Can Atheism Account For Rationality

[carpedm9587]

No Shuny there are studies showing the we make decisions before we are ever aware of them. NO conscious choice.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs...56797616641943

From the abstract (emphasis mine)...

Here, we explore the possibility that choices can seem to occur before they are actually made.

You are imparting a great deal of certainty on an initial exploration of an apparently relatively new area of research...

[seer]

From the abstract (emphasis mine)...

Here, we explore the possibility that choices can seem to occur before they are actually made.

You are imparting a great deal of certainty on an initial exploration of an apparently relatively new area of research...

No Carp, it is not new. The Libet experiments go back to 1983: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

Others are 20 years old: https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?d...-066X.54.7.480

Not that I buy it as a theist who believes in a soul...

[carpedm9587]

No Carp, it is not new. The Libet experiments go back to 1983: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

Others are 20 years old: https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?d...-066X.54.7.480

Not that I buy it as a theist who believes in a soul...

Umm...we have different definitions of "new." Something in the last 40 years or so is still comparatively new. And how much ongoing work is being done in this field? These articles have been linked and referenced multiple times. Any more recent work and reviews?

And whether or not you "buy it" is irrelevant if it turns out these studies are true and reflect a deterministic universe. Like me - you will be programmed to think what you think.

[seer]

And I find you adding meaning to "rational" that is not found in the conventional definition. Again - why you feel to redefine (or add to the definition of the) term is not clear. But you are clearly adjusting the meaning to the term to suit your purposes.

I would agree - no.

And you would still require an external standard against which to self-correct, and you would still have the possibility of error that you cannot eliminate with no way to "self-correct" if your very nature is badly wired. You have no more assurance of "accuracy" than anything or anyone else. The ability to change the course freely or not is irrelevant to the assessment of reliability.

Of course freedom is relevant, a deterministic system has no possibility of self-correction, it would be a complete slave to antecedent conditions beyond its control. There is no possibility of breaking the causal chain. If you are free you do have such possibilities, you are not forced by nature to accept non-rational conclusions.

"Where the science is going" is a leap. You've quoted one speculative article, and somehow turned it into an entire scientific trend. I look at the literature and find a great deal of variation and a lot of "we don't know." IF the entire universe is strictly determined, and the experience of "free will" is an illusion, then you are correct that nothing can deviate from the causal chain and everything that will happened has already been determined based on pre-existing actions. In which case, we are simply experiencing an illusion of free will. IF that is reality - then that is reality. Wishing it to be different won't make it different.

But you have no basis for claiming that naturalism inevitably leads to determinism. You are simply leaping to that assumption, for reasons known only to you.

OK, then what do you have the breaks the chain of cause and effect? So if determinism is true in what sense are you rational? How would you know?

Already outlined. PLantinga's argument is rooted in the "low reliability" implied by Naturalism + Evolution: P ( R | N+E) = low is his starting point. The basic argument is that naturalism and evolution lead to selection for "survival" not "truth" - so there is little/no way to know that what we believe to be true is actually true - only that it helps us survive. We could believe 2+2=4 not because it actually does, but because it improves survivability if we believe that. But, as I noted, the theist cannot escape this trap either. After all, if you are a created being by an all-power supreme force, yo could have been created specifically to believe this being is "good" and "2+2=4" for whatever reason this being might have. There is no guaranty of truth - just a guaranty that you will operate/act/believe as this supreme being believes you should.

I find both arguments specious, BTW.

I guess that could follow if you believed that God was a liar. But we don't. So you have a 50/50 chance that God is either truthful or deceptive. There is no 50/50 chance of things being different with materialism.

[seer]

Like me - you will be programmed to think what you think.

Whether rational or not, with no way of deciding what is rational or not.

[carpedm9587]

Of course freedom is relevant, a deterministic system has no possibility of self-correction, it would be a complete slave to antecedent conditions beyond its control. There is no possibility of breaking the causal chain. If you are free you do have such possibilities, you are not forced by nature to accept non-rational conclusions.

Again - if that is the reality... then that is the reality

OK, then what do you have the breaks the chain of cause and effect?

So this has been discussed many times. We have found many aspects of the quantum world that throw big monkey wrenches into macroscopic cause/effect. And the entire world of emergent properties is a comparatively new domain. The fact is - we don't know. I don't rush to fill "I don't know" with "must be a god."

So if determinism is true in what sense are you rational?

The term "rational" means "based on or in accordance with reason or logic." Logic/reason are rooted in the basic principles we previously discussed. As long as I am basing my arguments in those laws, I am "rational" as we define it.

