Can Atheism Account For Rationality

[carpedm9587]

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.

Yeah...I wondered if anyone would point that out. Leave it to you to be the one. You've always impressed me as a pretty sharp cookie, as my father used to say.

[carpedm9587]

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.

Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
Rationality: the quality of being based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

Where, exactly, do you see "free will" or "determinism" as any part of that definition? Can you find ANY dictionary that contains those concepts? If not, I suggest you are narrowly redefining the term to meet your needs.

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.

Suuuuurreeeee....

[seer]

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.

Again Carp, a device created by a rational mind. Is a snow storm rational? A flood? A tree falling in the forest?

[seer]

Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
Rationality: the quality of being based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

OK so how is rationality valid if determined by the non-rational forces of nature which do not know or consider the laws of logic or reason?

Suuuuurreeeee....

Do you think I'm lying?

[carpedm9587]

Again Carp, a device created by a rational mind.

Yes, it is. And created to operate according to specified rules of logic, making it "rational," according to the definition of the term. Completely determined (for the most part) - and rational.

Is a snow storm rational? A flood? A tree falling in the forest?

How can any of these things be considered "based on or in accordance with reason or logic?" There is no logical function associated with any of these things, AFAIK. They operate according to the laws of physics, nothing more. A computer also operates according to the laws of physics, and those physical laws were harnessed to create a machine that is designed to execute rational operations - operations that can be understood by recourse to basic Boolean principles like "and," "or," "not," and "exclusive or." If memory serves, however, only "and" and "not" are strictly necessary. All other logical operations can be derived from them. They are even called "logic gates."

You have conflated two issues, Seer. Again, I cannot know your motives, but you are defining your way to a particular conclusion.

[carpedm9587]

OK so how is rationality valid if determined by the non-rational forces of nature which do not know or consider the laws of logic or reason?

Well - we designed them according to the laws of reason as we understand them - so we are the ones who determine if their reasoning is "valid" or not. If they follow the laws as we understand them, we consider them to be "validly rational." If they don't, we don't.

Do you think I'm lying?

I'm teasing you, Seer. I do not have a window into your mind or heart, so only you know the answer to that question. I only know that this happens with some regularity. I make a logical point that is (IMO) essentially impossible to refute, and it disappears from the next exchange. Plantinga's argument is a nice mental exercise - but as soon as we acknowledge the finite nature of human cognition, ALL human worldviews are at risk.

[Darfius]

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.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rational

1: having reason or understanding

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict.../understanding

1: a mental grasp : comprehension

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict.../comprehension

1: the act or action of grasping with the intellect : understanding

It took a circuitous route, because the nature of what we are discussing is inherently complex, but rationality is an act involving choice. Trees are not acting when they fall, they are being acted upon. Similarly, computers are not acting but being acted upon. If we could somehow grow trees capable of felling themselves at a certain point of a growth, they would not become rational trees. They would become more sophisticated examples of our rationality.

It's a shame that you "can't tell" whether or not free will vs determinism contributes to our understanding of whether or not there is a God, since it's one of the oldest philosophical arguments considered to bear on that very question. As I mentioned, observation, which is a function of consciousness, which is a function of free will, appears to be at the root of physical reality. You did not address that part of my post, for obvious reasons to me, but I won't be explicit with my meaning since I don't want you to use the excuse of incivility to avoid my arguments again. It appears as if God's existence is not only likely, but necessary to explain the existence of anything at all, which the Bible phrases as "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse [for their unbelief]."

[seer]

Yes, it is. And created to operate according to specified rules of logic, making it "rational," according to the definition of the term. Completely determined (for the most part) - and rational.

Again it is only rational because it was created by a rational mind. It is merely an extension of our rationality.

How can any of these things be considered "based on or in accordance with reason or logic?" There is no logical function associated with any of these things, AFAIK. They operate according to the laws of physics, nothing more. A computer also operates according to the laws of physics, and those physical laws were harnessed to create a machine that is designed to execute rational operations - operations that can be understood by recourse to basic Boolean principles like "and," "or," "not," and "exclusive or." If memory serves, however, only "and" and "not" are strictly necessary. All other logical operations can be derived from them. They are even called "logic gates."

