Is there any rational reason to care about rationality?

You seem to be saying that spending money on something other than medicine that could cure people constitutes "murder". That (surely) is an extreme position (and one that probably makes everyone who posts here a "murderer").

What "unnecessary slush" are you referring to? Perhaps you are not making yourself clear (my vague memory is that Hitchens accused Mother Theresa of sucking up to rich donors, and then spending the money they donated in ways of which he, as an atheist, disapproved. He also accused her of class warfare -- not offering the indigent Indians the same medical care she received herself, something you and I are also doubtless guilty of.). What constitutes "unnecessary slush"? Is ANYONE who spends money on unnecessary slush a murderer? Or only Mother Theresa?

Orwell (whom you evidently admire) did say that saints should always be judged guilty until proven innocent, but he didn't say they should be judged guilty of murder. Perhaps we can reduce Mother Theresa's charges to manslaughter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

You seem to be saying that spending money on something other than medicine that could cure people constitutes "murder". That (surely) is an extreme position (and one that probably makes everyone who posts here a "murderer").

---

No, you just didn't read it properly.

I did say:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Me

....that would cure people in your care...

---

The point of law is clear that if a person wilfully withholds life-saving medicine from people in their care, they will be charged - and hopefully found guilty, of murder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

What constitutes "unnecessary slush"?

---

Briefly: prayer mats and overseas trips instead of medicine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Orwell (whom you evidently admire) did say that saints should always be judged guilty until proven innocent, but he didn't say they should be judged guilty of murder. Perhaps we can reduce Mother Theresa's charges to manslaughter.

---

Yeah, I'd probably take manslaughter in a plea-bargain. That's the usual end conviction for parents as above.

Your link is a non-sequitur, Atheist. Preventing children from getting proper medical care, in this case, still didn't constitute "murder" -- the article mentions a similar case where the parents were charged with "Involuntary manslaughter". Mother Theresa was not a parent; she was not legally (or morally) required to provide medical care for anyone. Indigent Indians are not dependent children, despite lingering paternalistic attitudes on the part of their former colonial rulers. As far as I know, Mother Theresa did not prevent any Indians using her hospices from seeking medical care elsewhere. Every church (or movie theater, or sports stadium) was built with money that could have been spent on medical care for the indigent.

Of course I agree with you (and Hitchens) that the money Mother Theresa raised could have been better spent, just like we probably agree that the billions spent on building churches could be better spent. However, when you want to throw people in prison for disagreeing with us, I'm reminded of other jack-booted atheists -- like Joseph Stalin -- who saw no problem with outlawing freedom of thought and religion. It's reasonable to think Mother Theresa misspent money; it's not reasonable to think she should have been guillotined (or even thrown in prison) for it.

Hitchens' book, by the way, is entitled "Missionary Position".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

However, when you want to throw people in prison for disagreeing with us,...

---

What has "disagreeing with us" got to do with it. I'd throw them in prison for breaking the law.

I'll grant that I don't know what the Indian legal system requires for people under medical care, but in all the civilised countries I can think, if you have people under your medical care, your first responsibility is to provide for them, and withholding medicine will invite manslaughter charges. I accept that there isn't a deliberate attempt to kill, so murder is a bit over the top, but when there are as many deaths involved as in Theresa's name, I can cheerfully upgrade it from manslaughter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

...I'm reminded of other jack-booted atheists -- like Joseph Stalin ...

---

Stalin & Hitler in two consecutive posts, is that a record? (different threads,too!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Humans are pretty stupid, and without reason, no growth in knowledge would happen.

---

But is growth in knowledge important? Many uneducated people live happy and contented lives. Many "seekers after knowledge" are driven, unhappy people.

I mean as a species, not individually.

I think the best use of rationality is problem solving. Irrational people often find themselves in messes that, firstly, could've been prevented with some rational planning and, secondly, could be solved if they had the rationality to know how to solve it. Educating myself on "the art of rationality" has really transformed the way in which I approach life and problems, and it's made things (even bad things) much easier to deal with. So I certainly think rationality has its utilitarian aspects. On the other hand:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisiacovetti

I came to feel that not every question does, in fact, have any rational answer. "What is the meaning of life?" "Does God exist?" "Why does evil exist?" "Why is murder wrong?" "Why does reason itself matter?"

