Originally posted by seer
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Can Atheism Account For Rationality
Collapse
X
-
The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostIs this sort of along the lines of Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism?Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostOn this I think we are going to disagree. When it comes to the laws of logic, the laws of mathematics, and the laws of physics, what the mind is "making up" is the symbology to represent an external, objective reality. The symbols are made up by the mind. The principles they represent are not. We make up "numbers." But there are still eight planets around our sun even if there is no mind to conceive the word "eight" or articulate the concept "eight." Likewise, a thing is itself, even if there is no mind to grasp, appreciate, or express that reality.
We're not talking about "The Force" here. That is a creative, made-up concept. The realities on which are founded the laws of reason and the laws of mathematics are not. Our symbols represent an existent reality about the universe. Whether or not there is mind - a thing is always itself.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostThe Christian believes that the laws of logic reflect the the immutable rational mind of God, which make said laws universal and absolute. So how does the atheist account for said laws? They are not physical; you can't touch, taste or see them. They are conceptual, it takes a mind to conceive them. But human minds are fickle and often wrong, and human minds are not universal. So human minds can not be the source of conceptual logical truths. The law of excluded middle for instance says that statements are either true or false, but it takes a mind to make that distinction. But again human minds are fallible and limited and can not be the ultimate source for absolute conceptual truths.
The atheist could account for the laws on the basis that we have them, and that from having them we cannot conclude that there is a god. We are rationally require to hope for one though - although this is seen as a relatively weak argument in itself.
I do not understand how any rational being can be an atheist however, since the question cannot be answered positively or negatively by the limited epistemological space we have access to.Last edited by Zara; 06-23-2019, 05:34 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostAnd it still doesn't demonstrate an exception to the limit to the law of the excluded middle.
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostIf you don't disagree about the reality, then we aren't disagreeing. As I said, it takes a mind to formulate symbology that represents these realities. But we're not "making up laws" in the same way humanity "makes up laws" when we establish governments and the rules we live by, or articulate moral codes. We are, instead, representing in symbol form a reality that exists objectively.
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostFrankly, I don't see you making sense....Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostAnd that is the point Carp, what decides if we are making sense. My brain fizzes theistic your brain fizzes atheistic. These conclusion, at bottom, are not reason based, they are genetically based. This would filter down to everything, what you see as evidence, how you interpret evidence and reality in general. It is turtles all the way down. If you have a badly programmed calculator that spits out 2+2=5 you have rational minds (ours) to take notice and judge. But if all our thoughts and conclusions are determined what stands outside to judge? You will say that we do, but we are not outside, it would be like calculator A saying that 2+2=5 and calculator B arguing that 2+2=3. There is no logical escape from this Matrix.
Anyways..."what decides if we are making sense"? Lets start by who makes the decision? People make decisions. People who do scientific inquiries, people who sit on jury to decide if you're guilty or not, people who shop around to get the best purchase for their hard-earned money.
Now how should they decide? Hopefully based on the evidence they have. And not on their religious, philosophical or political biases otherwise we are in deep troubles.
BTW 2+2 =4 is a definition. It's not a logical choice. There is nothing to debate about that. And so a calculator giving a different result automatically qualifies as being defective.
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostFrankly, I don't see you making sense. There is nothing about the definition of "rational" that includes the causal forces behind it. Rational simply means "based on or in accordance with reason or logic." A processor, operating on the basic logic gates that electronically implement Boolean logic is acting "in accordance with reason or logic." It's a rational machine. Whether that rational function is determined or a function of free will is irrelevant to the definition of "rational" as far as I can tell. And if you are programmed to accept "wrong answers" as "right" then it would seem, by definition, you have not been programmed to choose rationally.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darfius View PostReason and logic are not interchangeable. Reason is the applied use of logic. Machines do not "apply", they obey. So they are not rational.
Comment
-
Originally posted by little_monkey View PostI'm wondering what you smoked or drank before posting.
Anyways..."what decides if we are making sense"? Lets start by who makes the decision? People make decisions. People who do scientific inquiries, people who sit on jury to decide if you're guilty or not, people who shop around to get the best purchase for their hard-earned money.
Now how should they decide? Hopefully based on the evidence they have. And not on their religious, philosophical or political biases otherwise we are in deep troubles.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by little_monkey View PostOne can make the case that as the machines obey their instructions, which were designed by rational beings (humans), are themselves rational. That would make rationality a transitive property... ok, just a suggestion.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View Post
Are the decisions of the people determined or free? And if determined what is actually making the decisions? Blind genetics based on antecedent conditions?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Zara View PostI'm not sure how your Kantian is - however, one line of argument is that minded beings are sensitive to deontological conditions rather than physical ones. We are minded because we apply certain rules that themselves are a priori to our ability to deploy them. These are incidentally also independent on sensory representations, are not brain structures, even if they can be represented in brains structures.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by little_monkey View PostAgree with that as long as we don't take that "symbol representation" to be the real thing.
Originally posted by little_monkey View PostAt best it is a model, constantly in progress, to be revised, amended and sometimes discarded when new facts are discovered and necessitate an update. Logic falls into that symbol representation, and as I have been saying in other posts, that logic as a symbol representation has its own limitations. There are many realities that simply don't fall into a system of a true/false, which has a binary structure. Fortunately, our mind has proven to be creative enough to be able to go beyond binary logic.
So "Carpe is a liberal" is a statement that does not have a neat, clean true/false value, despite all efforts here to force it to. It is too broad and vague. It gets a "maybe" at best.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
172 responses
597 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
04-15-2024, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
|
21 responses
138 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-25-2024, 10:59 PM
|
Comment