How would you know?

By measuring my statements against the basic rules of reason that define "rationality."

I guess that could follow if you believed that God was a liar. But we don't. So you have a 50/50 chance that God is either truthful or deceptive. There is no 50/50 chance of things being different with materialism.

Which is exactly what you could be programmed to believe by a malicious creator. And you have no way to establish a probability. Indeed, you don't even know if you've been programmed specifically to cling to that exact probability by your malicious creator. How on earth would you even know what is "real." "Real" will be whatever this being programs you to experience. Indeed, you cannot even know if I am real. You might be the only being created by this malicious creator, and everything else is illusion you have been programmed to experience for whatever purpose this creator might have.

[carpedm9587]

Whether rational or not, with no way of deciding what is rational or not.

I have no idea what this sentence means...

[seer]

Again - if that is the reality... then that is the reality

So slavery to antecedent conditions and biology is somehow equal to free thought and reason when it come to rationality in your mind?

So this has been discussed many times. We have found many aspects of the quantum world that throw big monkey wrenches into macroscopic cause/effect. And the entire world of emergent properties is a comparatively new domain. The fact is - we don't know. I don't rush to fill "I don't know" with "must be a god."

I don't see how QM could make any difference.

The term "rational" means "based on or in accordance with reason or logic." Logic/reason are rooted in the basic principles we previously discussed. As long as I am basing my arguments in those laws, I am "rational" as we define it.

But again, if you were determined you could not know any of this, that you were tracking with reality. You would just be determined to think this way, whether correct or not.

By measuring my statements against the basic rules of reason that define "rationality."

And how would you know that you were determined to understand these rules correctly?

Which is exactly what you could be programmed to believe by a malicious creator. And you have no way to establish a probability. Indeed, you don't even know if you've been programmed specifically to cling to that exact probability by your malicious creator. How on earth would you even know what is "real." "Real" will be whatever this being programs you to experience. Indeed, you cannot even know if I am real. You might be the only being created by this malicious creator, and everything else is illusion you have been programmed to experience for whatever purpose this creator might have.

Of course I can appeal to probability. The Creator is either truthful or not. What other choice is there? There is no such option with PLantinga's argument against naturalism.

[carpedm9587]

So slavery to antecedent conditions and biology is somehow equal to free thought and reason when it come to rationality in your mind?

Determinism and Free Will have nothing to do with the term "rationality" as far as I know, so there is no "equal" or comparison to be made. Perhaps you are using a different dictionary?

I don't see how QM could make any difference.

I am not surprised!

But again, if you were determined you could not know any of this, that you were tracking with reality. You would just be determined to think this way, whether correct or not.

Correct. I can not even prove to you that the laws of logic are "real." I would only be able to use the definitions I have been "programmed" to use. I can point to the unlikeliness of this misprogramming leading to actual enhanced survivability - but I'd even have to doubt that argument - I could be misprogrammed to believe that too!

And how would you know that you were determined to understand these rules correctly?

I wouldn't.

Of course I can appeal to probability. The Creator is either truthful or not. What other choice is there? There is no such option with Plantinga's argument against naturalism.

Seer - you cannot even know if this argument you are making reflects reality. You cannot know that there are only two choices, or that "two" is a meaningful concept. You cannot even know if the concept of "probability" is real. You can know no more about what is "real" or "true" than I. If naturalism/evolution is true - I could could be "misprogrammed" to not know truth by the blind forces of naturalism and evolution. If the malignant creator is true, you could be misprogrammed to not know truth by the malignant actions of the malicious creator. You would be no better off than I. You would just arrive there by a different means.

Now shall we set aside this ridiculousness and actually have a meaningful conversation? What we have successfully shown is "human perception and reason are fallible - regardless the source of the error" and "we (probably) can never know anything with 100% certitude."

[seer]

Determinism and Free Will have nothing to do with the term "rationality" as far as I know, so there is no "equal" or comparison to be made. Perhaps you are using a different dictionary?

Really? So free thought where you get to weigh propositions, ideas and evidence and come to your own conclusion is just as rational as non-rational forces dictating your beliefs and conclusions through biology and antecedent apart from any real choice or input on your part?

[carpedm9587]

Really? So free thought where you get to weigh propositions, ideas and evidence and come to your own conclusion is just as rational as non-rational forces dictating your beliefs and conclusions through biology and antecedent apart from any real choice or input on your part?