You have conflated two issues, Seer. Again, I cannot know your motives, but you are defining your way to a particular conclusion.

If we are determined how are we any less subjected to the laws of physics? How are we any more rational than a falling trees? Based on what? The laws that cause you to think and believe as you do are non-rational - so what in this picture is rational.

[carpedm9587]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rational

1: having reason or understanding

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict.../understanding

1: a mental grasp : comprehension

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict.../comprehension

1: the act or action of grasping with the intellect : understanding

It took a circuitous route, because the nature of what we are discussing is inherently complex, but rationality is an act involving choice. Trees are not acting when they fall, they are being acted upon. Similarly, computers are not acting but being acted upon. If we could somehow grow trees capable of felling themselves at a certain point of a growth, they would not become rational trees. They would become more sophisticated examples of our rationality.

Darf - your post here is well structured, but doesn't make your case. The point was not that a human person is NOT rational (and your argument clearly shows - by definition of terms that a human person is capable of acting or reasoning rationally). The point is that a computer is ALSO a rational system, albeit a determined one. Note that your first definition includes an "or" and also includes the term "reason." Now look at the definitions here: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/reason. There is no doubt that a thinking mind is a rational thing. But you are attempting to preclude things other than "minds" from operating on logical principles, and the exclusion simply does not work. A computer chooses when the inputs drive the logic in a particular direction. The choice is not free - it is determined by the inputs and the specific Boolean logic implemented.

Again - there is nothing about the term "rational" that REQUIRES free will or "choice." Making a judgement or choice can be the result of a freely executed rational thought process, but making a judgement or choice can also be the result of a determined rational system like a computer. Indeed, there is even a branch of computer science called "automated reasoning." For whatever reason, you guys seem dedicated to the proposition that "it isn't rational if it is not done by a being with free will." Unfortunately, even common usage of the words doesn't support that interpretation.

It's a shame that you "can't tell" whether or not free will vs determinism contributes to our understanding of whether or not there is a God, since it's one of the oldest philosophical arguments considered to bear on that very question. As I mentioned, observation, which is a function of consciousness, which is a function of free will, appears to be at the root of physical reality. You did not address that part of my post, for obvious reasons to me, but I won't be explicit with my meaning since I don't want you to use the excuse of incivility to avoid my arguments again.

I didn't respond to the second part, Darf, because I considered it moot when the first portion was shown to be wanting. It simply attempted to make a conclusion on the "argument from re-definition." As for speculating on my motives, you may speculate away. I usually consider such speculations pointless to the arguments being made. If you'd like to know my motives, I'll be happy to share them.

It appears as if God's existence is not only likely, but necessary to explain the existence of anything at all, which the Bible phrases as "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse [for their unbelief]."

On this we will have to agree to not agree. While it is true that I cannot tell you now "everything" began, I am comfortable with "I don't know." I do not experience a need to rush to fill it with gods.

[carpedm9587]

Again it is only rational because it was created by a rational mind. It is merely an extension of our rationality.

How does that make it any less rational?

(or I could ask this the way you seem to like to: SO you admit that the computer is rational then?)

If we are determined how are we any less subjected to the laws of physics?

We aren't, AFAIK. Being "subject to the laws of physics" is not an impediment to rationality, AFAICT.

How are we any more rational than a falling trees?

Because we act/think/operate in accordance with the basic principles of logic. As far as I know - a falling tree does not.

Based on what?

Our brains/minds, presumably. What a computer does simplistically with silicon and electricity, the human brain does at a far higher level of sophistication with biology and electrochemical reactions.

The laws that cause you to think and believe as you do are non-rational - so what in this picture is rational.

The conformance with the principles of reason: law of identity, law of non-contradiction, Boolean logic, etc.

