the presumption of rationalism

[Griggsy]

[I][/I That one should use reason rather than faith is the presumption of rationalism. As Hume persuades us we must proportion acceptance to evidence, and Clffford warns us to avoid using no evidence for acceptance of matters. We test the waters. We adjust to the situation.
To do otherwise is to validate the argument from ignorance.
Faith begs the question of its subject for which theists have no evidence and huristic. Faith is just the we say so of credulity. Science is acquired knowledge whereas faith begs the question of being knowledge as Sydney Hook notes. Reason can move the mountains of ignorance whereas faith keeps one in invincible ignorance.
To equate faith with trust in our faculties and Nature is the fallacy of equivocation.
Rationalism depends on empiricism unlike Continental Rationalism, which opposes empiricism. The kinf of evidence varies from subhect to subhest; Keith Ward errs in maintaining that if we require evidence, then how can we live without squeching our desire to marry,etc., but that ignores that we do indeed use evidence in finding mates- how the other reacts to us, for instance.
Faith cannot instantiate God nor validate the paranormal nor any other superstition. Once one fathoms the nature of the supernatural and the paranormal, it is not necessary to pursue them any farther unless one wants to;; as Dawkins well observes, once one knows there is no dvinie, one does indeed not have the respnsibility to purue theology, but I will pursue theologians to substantiate that opinion!
Theology is a series of mysteries and guesses and it must be's about a supreme mystery,purportedly the grand explanation, but as the ignostic challenges reveals , " hides our ignorance behind a theological fig leaf,"

[blue_skies_86]

[I][/I That one should use reason rather than faith is the presumption of rationalism. As Hume persuades us we must proportion acceptance to evidence, and Clffford warns us to avoid using no evidence for acceptance of matters. We test the waters. We adjust to the situation.
To do otherwise is to validate the argument from ignorance.
Faith begs the question of its subject for which theists have no evidence and huristic. Faith is just the we say so of credulity. Science is acquired knowledge whereas faith begs the question of being knowledge as Sydney Hook notes. Reason can move the mountains of ignorance whereas faith keeps one in invincible ignorance.
To equate faith with trust in our faculties and Nature is the fallacy of equivocation.
Rationalism depends on empiricism unlike Continental Rationalism, which opposes empiricism. The kinf of evidence varies from subhect to subhest; Keith Ward errs in maintaining that if we require evidence, then how can we live without squeching our desire to marry,etc., but that ignores that we do indeed use evidence in finding mates- how the other reacts to us, for instance.
Faith cannot instantiate God nor validate the paranormal nor any other superstition. Once one fathoms the nature of the supernatural and the paranormal, it is not necessary to pursue them any farther unless one wants to;; as Dawkins well observes, once one knows there is no dvinie, one does indeed not have the respnsibility to purue theology, but I will pursue theologians to substantiate that opinion!
Theology is a series of mysteries and guesses and it must be's about a supreme mystery,purportedly the grand explanation, but as the ignostic challenges reveals , " hides our ignorance behind a theological fig leaf,"

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use." Galileo

[Joveia]

How can finite reasoning hope to accurately understand the infinite? It may not matter, but on some issues our finite reasoning will always tell us an incomplete answer. So when rationalism is talking about the infinite, then there is a reasonable presumption against rationalism (in the sense of being able to rationally work out an answer) in favour of either 'no position' or some kind of faith.

[shunyadragon]

How can finite reasoning hope to accurately understand the infinite? It may not matter, but on some issues our finite reasoning will always tell us an incomplete answer. So when rationalism is talking about the infinite, then there is a reasonable presumption against rationalism (in the sense of being able to rationally work out an answer) in favour of either 'no position' or some kind of faith.

Partly ture, human reasoning could not possibly absolutely understand the infinite, but human reasoning should neither be dismissed nor appeal to in a manner some claim like Mountain Man to justify a theological world view by 'pure reason.'

I believe that individual theological beliefs based on ancient world views do selectively justify their belief based on a limited selective logic, which neglects the potential of greater more universal consideration of the full capacity of human reasoning.

