Argument #2: From the Nature of Rationality

[Jac3510]

At the community’s request, I’ve decided to make a separate thread for each of these arguments. Mods, if at any point you want to combine these threads, feel free. I don’t want to litter the boards with these. I can always go back and edit the first post of whatever thread they get combined into and make it something of a table of contents with the syllogism of each argument.

The argument from subsistent existence was robust in that it gave us a pretty comprehensive picture of God. Due to its nature, it was also a very technical discussion. I want to do a less technical argument this time that is much more limited in scope and objective. Here, we are simply trying to give evidence for the supernatural. Before I present the argument formally, let me give one piece of background information.

The worldview on which most versions of atheism are built is called philosophical naturalism, materialism, or physicalism. The central idea is that everything that exists is strictly natural and obeys the laws of nature. There are no ghosts, gods, angels, demons, souls, or magic. Obviously, on this view, there is just no room for God.

I think we can demonstrate the deficiency of that general position this way:

1.   If rational thought is possible, materialism is false;
2.   Rational thought is possible;
3.   Therefore, materialism is false.

While this doesn’t prove God exists, it certainly makes that process a lot easier, since if there is a supernatural it would need supernatural explanation. We’ll look at just a few implications of this after we defend the proof above.

First, let’s define our terms. We have already defined materialism, so let’s define rational thought if it isn’t obvious to everyone. Rational thought is thought which is characterized by reason, and reason, of course, is the intellectual faculty by which knowledge is gained.
 
Now, for the argument itself, (2) is obviously true. The entire argument hinges on (1). Why should we believe it? Very simply, because if materialism were true, then everything would be determined by the laws of nature. Everything. Rocks don’t stop to ponder whether or not they should fall. They do so because that’s just what happens. But that means that what goes on in your head is no exception. Your thoughts arise, in this scheme, from what your brain does. Yet the brain is just chemistry and biology. It may be very complicated chemistry and biology, but it is still just chemistry and biology. This atom is colliding with that one which causes that atom to do that. Ultimately, your thoughts are determined by the chemistry in your brain.

In other words, if there is no part of you that is capable of stepping “outside” the laws of nature and “thinking for itself,” then everything in your brainâ€"including your thoughtsâ€"is absolutely determined by the laws of nature. If that is true, then you aren’t thinking anymore than a rock is thinking when it falls. You are doing the exact same thing a rock is doingâ€"exactly what the laws of nature demand of you at this moment in this time given your particular physical composition.

Now, we don’t consider a rock’s falling “rational.” It isn’t irrational. It is arational, meaning it is just doing what it is doing without any thought, because that is what it does. Likewise, under materialism, your thoughts aren’t rational. They are arational. The idea that you are considering arguments for anything and coming to the “right conclusion” is just an illusion. You are thinking what you are thinking, as am I, because this is what nature has decided we will think at any given moment.

In short, there is no “intellectual faculty by which knowledge is obtained.” There is just chemistry going on in your brain.

The only way to have rational thought is to posit some part of you that exists outside the laws of nature and works independently of them. This immaterial aspect of you would have to be able to actively influence the laws of natureâ€"to make this neuron fire in that way to generate this thoughtâ€"for rational thought to be possible. That, however, denies materialism.

So the case is clear. Materialism is not, by definition, a rational position. It is, at best, an arational position. Only non-materialistic positions can claim to be rational. And, of course, if there is an immaterial world there must be an immaterial cause. There is nothing in this proof that requires that cause to be the omnipotent God of the Bible, but that cause must at least be intelligent if it is to account for the intelligent immaterial aspect of humanity. At minimum, then, we see that if rational thought is possible, there must be an intelligent, immaterial being that causes our own intelligent immaterial aspects.

As a quick addendum, it's worth noting that this entire argument is built on the idea that rationality must be self-determined to be rational in the first place. This is because if I am forced to make a decision by nature, it isn't really a rational decision. It is just a description of what I had to do by nature. This idea though, can be extended a bit more generally to say that if materialism is true, then nothing is self-determined (because everything is determined by the laws of nature); but our thoughts, if not our actions, are self-determined, and therefore, materialism is false.