[Darfius]

Darf - your post here is well structured, but doesn't make your case. The point was not that a human person is NOT rational (and your argument clearly shows - by definition of terms that a human person is capable of acting or reasoning rationally). The point is that a computer is ALSO a rational system, albeit a determined one. Note that your first definition includes an "or" and also includes the term "reason." Now look at the definitions here: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/reason. There is no doubt that a thinking mind is a rational thing. But you are attempting to preclude things other than "minds" from operating on logical principles, and the exclusion simply does not work. A computer chooses when the inputs drive the logic in a particular direction. The choice is not free - it is determined by the inputs and the specific Boolean logic implemented.

The computer is not "choosing", but is following laws, as the falling tree is. Not sure why this simple fact is difficult for you to grasp. That the falling is sophisticated and involves several steps does not make it less the outcome of obedience to laws outside its own choosing.

Again - there is nothing about the term "rational" that REQUIRES free will or "choice." Making a judgement or choice can be the result of a freely executed rational thought process, but making a judgement or choice can also be the result of a determined rational system like a computer. Indeed, there is even a branch of computer science called "automated reasoning." For whatever reason, you guys seem dedicated to the proposition that "it isn't rational if it is not done by a being with free will." Unfortunately, even common usage of the words doesn't support that interpretation.

There is a reason you are making computers your line in the sand rather than falling trees or rushing waves (calling those rational). There is a complexity in the acting out of the laws computers are subject to that allows for the equivocation you are guilty of. But a complex series of falling is still just falling. And the complexity comes from our rationality, not the computer's. I find it duplicitous to suggest that a computer's "rationality" exists separately from ours; that is, to call the product rational rather than the creator of the product.

I didn't respond to the second part, Darf, because I considered it moot when the first portion was shown to be wanting. It simply attempted to make a conclusion on the "argument from re-definition." As for speculating on my motives, you may speculate away. I usually consider such speculations pointless to the arguments being made. If you'd like to know my motives, I'll be happy to share them.

What did I redefine? Observation? Consciousness? Free will?

On this we will have to agree to not agree. While it is true that I cannot tell you now "everything" began, I am comfortable with "I don't know." I do not experience a need to rush to fill it with gods.

You can't tell me how everything began not because we lack the information at the current time, but because without reference to an eternal, conscious being, the consciousness of finite beings cannot be explained inherently. And since you are implying that I "feel a need to rush to gods", I will state explicitly that you instead feel a need to avoid answering to God for behavior you would feel ashamed of if you were a better person.

[Zara]

It doesn't help that my "Kant brain cells" are ancient and dusty. I remember not being particularly fond of his philosophy, but I am not sure I could articulate why 30+ years later. The description you provide of "pure reason" rings a few bells, and I find it very simplistic, so maybe that was my original objection. I don't think reason "precedes" experience. I think they are more inter-related and the relationship is more complex than that model would allow.

Pure reason as a capacity makes experience - self-consciousness - possible. It has a necessary structure, which he deduces. There are more contemporary works on a similar theme, such as Mind and World. It is a good book if you have time. Since I get a theme of 'science above all else' from the people with whom I have discussed things so far, I'm not surprised that this position is deemed outside its scope. However, I find that in many instances people with that view, also tend to hold claims as true, that they cannot hold. Since you have a 'I don't know', you appear less affected. Why does this matter? Because self-consciousness still falls into the 'I don't know' category - and since we are 'in' it, investigations such as Kant's still hold relevance in my opinion since they look from the inside, rather than from the outside.

I'm not here to convince you of this, however, if most Christians, and their greedy interpretation of scripture, weren't destroying the world and atheists didn't sign up to transhumanism and similar retard ideologies - I would be a pluralist about ontologies. Now I see them both as an acute danger to the world and its possibility for a rich (not money) experience.

You quoted, "concepts without intuitions are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind." I'm trying to figure out why this particular quote is relevant in this discussion - how it informs you.

Because on the one side is the empirical and on the other, the rational. A lot of people have gone heavily into the empirical - reducing the rational into it completely. Largely by creating a simplistic model, and limiting criticism of that model by its own criteria. There are other interpretations of phenomena, which have their own merits and issues. Kant has one of them.

