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 Chrawnus View Post
    I think he's using rationality in the sense of "capable of rational reasoning", or being able to reflect rationally on a statement about reality in order to come to a conclusion about whether that statement is true or false.
    Could be. But then we get to what it means to "reason." If we limit that term to something only a mind can do, I agree we do not yet see "mind" in our modern computers. But when you watch a computer play a game of Jeopardy and win, or engage in an Intelligence Squared debate, at least some part of me begins to wonder just how sophisticated these machines are becoming, and when will sentience become a reality. It's an interesting field.
    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
      Adding "it is true that this statement is false" does not change the dilemma that the original sentence poses. The end result is that you cannot assign a true/false value, which you are confirming in this post, and which is what was in my following reply to seer. Before replying to any of my posts, please take the time to read the posts that might have followed after the original post. Otherwise we are going to go in endless circles.

      Thanks for your comprehension.
      I have read all of the post related to this subject, and had done so before framing the response. As noted, your sentence "appears" to defy the Law of Excluded Middle because you contrived a statement that violates the law of non-contradiction. You might note that the Law of Excluded Middle is the only one of the three so-called "foundational" laws that is actually nothing of the sort. You only need identity and non-contradiction. The Law of Excluded Middle is derived from the former. If you violate one of the foundational laws, you have basically created something "irrational," so any other derived laws/principles are not going to apply either (e.g., structure of a syllogism, concepts of validity and soundness, etc.).

      Further, the human mind does not "create" these laws. That gets you into the same problem Seer is having. These principles are recognized by a sentient mind as the operational principles of the universe and sentience. Whether or not there is a mind - a thing remains itself and a thing cannot "be" and "not be" in the same way at the same time/place. You only need a mind if you wish to articulate these principles or express them symbolically.
      Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-22-2019, 03:10 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 Darfius View Post
        The question of God's existence is not merely an intellectual one. It is a matter of the heart as well. It's incumbent upon those of us who have yielded our bodies, souls, minds and hearts to the only One worthy of them to engage with all of these facets in those who have not so yielded. I suppose I do appear the bully to someone used to being able to simper and posture and obfuscate without typically being called to account. Your refusal to admit the truth about reality poses danger to yourself and everyone around you. It is my duty to act accordingly, though always with love, which exists in my speech if you have the humility to spot it. As I said, when you are prepared to stop acting as if you are the only creature who matters in all of space and time, I will be available to help you make the transition to the sane.
        You know, I debated for a bit about whether or not I'd even respond. Let's just say that I will generally read all of the posts in a thread, but I'm only going to be responding if there is a degree of civility to the post. This one comes close but there is nothing further to respond to, so I'll leave it to you.

        ETA: You know, Darf - it might be interesting to chat, and I am open to conversations. I just have no desire to engage in a conversation that will be unpleasant from start to finish. There are several other posters here who show that kind of pattern, and I have found it easier to simply disconnect. Simple common courtesy goes a long, long way. That does not mean we have to agree. We probably won't. But if cannot converse with out at least a semblance of civility, I see no point. I'll leave it to you. If you can respond with civility, I'm in. If it's just more of the same, thanks, but no thanks.
        Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-22-2019, 03:41 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 little_monkey View Post
          And that is supposed to be bold?? Are you saying that humans are incapable of setting the rules of logic???
          Well, yes, that's what I'm saying. Logic is, amongst other things, the study of the structures or patterns valid inferences can take, and we do not make those up ourselves, we discover them. We did not decide one day to, for example, simply make up a rule that said "A thing cannot be both itself, and not itself at the same time", instead we looked at reality and simply observed that reality seemed to adhere to that principle without exception, and so we simply decided to group that, and other similar traits of reality and call them rules of logic.



          Originally posted by little_monkey View Post
          It called a self-referential statement. Duh, tell me something I don't know.
          And because it's a self-referential statement the words true and false simply lose all of their meaning in the context of that statement. What state of independent reality outside of itself does that statement refer to exactly, that it can either contradict or correspond to/affirm?

          The law of excluded middle, for example, states that either a proposition or it's negation is true (and not that a statement is either true or false, as seer incorrectly stated, that one is the principle of bivalence), but I have trouble seeing what the negation of "This statement is false" would be. It cannot be "This statement is true", or "This statement is not false", or "It's not the case that this statement is false", or any other variant, because they're all different statements and all of them are self-referential, and so they cannot stand in the relationship of being a negation to the statement "this statement is false". Even the statement "The statement 'this statement is false' is false", or "It is not the case that the statement 'this statement is false' is true" does not seem to be a negation of the statement because even if those statements refer to the initial statement "this statement is false" ultimately they both end up having the same semantic content as the statement they're referring to, and so they're identical in meaning to the statement, and are not it's negations.