[Griggsy]

O f course, we do indeed understand the infinite ! There is no end to it.
What the question implies is that people should dismiss reason but affirm faith to accept God. No, reason finds no justification for Him and so this objection is still another non-argument like the fox hole one!
Google naturalist griggsy, rationalist griggsy and skeptic grigggsy to see that I'm a busy retired boy! As some of my threads have the same title or near the same title, one notes that also.
Theists have another non-argument when they ask why do we post so much against Him unless we really believe in Him but yet deny Him in order to go our own way is that we have the right and duty to do so so as to enlighten others just as they seek to affirm Him. Or do they really doubt His existence but must ever post in order to make themselves believe in Him?
Good will and blessings to all!

[Soyeong]

O f course, we do indeed understand the infinite ! There is no end to it.

You have a definition for it, but that doesn't help you to comprehend just how vast the infinite is. For example, try to imagine how much space five billion paper clips would take up. Now take that number of paper clips and put it to the trillionth power. While we can do the math, when numbers become sufficiently large (and are still nowhere near infinity), we aren't really able to fully comprehend what that number means.

What the question implies is that people should dismiss reason but affirm faith to accept God. No, reason finds no justification for Him and so this objection is still another non-argument like the fox hole one!

If someone told me that a miracle happened, at that point I have one reason, based on their word, to believe that it happened. It would be a judgement call as to whether to actually believe it happened based on other evidence, such as their general trustworthness, but it is nonetheless within reason to believe it happened. Since I wasn't there, I would have to take it on faith that it happened. So there you have it, faith based upon reason.

Google naturalist griggsy, rationalist griggsy and skeptic grigggsy to see that I'm a busy retired boy! As some of my threads have the same title or near the same title, one notes that also.

Welcome back to TWeb.

Theists have another non-argument when they ask why do we post so much against Him unless we really believe in Him but yet deny Him in order to go our own way is that we have the right and duty to do so so as to enlighten others just as they seek to affirm Him. Or do they really doubt His existence but must ever post in order to make themselves believe in Him?

I'm not really sure what this has to do with faith and rationalism. People have their own reasons for why they post here.

Blessings on you as well.

[Joveia]

O f course, we do indeed understand the infinite ! There is no end to it.

If infinity actually exists in a greater sense than an idea in people's heads, then people can only know what finite reasoning tells them about the infinite. So if finite reasoning is 'infinitely less' than the infinite then that doesn't seem to be much. The continuum hypothesis for example cannot be solved by finite reason, and we know that it has an answer.

One cool idea about the infinite is the idea of 'alternative logics'. So for example, the way finite logic behaves is that you get a set, and then you get subsets in that set that must be smaller than the whole set. But in an infinite set, the 'proper subsets' are just as large as the whole set altogether, even though they're just a subset! Like a Russian doll where each doll you open reveals a doll as large as the original doll, and there is a neverending number. So this is illogical in the finite world, but in the infinite world a different logic applies.

I think this idea of alternative logics could be used to explain free will, the trinity, and so on. So 'faith' in alternative logics so you can believe in 'can-do-otherwise free will' might be rational. Just a thought.

[bowmore]

But in an infinite set, the 'proper subsets' are just as large as the whole set altogether, even though they're just a subset! Like a Russian doll where each doll you open reveals a doll as large as the original doll, and there is a neverending number. So this is illogical in the finite world, but in the infinite world a different logic applies.

I'm not sure why a different logic is needed? That an infinite proper subset of an infinite set may have an equal amount of elements as the original set is a conclusion mathematics arrives at without using 'an infinite logic'.

BTW infinite sets have proper subsets that aren't infinite, as well.

[Joveia]

I'm not sure why a different logic is needed? That an infinite proper subset of an infinite set may have an equal amount of elements as the original set is a conclusion mathematics arrives at without using 'an infinite logic'.

BTW infinite sets have proper subsets that aren't infinite, as well.

