Why I Am No Longer An Atheist

[stevil]

I am sorry, but your objective makes no sense. :blink:

 

No it doesn't.

What can you use reason alone on?

[theculturewarrior]

No it doesn't.

What can you use reason alone on?

 

Philosophy papers.  Apart from that it's not good for much.

[Nihil Obstat]

No it doesn't.

What can you use reason alone on?

Look, I am really not interested in playing a question game. It is a rhetorical trick. Nothing more. And it adds nothing to your argument.

You can go ahead and make your case. I am relatively adequate with the whole philosophy thing, so I promise you will not lose me along the way. But I am not going to play games.

 

If you really really need the whole question and answer thing, then do it all yourself and pretend you are answering me. Plato loved doing that.

[stevil]

Look, I am really not interested in playing a question game. It is a rhetorical trick. Nothing more. And it adds nothing to your argument.
You can go ahead and make your case. I am relatively adequate with the whole philosophy thing, so I promise you will not lose me along the way. But I am not going to play games.
 
If you really really need the whole question and answer thing, then do it all yourself and pretend you are answering me. Plato loved doing that.

I'm just trying to understand how reason alone can come up with any principles, as some people (including yourself) have stated.

I honestly don't see it. I think my strongest case is that Atheists, Theists, Socialists, Capitalists would all reason towards different philosophies. They all have the same facts, they all have the same reasoning skills. So why do they come to different conclusions?

I am pretty sure it is because reasoning is only a tool and the the seed is the most important aspect. Theist's seed is god's definition of right and wrong, Capitalists seed is free market forces etc.
But I think your posts have been suggesting that you disagree, that you think reason alone can come up with the objective answers.

But I presented my strongest case and instead of addressing it, you asked "what about objective facts", so I was trying to go with that, trying to work out how facts and reasoning can conclude into objective answers. Of course you don't have to play games, especially if you don't see any value in it.

[Nihil Obstat]

But I presented my strongest case and instead of addressing it, you asked "what about objective facts", so I was trying to go with that, trying to work out how facts and reasoning can conclude into objective answers. Of course you don't have to play games, especially if you don't see any value in it.

 

I have invited you to make that argument. If it is a good argument, then it should not have any need for rhetorical tricks. If it is good, then it should stand on its own terms. I am more than willing to wait for you to put it together in whatever format works for you. It is just that I am simply not interested in participating in a rhetorical game to get there.

 

But at the moment, all we really have is your assertion that reason is a meaningless concept, and really nothing more than that. I do not think you have demonstrated your position with any kind of weight behind it.

[stevil]

But at the moment, all we really have is your assertion that reason is a meaningless concept, and really nothing more than that. I do not think you have demonstrated your position with any kind of weight behind it.

I have expressed an observation which appears contradictory to the statement that "reason alone has the objective answers". I have no clue as to how the observation can be seen as anything but a contradiction to the statement, in my mind this means that the statement is false. I am very open to someone showing me that both the observation and the statement can be correct.

[Nihil Obstat]

I have expressed an observation which appears contradictory to the statement that "reason alone has the objective answers". I have no clue as to how the observation can be seen as anything but a contradiction to the statement, in my mind this means that the statement is false. I am very open to someone showing me that both the observation and the statement can be correct.

 

I hope that observation was not the paper bag thing, because that made absolutely no sense.

 

If not, feel free to redirect me to that observation.

[stevil]

I hope that observation was not the paper bag thing, because that made absolutely no sense.
 
If not, feel free to redirect me to that observation.

For the third time

I think my strongest case is that Atheists, Theists, Socialists, Capitalists would all reason towards different philosophies. They all have the same facts, they all have the same reasoning skills. So why do they come to different conclusions?

[Nihil Obstat]

For the third time

 

There we go.

 

I think the issue is that we're dealing with perfection versus reality.

No human being has the capacity to understand and integrate every objective fact in the universe into his reasoning. Frankly I do not think we are capable even of integrating every objective fact of which we are aware into our reasoning. So simply because the human person has a limited ability to comprehend reality, his reasoning is necessarily going to be limited as well. If there are certain realities of which a person is unaware, his reasoning will fail to take those things into account, and will therefore make mistakes.

 

This is not the fault of reasoning, but rather a limitation of human intellect. Put simply, we are human and make mistakes. That is not because reason as a concept is flawed, but because we are not able to reason perfectly.

 

This also does not mean that all human reasoning is necessarily flawed. It simply means that it has the potential to be flawed. Again, it is not because reasoning itself is inherently a broken concept, but because our application of it is lacking.

 

A good analogy would be cars. Cars crash all the time, lots of people even die from those crashes, but it is almost never the fault of the cars themselves. It is the fault of people who drive and make mistakes. The fact that drivers make mistakes does not mean that their cars are broken. Just that they cannot use their cars to their fullest potential.

