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
See more
See less

Can Atheism Account For Rationality

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by seer View Post
    I think that would hurt...
    But it is entertaining to watch. So let him continue with his "math"

    Comment


    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post

      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.
      I agree with most of what you say. But I believe you did not understand my initial post to seer. The reason I chose the self-referential statement "this sentence is false" is to bring out the idea that logic has limited applicability. It was first discovered by Bertram Russell and that eventually led to Godel's incomplete theorem. However my intention to seer was to dispel this ridiculous idea that theists proclaim not only on this forum but on so many others that logic is somehow God's laws, when in fact it is a human construct, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that it is limited and fails to encompass many realities. Perhaps my communication was less than efficient.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by seer View Post
        You mean like what people like Sam Harris are Steve Pinker are proposing? Are they smoking something too Shuny?
        Possibly, but I did not expect to hear it from you.


        What Neuroscience Says about Free Will

        We're convinced that it exists, but new research suggests it might be nothing more than a trick the brain plays on itself


        https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...out-free-will/
        Selective quotes does not reflect the spectrum of views in neuroscience. Many support a version of compatibilism where some free will is compatible with a foundation of natural determinism.

        Further the observed fractal nature of cause and effect outcomes in nature negates a rigid determinism including the false? or sarcastic assertion that everything is determined by genetics.
        Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-24-2019, 01:58 PM.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seer View Post
          I think that would hurt...
          No, not at all considering the flock of turkeys here that missed the sarcasm for those playing math on defective calculators..
          Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-24-2019, 01:56 PM.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            Possibly, but I did not expect to hear it from you.
            But I believe in free will.


            Selective quotes does not reflect the spectrum of views in neuroscience. Many support a version of compatibilism where some free will is compatible with a foundation of natural determinism.
            As we discussed in the past the free will of compatibilism is not free will in the libertarian sense (ability to choose otherwise).
            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
              But I believe in free will.
              That was not obvious from your post.

              As we discussed in the past the free will of compatibilism is not free will in the libertarian sense (ability to choose otherwise).
              Actually true for many various views of compatibilism we do not really have the ability to do otherwise, but not all. Some advocate the ability to choose otherwise to a limited extent as in at least Harry Frankfurt's hierarchical mesh theory.

              It is true we disagree concerning libertarian free will, which I do not consider a viable option.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                That was not obvious from your post.
                I have been arguing against determinism right along, that it is not compatible with rationality.


                Actually true for many various views of compatibilism we do not really have the ability to do otherwise, but not all. Some advocate the ability to choose otherwise to a limited extent as in at least Harry Frankfurt's hierarchical mesh theory.

                It is true we disagree concerning libertarian free will, which I do not consider a viable option.
                So you don't believe that the ability to choose otherwise is viable or possible?
                Last edited by seer; 06-24-2019, 02:36 PM.
                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
                  I have been arguing against determinism right along, that it is not compatible with rationality.




                  So you don't believe that the ability to choose otherwise is viable or possible?
                  Yes, but limited compatible with natural determinism.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seer View Post
                    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.
                    I don't think that anyone has ever argued that human minds are the source of the laws of logic. The laws of logic have to do with the world as it exists and that is what makes them immutable and absolute. Logical laws, physical laws, conform to the world they define and no objective source is necessary in order for that to be true. Human minds aren't the source of the worlds nature, they are the discoverer's of it.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by seer View Post
                      I have been arguing against determinism right along, that it is not compatible with rationality.
                      A degree of determinism is inevitable given that we have been genetically programmed with organic algorithms. And have had long-forgotten experiences and subconscious memories that influence our decision-making processes.

                      So you don't believe that the ability to choose otherwise is viable or possible?
                      It’s possible within certain narrow limits. This is known as Compatibilism.
                      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Zara View Post
                        It is forceful in terms of being a reason to do so and so, and since we are rational beings, rationality, not causality, makes a demand on us to act in accordance to our rational nature.
                        Your language is odd to me. We are rational beings because we are sentient and have the ability to reason using the basic principles of logic. We may or may not actually engage that reasoning correctly for a variety of psychological and even physical reasons. I don't experience "rationality" making demands on me. Indeed, it can't "make demands" at all. "Rational" is an adjective. "Rationality" is a noun, but not a thing that has its own existence - something else has to be "rational." So all of this is a bit odd to me.

                        Originally posted by Zara View Post
                        I am just following the Kantian thought, "concepts without intuitions are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind." My response reflected both sides, it wasn't clear - sorry.
                        So what does this philosophy tell you?

