lavalamp comments on Anti-rationality quotes - Less Wrong

7 Post author: PhilGoetz 17 April 2009 05:55PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (51)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 17 April 2009 07:07:07PM *  1 point [-]

In all curiosity, do you have any idea what these mean? I do not want to sound callous but I see little connection between rationality and the passages quoted.

The connection is obvious to me.

Someone well versed in scripture and commentary would have little trouble responding to this list. Do not commit the same fallacy that many Christians do by simply pulling words out of the Bible and dropping them in a list as if they prove a point.

I believe they do prove a point. The fact that Paul, who invented Christian theology, just once in his life said, "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ," shows that Paul had deeply flawed epistemology. If you played back a tape recording of John von Neumann's entire life I am confident you would not find one statement like that. None of these quotes were off-the-cuff remarks; they were all written down after much thought.

Futhermore, Christians are not making a mistake when they do that; the mistake lies prior to that in their reasoning. They are operating under the assumption that you don't need to check the context of the verse. God said it, that settles it. Contextual criticism is of the devil; it assumes that the world is not full of simple objective moral truths. So turnabout is fair play.

Finally, I see a lot of this same scriptural approach on LW. Eliezer sums up a post in a single line; people then quote that line if the words in it match the words in someone else's post or comment, without considering whether it applies in that context. For example, some people applied "Reversed stupidity is not intelligence" to my post on Aumann agreement and voting, apparently based on simple Eliza-like pattern-matching.

For future reference, if you pick and choose translations (NIV here, KJV there) you already have a strong and legitimate mark against you. If you disagree let me know. I am willing to defend this point.

Noted. Usually I pick whichever I can find first, or whichever sounds the most well-written. The KJV sounds grander, but the NIV is the clearest, with NASB intermediate on both measures.

Comment author: lavalamp 17 April 2009 07:10:40PM *  2 points [-]

One could easily take that passage to have said nothing at all about good philosophy. Surely no one here would be defending "hollow and deceptive" philosophy?

They are operating under the assumption that you don't need to check the context of the verse. God said it, that settles it. Contextual criticism is of the devil; it assumes that the world is not full of simple objective moral truths. So turnabout is fair play.

I have to say I've never met a christian who would agree with that; they think they are using things in context, even if they aren't. Turnabout may be fair play, but it's not going to win you an argument with them, if that's your goal...