---

There is a school of philosophy that says that reason/logic can't tell you anything new you don't already know. The thing about questions like these is that there isn't any external, objective answer, so there really isn't a way in which to reason your way to a correct answer. Things like "what is the meaning of life?" assumes that life has some objective meaning that can be found outside ourselves. Similarly, "why does evil exist?" and "why is murder wrong?" assume that there is something objective as evil, or that murder is actually wrong. The truth of these matters is that we come pre-programmed to survive, reproduce, and be happy, so when things threaten that we call them "evil" and "wrong." These terms describe our subjective reaction to external events on us, and they "exist" because evolution has programmed us to survive. Similarly, it's programmed other beings to survive as well, and sometimes one being surviving means making it so another being doesn't survive, and, in such a scenario, it's only "evil" to the one that doesn't survive. You can't reason your way to God's existence either, since existence isn't something you can prove by reason. You may can reason it's more or less likely given the evidence, and then it will come down to how you assess that evidence, but that has as much to do with assimilating knowledge as opposed to reason. Similarly, we can only answer the evil/wrong question because of our discovery of evolution and how it affects us mentally and socially. So there's another case of science leading to facts that answer certain questions. Sometimes the answers turn out to be completely different than what we expected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

I think the best use of rationality is problem solving. Irrational people often find themselves in messes that, firstly, could've been prevented with some rational planning and, secondly, could be solved if they had the rationality to know how to solve it. Educating myself on "the art of rationality" has really transformed the way in which I approach life and problems, and it's made things (even bad things) much easier to deal with. So I certainly think rationality has its utilitarian aspects. On the other hand:

There is a school of philosophy that says that reason/logic can't tell you anything new you don't already know. The thing about questions like these is that there isn't any external, objective answer, so there really isn't a way in which to reason your way to a correct answer. Things like "what is the meaning of life?" assumes that life has some objective meaning that can be found outside ourselves. Similarly, "why does evil exist?" and "why is murder wrong?" assume that there is something objective as evil, or that murder is actually wrong. The truth of these matters is that we come pre-programmed to survive, reproduce, and be happy, so when things threaten that we call them "evil" and "wrong." These terms describe our subjective reaction to external events on us, and they "exist" because evolution has programmed us to survive. Similarly, it's programmed other beings to survive as well, and sometimes one being surviving means making it so another being doesn't survive, and, in such a scenario, it's only "evil" to the one that doesn't survive. You can't reason your way to God's existence either, since existence isn't something you can prove by reason. You may can reason it's more or less likely given the evidence, and then it will come down to how you assess that evidence, but that has as much to do with assimilating knowledge as opposed to reason. Similarly, we can only answer the evil/wrong question because of our discovery of evolution and how it affects us mentally and socially. So there's another case of science leading to facts that answer certain questions. Sometimes the answers turn out to be completely different than what we expected.

---

There exists no question at all that you may reason to a correct answer as a matter of fact. Reasoning doesn't work. It's an old vestige of obsolete deductive efforts, stupidly called logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cafolini

There exists no question at all that you may reason to a correct answer as a matter of fact. Reasoning doesn't work. It's an old vestige of obsolete deductive efforts, stupidly called logic.

---

These are much better than the Random Deepak Chopra Quote Generator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cafolini

There exists no question at all that you may reason to a correct answer as a matter of fact. Reasoning doesn't work. It's an old vestige of obsolete deductive efforts, stupidly called logic.

---

While I would agree that reasoning and logic have their limits, I can't go as far as you do here. It still remains true that if you have true premises with valid inferences then you will end up with a true conclusion. On the other hand, it's often the truthfulness of those premises that ends up being questioned. We often try to back track as far as is possible to find premises we deem are true. But, in general, I do agree that deductive efforts are inevitably limited. Most of the best usage of and work in modern logic is being done in inductive modes in areas like decision theory and the various usages of Bayes' Theorem, which are forms of logic and reasoning. People should embrace probabilistic reasoning more than they tend to.

Induction is disguised deduction. The lab cannot provide all possibilities. Induction is a bigger fraud than mere stupid deductions. Good inferences are drawn without reasoning from indirect thinking, which is what the faudulent fascists call "weak proof."
Multiple choice examinations guide the fraud with not even an infinitesimal of possibilities. Logic is stricly symbolic or it is fake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cafolini

Induction is disguised deduction. The lab cannot provide all possibilities. Induction is a bigger fraud than mere stupid deductions. Good inferences are drawn without reasoning from indirect thinking, which is what the faudulent fascists call "weak proof."
Multiple choice examinations guide the fraud with not even an infinitesimal of possibilities. Logic is stricly symbolic or it is fake.

---

(my bold)

You really ought to print a book of these, they are pure gold.

The bolded sentence is another absolute classic.

I'm surprised you didn't bold "Induction is disguised deduction." That literally made me do a double-take... a bit like saying blue is disguised green.

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

What has "disagreeing with us" got to do with it. I'd throw them in prison for breaking the law.

