Can Atheism Account For Rationality

[carpedm9587]

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.

You're trying to argue that thoughts are genetic?

That's kind of like trying to argue that the program running on a computer is dictated by the hardware. The reality is that the program function may be limited by the hardware, but it is not dictated by the hardware. The same instruction set can produce an essentially infinite number of results.

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?

Who says they are determined?

And if they are, then it stands to reason that anything that is so disconnected from reality is to be unable to process it correctly is going to have a significantly less likelihood of surviving. Basically, I'm disagreeing with Plantinga's "P (R | N&E) = low" Plantinga has no substantiation for "low." The fact is, as soon as we have a finite, limited being, the P (R | any worldview) is undetermined. Finite/limited means our reasoning can be in error. We can take multiple steps to try to reduce this error, but perfect knowledge and error-free thinking is beyond our grasp - for ANY worldview.

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.

And yet, both of those would not align with reality, creating an entire sentient universe divorced from reality. Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? I doubt it. Can that be quantified? Not by anyone on any side of the discussion.

You seem to be arguing, basically, there is no way to know our knowledge is perfect, ergo we need a god.

First - we don't know that materialism necessitates determinism because we don't know the principles of causality are uniform across all levels of existence, and we have cause to think they might not be.

Second - I experience free will so, until I have cause to think that experience is an illusion, I'll accept that experience as a reality.

Third - you have the problem in a theistic worldview as well. You are not a perfect being. You are definitively limited and capable of (if not prone to) error. You cannot ensure the accuracy of your own beliefs in your own worldview either.

[carpedm9587]

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

Again - you appear to be redefining terms to arrive at a conclusion. "Rational" has nothing to do with determined or not determined. You are adding that concept, for reasons I cannot fathom.

[Zara]

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.

That principle in nature makes a demand on us, to follow it - however, there is no causal force to do so, it is a moral one.

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.

No, is the answer, it could not - however, without the principles evident in nature - it could also not think.

[shunyadragon]

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 agree with little-monkey, What were you smoking when you wrote this? Are you sincerely proposing humans are genetically determinist with no free will

Calculators above will be thrown in the trash and move on.

There is a simple brute fact of nature that pretty much negates the possibility a mechanistic deterministic world, and that is the observed fractal nature of our physical world.

[carpedm9587]

That principle in nature makes a demand on us, to follow it - however, there is no causal force to do so, it is a moral one.

A "principle" is "making a demand on us?" I'm not following you in the least. And what is a "moral causal force?"

No, is the answer, it could not - however, without the principles evident in nature - it could also not think.

I have no idea how you get to your answer "no." The best I can achieve is "I don't know." We have no mechanism for determining what the human mind would be capable of deprived of sensory input. There is no way to test the hypothesis that I can think of.

And I again have no idea what your last sentence means. If nature operated on different principles, I have no way of being able to determine if those new principles would result in a being capable of "mind." Or if you're saying "there have to be SOME principles (rather than chaos?) I guess I agree. It is hard to imagine a universe that is pure chaos resulting in "mind." Of course, even "chaos" is a principle, and if you have chaos for an infinity of time, presumably all possible permutations of "what is" would occur, including any that could support "mind." So who knows...

And I'm not even sure why we have gone down this rabbit hole...

[Zara]

A "principle" is "making a demand on us?" I'm not following you in the least. And what is a "moral causal force?"

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.

I have no idea how you get to your answer "no." The best I can achieve is "I don't know." We have no mechanism for determining what the human mind would be capable of deprived of sensory input. There is no way to test the hypothesis that I can think of.

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.

And I again have no idea what your last sentence means. If nature operated on different principles, I have no way of being able to determine if those new principles would result in a being capable of "mind." Or if you're saying "there have to be SOME principles (rather than chaos?) I guess I agree. It is hard to imagine a universe that is pure chaos resulting in "mind." Of course, even "chaos" is a principle, and if you have chaos for an infinity of time, presumably all possible permutations of "what is" would occur, including any that could support "mind." So who knows...

And I'm not even sure why we have gone down this rabbit hole...

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.

[seer]

You're trying to argue that thoughts are genetic?

Of course they are all driven by genetics if materialism is true - what else is there?

That's kind of like trying to argue that the program running on a computer is dictated by the hardware. The reality is that the program function may be limited by the hardware, but it is not dictated by the hardware. The same instruction set can produce an essentially infinite number of results.

I'm not sure what you think wouldn't be determined, even with an infinite number of possible results?

Who says they are determined?

Of course the calculators would be determined to give the answers they do.

And if they are, then it stands to reason that anything that is so disconnected from reality is to be unable to process it correctly is going to have a significantly less likelihood of surviving. Basically, I'm disagreeing with Plantinga's "P (R | N&E) = low" Plantinga has no substantiation for "low." The fact is, as soon as we have a finite, limited being, the P (R | any worldview) is undetermined. Finite/limited means our reasoning can be in error. We can take multiple steps to try to reduce this error, but perfect knowledge and error-free thinking is beyond our grasp - for ANY worldview.

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.

And yet, both of those would not align with reality, creating an entire sentient universe divorced from reality. Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? I doubt it. Can that be quantified? Not by anyone on any side of the discussion.

You seem to be arguing, basically, there is no way to know our knowledge is perfect, ergo we need a god.

First - we don't know that materialism necessitates determinism because we don't know the principles of causality are uniform across all levels of existence, and we have cause to think they might not be.

Second - I experience free will so, until I have cause to think that experience is an illusion, I'll accept that experience as a reality.

Third - you have the problem in a theistic worldview as well. You are not a perfect being. You are definitively limited and capable of (if not prone to) error. You cannot ensure the accuracy of your own beliefs in your own worldview either.

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.

[seer]

I agree with little-monkey, What were you smoking when you wrote this? Are you sincerely proposing humans are genetically determinist with no free will

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/

[seer]

Again - you appear to be redefining terms to arrive at a conclusion. "Rational" has nothing to do with determined or not determined. You are adding that concept, for reasons I cannot fathom.

Carp if you are determined to believe that 2+2=5 how is that rational?

[shunyadragon]

Carp if you are determined to believe that 2+2=5 how is that rational?

Math model: 1 =1.25, therefore 2+2=5.

[seer]

Math model: 1 =1.25, therefore 2+2=5.

Shuny, just stop....

[Sparko]

Shuny, just stop....

No, No, let him continue....

[seer]

No, No, let him continue....

He already put his foot in his mouth: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...onality/page15

[Sparko]

He already put his foot in his mouth: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...onality/page15

There is room for another foot.

[seer]

There is room for another foot.

I think that would hurt...