Do you consider reliance on empirical evidence and rationality to determine truth...?

Question

as an admirable process of thought, or the sign of a closed mind?

Thanks in advance, philosophers. I usually stick to the Religion and Spirituality section, but thought I may be better off asking this here.

Answer 1

Welcome to the light side of the force. I can only assume that someone who would ask this question and cop to being a regular in the religion section doesn't put much stock in philosophy or science.

First of all, what other means of scratching on the doggy-door of truth is there? Empirical evidence means using our senses (enhanced by tools and technology) to take a look around at our world and see what we can see. Write it down and compare it to what other people have seen as well and you have science. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Rationality means thinking about things. Yeah it gets pretty complicated sometimes with fuzzy logic or superrationality, but however you spin it, rationality is just thinking about things. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Imagine you wake up one morning, in a strange large room, its filled with books and you have no memory. Turns out you are in a library and your brain still works, you can read, you can think, your senses work just fine. Now the question is, what would you do to determine the truth of your situation (or the whole universe if you're so inclined)? From the choices given in your question...You could either use your rationality (think about what might be the case) and your empiricism (take a look around you, smell, touch some stuff, maybe even read some of those books, interact and engage with your world) to determine the truth...Or you could close your eyes again and pray.

Now which one of those seems more like the "closed mind"?

Answer 2

Some people draw lines between things like science and religion and what not. I don't. Once you get past "kitchen table" science, it all gets iffy.

We see a phenomena and try to interpret the cause (such as the big bang). If we gather more evidence, we may one day chuck the big bang theory for something better.

Big bang, Genesis 1:1-- It's all just belief.

As Homer Simpson says, "What good are facts? They can be used to prove anything." It sound funny, but if you think about it, there is some proof to that.

I think that empirical evidence and rationality DO have there place in philosophical realm. But I view them more as a door than a wall. Maybe it will open, maybe it won't. But maybe that won't make any difference.

One of the prime movers in our life is love. We can't give 5 good rational reasons why we love our husband or girlfriend. Every girl I've even loved has been different from the last. Some were smart-- some weren't, some were kind--some were nasty. There was no rational to it.

There are just some questions science can't answer.

Joe

Answer 3

Reason is *the* process of thought -- the only one that will get you anywhere when thinking *about* anything.

If you want to understand experience that is non-empirical (is observer-dependent), you must introspect - meditate, pray, whatever you call it - and that's not making use of reason, but it is just as likely to let you access "truth," so far as anyone knows. But as soon as you represent your introspective experience and try to think directly *about* it, you're falling off that path. There's a reason why the word "ineffable" exists.

Thinking of the universe as totally material is one path to truth - it doesn't mean you have a "closed mind." But you must be careful not to take any metaphor or representation beyond where it applies. The idea of literal "spirit" or "spirituality" is a good example of what happens when rationality or empirical thinking is misapplied.

Answer 4

Obviously it is closed minded, because if it wasn't, they'd not have that restriction :) But whether that is a bad or good thing is another matter..... I think that it has its uses. But honestly, i must prefer (intrest wise) what some would call psuedosciences, or "sciences" that have little or no empirical evidence. It just seems to me that I myself already knew or could easily find out the empirical evidence. But all the subjectivity of the psuedosciences gives me many perspectives of something, of which i might not have ever thought of myself.

Answer 5

I consider reliance on empirical evidence and rationality to determine truth the best available method, although it is not perfect. Empirical evidence is all we can access, but our senses can also be deceived, so it is not conclusive. One is free to hold any sort of spiritual beliefs one finds appropriate, but such things are based on faith rather than any sort of verifiable evidence. I am offended by those who say "I know X is true, because it says it right here in the Bible/Koran/Torah/Sutra/etc. One does not know in that way, but rather one believes by faith. It isn't necessarily false, and I hope it is true, but religious faith is faith, rather than verifiable information.

Answer 6

Well, 'truth' is a funny thing, isn't it? It's the elephant to our blind men (and women). Now, using empirical evidence and rational thought to approach truth seems more likely to be the sign of a mind that is open to conflicting viewpoints than deciding on truth first, and sticking to it in the teeth of any evidence that doesn't support your belief. Still, it depends on your POV, doesn't it? Most people seem to define "open mind" as "willing to accept my particular beliefs instead of theirs", as opposed to "closed mind" which is defined as "stubbornly insisting that my beliefs be supported by something other than my blind faith, before accepting them".

Answer 7

2 hundred years in the past i does no longer have had my female new child and it particularly is conceivable that my female chum ought to've misplaced her life besides. there have been significant subjects on the tail end of the being pregnant and via the exertions and delivery. I won't pass into the painful information different than to assert that there became loads of blood, the toddler became distressed, and if it have been 2 hundred years in the past, the strategies used might maximum in all probability have killed the two considered one of them. F*** that. contemporary drugs is an on the spot results of technology. The lives of the two people I carry dearest are preserved because of the fact some people desperate they wanted to comprehend God's introduction... even while it contradicted what God's Appointed Fancy Hats had decreed. interior the top, all that concerns is that the evidence is interior the pudding. perhaps God is real and Jesus will deliver me to hell if I act too gay or am an atheist or regardless of.... till then, i would be grateful that we've sanitation, somewhat low toddler mortality, and characteristic been to the moon. thank you, technology. EDIT: needless to say we are screwed financially. We gave political ability to a guy who has led us quickly right into a w ar that has a intense fee in lives, attractiveness, and extraordinarily funds. And why did we vote him in? because of the fact we did no longer want the gays to marry. thank you lots, you faith-based idiots. Many areas of our economic equipment are unregulated, nevertheless. it particularly is our very own dang fault. we could desire to continually've regulated ourselves. yet wait, who argues against regulation? Is it the persons who could desire to make bigger salary? vast enterprise? Republicans? Ohhhh.... Republicans have f****d us for the era of sheer greed and stupidity and bigotry. yet howdy, who's counting, suited? I mean, it particularly is in comparison to maximum republicans have faith in God and use their own faith as a bias against different life, faiths, and cultures. (cough gays, atheists, muslims) Saul

Answer 8

A mind that is closed to facts cannot conceive the truth. The search for knowledge is what keeps it open. Fear of contradictions will also slam the door closed. Curiosity will keep it open.

Answer 9

We all seek answers in the manner that suits us best, truth is an elusive creature and cannot always be found in either.

Answer 10

Scientific truth, yes. Spiritual truth, no.

Misunderstandings arise when one attempts to apply scientific methods to explore spirituality or religious aguements to science.