, logic is absent.

[Fanman]

Pattern-chaser,

Casual rejection is laziness, IMO, and illogical too. Each and every step in a logical argument, or while following a logical chain of reasoning, must be backed by sufficient reason to take that step. Small or large, each step must be justified, or your argument is not logically-valid. That may not matter, in other contexts, but in this one, it does. A lot. Because without it, logic is absent.

But if something is self-evidently false, why can’t it be casually rejected? Atheists reject God and Santa Clause via the same epistemology. The concept is ridiculous to them based on what they know (evidence-based) to be veridical.

[Sy Borg]

I think the three piles system is not helpful. Dawkins 7-point scale for religious belief is more practical. For instance, if 1 represents total belief and 7 represents total atheism, then Dawkins places himself as a "6" when it comes to belief in God. In the Accepted, Maybe and Rejected piles, he would be listed as putting religions in the rejected pile, with no degrees of certainty or uncertainty.

I take your points, and in general, I agree with them. But this discussion is about logic, where sliding scales can be less useful/informative.

It is pointless for me to answer your first question unless you give me specifics. Suggest examples and I will give my views.

😧 This is the Sculptor1 approach to 'debate'. 😥 First you 'answer' a question with questions of your own. Then, if that doesn't work, you claim the question is too vague — or some similar term — to answer without clarification. And so on. This gets us nowhere, and I can't be bothered trying to push you into answering what was asked.

This isn't even about God, except by coincidence. It's about whether any idea/subject/proposition can be rejected without sufficient reason (where "sufficient reason" is reason enough to justify — logically — reaching a particular conclusion).

What does one hope to achieve by having an "approach"? When I say I want examples to work with, I want examples to work with. Please just answer the question so we can get back on track.

We've driven the God bus far enough down the road to irritate Gee, so maybe move on from that to avoid earning his ire again. What other examples do you have of ideas that are unfairly casually rejected?

[Pattern-chaser]

Casual rejection is laziness, IMO, and illogical too. Each and every step in a logical argument, or while following a logical chain of reasoning, must be backed by sufficient reason to take that step. Small or large, each step must be justified, or your argument is not logically-valid. That may not matter, in other contexts, but in this one, it does. A lot. Because without it, logic is absent.

But if something is self-evidently false, why can’t it be casually rejected?

It is my opinion that there is no such thing as a self-evident 'truth'. If something is true or correct, there will be supporting material of some kind, assuming a context that embraces serious and considered thought, as philosophy (for example) does. If there is no external reason why something should be true or correct, then how can it be true or correct? All logically-valid conclusions have evidence, or the like, providing sufficient reason to justify that conclusion.

Atheists reject God and Santa Clause via the same epistemology. The concept is ridiculous to them based on what they know (evidence-based) to be veridical.

What "they know" is not evidence-based, as there is no evidence. For or against. God's existence is possible, but that's as far as we can go, logically and philosophically. For sure, there are many who reject the idea, but they do so without sufficient reason to logically-justify that conclusion. That is the whole point of this topic.

[Pattern-chaser]

What does one hope to achieve by having an "approach"? When I say I want examples to work with, I want examples to work with. Please just answer the question so we can get back on track.

We've driven the God bus far enough down the road to irritate Gee, so maybe move on from that to avoid earning his ire again. What other examples do you have of ideas that are unfairly casually rejected?

I think you misremember. This topic had more or less petered-out, without a single commentator defending the idea of rejecting ideas without sufficient reason. And then, just as I had assumed it was done, you came along and suggested that God's existence could/should be casually rejected.

You offered the example, when no-one else had. [Thank you!]




P.S. I have not mentioned "unfair" rejection, but only unjustified (and "casual") rejection.

[Fanman]

Pattern-chaser,

What "they know" is not evidence-based, as there is no evidence. For or against. God's existence is possible, but that's as far as we can go, logically and philosophically. For sure, there are many who reject the idea, but they do so without sufficient reason to logically-justify that conclusion. That is the whole point of this topic.

What I mean is that what atheists know about the nature of reality (which is evidence-based) does not support the existence of a God. For them, that is sufficient reason.

[Sy Borg]

What does one hope to achieve by having an "approach"? When I say I want examples to work with, I want examples to work with. Please just answer the question so we can get back on track.

We've driven the God bus far enough down the road to irritate Gee, so maybe move on from that to avoid earning his ire again. What other examples do you have of ideas that are unfairly casually rejected?

I think you misremember. This topic had more or less petered-out, without a single commentator defending the idea of rejecting ideas without sufficient reason. And then, just as I had assumed it was done, you came along and suggested that God's existence could/should be casually rejected.

You offered the example, when no-one else had. [Thank you!]




P.S. I have not mentioned "unfair" rejection, but only unjustified (and "casual") rejection.

Just as well I did provide an example or the thread would have fallen into complete nebulousness.

Also remember, when an idea is "casually" dismissed, it may be the thirtieth time in discussion that the idea reappears. What appears to be casualness is normally fatigue from dealing with the same points, over and over.

[Pattern-chaser]

Pattern-chaser,

What I mean is that what atheists know about the nature of reality (which is evidence-based) does not support the existence of a God.

Yes, and what I mean is that what atheists know about the nature of reality (which is evidence-based) does not support the non-existence of a God.

The whole point is that the evidence is inconclusive — not conclusive; not sufficient reason to justify a conclusion.

For them, that is sufficient reason.

To them, it might seem reason enough. But, in accordance with logic and reason, there is not sufficient reason to reach the conclusion that atheists reach. And the opposite also applies: in accordance with logic and reason, there is not sufficient reason to reach the conclusion that believers reach.

But please remember that this discussion is not about the (non-)existence of God, it's about having logically-sufficient reason to justify a conclusion. Any conclusion. Not just God.