[Reginus]

Rational - Characterized by reason, which is the intellectual faculty by which knowledge is gained.
Arational - Just doing what it is doing without any thought, because that is what it does.

I fail to see why thoughts can't be both rational and arational, by your definitions.

[Sophus]

I've always known materialism to mean something else so I'll stick with naturalism.

In other words, if there is no part of you that is capable of stepping “outside” the laws of nature and “thinking for itself,” then everything in your brainâ€"including your thoughtsâ€"is absolutely determined by the laws of nature. If that is true, then you aren’t thinking anymore than a rock is thinking when it falls. You are doing the exact same thing a rock is doingâ€"exactly what the laws of nature demand of you at this moment in this time given your particular physical composition.

This seems to all boil down to Determinism. Thought is not completely free. The brain directs itself; you have but the illusion of control. Your brain is run by natural processes. I wouldn't call it "the exact same thing as a falling rock," but yes, there are natural explanations for thought process. All thought stems from brain. If you have evidence that suggests it is coming from beyond nature, by all means, publish it now.

but our thoughts, if not our actions, are self-determined, and therefore, materialism is false.

When you sleep at night, do you will your dreams? Do ever, unwillingly, make snap judgments about a person upon meeting them for the first time? Doesn't this alone prove that your thoughts are not always self-determined?

That being said, there's nothing you can do which your brain cannot will. You can will anything you want, but you can only will what you will. No man can will his own will. Freewill is a myth.

[Jac3510]

Rational - Characterized by reason, which is the intellectual faculty by which knowledge is gained.
Arational - Just doing what it is doing without any thought, because that is what it does.

I fail to see why thoughts can't be both rational and arational, by your definitions.

Because rationality requires deliberation. If I trip and fall, my falling isn't rational. It is just what happens. It makes no sense to call an action "reasonable" or "rational" if it is strictly externally determined, be it by gravity, instinct, whatever.

[edit:] With reference to the definition, reason is that which allows us to gain knowledge, and it in that the knowledge requirement that we see the need for deliberation. Epistemologists have long debated the exact definition of the "knowledge," but most everyone agrees that in order for something to be classified as knowledge, we have to have good reasons for believing it (so the old definition, "a justified, true believe," Gettier's problem acknowledged). This justification implies deliberation. Having reasons (which is different from the general faculty of reason) that can be good or bad implies that some beliefs are rational and some are not based on what we accept and the thought process we employ. Thus, for one person, a fact can be knowledge and for another that same fact may not. For example, I may be holding an ace of spades in my hand and ask you to guess my card. You may say "Ace of Spades," but if it is a pure guess, then while I have knowledge of my card, it seems evident that what you have is not knowledge.

Now, if a person's thought process is necessarily determined by the physics in his brain, then there is no such thing as a "good" or "bad reason" for anything. You don't really believe anything because of this or that; you "believe" it because its just the way the physics works. In still different terms, to be rational is a normative statement; we ought to believe this or that, whereas if our believes are determined, they are not normative, but purely descriptive; we do believe this or that.[/edit]

This seems to all boil down to Determinism. Thought is not completely free. The brain directs itself; you have but the illusion of control. Your brain is run by natural processes. I wouldn't call it "the exact same thing as a falling rock," but yes, there are natural explanations for thought process. All thought stems from brain. If you have evidence that suggests it is coming from beyond nature, by all means, publish it now.

I didn't assert thought was completely free, but it is evidently at least partially free. I can "think for myself." If my thoughts are strictly determined by the physics of the brain, then I cannot think for myself. Nature does my "thinking" for me. That isn't rational. It's arational.

To be rational is to look at a set of facts and make a conscious decision about what ought to done in light of those facts that is consistent with reason. That whole process is meaningless if everything we think and do is externally determined.

When you sleep at night, do you will your dreams? Do ever, unwillingly, make snap judgments about a person upon meeting them for the first time? Doesn't this alone prove that your thoughts are not always self-determined?

