Intuition Vs Logic Quotes

Each religion makes scores of purportedly factual assertions about everything from the creation of the universe to the afterlife. But on what grounds can believers presume to know that these assertions are true? The reasons they give are various, but the ultimate justification for most religious people’s beliefs is a simple one: we believe what we believe because our holy scriptures say so. But how, then, do we know that our holy scriptures are factually accurate? Because the scriptures themselves say so. Theologians specialize in weaving elaborate webs of verbiage to avoid saying anything quite so bluntly, but this gem of circular reasoning really is the epistemological bottom line on which all 'faith' is grounded. In the words of Pope John Paul II: 'By the authority of his absolute transcendence, God who makes himself known is also the source of the credibility of what he reveals.' It goes without saying that this begs the question of whether the texts at issue really were authored or inspired by God, and on what grounds one knows this. 'Faith' is not in fact a rejection of reason, but simply a lazy acceptance of bad reasons. 'Faith' is the pseudo-justification that some people trot out when they want to make claims without the necessary evidence. But of course we never apply these lax standards of evidence to the claims made in the other fellow’s holy scriptures: when it comes to religions other than one’s own, religious people are as rational as everyone else. Only our own religion, whatever it may be, seems to merit some special dispensation from the general standards of evidence. And here, it seems to me, is the crux of the conflict between religion and science. Not the religious rejection of specific scientific theories (be it heliocentrism in the 17th century or evolutionary biology today); over time most religions do find some way to make peace with well-established science. Rather, the scientific worldview and the religious worldview come into conflict over a far more fundamental question: namely, what constitutes evidence. Science relies on publicly reproducible sense experience (that is, experiments and observations) combined with rational reflection on those empirical observations. Religious people acknowledge the validity of that method, but then claim to be in the possession of additional methods for obtaining reliable knowledge of factual matters — methods that go beyond the mere assessment of empirical evidence — such as intuition, revelation, or the reliance on sacred texts. But the trouble is this: What good reason do we have to believe that such methods work, in the sense of steering us systematically (even if not invariably) towards true beliefs rather than towards false ones? At least in the domains where we have been able to test these methods — astronomy, geology and history, for instance — they have not proven terribly reliable. Why should we expect them to work any better when we apply them to problems that are even more difficult, such as the fundamental nature of the universe? Last but not least, these non-empirical methods suffer from an insuperable logical problem: What should we do when different people’s intuitions or revelations conflict? How can we know which of the many purportedly sacred texts — whose assertions frequently contradict one another — are in fact sacred?

MIDDLE CLASS vs. WORLD CLASS 1. The Middle Class competes — the World Class creates. 2. The Middle Class avoids risk — the World Class manages risk. 3. The Middle Class lives in delusion — the World Class lives in objective reality. 4. The Middle Class loves to be comfortable — the World Class is comfortable being uncomfortable. 5. The Middle Class has a lottery mentality — the World Class has an abundance mentality. 6. The Middle Class hungers for security — the World Class doesn’t believe that security exists. 7. The Middle Class sacrifices growth for safety — the World Class sacrifices safety for growth. 8. The Middle Class operates out of fear and scarcity — the World Class operates from love and abundance. 9. The Middle Class focuses on having — the World Class focuses on being. 10. The Middle Class sees themselves as victims — the World Class sees themselves as responsible. 11. The Middle Class slows down — the World Class calms down. 12. The Middle Class is frustrated — the World Class is grateful. 13. The Middle Class has pipedreams — the World Class has vision. 14. The Middle Class is ego-driven — the World Class is spirit driven. 15. The Middle Class is problem oriented — the World Class is solution oriented. 16. The Middle Class thinks they know enough — the World Class is eager to learn. 17. The Middle Class chooses fear — the World Class chooses growth. 18. The Middle Class is boastful — the World Class is humble. 19. The Middle Class trades time for money — the World Class trades ideas for money. 20. The Middle Class denies their intuition — the World Class embraces their intuition. 21. The Middle Class seeks riches — the World Class seeks wealth. 22. The Middle Class believes their vision only when they see it — the World Class knows they will see their vision when they believe it. 23. The Middle Class coaches through logic — the World Class coaches through emotion. 24. The Middle Class speaks the language of fear — the World Class speaks the language of love. 25. The Middle Class believes problem solving stems from knowledge — the Wold Class believes problem solving stems from will.