Argument #2: From the Nature of Rationality

[humblesmurph]

Jac3510-........no atheist has the right to say that atheism is more rational than Christianity.

Note that the bold is yours, not something I added for emphasis.   You make your case against materialism, and then you make this statement....in bold type.  That's equating.  This bold type says nothing about a particular kind of atheist.  With this bold type you were challenging atheists, not just materialists.  I responded to this challenge with a simple question: what would make you change your rational choice to be Christian?   This has gone unanswered.  You can't challenge the rationality of my position and not be willing to show the rationality of yours.  If nothing could make you ever change your mind about Christ, then the position you hold isn't rational.  

You can't make an argument, throw in some unproven statements that have nothing to do with the argument, and then when somebody calls you on those unproven statements, then say "only address the the argument".  You state that materialism is the basis for most types of atheism.  Prove it.  Show me a poll that asks atheists what they think.  The reasons I keep seeing are the inconsistencies of the Bible, hypocrisy of the religious, conflicting gods, and lack of proof of the divine.  Materialism doesn't come up much.  You refer to some atheist camps as "militant". Prove it.  Show me militant action by atheist groups.  All I see is people writing and talking.

To answer your question, I've read Hitchens and Dawkins.  I've seen a few Dennet lectures.  If they are "militant", so are you.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Occam's Razor.

[deekayfry]

Excellent stuff Chris.  I love seeing new threads on philosophy and arguments.

I have never seen the word arational.  I can see its applicability in usage, of which applies to everyday normal objects.  After all, objects like pens don't think, right?

Anyway, there is one problem with the rationality, irrationality, and arationality approach.  Man up until the rise of logical deduction seldom if ever thought rationally.  We have little to no record showing pre-Hellenistic thinkers formulating rules of logic or schools of Philosophy.  Things that made no sense wasn't even considered as having to have to make sense to start with.  In other words, rationality was unknown.

If someone said that trees were born of wood nymphs and demon seeds everyone shrugged and said it was "a-okay with them."  It wasn't until the Grecian Hellenistic period when great thinkers like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle started to develop deducing truth from logic.

In so much, saying that because there is rationality, something must have made man rational still falls well within the bounds of circular reasoning.  The problem is man invented rationality, logical reasoning, and ethics.  When it comes to proving a God by means of explaining that a powerful being imparted rationality to man runs every bit counter to why a concept of God was created in the first place.  Theism was created to give explanation to what could not be explained.

Why did crops fail?  Because you pissed God off and she didn't bring rain

But now it is raining, but crops are still failing, why?  Because you still pissed her off and we don't know... oh wait there's an adversary, called Satan, that's why crops failed.  Satan is pissed off that is why your crops failed.

Well now, it is dryer than a desert, but crops are thriving???  You pleased God with enough sacrifice, so shut up and celebrate your bounty after you give 10% of it to us.  (Every bit we never needed to life a finger for).

Look, all of this stems from theistic philosophers trying to reconcile their faith with the new and brilliant types of thinking they acquired.  They couldn't get it to work then, except on faith alone that is, and even until today you cannot get it to work.

[i_am_i]

Jac3510-........no atheist has the right to say that atheism is more rational than Christianity.

The vast majority of Christians haven't given thought one to their religious beliefs. They've just accepted them as true. There isn't any critical thought involved in believing that the Bible is the true word of God with a capital G and that Jesus came back to life three days after being executed and that believing in this Jesus gets you an express ticket to heaven.

People have the right to say whatever they want. I say that believing that the Bible is the true word of God with a capital G and that Jesus came back to life three days after being executed and that believing in this Jesus gets you an express ticket to heaven is irrational.

I can't quote any great scientists or philosophers to "back me up" here, I can't quote Socrates or Sarte, but I can quote Sinatra, who said: "When lip service to some mysterious diety permits bestiality on Wednesday and absolution on Sunday - cash me out."

What it comes down to is this: you believe that the Bible is the true word of God with a capital G and that Jesus came back to life three days after being executed and that believing in this Jesus gets you an express ticket to heaven. No matter how you try to dress it up with all this academic rhetoric it's still the same old dreary "God did it" assertion, the "greatest story ever told" gussied up to attend a Christian philosopher's conference.

[Davin]

Which is the problem with stating an "if" as a strong position. I don't expect nor am I attempting to require that you to adjust your method for me, I'm just stating my objections.

