Can Atheism Account For Rationality

[seer]

And how do you know the premises and conclusions put forward in the bible are true?

I take in by faith, as you take everything else....

[Sparko]

I take in by faith, as you take everything else....

You guys are just repeating the same arguments as in your other threads.

[carpedm9587]

I take in by faith, as you take everything else....

That doesn't explain anything. So why take the bible "by faith" and not the book of Mormon, the Quran, or the Vedas? The world is full of holy books.

Also - how exactly does the bible tell you "the principles of logic are true?"

[carpedm9587]

You guys are just repeating the same arguments as in your other threads.

Interesting that you think this. The general argument about logic and circular is one that briefly came up during the "great thread kerfuffle" but was never explored. It HAS been explored in the other thread I started, so that much is a repetition here. But this last bit is all new territory, at least to me. I actually seldom have experienced Seer actually answering questions. He's been pretty consistent about insisting he's the one asking and avoiding almost everything I've asked.

I'm interested to see how this plays out.

[seer]

No. The truth of the propositions is not BASED on the circular reasoning. Such a claim would be absurd and (as noted multiple times now) circular. The principles of logic are not true BECAUSE of the list of reasons I gave you. Those reasons do not CAUSE the truth of the principles.

P1 If a person likes pizza, they should have it for lunch.
P2 I like pizza
C) I should have pizza for lunch

The truth value of the conclusion depends on the truth value of the premises. One can say that the truth of the premises causes the truth of the conclusion. No such argument is possible for the basic rules of logic themselves. They are not true BECAUSE my mind cannot grasp otherwise. They are not true BECAUSE they work.

We accept them as true as a pure assumption. We don't know what causes them - why they exist - how they came to be - and we cannot even prove they are absolute/universal. We simply accept that they are true and that this truth is absolute/universal - and we work from there. We essentially have no choice in making this assumption. If we do not - then there is nothing we can say at all.

We ALL do - including you. But that also means that any attempt you make to use these principles to make statements about these principals involves you in a logical loop and logical loops say nothing.

Carp I did not say those reasons caused the truth of those principles, I said you can not discover self-evident truths without FIRST having a standard to judge what is or is not self-evident. Your mind is not a blank slate, there are always reasons that precede the acceptance of any self-evident truth. The laws of non-contradiction for instance does not just present itself to your mind or senses - like the sun. You must logically build up to accepting it. There is a web of reasons that brings you to that point. It is circular and you will (and must) accept that circular process as valid.

[Sparko]

ok this has turned into a clone of every other seer v carp thread. I actually thought it might be interesting at first. You two need to keep this nonsense to a single thread instead of turning every thread either of you start into the same thread. You could save time by just cutting and pasting your posts from other threads here.

Unsubscribing.

[carpedm9587]

Carp I did not say those reasons caused the truth of those principles, I said you can not discover self-evident truths without FIRST having a standard to judge what is or is not self-evident. Your mind is not a blank slate, there are always reasons that precede the acceptance of any self-evident truth. The laws of non-contradiction for instance does not just present itself to your mind or senses - like the sun. You must logically build up to accepting it. There is a web of reasons that brings you to that point. It is circular and you will (and must) accept that circular process as valid.

No. I disagree. The mind actually DOES grasp these principles without further reasoning effort. I observed from the first experiences I had that a thing is itself. I didn't have to reason to it. I didn't even consciously think about it. It is intuitively obvious. I experienced that things are - and cannot simultaneously be and not be. I didn't need to reason to it. My mind simply grasped the reality of it. Formulating it as a "formal law" took cognitive energy - but not recognizing these realities. And the laws of logic are simply an extension of these realities to the domain of thought.

Any effort to DEFEND their truth will necessarily get the defender into circularity.

[seer]

That doesn't explain anything. So why take the bible "by faith" and not the book of Mormon, the Quran, or the Vedas? The world is full of holy books.

Also - how exactly does the bible tell you "the principles of logic are true?"