I think the idea of 'alternative logics' is interesting because no logic that humans can come up with can explain how people can have 'can-do-otherwise free will'. Either something is determined, it's completely random or it's probabilistic. None of these options gives you free will. So if there are 'alternative logics' operating outside of what humans can know then maybe, tentatively, you could say that an 'alternative logic' is operating regarding free will. It's just that we can't express it using theory.

It seems like finite sets do behave according to a slightly different set of rules than infinite sets, so this could be considered a different 'logic' as the logic of infinite sets (proper subsets that can be the same size as the whole set) seems very strange to the commonsense view of things. We work it out with finite logic though that these rules apply.

The whole idea of 'alternative logics' I find interesting because it has potential to explain a variety of philosophical issues where we can have our cake (honour our reason) and eat it too (honour our impossible to explain intuitions that seem to make no sense under analysis - we can more easily say they reflect reality).

[bowmore]

I think the idea of 'alternative logics' is interesting because no logic that humans can come up with can explain how people can have 'can-do-otherwise free will'. Either something is determined, it's completely random or it's probabilistic. None of these options gives you free will. So if there are 'alternative logics' operating outside of what humans can know then maybe, tentatively, you could say that an 'alternative logic' is operating regarding free will. It's just that we can't express it using theory.

Assuming free will exists...

It seems like finite sets do behave according to a slightly different set of rules than infinite sets, so this could be considered a different 'logic' as the logic of infinite sets (proper subsets that can be the same size as the whole set) seems very strange to the commonsense view of things. We work it out with finite logic though that these rules apply.

I don't know where you get the notion that finite sets behave according to a different set of rules than infinite sets.

Two sets have the same number of elements if we can define a bijection between the two. This rule works both for finite and infinite sets, and leads to the conclusion that some infinite subsets have an equal number of elements than their superset.

[Joveia]

Assuming free will exists...

Just because we don't know how it can work as a matter of theory doesn't mean we should abandon 'can do otherwise free will' (speaking generally). There are ways around that problem. You need to believe in it to act on the belief that your desires are within your control, which helps people exercise self-control, I'd imagine. Determinism would undermine the legal system, which relies on 'can do otherwise free will' as well as consequences.

I don't know where you get the notion that finite sets behave according to a different set of rules than infinite sets.

Two sets have the same number of elements if we can define a bijection between the two. This rule works both for finite and infinite sets, and leads to the conclusion that some infinite subsets have an equal number of elements than their superset.

A proper subset of a finite set cannot be as large as the whole set altogether. But a proper subset of an infinite set can be. This is such a strange picture of things. It's like if you had a Russian doll and every doll you took out of the original doll was as large as the original doll, and there were an infinite number. I think this indicates 'alternative logics' might be operating regarding the infinite compared to finite logic.

[bowmore]

Just because we don't know how it can work as a matter of theory doesn't mean we should abandon 'can do otherwise free will' (speaking generally). There are ways around that problem. You need to believe in it to act on the belief that your desires are within your control, which helps people exercise self-control, I'd imagine. Determinism would undermine the legal system, which relies on 'can do otherwise free will' as well as consequences.

That seems to be no more than an appeal to consequences.

I also fail to see how the legal system would be undermined by determinism. (the legal system is just one of many factors that determine one's will)

A proper subset of a finite set cannot be as large as the whole set altogether. But a proper subset of an infinite set can be.

That's what 'normal logics' (as opposed to the supposed 'alternative logics') conclude.

This is such a strange picture of things. It's like if you had a Russian doll and every doll you took out of the original doll was as large as the original doll, and there were an infinite number. I think this indicates 'alternative logics' might be operating regarding the infinite compared to finite logic.

As I showed no 'alternative logics' are needed to reach the conclusion you insist must indicate 'alternative logics'.
The Russian Matrushka doll analogy fails, because Matrushka dolls are not infinitely large.

[Joveia]

That seems to be no more than an appeal to consequences.

I also fail to see how the legal system would be undermined by determinism. (the legal system is just one of many factors that determine one's will)

There was recently a case in Italy where a man's lawyers showed that had 'violent genes' and he received a one year reduction in his sentence as a result. The legal system does not explicitly spell out a doctrine of 'can do otherwise free will' but it does rely on intention all the time. I think intention is mixed up with 'can do otherwise free will' in that you're held responsible for having one intention rather than another intention. I don't really know what it would do, it will be interesting to find out if it happens. It wouldn't stop people from being locked up but a lot of laws would have to be rewritten so that crimes are not about 'guilty intentions' but purely about 'harming others'.