I understand, but this is where discussion might prove futile. It seems to me you are just ignoring logically necessary truths. If a person is free to do that, then why talk about anything? There's no reason to even discuss the weather, because if it is raining, and you and I can both see it, and I say, "No it isn't," what is there to talk about? If I am free to ignore truth when I feel like it, then my construction of reality is absolutely arbitrary at worst and completely subjected to my feelings at best. I prefer a far more rigorous approach than that, personally.

The problem is, that too many assumptions made on undetermined possibilities doesn't tend to be very trustworthy. You say logically necessary truths after I state my objection to you saying things like "It is a completely descriptive process." when the process has yet to be described. Or if you would, go ahead and describe what the process so that all these doctors and psychologists trying to figure out how the brain works can stop wasting their time.

It has yet to be demonstrated as true. Your example doesn't account for the possibility that rational thought could be developed through a naturalistic process. Until we can describe even close to how a decision is made, we're still left with it remaining unknown.

On the contrary, it accounts for that exactly. I've already distinguished between four terms that frame the discussion: self-determination, external-determination, description, and prescription.

A naturalistic (read: materialistic) process excludes, by definition, self-determination. Demonstration:

In materialism:
1. All processes are directed by natural laws
2. Thought is a process
3. Therefore, thought is directed by natural laws.

Thoughts, then, are externally determined in naturalism. It doesn't matter how complicated the biology, chemistry, and physics get in all of this, just as it doesn't matter how complicated the programming gets with AI. Just as in the latter, the computer is ultimately responding to a set of data in a pre-determined (if not dynamic, but still pre-determined) way, so also the human mind, in materialism, is just responding to a set of data in a pre-determined way. It is determined by the data already in the mind as existing values computed against new data . . . but all of that is strictly and totally a naturalistic process, determined by the laws of physics. It is a completely descriptive process. There is no prescription, and where there is no prescription, there is no rationality.

Until the process is completely (or at least mostly) described, we don't know. I think there is a naturalistic explanation for rational thought, maybe not your definition of rational thought. Like before, you're making assumptions that the entire process must be determined without understanding the entire or even most of the process (I make this assumption that you don't know the entire or most of the process because no one else does and if you do then you should probably submit that to some science journals). So do you know the entire scientific process of how a person makes rational thoughts or are you just extrapolating?

I see, but I have a third way to take it: that this evidence relates to the discussion and whether you had already considered or not you could then discuss its implications to your concept.

I don't know if you caught my edit in my previous reply. I actually took out this entire reply that you replied to because I thought that this section rendered the whole tone too snarky. My apologies for that. I only ask, for the sake of clarity, that if you bring up point of fact or research, that you suggest its implications for discussion. If you says, "Well what about elephants?" perhaps you would have something in mind, but the chances of me seeing it are pretty slim.

Something like, "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." or "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."?

Implications are facts or inferences drawn out from other facts or inferences, yet people draw them out. You may draw different implications than I would. So if we are going to discuss implications of such things, I would only ask that you draw the implications out so we can discuss them as you see it. I do take it, after all, that you raised the issue precisely because you do see some implications.

Because I saw some possible implications: you were talking about decisions, there's evidence that shows that people may not be making decisions... pieced them together as being related to decisions making. I thought after mentioning that there was evidence that people may not be making decisions, before I cited the experiments would've helped make the implications clear. It looks like I was wrong because instead of seeing the implications to your argument, you decided to assume something that I never even hinted to.

We certainly do "act as though" there is a rational process, but just because we act that way doesn't justify us in declaring that there actually is a rational process going on.

Now if only you'd apply this same standard of reasoning to everything: just because something to appears to be something, it doesn't mean that it is that something. Like: just because it appears that there can be no naturalistic explanation for "rational thought," doesn't mean there isn't.

You say that if everything is determined, then we "might as well act" in our determined way. The problem with "might as well" is that it implies some sort of freedom or purpose ("might," in English, is a subjunctive, which is used, among other things, to indicate purpose; possibility is another usage). But that is just the point, isn't it? If my actions are predetermined, then there is no "might as well." There is only "therefore we do." There is no other option. Everything is externally determined. You "might as well" say "the rock might as well go ahead and fall." We don't talk that way about normal physics because it wouldn't make any sense. So why do we talk that way about thoughts and intentions? If materialism is true, it is nothing more than convention, which is fine by me. I'm not asking you to change your vocabulary. I am asking you, however, to recognize the truth behind it--under materialism, there is no such thing as "might as well." Rational thought doesn't exist.

