Faith can never conflict with reason

Originally posted by ivanhoe
You are simply claiming the popular notion that all faiths are eqally true and all cultures are equally "valuable". Right ?

No. I am not. Not in the slightest.

You are. You said 'Faith can never conflict with reason.'
Please try to remember this.

I say:
A culture that objectifies women to the point where they
have to modify their behavior to the degree where they
where burkas or even wigs is unreasonable, whether or
not they claim God inspires such a thing. Their using of
faith as a justification has no currency with me: they are being
unreasonable.

They would argue, like you do with Roman Catholicism, that
their point of view is wholly reasonable, and that the basis of
their faith is 'natural moral law as dictated by God.'

Because the two points of view are irreconcilable, one must
conclude that your statement is false.

Nemesio

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Dear Dr.Scribbles, is Nemesio making any sense ?

There are precisely 2 people in this discussion who are making sense, and he is one of them.

He is observing that you are making a universal claim about the nature of faith. He is also observing that you can't really believe it because you don't think that it applies for all instances of faith, but only a subset of them. He is suggesting that you refine your claim accordingly, and say that the Catholic faith, rather than faith, has the property in question.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
There are precisely 2 people in this discussion who are making sense, and he is one of them.

He is observing that you are making a universal claim about the nature of faith. He is also observing that you can't really believe it because you don't think that it applies for all instances of faith, but only a subset of them. He is suggesting that ...[text shortened]... m accordingly, and say that the Catholic faith, rather than faith, has the property in question.

Is that what he's trying to say ? Is this true, Nemesio ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Is that what he's trying to say ? Is this true, Nemesio ?

Are you drunk or something?!

I've said this repeatedly and you keep introducing things
(cultural relativism!?) that have nothing to do with what I
am saying.

How is it that DrS has the secret decoder ring that makes it
simple to understand what I am saying and you do not?

You know what? Don't answer any of these questions. I will
answer yours: Yes, DrS has summarized the point I was making
(which itself is an elaboration on my statement: 'so the subject
should read 'My Roman Catholic faith never conflicts with reason.'😉

Nemesio

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
"Chocolate is a good tasting ice cream" is not something that can be believed. It has no truth value. I assure you, the confusion lies with you.

You are truly remarkable.

Ask anyone if "chocolate is a good tasting ice cream" they will say yes or no - true or false. It is impossible for me to say yes to the question if I don't believe it is true! To believe means you think it is true. I believe "chocolate is good tasting ice cream" because in MY opinion it taste good. If I did NOT believe this - it would be incoherent to say it.

You are confusing "belief" and "know". But know is predicated by belief. What you know is (at minimum) what you believe is true. You can not "know" what you believe is false.

a = chocolate ice cream. This is the logical subject.
b = good tasting ice cream. This is the logical predicate.

All a is b. This a proposition in classical logical form.

By the Law on Non-contradiction "All a is b" must be either true or false, but not both. To quote Aristotle ""One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time."

But that fact that it must be true or false does not make it knowledge. If it is in your opinion true, you believe the proposition "All a is b" is true. You don't believe an opinion if you agree with "All a is b" - you believe the proposition "all a is b".

(All a is b) is a proposition.

[ (All a is b) is T ] is an opinion.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
There are precisely 2 people in this discussion who are making sense, and he is one of them.

He is observing that you are making a universal claim about the nature of faith. He is also observing that you can't really believe it because you don't think that it applies for all instances of faith, but only a subset of them. He is suggesting that ...[text shortened]... m accordingly, and say that the Catholic faith, rather than faith, has the property in question.

..... In one of my posts I wrote the following:

"The Roman-Catholic religion does not contradict logic or reason in any principal way."

Originally posted by Nemesio
Are you drunk or something?!

I've said this repeatedly and you keep introducing things
(cultural relativism!?) that have nothing to do with what I
am saying.

How is it that DrS has the secret decoder ring that makes it
simple to understand what I am saying and you do not?

You know what? Don't answer any of these questions. I will
answer your ...[text shortened]... o the subject
should read 'My Roman Catholic faith never conflicts with reason.'😉

Nemesio

I wrote in one of my previous posts:

"The Roman-Catholic religion does not contradict logic or reason in any principal way."

Originally posted by ivanhoe
I wrote in one of my previous posts:

"The Roman-Catholic religion does not contradict logic or reason in any principal way."

