Originally posted by Chrawnus
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 seer View PostCarp, 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.
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.
Originally posted by seer View PostBS 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.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 carpedm9587 View PostSo, 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.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 PostRational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
Rationality: the quality of being based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
Suuuuurreeeee....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 PostAgain Carp, a device created by a rational mind.
Originally posted by seer View PostIs a snow storm rational? A flood? A tree falling in the forest?
You have conflated two issues, Seer. Again, I cannot know your motives, but you are defining your way to a particular conclusion.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 PostOK 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?
Originally posted by seer View PostDo you think I'm lying?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 carpedm9587 View PostSo, 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]."Last edited by Darfius; 06-25-2019, 05:16 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostYes, 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.
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.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 Darfius View Posthttps://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.
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.
Originally posted by Darfius View PostIt'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.
Originally posted by Darfius View PostIt 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]."Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-25-2019, 05:52 PM.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 PostAgain it is only rational because it was created by a rational mind. It is merely an extension of our rationality.
(or I could ask this the way you seem to like to: SO you admit that the computer is rational then?)
Originally posted by seer View PostIf we are determined how are we any less subjected to the laws of physics?
Originally posted by seer View PostHow are we any more rational than a falling trees?
Originally posted by seer View PostBased on what?
Originally posted by seer View PostThe laws that cause you to think and believe as you do are non-rational - so what in this picture is rational.Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-25-2019, 05:53 PM.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 carpedm9587 View PostDarf - 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.
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.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostIt 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.
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.
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostYou 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.
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostI 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.
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostOn that I would generally agree.
OK
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostNo 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
Again, some studies are not conclusive.
For some who heavily trashes science your putting a lot of weight on 'some' studies.'Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-25-2019, 07:24 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 Darfius View PostThe 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.
Originally posted by Darfius View PostThere 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.
Originally posted by Darfius View PostWhat did I redefine? Observation? Consciousness? Free will?
Originally posted by Darfius View PostYou 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.
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.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 carpedm9587 View Post
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.
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.Last edited by seer; 06-26-2019, 07:00 AM.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
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
172 responses
590 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
04-15-2024, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
|
21 responses
137 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-25-2024, 10:59 PM
|
Comment