My dreams aren't rational, nor are snap judgments about people. But again, I am not arguing that our thoughts must be 100% free to be rational. I am saying those thoughts that are rational must be self-determined.

That being said, there's nothing you can do which your brain cannot will. You can will anything you want, but you can only will what you will. No man can will his own will. Freewill is a myth.

I'm not worried about free-will. I am worried about self-determination. I agree that free-will is a myth. Our will is free only to the extent that we can choose between two or more logically possible alternatives.

The issue is strictly and totally whether or not we are able to make our own decisions, or if our decisions are forced on us by chemistry and physics. If the former, we can in some sense be rational. If the latter, it makes no more sense to call any thought or idea rational than it does a rock falling off a cliff. Any view that embraces materialism is at best arational, not rational, because you didn't come to it. You were forced to it by the chemistry in your brain. There is no merit "realizing" anything that anyone else hasn't "realized." You are just doing what the physics has determined you will do. No more and no less.

[Martin TK]

Since we, meaning science in general, still know so little about the way the brain functions, your argument is still, in my opinion, stretching to place a "god" figure into the equation.

Since I am NOT a philosopher, perhaps I'm not seeing the "bigger" picture you are trying to paint here.  It still seems like a lot of verbage to "explain" the existence of god or the supernatural.

[Jac3510]

Since we, meaning science in general, still know so little about the way the brain functions, your argument is still, in my opinion, stretching to place a "god" figure into the equation.

Since I am NOT a philosopher, perhaps I'm not seeing the "bigger" picture you are trying to paint here.  It still seems like a lot of verbage to "explain" the existence of god or the supernatural.

There's not very much philosophy in this, and still less science. About the only philosophical distinction we need is description vs. prescription and self vs external determination.

Description describe what things do. The laws of physics are descriptive in nature. They don't tell us what rocks ought to do. They describe what they actually do in this or that situation, and from that, we can make predictions of what they will do in the future.

Prescription describes what things ought to do. Moral laws are prescriptive. I ought not kill. There can be no prediction based on a prescription, because there is no guarantee that the thing will do as prescribed. Logical laws are prescriptive, not descriptive. If A is bigger than B and B is bigger than C, then A is bigger than C. Thus, if A is John, and B is Mark and C is Jerry, then I ought to believe that John is bigger that Jerry. That doesn't believe I will, but because I ought to and don't, I am being illogical or irrational.

External determination is when I do something because something else decides I will do it. If I trip and fall, my falling is externally determined. Gravity, which is not the same thing as me, made me fall. I had no choice in the matter.

Self-determination is when I do something because I will it. If I pitch myself to the ground purposefully, then I determined my fall.

Now, if materialism is true, then everything is externally determined. Nothing is self-determined. In that case, it makes no sense to speak of prescriptive laws, because there is no possibility of what something ought to do. There is only what things are determined to do by something external to themselves. In still other words, if materialism is true, then all we have are descriptive statements, and since logic is not descriptive, the logic is impossible.

Therefore, on any version of materialism, rational thought is impossible. We can describe what we think, but we cannot characterize our thoughts as rational. Materialism, then, is not rational, and atheism built on materialism is equally not rational. Both are, at best, arational. A materialist cannot say that anyone ought to believe (or not believe, or withhold belief concerning) anything, because such a statement is prescriptive, which is forbidden by materialism. But since atheists do make such statements, they are actually affirming, knowingly or not, that prescriptive statements are meaningful and therein denying their own materialism. If, then, we believe that prescriptive statements are possible, then we must logically deny materialism. Therefore, if logic exists, then materialism is not just arataional, it is actually irrational.

[humblesmurph]

I like it.  Easy to read. Straight to the point.  Mind body problem.  Maybe someday somebody will be able to settle it.  This argument doesn't.  Physicalists have nothing better either.

If rational thought is physical, we have to explain the ability to make choices.  If things are physically determined, how can we make rational choices?  However........

