Can Atheism Account For Rationality

[carpedm9587]

You are missing my point. A deterministic process could in theory create creatures that act rationally, generally. But we don't make rational choices or decisions because they are rational or right, but because they were determined. You could have just as well been determined to believe that wrong answers are rational. Genuine musing over propositional content is kind of out of the picture.

Frankly, 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.

[seer]

Is this sort of along the lines of Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism?

Somewhat...

[Zara]

On 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.

I'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.

[Zara]

The 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.

Some Kantians believe that reason is "bigger" than God - i.e., God too must have a rational mind but that that rationality is inherent to possibility space, since we have a rational mind; we hope that there is a greatest good, however, we cannot prove it from the existence of a ration mind (ours).

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.

[little_monkey]

And it still doesn't demonstrate an exception to the limit to the law of the excluded middle.

I'm trying to open your mind to a bigger picture- that true/false in logic is a binary structure, and there are realities which don't fit into that structure. Logic is a human construct, and so it is not written in cement. Faced with new challenges, the pioneers of Quantum Mechanics in the early part of the 20th century had to reach beyond this binary system. Unfortunately, there is a large segment of the population still stuck in the 19th century with the law of excluded middle, incapable of understanding that such logic has its limitations, incapable of recognizing that the human mind with its creativity is capable of reaching beyond that limitation.

[little_monkey]

If 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.

Agree with that as long as we don't take that "symbol representation" to be the real thing. At 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.

[seer]

Frankly, I don't see you making sense....

And 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.

[little_monkey]

And 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.

I'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.

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.

[Darfius]

Frankly, 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.

Reason and logic are not interchangeable. Reason is the applied use of logic. Machines do not "apply", they obey. So they are not rational.

[little_monkey]

Reason and logic are not interchangeable. Reason is the applied use of logic. Machines do not "apply", they obey. So they are not rational.

One 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.

[seer]

I'm wondering what you smoked or drank before posting.

Nothing idiot.

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.

Are the decisions of the people determined or free? And if determined what is actually making the decisions? Blind genetics based on antecedent conditions?

[seer]

One 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.

How are we rational if we are biologically determined? Don't we too simply obey?

[little_monkey]

Are the decisions of the people determined or free? And if determined what is actually making the decisions? Blind genetics based on antecedent conditions?

I'm not a fan of this conundrum "determinism versus free will". It's like the question: what came first, the egg or the chicken? There are no satisfactory answers. We are free to make choices to some extent, and certain things are determined for us to some extent. There are certain situations that begs the question: if someone puts a gun to your head and forces you to commit a crime, are you guilty of that crime? Certain law cases suggest that a jury would consider that you were not acting out of your free will. OTOH, you might inherit genes that make you obese, and fighting to be slim is a losing battle - is that determination? We can debate this for the next 50 years and most likely never come to a definite answer. But that's why you have internet forums to debate this silly stuff...

[carpedm9587]

I'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.

My Kant is old and rusty, and my patience for having to thumb a dictionary to understand a passage is limited. My memory of "deontological" is it is associated with ethics (specifically the concepts of "duty" and "obligation." I'm not sure how that fits into this discussion. If I understand your second sentence correctly, you are basically agreeing with what I said: the mind symbolically represents a principle evident in nature. Not sure what the last sentence means. Clearly with no sensory input whatsoever, the brain is starved of input/information about the universe it inhabits. Could it then recognize these principles absent that input? I have no idea.

[carpedm9587]

Agree with that as long as we don't take that "symbol representation" to be the real thing.

That would be implied by the expression "symbolic representation."

At 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.

I'm one of those who regularly calls out binary thinking when I encounter it, but I think you used a poor example of how binary thinking fails when you chose an apparent linguistic paradox, for the reasons previously cited. Where I think binary thinking fails is when people take an attribute that exhibits the characteristics of a continuum, and assign it a binary true/false value. This happens far too often. I am called "liberal" and many here call themselves "conservative." That is a simple binary categorization that hides a complex underlying reality. In fact, I have values across the political spectrum - fairly "far right" on some, and pretty "far left" on others and still others nearer the center. Tossing a label has become a convenient way of identifying tribes and dismissing those who have views that are not aligned with one's own. An amazing number of statements made to me here include "you liberals" in one form or another. The label is sometimes accurate, and sometimes completely wrong, depending on the topic in question.

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.