 

 

Edit to make this slightly clearer:

When you say "They all have the same facts, they all have the same reasoning skills. So why do they come to different conclusions?"

I am in fact rejecting that they have all the same facts. This is a limitation of human intellect. We do not all have the same facts. Probably no two people have precisely the same facts.

Edited December 14, 2012 by Nihil Obstat

[stevil]

I am in fact rejecting that they have all the same facts. This is a limitation of human intellect. We do not all have the same facts. Probably no two people have precisely the same facts.

well, if that is true then humanity cannot use reason to come to objective conclusions.

I still don't think reason alone can come to any conclusions for example Gay Marriage
A Catholic thinks that their god does not like Gay Marriage so reason coupled with their religious belief means that they try to stop gay people getting married.
I am opposed to conflict since it might harm me, therefore I am opposed to oppressing people when their actions don't harm me as oppressed people might resort to violence with increases my chances of being harmed, reason coupled with my want to survive means that I must be opposed to oppressing gay people. Therefore I am a supporter of gay marriage.

[Nihil Obstat]

well, if that is true then humanity cannot use reason to come to objective conclusions.

I still don't think reason alone can come to any conclusions for example Gay Marriage
A Catholic thinks that their god does not like Gay Marriage so reason coupled with their religious belief means that they try to stop gay people getting married.
I am opposed to conflict since it might harm me, therefore I am opposed to oppressing people when their actions don't harm me as oppressed people might resort to violence with increases my chances of being harmed, reason coupled with my want to survive means that I must be opposed to oppressing gay people. Therefore I am a supporter of gay marriage.

 

 

 

well, if that is true then humanity cannot use reason to come to objective conclusions.

This does not follow.

It means that not all conclusions are guaranteed to be perfect. It does not mean that all conclusions are guaranteed to be flawed.

 

 

 

 

I am opposed to conflict since it might harm me, therefore I am opposed to oppressing people when their actions don't harm me as oppressed people might resort to violence with increases my chances of being harmed, reason coupled with my want to survive means that I must be opposed to oppressing gay people. Therefore I am a supporter of gay marriage.

 

Why should you care if people are harmed?

Besides that, if reason is a meaningless concept, then you not wanting yourself to be harmed bears precisely no weight when asking if other people should or should not be harmed.

[stevil]

This does not follow.
It means that not all conclusions are guaranteed to be perfect. It does not mean that all conclusions are guaranteed to be flawed.

On almost all topics, people disagree, so who is right and who is wrong? Seems we cannot use reason alone to solve the dilemma.
 
 

 
Why should you care if people are harmed?
Besides that, if reason is a meaningless concept, then you not wanting yourself to be harmed bears precisely no weight when asking if other people should or should not be harmed.

I never said that reason was meaningless, just that it requires a seed. My seed is different to the Catholic seed, therefore even though both of us might be reasonably sound we come to different conclusions. Reason alone does not come to an objective answer.
My seed is that of survival, something that everyone (that is not suicidal) can resonate with, the Catholic seed is based on Catholic belief, something that only Catholics can resonate with.

[Nihil Obstat]

On almost all topics, people disagree, so who is right and who is wrong? Seems we cannot use reason alone to solve the dilemma.
 
 I never said that reason was meaningless, just that it requires a seed. My seed is different to the Catholic seed, therefore even though both of us might be reasonably sound we come to different conclusions. Reason alone does not come to an objective answer.
My seed is that of survival, something that everyone (that is not suicidal) can resonate with, the Catholic seed is based on Catholic belief, something that only Catholics can resonate with.

 

 

 

On almost all topics, people disagree, so who is right and who is wrong? Seems we cannot use reason alone to solve the dilemma.

Nobody said anything about reason alone. I made it clear enough that I was talking about reason based on fact.

As I said, the limitations of human intellect mean that everyone has slightly different 'access', if you will, to objective reality. That means that reasoning will sometimes take them in different directions. That is not a failing of reason, but of intellect.

 

 

 

I never said that reason was meaningless, just that it requires a seed.

You said "The problem with reason and rationality is that it has no meaning of itself."

If it has no meaning of itself, then its meaning comes from elsewhere, therefore reason itself is meaningless.

 

As far as I can tell you still have not presented any real argument as to why your seed theory of reason has any particular merits.

[Ice_nine]

OK, here is a somewhat silly game, if you are keen.

Facts
1. There is a paper bag
2. The paper bag is brown
3. The paper bag is bigger than a human
4. You are a human
5. You are in the paper bag
6. it is possible for you to get out of the paper bag


Objective
Reason your way out of the paper bag without using any seeds (subjective goals)

 

ah, but is the paper bag still "brown" when the lights are turned off and the bag is no longer reflecting the wavelengths that are interpreted as color in the mind?

 

that's the real question here.

[4588686]

ah, but is the paper bag still "brown" when the lights are turned off and the bag is no longer reflecting the wavelengths that

that's the real question here.

Remove the sock.