That still depends on your concept of rational thought, and your concept seems to include a bit more than just a rational thought.

Not if I'm determined to do so, then it makes sense that I would.

It wouldn't "make sense." That's the whole point. It would just be "what you do." To "make sense" presupposes rationality, which doesn't exist if everything is determined. On the flip side, if all this is determined, then I am externally determined to defend Christianity, Bush was externally determined to invade Iraq, and Muslim extremists are externally determined to blow themselves up. Under determinism, all of those actions "make sense," and it is useless to say anyone "ought not" do such things. They have no more freedom to do anything else than you have freedom to do other than what you are doing.

And because we're part of that external environment for everyone else, we also affect how other people act (whether or not there is self-determinism there is still likely an effect even if it is small). Criticism of people's ideas is a socially beneficial mechanism, if it turns out that determinism is true, it wouldn't mean that we just stop doing what we've been doing; We should still act as though we have self-determined choices, because so far, that's been working pretty well.

I think you're missing another option, that I'm not accepting either position as there isn't enough for me to accept either position and I'm discussion what relates to the discussion in order to gain other perspectives and reasoning in order to see if I can accept either position... even if this still remains something I don't accept, at least I tried.

Then the main point you need to address is the external vs. self-determination. Unless you can show how something can be both self- and externally-determined, then logic dictates we have an either/or. We have a dilemma out of which there is no escape. You can, of course, ignore it, but that doesn't make it go away. "I don't know how we can be rational and determined; we just can!" isn't a very good answer, anymore than if I were to say to you, "I don't know how morality can be objective and rooted in God; it just can!" would be a very good answer.

I've often had great difficulty explaining this very simple concept: I don't have to accept anything. Now that may sound like a bad thing... and well it is in itself, obviously having any kind of discussion with someone else while accepting nothing as true can get a little boring for the other guy. But for any position, starting from the default of not accepting it and not denying it, I think is the most honest approach. Right now I don't think there is enough evidence to say one way or the other. See previous when I was talking about we as humans haven't figured out how the brain works yet.

Without having any bias one way or the other, the evidence could very much relate to 1) because it had shown that people had what appeared to be a power of veto over the decisions that had already been made by the brain, which could show that we could actually make certain kinds of decisions.

Which would imply that there is a part of a person that "stands outside" of the laws of nature, which, by definition, would be supernatural. On the other hand, if they aren't standing outside the laws of nature, then further research will just reveal where the chemistry/biology/physics allows them to make such vetos; in other words, the determination still stands. So this still doesn't relate to (1). It still relates to (2), whether or not self-determined thought is possible.

If the ability to "veto" (basing this thought only on the evidence from the Libet experiments), has a naturalistic explanation, then it would invalidate 1). So it would, relate to 1).

That has yet to be found out.

It's been found. You've yet to accept it. Maybe nature just won't let you.

So you know how the brain functions? Why have so many people been wasting their time on figuring out how the brain works and the psychology of humans when they could have just asked you?

There are other options: Rational thought is possible in a naturalistic universe, rational thought is not possible in a supernatural universe. To say that I must accept either of the positions if the other is proven false is a false dichotomy and at least an argument from ignorance. The only reason to accept something as true is if that something has enough reasonable evidence for it, not because no one can yet think of a better idea or that something else has been proven false.

Again, I've not assumed that rational thought is impossible in a naturalistic universe. That is the first premise of the argument, but I have gone on to defend it.

Yes, to defend it with speculation and extrapolation, not with any evidence. Having only speculation then stating those speculations as reality has never turned out to be good. However basing things on verification, prediction and demonstration has turned out to work out very well for everyone. So which should I trust more: Some dude thinking he knows how things work or some dude who can show me how things work? So in the absence of the dude who can show me how things work, I'll not be accepting anything as true, because I can't trust the other dude who relies only on speculations. Because I don't have to fall for the argument from ignorance. If the only two options available to me were that the sun is affixed to some firm sphere that surrounds the earth or the the sun revolves around the Earth, I wouldn't have to accept either even if no one else could come up with a third option. I could remain not accepting either concepts, and remain perfectly rational.

If rational thought is not possible in a naturalistic universe, then we can't suggest the possibility that it is possible in a naturalistic universe (law of non-contradiction, and all that).