If rational thought is non-physical, we still have to explain why it appears that the non-physical is being created by the physical.  Every single observable rational thought appears to have been created by a living brain.  

Nobody wins.

[Davin]

@JAc3510:

I do think it's counter productive, if this is an attempt at an open discussion, to open with a straw man.

That said, you made several positive assertions without the careful language of saying that those positive assertions are merely what you think is true, and that you rely on them without evidence to support them for your conclusion. Being that this is philosophy, and all you've brought forth was speculation I can understand you taking a strong stand on what you've carefully thought out, however I do still take issue with these strong claims as if they're reality. For me, all that does is create a negative view of how you come to conclusions and how you deal with those that you disagree with.

Secondly, there is evidence done in scientific studies that show that the brain makes decisions before the people making the decisions are aware that they've made a choice. Now after reading up in the Libet experiments one could say that they're making the decision before they're aware of it, however this does little to show that people are making conscious decisions because their awareness of the decision occurs after the decision was made. Another point against the Libet evidence is that maybe people still make conscious decisions in other areas, however until we can test for this, it remains an unknown. So while I do agree that the Libet experiments and other scientific studies done on decision making aren't enough for me to accept them as truth, that is the way I'm leaning due to people attempting to disprove the studies without success. So right now the evidence is leaning towards the brain doing what it does and then making up the actual decision process as we become aware of the decision.

[Sophus]

The issue is strictly and totally whether or not we are able to make our own decisions, or if our decisions are forced on us by chemistry and physics. If the former, we can in some sense be rational. If the latter, it makes no more sense to call any thought or idea rational than it does a rock falling off a cliff. Any view that embraces materialism is at best arational, not rational, because you didn't come to it. You were forced to it by the chemistry in your brain. There is no merit "realizing" anything that anyone else hasn't "realized." You are just doing what the physics has determined you will do. No more and no less.

Chemistry of the brain, yes. That qualifies as something within nature, not beyond it. This supports [strike:3tcnwbda]materialism[/strike:3tcnwbda] naturalism, not refutes it.

[Jac3510]

I like it.  Easy to read. Straight to the point.  Mind body problem.  Maybe someday somebody will be able to settle it.  This argument doesn't.  Physicalists have nothing better either.

If rational thought is physical, we have to explain the ability to make choices.  If things are physically determined, how can we make rational choices?  However........

If rational thought is non-physical, we still have to explain why it appears that the non-physical is being created by the physical.  Every single observable rational thought appears to have been created by a living brain.  

Nobody wins.

The second question isn't hard to explain. It can be explained with reference to an immaterial aspect of man (in fact, this must necessarily be so). Since it is an aspect of man, it only comes into existence with man, and the man would not be a man without it. The theological position behind this is called traducianism. Further, we don't deny that immaterial thoughts are rooted in what the brain does. We only assert that the brain can only create immaterial thoughts because there is an immaterial aspect to man. This is best explained by what is called a lower and higher order capacity. Higher order capacities (like thought) rely on the full development of lower order capacities. So, for example, suppose something is physically wrong with me that impairs my lower order capacities (perhaps a head injury gives me brain damage). Just as if you take away the foundation from the house and it crumbles, so having taken away these lower order capacities, the higher order ones aren't manifested. It isn't that they aren't there. It is that they can't be utilized. Or again, imagine an eye that gets disconnected from the optic nerve. That lower order capacity is non-functional, which means the higher order capacity of sight, while still in the eye, cannot be expressed because the lower is gone.

If thought is a higher order capacity, then it relies on lower order capacities, which would include a properly functioning brain. In that case, the higher order would work, and the immaterial aspect of ourselves could make such decisions.

But shy of that, if determinism is true, materialism is not rational; it is arational.

@JAc3510:

I do think it's counter productive, if this is an attempt at an open discussion, to open with a straw man.

It's less productive to make an accusation without demonstration.