I has never fond of Kant's "categorical imperative" or philosophy of "duty." At the time, it was largely because I felt it conflicted with my god-centered view of duty, morality, and imperatives. Now, it's largely because I don't think duty arises from what Kant seems to think it arises from. I think duty is about a social contract. For the individual, I don't think the notion of "duty" applies. I have a particular nature. That nature informs me about what I can and cannot do. It does not impose a duty on me to do any particular thing.

I'm not sure, it sounds like the cart is going before the horse. A rule doesn't teach you duty, it provides something to which you could be dutiful. That ability to bind yourself to it, and uphold it, was there prior. That ability is a rational one. It comes with its own rules about how it treats itself, and by extension, others of its type - i.e., other beings that can bind themselves.

On that I would generally agree.

OK

Again, I jumped in on page x. I'm just here to provide a grounding for reason and rationality. Kant, while himself religious, did not really have a religious philosophical story. He was quite critical of our ability to know if God exists.

[shunyadragon]

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

There are 'some' studies showing 'some' decisions are made before we make them. There are no studies that show we make all decisions before we make them. These studies do not necessarily show that there were not possible choices when even the premonition of decision was made. Our decision making process is much more complicated than 'some' studies.' Much of our decision making processes related to basic needs, instinctual behavior, and behavior survival responses likely are not likely pre-thought out free will decisions, nor reasoned decisions.

Again, some studies are not conclusive.

For some who heavily trashes science your putting a lot of weight on 'some' studies.'

[carpedm9587]

The computer is not "choosing", but is following laws, as the falling tree is. Not sure why this simple fact is difficult for you to grasp. That the falling is sophisticated and involves several steps does not make it less the outcome of obedience to laws outside its own choosing.

And yet the code involves two possible outcomes, the choice between which will be driven by the specific inputs. All you are saying is that the choice of the computer is determined - rather than free. There is still branching logic in the software - it can go one way or the other, and the input into the program will determine the choice taken at that logic point. Again, you (and Seer) are repeatedly adding "free will" to the definition and it is not necessarily so. Continually insisting that a decision point in an algorithm is not "rational" because the specific is decision is determined rather than free is simply not sustainable.

There is a reason you are making computers your line in the sand rather than falling trees or rushing waves (calling those rational). There is a complexity in the acting out of the laws computers are subject to that allows for the equivocation you are guilty of. But a complex series of falling is still just falling. And the complexity comes from our rationality, not the computer's. I find it duplicitous to suggest that a computer's "rationality" exists separately from ours; that is, to call the product rational rather than the creator of the product.

There IS a reason I include computers in "rational" and not trees: Computers are designed to operate according to the laws of reason/logic - trees are not.

What did I redefine? Observation? Consciousness? Free will?

The definition of rational. You and Seer are making "free will" a necessary condition, and the facts don't support your argument.

You can't tell me how everything began not because we lack the information at the current time, but because without reference to an eternal, conscious being, the consciousness of finite beings cannot be explained inherently. And since you are implying that I "feel a need to rush to gods", I will state explicitly that you instead feel a need to avoid answering to God for behavior you would feel ashamed of if you were a better person.

Actually, there are many theories as to how the universe "came to be," including several that simply postulate it is itself eternal (the inflation/deflation theory is an example). Like I said, we don't know - and I see nothing "inherently" inexplicable in the question of origins.

I do have to note, Darf, that I am somewhat surprised (and grateful) for your continued civil posts. I originally was under the impression that conversation with you would be pointless because you would only be interested in attacking my person and not focusing on the arguments. You have proven me wrong, and I apologize for the misconception on my part.

[seer]

There IS a reason I include computers in "rational" and not trees: Computers are designed to operate according to the laws of reason/logic - trees are not.

Were you designed to operate according to the laws of reason and logic? Aren't both you and the tree created by the same non-rational forces of nature? The tree buds, you spit out words - why are you rational and the tree not?

Trees doing what the non-rational forces of nature created them to do = not rational.

Humans doing what the non-rational forces of nature created them to do = rational.