          So if the law of excluded middle states that for any proposition, either that proposition or it's negation is true, then obviously the implication is that by propositions are meant statements for which you can actually construct a negation. If you cannot construct a negation for a specific statement then obviously it follows that the law of excluded middle does not, and is not even intended to, apply to that statement, and therefore it cannot be a contradiction of the principle.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            You only need a mind if you wish to articulate these principles or express them symbolically.
            Before you can articulate anything you must create it in your mind. Words are creations of the human mind. And logic being made up of words is a creation of the human mind. Now the rules of logic are just that, rules. The word "laws" in this instance in reference to science is meant to be descriptive. For instance, the law of gravity is a description of what is observed - all objects regardless of their masses fall at the same rate. Logic is akin to a word game, and as such has rules. It may describe something real, as it may describe something that is totally fictional, ditto for words which is no surprise since the very structural ingredients of logic are words. Now the interesting thing is that logic can be transcribed into mathematical symbols - another creation of the human mind. And this allows logic to be input into a computer. Human are indeed very creative. Mind you, our brain also produces a lot of garbage. But that is the nature of creativity, isn't it?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
              So if the law of excluded middle states that for any proposition, either that proposition or it's negation is true...
              Your law of excluded middle fails at quantum scale. An electron can be a particle or a wave. A particle is localized, while a wave extends throughout space - two contradictory statements. As I said in a previous post, logic as a creation of the human mind has its limitations. It's a word game with its rules, and like words, it can sometimes describe something real, and other times, something fictional. Is it useful? Of course as long as we are careful and realize its potentials along with its limitations.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by little_monkey View Post
                Before you can articulate anything you must create it in your mind. Words are creations of the human mind. And logic being made up of words is a creation of the human mind. Now the rules of logic are just that, rules. The word "laws" in this instance in reference to science is meant to be descriptive. For instance, the law of gravity is a description of what is observed - all objects regardless of their masses fall at the same rate. Logic is akin to a word game, and as such has rules. It may describe something real, as it may describe something that is totally fictional, ditto for words which is no surprise since the very structural ingredients of logic are words. Now the interesting thing is that logic can be transcribed into mathematical symbols - another creation of the human mind. And this allows logic to be input into a computer. Human are indeed very creative. Mind you, our brain also produces a lot of garbage. But that is the nature of creativity, isn't it?
                On this I think we are going to disagree. When it comes to the laws of logic, the laws of mathematics, and the laws of physics, what the mind is "making up" is the symbology to represent an external, objective reality. The symbols are made up by the mind. The principles they represent are not. We make up "numbers." But there are still eight planets around our sun even if there is no mind to conceive the word "eight" or articulate the concept "eight." Likewise, a thing is itself, even if there is no mind to grasp, appreciate, or express that reality.

                We're not talking about "The Force" here. That is a creative, made-up concept. The realities on which are founded the laws of reason and the laws of mathematics are not. Our symbols represent an existent reality about the universe. Whether or not there is mind - a thing is always itself.
                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
                  On this I think we are going to disagree. When it comes to the laws of logic, the laws of mathematics, and the laws of physics, what the mind is "making up" is the symbology to represent an external, objective reality. The symbols are made up by the mind. The principles they represent are not. We make up "numbers." But there are still eight planets around our sun even if there is no mind to conceive the word "eight" or articulate the concept "eight." Likewise, a thing is itself, even if there is no mind to grasp, appreciate, or express that reality.