That said, you made several positive assertions without the careful language of saying that those positive assertions are merely what you think is true, and that you rely on them without evidence to support them for your conclusion. Being that this is philosophy, and all you've brought forth was speculation I can understand you taking a strong stand on what you've carefully thought out, however I do still take issue with these strong claims as if they're reality. For me, all that does is create a negative view of how you come to conclusions and how you deal with those that you disagree with.

Taking lessons from Hack, are we? How about you demonstrate this to be the case rather than pronouncing my positions as not "carefully thought out"?

Secondly, there is evidence done in scientific studies that show that the brain makes decisions before the people making the decisions are aware that they've made a choice. Now after reading up in the Libet experiments one could say that they're making the decision before they're aware of it, however this does little to show that people are making conscious decisions because their awareness of the decision occurs after the decision was made. Another point against the Libet evidence is that maybe people still make conscious decisions in other areas, however until we can test for this, it remains an unknown. So while I do agree that the Libet experiments and other scientific studies done on decision making aren't enough for me to accept them as truth, that is the way I'm leaning due to people attempting to disprove the studies without success. So right now the evidence is leaning towards the brain doing what it does and then making up the actual decision process as we become aware of the decision.

What makes you think I'm not aware of this research? That's rather presumptive on your part. The most this does is challenge (2) in my argument above. I've spent my time defending (1) precisely because atheists spend so much of their time talking about how important it is to be rational. If you agree that rational thought is actually impossible, then we can have a different conversation.

Now, if you would like to actually engage the argument, I'd be happy to have the discussion. I always am. This one is very simple. Without self-determination, "rational" is a meaningless word. In the deterministic world of materialism, self-determination is impossible, ergo, rational thought is impossible. The logical and necessary conclusion is that materialism is arational at best and irrational at worst. If it is arational, then so is belief in God and unicorns and evolution and gravity and everything else. There are no intellectually superior positions the moment we posit materialism. If rational thought is possible, then materialism is irrational and thus intellectually inferior to any kind of supernaturalism.

Unless, then, you can present me with a third choice, the dilemma for the materialist is this: is materialism on the one hand arational and perfectly on par with every other belief system or is it irrational and inferior to supernaturalism?

Chemistry of the brain, yes. That qualifies as something within nature, not beyond it. This supports [strike:1sr4db8m]materialism[/strike:1sr4db8m] naturalism, not refutes it.

Of course. That is the point I was making in the part you quoted. If thoughts are determined by the chemistry in our brains, then our thoughts are not rational. They are arational, and thus, materialism, and the atheism that is based on it, is arational, and equally so with every other belief system. Far from being intellectually superior as a position, materialism, by its own necessity, is absolutely on par with every other belief, no matter how ridiculous.

[humblesmurph]

Jac3510-The second question isn't hard to explain. It can be explained with reference to an immaterial aspect of man (in fact, this must necessarily be so). Since it is an aspect of man, it only comes into existence with man, and the man would not be a man without it. The theological position behind this is called traducianism. Further, we don't deny that immaterial thoughts are rooted in what the brain does. We only assert that the brain can only create immaterial thoughts because there is an immaterial aspect to man. This is best explained by what is called a lower and higher order capacity. Higher order capacities (like thought) rely on the full development of lower order capacities. So, for example, suppose something is physically wrong with me that impairs my lower order capacities (perhaps a head injury gives me brain damage). Just as if you take away the foundation from the house and it crumbles, so having taken away these lower order capacities, the higher order ones aren't manifested. It isn't that they aren't there. It is that they can't be utilized. Or again, imagine an eye that gets disconnected from the optic nerve. That lower order capacity is non-functional, which means the higher order capacity of sight, while still in the eye, cannot be expressed because the lower is gone.

None of this answers the question Chris. In order to settle the argument, you have to show  how it happens.  I'm not asking you to do that, because if you could, you wouldn't be on this forum.  You'd be too busy with your world wide fame.  The same could be said for any physicalist that could soundly refute your claims with actual evidence.  Saying that man has an immaterial aspect won't cut it, just as the physicalists claim that proof will come someday doesn't cut it.  Neither solution is compelling to my eyes.