That's what 'normal logics' (as opposed to the supposed 'alternative logics') conclude.

As I showed no 'alternative logics' are needed to reach the conclusion you insist must indicate 'alternative logics'.

All we have is finite logic so if there is an alternative logic operating for the infinite then it will have to be discovered using finite logic. We cannot discover the existence of an 'alternative logic' in any other way, so it seems OK to allow for needing to use finite logic to discover it. The absurdity of the infinite is I believe a strong indication that it involves an alternative logic to finite logic, operating only in infinite reality.

The Russian Matrushka doll analogy fails, because Matrushka dolls are not infinitely large.

The key aspect is that a part of the doll, let's say the head, or the middle section, is as large as the whole doll altogether even though it's just a part. Like a proper subset is as large as the whole infinite set, which seems so counter-intuitive.

[bowmore]

There was recently a case in Italy where a man's lawyers showed that had 'violent genes' and he received a one year reduction in his sentence as a result. The legal system does not explicitly spell out a doctrine of 'can do otherwise free will' but it does rely on intention all the time. I think intention is mixed up with 'can do otherwise free will' in that you're held responsible for having one intention rather than another intention. I don't really know what it would do, it will be interesting to find out if it happens. It wouldn't stop people from being locked up but a lot of laws would have to be rewritten so that crimes are not about 'guilty intentions' but purely about 'harming others'.

Again, intention is just a determinant, wich in turn has determinants.

All we have is finite logic so if there is an alternative logic operating for the infinite then it will have to be discovered using finite logic. We cannot discover the existence of an 'alternative logic' in any other way, so it seems OK to allow for needing to use finite logic to discover it.

Well, nothing's been discovered so far.

The absurdity of the infinite is I believe a strong indication that it involves an alternative logic to finite logic, operating only in infinite reality.

There is nothing absurd about the infinite. All I see is your insistence that it is, because the infinite does not function like the finite.

You could make an analogous argument for 'alternative negative logics' because negative numbers behave differently from positive numbers. (the product of two negative numbers yields a positive, that's just absurd... )

The key aspect is that a part of the doll, let's say the head, or the middle section, is as large as the whole doll altogether even though it's just a part. Like a proper subset is as large as the whole infinite set, which seems so counter-intuitive.

It seems counter intuitive because you use finite examples to demonstrate infinite behaviour.

[Joveia]

Again, intention is just a determinant, wich in turn has determinants.

If we knew that everything people did they did because of their genes it would mean we would have to 'fight' our intuition to put people in prison. If we know someone couldn't have done any different, then it's a fight to blame them and lock them up because we feel like excusing them. That's why in the case in Italy the man received a reduced sentence because he apparently had 'violent genes'. This will have interesting consequences. It will at the least challenge humanity to reject its intuitions.

Well, nothing's been discovered so far.

If an alternative infinite logic existed then it could only be discovered using finite logic, because that's all we have to think with. The key test would be if infinity behaved in a really strange, apparently contradictory way. It seems to do so.

There is nothing absurd about the infinite. All I see is your insistence that it is, because the infinite does not function like the finite.

Isn't it absurd that infinity + infinity = infinity, whereas 1 + 1 = 2?

You could make an analogous argument for 'alternative negative logics' because negative numbers behave differently from positive numbers. (the product of two negative numbers yields a positive, that's just absurd... )

The difference is finite/infinite not positive finite/negative finite. It's different because with finite reason negative/positive numbers makes perfect sense to us, but I'm talking about a logic outside of our ability to know except in a vague way.

It seems counter intuitive because you use finite examples to demonstrate infinite behaviour.

Everything theory we think is mediated by finite logic, so any demonstration of infinite behaviour must use finite logic. The key test would seem to be strangeness, apparent contradiction, and so on.