Nothing explains anything in your world Carp. And I didn't say that Bible tells me that the principles of logic are true, I'm saying the God of scripture is rational and that He is the source of said principles, and perfectly honest. And I accept Scripture based on the person and claims of Christ Jesus, His resurrection and the evident work of the Holy Spirit in my life these past 29 years. What more is needed?

[Darfius]

It's physical determinism that cannot account for rationality, and since the only coherent form of atheism is physical determinism, no, atheism cannot account for rationality. But atheism is not about pursuing and subscribing to truth. One cannot be an atheist and pursue and subscribe to truth.

[carpedm9587]

Nothing explains anything in your world Carp. And I didn't say that Bible tells me that the principles of logic are true,

Carpe: On what basis do you accept that the basic principles of logic are true? (post #41)
Seer: The Bible, in the beginning was the Word i.e. the logos, the logic, reason... (post #43)

It may not be what you meant - but it is certainly what you said.

I'm saying the God of scripture is rational and that He is the source of said principles, and perfectly honest. And I accept Scripture based on the person and claims of Christ Jesus, His resurrection and the evident work of the Holy Spirit in my life these past 29 years. What more is needed?

So let's try that question again. Your answers are getting convoluted.

On what basis do you accept that the three basic principles of logic are true?

[carpedm9587]

It's physical determinism that cannot account for rationality, and since the only coherent form of atheism is physical determinism, no, atheism cannot account for rationality. But atheism is not about pursuing and subscribing to truth. One cannot be an atheist and pursue and subscribe to truth.

And the reason for this, in your opinion, is?

[seer]

I experienced that things are - and cannot simultaneously be and not be.

How did you know that without first reasoning about it in your experience? Again Carp, your mind is not a blank slate. And again, as we discussed - this is exactly why Foundationalism has fallen out of favor. You are in fact claiming that there are self-evident truths, but that claim is not self-evident. Self defeating.

[seer]

On what basis do you accept that the three basic principles of logic are true?

Because the laws of logic reflect God's rational and trustworthy nature. I thought I made that clear.

[Sparko]

ooo. Darfius is here. I might stick around for a bit...

[carpedm9587]

How did you know that without first reasoning about it in your experience? Again Carp, your mind is not a blank slate. And again, as we discussed - this is exactly why Foundationalism has fallen out of favor. You are in fact claiming that there are self-evident truths, but that claim is not self-evident. Self defeating.

So first, I don't really care if "Foundationalism has fallen out of favor." I've never been impressed by appeals to the majority as an argument for truth. Until someone shows a means for "proving" the basic tenets of reason without going in circles, I accept that this is simply not possible to do. So repeating "out of favor" doesn't really add much to your argument.

I also understand you want an explanation, Seer - but there isn't one that I can give you that does not get caught up in circles. You are going in circles - and any explanation I attempt to give you will also go in circles - because of the very nature of the foundational logical principles: you have to use them to prove them. None of us can escape this reality, which has now been said more than often enough. Even if I accepted your "the mind is not a blank slate" argument and "prima facie" is not possible (which I don't, for the reasons I have no cited multiple times, so I'll let those posts stand), all you would have successfully done is again affirm that proving these principles is not possible without getting caught in a circle. Essentially, Seer, that is what "prima facie" means to me - I accept their truth despite recognizing I can frame no argument without getting caught in a circle.

But you not only want to claim you can prove that logical fundamentals are universal and absolute (which is what your argument concluded), you also want to claim you can squeeze out "accounting for their existence" from this same circular argument - an argument devoid of provable premises, and arriving at a conclusion that must be true in order for the argument to be framed.

As I have repeatedly said: I accept prima facie these principles because I have no choice about it. I assume they are true - and move on from there. If I do otherwise - I'm stuck. So are you.

And personally, I think this has been repeated more than enough times. As I noted to Adrift - tenaciousness is not the same as "good at logical discourse." If you cannot see where your arguments jump the rails after all of these exchanges, there is not much more to be said.