Today We sit down with Spencer Wright, author of “How To Think”, and discuss how Faith and Rational thought are actually opposites. That as soon as we have to make allowances for less likely answers and solutions or even the moment we say “its possible” we have now begun irrational thinking. Spencer helps us put words and framing to something we have sensed for a long time. Which is that none of us should have to tolerate harm and trauma caused irrational thinking and Spencer gives us the tools to know the very moment the conversation has entered the irrational arena. People are free to believe what they want, but never should we as a society allow segments of our society to be hurt or have trauma inflicted by those who use irrational thinking as their reasons.
Kerry Muhlstein admitting starting with the conclusion – https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2014/book-abraham-unnoticed-assumptions
Book of Abraham explained simply
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Once you study relativity and quantum mechanics, you will realize that what seems irrational and unlikely based on past and present observations, in fact happens. For example, how can a particle lose its locality and instantaneously be in two places at the same time, how can en event happen before it happens, how can space-time bend such that the future makes itself manifest to the past and vice versa. Truth is stranger than fiction.
Wow! Surprise ending twist. That was really good!
Thank you; I enjoyed this discussion. Granted I haven’t read the book yet, but I feel like a lot of the terms and concepts discussed were conflated leading to some epistemological confusion. I heard flavors of empiricism, rationalism, the law of parsimony, deductive and inductive reasoning, positivism etc. but in ways where they were either falsely combined or incorrectly dichotomized. That worries me because often both sides of an ideological divide will claim the other is being illogical or irrational when both sides, or neither, in fact are. For example, being rational requires one to come to a conclusion by reason. Someone who is against vaccines may posit that vaccines mean introducing foreign agents in to the body, foreign agents cause illness, therefore vaccines cause illness. This is a valid logical conclusion although validity doesn’t always speak to truth. The premise that all foreign agents will cause harm is incorrect, but that makes the argument no less logical. If I then present evidence to counter that premise and the person responds with an appeal to emotion (i.e., “well, I just feel like vaccines are bad for the body”), then it is now in the domain of the irrational. Thus, saying that you “feel” gay marriage is wrong is no more irrational than saying you “feel” gay marriage is right.In fact, there are logical reasons for being opposed to gay marriage, although I think it pretty clear the premises are flawed. I say this because I think it is sanctimonious and uncharitable to assume that people come to different conclusions because one side is obviously being irrational or illogical. In any case, although I disagreed with a number of the points, it did give me a chance to think deeper about some of these issues and for that I thank you.