[Martin TK]

:hmm:

 :blink:

[Jac3510]

None of this answers the question Chris. In order to settle the argument, you have to show  how it happens.  I'm not asking you to do that, because if you could, you wouldn't be on this forum.  You'd be too busy with your world wide fame.  The same could be said for any physicalist that could soundly refute your claims with actual evidence.  Saying that man has an immaterial aspect won't cut it, just as the physicalists claim that proof will come someday doesn't cut it.  Neither solution is compelling to my eyes.

Ok, I think you might be missing my point. Let's start with (1) in the argument. Whether or not physicalists are right or wrong, can you agree with the logic of (1)? If all thought is strictly determined by nature, can you see why such thought could not be classified as rational, but rather, at best, only arational?

I fully admit that I am taking (2) as a given. If you want to believe that rational thought is impossible, I won't try to quarrel with you on it. I'll simply ask that you accept the logical corollary that materialism (and the atheism founded on it) is not a rational position, and further, that all other opposing views are equally rational in that all are perfectly arataionl. In other words, if you agree with (1) but choose to reject (2), I won't challenge you on that, but I will ask you to accept the necessary fact that theism and atheism are completely equal worldviews. Both are just as arataional, and thus, no atheist has the right to say that atheism is more rational than Christianity.

If you accept (2), it doesn't matter if we can explain how rational thought works or not, then you must accept that materialism is false.

So - I am not going to defend the truth of (2). I am assuming it because atheists do. If you want to accept it, then I ask you to accept the conclusion. If you reject it, I ask you to accept the logically necessary conclusion that materialistic atheism is non-rational. All this is built, then, on (1), which is what I am defending. Can you see that? That is my argument.

My basic question then is simple: is (1) correct? Do you agree that if materialism is true then rational thought is impossible? If not, can you explain where I am wrong in arguing that rational thought is impossible if it is completely externally determined and descriptive?

[Jac3510]

Ok, in PLAIN ENGLISH, one sentence or two, no mumble jumble or fancy words, you know for us uneducated folks, could you tell me what you are attempting to show with this.

Example:  God does not exist because there is no evidence of his existence.  Otherwise, you left me on the side of the argument about four posts ago.  I'm planning to sue the three universities where I got my degress, obviously they didn't learn me nuttin.

Let me try. I am arguing that only one of these two statements is true:


1. If logical thought is impossible, atheism may well be true, but the position is no more rational than any other position since all thought is nothing more than what physics had caused us to think at any given moment. Logic has nothing to do with it, because it doesn't exist.

2. If logical thought is possible, then there is something that exists beyond the physical world--in other words, something supernatural has to exist.

edit: please note both of these statements are the conclusions I am trying to draw. In and of themselves, they are not the argument. You asked what I am trying to show with this. That is what I am trying to show. One of those two statements must be true. You can't have logic in an atheistic world that denies the supernatural.

[Sophus]

1. If logical thought is impossible, atheism may well be true, but the position is no more rational than any other position since all thought is nothing more than what physics had caused us to think at any given moment. Logic has nothing to do with it, because it doesn't exist.

Or option three:

We are subjectively trying to observe an objective world which doesn't care what our subjective interpretations are. Merely because logic/knowledge is not absolute does not mean we discard all theory of logic and/or reason altogether. To do so would require we also ignore all further argument you made.

Says one to the other, "Let go of reason, I'll tell you the reason why!"
"But," she responds, "after that I won't have any reason to believe you."

Our knowledge isn't perfect (we've been down this road before ) but what is reasonable must stand up to tests and scrutiny. There is a smart way to build a bridge, and there is a dumb way, because one won't keep it from collapsing. Thus there's a smart way to conduct science at observe the world around us.

Far from being intellectually superior as a position, materialism, by its own necessity, is absolutely on par with every other belief, no matter how ridiculous.

This scenario of yours would still require an objective universe, an objective reality. In which case some interpretations of it would still be more accurate than others. Not all interpretations are equal, regardless of whether you conform to option 1 or 2.