Is the term 'Roman-Catholic Religion' synonymous with 'Faith?'

Not to a Jew or Moslem.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Coletti


Ask anyone if "chocolate is a good tasting ice cream" they will say yes or no - true or false.

If I say to you, "Have a nice day!" and you reply "False!", does that make "Have a nice day!" a proposition? Of course not.

Refer to my post to Nemesio. When the respondent says Yes, he is really answering the question "Is it your opinion that chocolate is a good-tasting ice cream," which is a proposition. Even though the interrogator phrases it colloquially, the respondent understands the semantics behind the question and interprets it correctly. After all, if you are asked a yes or no question, there has to be an underlying proposition in play, otherwise the conversation is as meaningless and uncommunicative as ours is. The respondent deduces what that underlying proposition is and gives his answer accordingly. If he can't find an underlying proposition, then he has no business answering Yes or No.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Do you think Coletti's ideas on the matter at hand are accurate? Why don't you rebuke him for his nonsense like I do, if you are such a man of reason? If faith must always be in harmony with reason, then it must be your finding that Coletti cannot really be a man of faith, because he has such a warped notion about elementary principles of reason. Why don't you tell him so?

You are the one claiming to be the representative of reason, not me. Why don't you enlighten Coletti and all of us about the basics of logic ? Maybe you can throw in some interesting links, which confirm your stances, descriptions and definitions. It could become rather interesting this way.

Dr.Scribbles: " ... because he has such a warped notion about elementary principles of reason."

You mean of course the elementary principles of formal logic, no ? Please enlighten us about these elementary principles, Dear Doctor, in a cristal clear way. What is Coletti doing wrong ? For a man of your intellectual status it must be peanuts to explain this to us.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
You are the one claiming to be the representative of reason, not me. Why don't you enlighten Coletti and all of us about the basics of logic ? Maybe you can throw in some interesting links, which confirm your stances, descriptions and definitions. It could become rather interesting this way.

Dr.Scribbles: " ... because he has such a warped notion ab ti doing wrong ? For a man of your intellectual status it must be peanuts to explain this to us.

Perhaps he should do this in another thread as not to distract
ourselves from the position in the thread in question (as summarized
by the subject).

I, again, suggest that the subject be modified to read 'Roman
Catholic faith can never conflict with reason' since, as it stands, the
statement is blatently false.

We can proceed when you agree with this or demonstrate why your
statement is true.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Is the term 'Roman-Catholic Religion' synonymous with 'Faith?'

Not to a Jew or Moslem.

Nemesio

If you read the article, the speech, it is perfectly clear it is about the Roman-Catholic Faith ..... this will be clear to a Jew or a Muslim .... but apparently not to you.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
What is Coletti doing wrong ? For a man of your intellectual status it must be peanuts to explain this to us.

First, I want you to say whether you agree with or endorse Coletti's instructional statements.

Are you going to pretend that you don't find them laughable? They are like an uninformed parody of a philosophy professor, little more than a haphazard collection of logical sounding terms quilted together in an incoherent pattern. Come on, Ivanhoe, I know you're well-versed in the basic principles of propositions and truth values. Are you really going to advocate the things that Coletti says, or stand by while others might be persuaded by them, trusting that he knows what he is talking about?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
If you read the article, the speech, it is perfectly clear it is about the Roman-Catholic Faith ..... this will be clear to a Jew or a Muslim .... but apparently not to you.

Then why the deceptive title?

Originally posted by Nemesio
You've just exploded your own case:

'Pepsi tastes better than Coke.'

I say true, and, to my mouth, this is right.
You say false, and, to your mouth, this is right.

It has both values with equal validity, not 'either'
value. Therefore it is an opinion, not a proposition.

Nemesio

It is true and false but not in the same respect. And a proposition must true or false in the same respect at the same time and the same place.

'Pepsi tastes better than Coke' is true with respect to Nemesio's taste buds.

'Pepsi tastes better than Coke' is false with respect to Coletti's taste buds.

But 'Pepsi tastes better than Coke' is not true AND false in the same respect to Nemesio's taste buds.

You can also say:

'Pepsi tastes better than Coke' is 'either true OR false' with respect to Nemesio. (This is the logical exclusive 'or' that means "either but not both".)

So you may not know if it is true or false - but you can know it is not both true and false in the same respect. That would be a violation of the Law of Non-contradiction.