I'll grant that I don't know what the Indian legal system requires for people under medical care, but in all the civilised countries I can think, if you have people under your medical care, your first responsibility is to provide for them, and withholding medicine will invite manslaughter charges. I accept that there isn't a deliberate attempt to kill, so murder is a bit over the top, but when there are as many deaths involved as in Theresa's name, I can cheerfully upgrade it from manslaughter. [ /QUOTE]

---

Mother Theresa was a nun, not a medical doctor. She provided “hospices” for dying, indigent Indians. A hospice is not a hospital – it is “a place of rest and shelter”.

Therefore, Mother Theresa did not have “people under (her) medical care.” If you want medical care, you should go to a doctor, not a nun. If The Atheist was gravely ill, I doubt he would run down to the nearest Nunnery and demand treatment (perhaps threatening to arrest and imprison the nuns if they failed to provide it).

Mother Theresa publicly stated that she did not provide medical care in her hospices; as a nun, she felt it was her duty to love the dying, indigent Indians, but she had neither the means nor the training to doctor them. She was more interested in her patients’ (and her nuns’) souls than in their bodies. The Atheist doubtless finds this ridiculous, as he is entitled to. However, when he argues that it is (or should be) criminal, he is arguing against freedom of thought, freedom of religion, and the economic freedom to spend one’s money as one chooses.

I’ll grant that while Mother Theresa had no more moral responsibility to provide medical care to indigent Indians than The Atheist or Christopher Hitchens, she did have more opportunity. For Hitchens, The Atheist, and me, out of sight is out of mind, and we can cheerfully ignore suffering on the other side of the world. Mother Theresa was (at least) confronted with the question of how to spend the money she raised. However, this is a moral issue, and should not be a legal one.

If Mother Theresa is guilty of manslaughter – so are Christopher Hitchens and the Atheist (and the rest of us, probably).

Quote:

---

Stalin & Hitler in two consecutive posts, is that a record? (different threads,too!)

---

False accusations do you no credit, Atheist, although, in your case, you can make use of the traditional (although extra-legal) excuse. Ignorance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

I'm surprised you didn't bold "Induction is disguised deduction." That literally made me do a double-take... a bit like saying blue is disguised green.

---

The whole thing was worth bolding!

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Mother Theresa was a nun, not a medical doctor. She provided “hospices” for dying, indigent Indians. A hospice is not a hospital – it is “a place of rest and shelter”.

Therefore, Mother Theresa did not have “people under (her) medical care.” If you want medical care, you should go to a doctor, not a nun.

---

Administrators and owners of hospices, rest homes, hospitals and many other types of care facility are most often not medical doctors. A rest home is a perfect analogy, because while people go there to wait for death, the rest home owner - hardly ever a doctor - has a legal duty of care to the residents to delay it for as long as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

If The Atheist was gravely ill, I doubt he would run down to the nearest Nunnery and demand treatment (perhaps threatening to arrest and imprison the nuns if they failed to provide it).

---

Are you going to be dishonest all the way through this post? It wasn't a nunnery and the analogy is nonsensical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Mother Theresa publicly stated that she did not provide medical care in her hospices; as a nun, she felt it was her duty to love the dying, indigent Indians, but she had neither the means nor the training to doctor them.

---

But she sure as hell had the cash, and it's the bees that bring the doctors. Publicly stated, eh? How many of her patients do you reckon could read, let alone read the papers daily?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

She was more interested in her patients’ (and her nuns’) souls than in their bodies. The Atheist doubtless finds this ridiculous, as he is entitled to. However, when he argues that it is (or should be) criminal, he is arguing against freedom of thought, freedom of religion, and the economic freedom to spend one’s money as one chooses.

---

More nonsense. I'm perfectly happy for her to have provided hospice care and worry about their souls - I love the irony that she died basically an atheist, too - but it has nothing whatsoever to do with freedom of expression or religion. I'm talking about legal responsibilities.

She specifically enticed people into her hospices to die, knowing full well that many of them were curable. Try the rest home analogy again. If an owner failed to provide medical care to residents, he would be nailed to the wall: by law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

I’ll grant that while Mother Theresa had no more moral responsibility to provide medical care to indigent Indians than The Atheist or Christopher Hitchens, she did have more opportunity. For Hitchens, The Atheist, and me, out of sight is out of mind, and we can cheerfully ignore suffering on the other side of the world. Mother Theresa was (at least) confronted with the question of how to spend the money she raised. However, this is a moral issue, and should not be a legal one.

If Mother Theresa is guilty of manslaughter – so are Christopher Hitchens and the Atheist (and the rest of us, probably).

False accusations do you no credit, Atheist, although, in your case, you can make use of the traditional (although extra-legal) excuse. Ignorance.

---

And lovely to see the outpouring of nonsense right to the end.

If you have nothing to add, why bother posting absurdly nonsensical analogies and statements that bear no relationship to the question?

You understand implicitly the difference between what Theresa did and the everyday person who apathetically ignores the problem, yet you try to equate them. Nice work.