Seer - you are trying to make a comparison based on an attribute that is not part of the term. I did not say equal - or unequal - or better - or worse. I said I find nothing in the definition of "rational" that has anything to do with free will or determinism.

Basically - you're question is nonsensical. It would be like me asking, "so you think vertical philosophical discourse is superior to horizontal philosophical discourse?" One can discourse philosophically (and do many other things) in either orientation - and the orientation has nothing to do with the nature of philosophical discourse. Likewise, a determined thing can be rational and a thing with free will can be rational. The concepts have nothing to do with rationality being "better" or "worse." Your question has no meaning.

And I note you quickly jumped ship from the Plantinga argument...

[Darfius]

Seer - you are trying to make a comparison based on an attribute that is not part of the term. I did not say equal - or unequal - or better - or worse. I said I find nothing in the definition of "rational" that has anything to do with free will or determinism.

Basically - you're question is nonsensical. It would be like me asking, "so you think vertical philosophical discourse is superior to horizontal philosophical discourse?" One can discourse philosophically (and do many other things) in either orientation - and the orientation has nothing to do with the nature of philosophical discourse. Likewise, a determined thing can be rational and a thing with free will can be rational. The concepts have nothing to do with rationality being "better" or "worse." Your question has no meaning.

And I note you quickly jumped ship from the Plantinga argument...

You are dodging the issue. Rationality is the applied use of logic. Applying involves choice. As I mentioned when I initially brought up this argument, which is actually a variant of C.S. Lewis' argument from his book Miracles, trees falling are not rational. Neither are computers falling into their programming.

Determinism cannot account for rationality. Randomness cannot account for rationality. Your appeal to quantum mechanics confuses me anyway, since the underlying law there is that physical reality is determined primarily by observation. Observation being a function of consciousness. So I'm confused as to how consciousness being at the root of reality helps atheism in any way.

[JonathanL]

choices can seem to occur before they are actually made.

I know the authors of this paper probably didn't intend this statement to be parsed in a way that involves a blatant contradiction, but I still think it's a bit funny that it can be read in such a way.

[seer]

Seer - you are trying to make a comparison based on an attribute that is not part of the term. I did not say equal - or unequal - or better - or worse. I said I find nothing in the definition of "rational" that has anything to do with free will or determinism.

Basically - you're question is nonsensical. It would be like me asking, "so you think vertical philosophical discourse is superior to horizontal philosophical discourse?" One can discourse philosophically (and do many other things) in either orientation - and the orientation has nothing to do with the nature of philosophical discourse. Likewise, a determined thing can be rational and a thing with free will can be rational. The concepts have nothing to do with rationality being "better" or "worse." Your question has no meaning.

Carp, I believe rationality means thinking, weighing different evidence and ideas, using logic and freely coming to a conclusion. Not that your rational beliefs and choices are dictated by the non-rational forces of nature.

And I note you quickly jumped ship from the Plantinga argument...

BS Carp, I had to leave where I was so I didn't have time. And I wasn't arguing for or against Plantinga, you brought him in as a discussion point, which really has nothing to do with my points.

[carpedm9587]

You are dodging the issue. Rationality is the applied use of logic. Applying involves choice. As I mentioned when I initially brought up this argument, which is actually a variant of C.S. Lewis' argument from his book Miracles, trees falling are not rational. Neither are computers falling into their programming.

Determinism cannot account for rationality. Randomness cannot account for rationality. Your appeal to quantum mechanics confuses me anyway, since the underlying law there is that physical reality is determined primarily by observation. Observation being a function of consciousness. So I'm confused as to how consciousness being at the root of reality helps atheism in any way.

So, first, thanks for a very civil post! For my response, however, I can only point you back to my posts to Seer. There is nothing about the definition of "rational" that involves determinism or free will or "choice." A computer is a perfectly rational machine. It's logical gates are strictly Boolean, which is rooted in logical fundamentals. Every single thing a processor does is governed by these simple gating functions. You and Seer are arbitrarily adding meaning to the term.

Your question would be answerable if you simply left rationality out of the equation and asked me if I would prefer to learn I am determined or to learn I have free will. I would instantly answer the latter. I would prefer to discover that my sense of free will is NOT an illusion. What I prefer, however, is largely irrelevant. Reality is what reality is. Until I have cause to think otherwise, I'll accept the experience of free will as real, even if I do not fully understand its source.

Of course you might ask a completely different question: does the issue of free will or determinism tell us anything about whether or not there is a god? I would say no. Not that I can tell.