                  We're not talking about "The Force" here. That is a creative, made-up concept. The realities on which are founded the laws of reason and the laws of mathematics are not. Our symbols represent an existent reality about the universe. Whether or not there is mind - a thing is always itself.
                  I do not dispute about a reality existing outside ourselves. But when are talking about principles, laws, etc. these are inventions of the human mind. I'm pretty sure the universe is not saying:"oh, that body is falling under gravity and I must make sure it accelerates at 9.8m/s/s". Hummm... no, that is a description that we've made up so that it can make sense to us, human beings. I'm sure if we could talk to a dolphin, that statement would be incomprehensible to that poor beast. By refining such descriptions, these laws/principles/concepts are useful to us. We get to invent airplanes, for instance.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by little_monkey View Post
                    Your law of excluded middle fails at quantum scale. An electron can be a particle or a wave. A particle is localized, while a wave extends throughout space - two contradictory statements. As I said in a previous post, logic as a creation of the human mind has its limitations. It's a word game with its rules, and like words, it can sometimes describe something real, and other times, something fictional. Is it useful? Of course as long as we are careful and realize its potentials along with its limitations.
                    Except being a particle is not the negation of being a wave. The negation of being a wave is not being a wave and the negation of being a particle is not being a particle. The law of excluded middle doesn't state that a thing cannot be two different things at the same time, but that it cannot be both a thing, and not be that thing at the same time. So no, it doesn't fail at the quantum scale, not as far as we know. If your example is supposed to disprove any fundamental laws of logic it's certainly not the law of excluded middle.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                      Except being a particle is not the negation of being a wave. The negation of being a wave is not being a wave and the negation of being a particle is not being a particle. The law of excluded middle doesn't state that a thing cannot be two different things at the same time, but that it cannot be both a thing, and not be that thing at the same time. So no, it doesn't fail at the quantum scale, not as far as we know. If your example is supposed to disprove any fundamental laws of logic it's certainly not the law of excluded middle.
                      That example was not meant to disprove anything but to show the limitation of logic in describing certain realities. In that sense, it fails. Now you've decomposed the statement into two, but it is one sentence, and the "or" is meant to be "and/or". It's like saying: something is a circle and/or a square.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by little_monkey View Post
                        That example was not meant to disprove anything but to show the limitation of logic in describing certain realities. In that sense, it fails. Now you've decomposed the statement into two, but it is one sentence, and the "or" is meant to be "and/or". It's like saying: something is a circle and/or a square.
                        And it still doesn't demonstrate an exception to the limit to the law of the excluded middle.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          If seer thinks God somehow created logic I think he is wrong. And if he thinks it exists because of God's nature he will have to explain that. I agree that God is rational but I fail to see how that would 'create logic'
                          seer doesn't think that God somehow created logic. It's definitely something more like the later, and in that he's not necessarily in bad company. As WL Craig puts it,
                          I don’t think that the laws of logic are things, any more than are holes, Wednesdays, or numbers. So while God certainly is the Creator of all that exists, He needn’t be thought to be the Creator of logic’s laws. Rather I’d say that the laws of logic are a description of the functioning of God’s mind. The Bible says, “In the beginning was the Logos (word, reason), and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God” (John 1.1). God is the supremely logical thinker, and the laws of logic are a reflection of His mind, just as the moral law is a reflection of His character. Just as God did not arbitrarily make up the moral law, so He did not arbitrarily make up the laws of logic.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                            Seer - as far as I know, what is rational is what conforms to the basic laws of reason. A computer is a perfectly rational machine in so far that it conforms to those laws. Are you suggesting a different meaning for the term "rationality?" Perhaps inserting "true" somehow distinguishes it from "false rationality?" I'm not even sure what that is.

                            I think you may be confusing "rationality" with "choice."
                            You are missing my point. A deterministic process could in theory create creatures that act rationally, generally. But we don't make rational choices or decisions because they are rational or right, but because they were determined. You could have just as well been determined to believe that wrong answers are rational. Genuine musing over propositional content is kind of out of the picture.
                            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
                              You are missing my point. A deterministic process could in theory create creatures that act rationally, generally. But we don't make rational choices or decisions because they are rational or right, but because they were determined. You could have just as well been determined to believe that wrong answers are rational. Genuine musing over propositional content is kind of out of the picture.
                              Is this sort of along the lines of Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by little_monkey View Post
                                I do not dispute about a reality existing outside ourselves. But when are talking about principles, laws, etc. these are inventions of the human mind. I'm pretty sure the universe is not saying:"oh, that body is falling under gravity and I must make sure it accelerates at 9.8m/s/s". Hummm... no, that is a description that we've made up so that it can make sense to us, human beings. I'm sure if we could talk to a dolphin, that statement would be incomprehensible to that poor beast. By refining such descriptions, these laws/principles/concepts are useful to us. We get to invent airplanes, for instance.
                                If you don't disagree about the reality, then we aren't disagreeing. As I said, it takes a mind to formulate symbology that represents these realities. But we're not "making up laws" in the same way humanity "makes up laws" when we establish governments and the rules we live by, or articulate moral codes. We are, instead, representing in symbol form a reality that exists objectively.
                                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
                                160 responses
                                508 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                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