                        Originally posted by Zara View Post
                        Again, I am just following the Kantian concept / intuition requirement for thought - where the former is a priori to the possibility of experience as such. We use the categories to make sense of intuitions, as one unified experience. Those categories are an a priori part of possibility space. They also have their own rules around moral demands on us - i.e., having a (rational) mind means we have a duty to act rationally according to our rational nature - which when it comes to our will, means moral activity.
                        So I guess I am officially lost. We have a rational nature - but our nature does not "impose a duty." It is simply our nature. It describes what we are like, what our characteristics are. Your philosophy sounds like the Christian notion that people have a duty to follow the purpose of the creator. I don't believe in a creator being, and don't share this sense of "duty."

                        Beyond that observation, I think I have officially lost track of what this discussion is about. Do you want to start over and articulate your position from its very beginning?
                        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 seer View Post
                          Of course they are all driven by genetics if materialism is true - what else is there?
                          Well, genetics dictates how my body is constructed, so it certainly sets some constraints. But then there is the entire experience of mind, and there is experience - there is the "software" that rides on the hardware determined by genetics.

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          I'm not sure what you think wouldn't be determined, even with an infinite number of possible results?
                          It depends on whether or not determinism is the correct model. I don't experience as such, and science provides us several examples of places where determinism seems to break down, at least at the quantum level. And we have the phenomenon of emergent properties, which we are only just now beginning to explore. So, basically, you're making a lot of assumptions we don't know to be true.

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Of course the calculators would be determined to give the answers they do.
                          Yes, a calculator is a simple device that operates on Boolean logic gates. Barring a malfunction, it follows the laws of mathematics. I'm not sure what point you think you've made.

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          I'm not making Plantinga's argument per se, but jumping on a side issue. And no, you can not take steps to reduce error, you have no choice in the matter. You could not decide that 2+2=5 was in error any more than the wrongly programmed calculator could. As Darfius said we don't choose what to think or how to act we just obey the dictates of our biological natures.
                          Yes - finite beings can be wrong, and can not know they are wrong. You have the same problem, Seer. As soon as knowledge and thought and rationality can be imperfect, certainty becomes impossible - both in your worldview and mine.

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Well we are speaking of determinism vs. free will. And no I'm not arguing for perfect knowledge but if determinism is true there is nothing to break the causal chain. Free will would break the chain. We are not slaves to antecedent conditions.
                          So you are making an assumption - that determinism is true and is true because causality is an unbroken chain. Good luck showing that to be true.

                          And, BTW, the theistic worldview falls apart under Plantinga's argument as well.
                          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 seer View Post
                            You mean like what people like Sam Harris are Steve Pinker are proposing? Are they smoking something too Shuny?

                            What Neuroscience Says about Free Will

                            We're convinced that it exists, but new research suggests it might be nothing more than a trick the brain plays on itself


                            https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...out-free-will/
                            You did notice the "might be" in that article, right? And its speculative nature?
                            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 seer View Post
                              Carp if you are determined to believe that 2+2=5 how is that rational?
                              Seer - if you are programmed by an evil creator to think the creator is actually good, how is that rational?

                              We always have a gap between ourselves and reality: the gap is the brain and sensory equipment we use to perceive reality. If it is malfunctioning, we may not know it and we may behave irrationally. And we might even think ourselves to be rational. Until you have evidence that we actually are, I'll accept that we're not. The rationality I'm using seems to be sufficient to keep me alive and functioning. And the rational principles we are using are consistent with one another and useful in understanding this reality. Until I have a practical reason to think they are flawed, I'll take them and move on.
                              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 Post
                                I agree with most of what you say. But I believe you did not understand my initial post to seer. The reason I chose the self-referential statement "this sentence is false" is to bring out the idea that logic has limited applicability. It was first discovered by Bertram Russell and that eventually led to Godel's incomplete theorem. However my intention to seer was to dispel this ridiculous idea that theists proclaim not only on this forum but on so many others that logic is somehow God's laws, when in fact it is a human construct, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that it is limited and fails to encompass many realities. Perhaps my communication was less than efficient.
                                I guess I'm still struggling with "logic is a human construct." The implication of accepting that statement at face value seems to be that we can simply decide, at some point, that the Law of Identity is suspended, which seems to me to be somewhat irrational. Yes, humans (or more generally "sentient beings") are the ones who symbolically represent the principles on which the universe operates. I 100% agree with that. And our representation, if it doesn't accurately capture the reality it represents, can break down. Or it can be misapplied. If that is what you are saying, then we are in agreement.
                                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
                                161 responses
                                510 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X