Aye, but to say that rational thought is not possible in a naturalistic universe requires more than just, "in a naturalistic universe everything follows the laws of nature, there can never be a natural explanation for rational thought, therefore rational thought is impossible in a naturalistic universe." How can you be so sure that there cannot be a naturalistic explanation of rational thought?

Whether or not rationality is possible in a supernatural universe isn't under discussion, nor is it relevant.

Why? Because you deemed it irrelevant? It is a valid alternate option to your false dichotomy and argument from ignorance.

If I am correct about (1), and I have repeatedly given my reason for stating as such, and you have yet to respond to it, then the entire question is simply whether or not rational thought is possible. If rational thought is possible, then materialism is false. There are only two ways to avoid this logically necessary conclusion:

1. Deny (1) and show where my argument for it is false;
2. Deny (2)

I can only assume you don't want to deny (2). If you do, then like I said, we may as well stop this conversation now. If, then, you want to maintain that my (3) is false, you must demonstrate a flaw in my reasoning for thinking (1) is true.

No, again there is at least a third option: To not accept your explanation due to not having enough knowledge of how the brain works. One does not have to accept or deny each every concept presented to them.

So that I can get on the same page of what you're discussing, can you provide a somewhat brief explanation of the process of a rational thought? This is to make sure my own definition doesn't interfere with my assessment of your reasoning which appears to use a different concept of rational thought.

I'll not try to explain the process of thought itself. However, that which makes a thought "rational" is a thought that stands in accordance with what we ought to think given the constraints of logic, which is to say, it is what we ought to think following the normal intellectual process we call reason. Reason (not to be confused with reasons) is the intellectual faculty by which we gain knowledge. Whatever knowledge is in the particulars, it certainly requires at least the justification of a belief. Justification deals with what we ought to believe based, again, on the rules of logic, etc.

In sum, rational thought is the biological process by which our thoughts conform with reason, which is to say, our thoughts conform with what we ought to believe given certain data.

Never before have I seen such a definition of rational thought. I have many issues with this, but it will be a lot of explaining to do that I don't have the time for (or interest in) right now.
I like this definition much more: rationality is the exercise of reason, a key method used to analyze the data gained through systematically conducted observations.
And this one: Any process of evaluation or analysis, that may be called rational, is expected to be highly objective, logical and "mechanical".

I didn't have much time during work to reread my reply, so I'll just let errors land where they will and correct them later if they're an issue.

[Sophus]

-........no atheist has the right to say that atheism is more rational than Christianity.

We don't have the right? Did something happen to the First Amendment?

[Davin]

1. From a programming perspective, the way the computer "decides" which move is best to make is to consider all the possible sequence of moves it can make (usually within a given time limitation). It then calculates the "value" of each position, and, depending on the user settings chosen, "moves" based on which value is appropriate. There is no "decision" being made.

In order to make a rational choice, one should consider all possible options they are aware of then make a value judgment for what they think is the best choice. I have only been able to effectively think four moves ahead while my father had proven that he could think at least ten moves ahead, but claims he can think more. The really good chess players can think a good amount more moves ahead than my father. Deep Blues opponent Kasparov, could play entire games of chess in his head and go through thousands of possibilities and then make a choice based on what he thought would be the most valuable move. So what is the difference between the decisions Deep Blue makes and the decisions Kasparov makes?

Because Kasparov is free to see what the best move is after viewing those thousands of moves, knowing which is the best one, and intentionally making a bad one. Of course, he ought not do that, but that is what we mean by "ought." He "knew better." Deep Blue had no such capacity. It was able to determine the best move based on its value system, but then it, by nature, made the best move each time. There is no "ought." You cannot think of Deep Blue's moves in prescriptive terms; only descriptive.

So the only difference between the decisions made by Deep Blue and the decisions made by Kasparov, is that Kasparov could choose to make an irrational decision. Well, we could program that into Deep Blue, would that satisfy this new condition?

If there is no randomizing component (which any programmer will tell you is in the strictest sense not random), then you can predict exactly what the computer will do in response to your move--not because it is the rational thing to do, but because it is forced to make a particular move with reference to your particular position and its predefined value system.

This is only true for some programs, Deep Blue for instance made choices that no one could predict. The program was programmed to adjust the values it was giving based on learning gained from playing against humans.

Wrong. Deep Blue learned from its matches, and thus, given each game, it had a new dataset from which to work. The moves are always determined based on the dataset.

Wrong. Not just a dataset. Any way, how is this different than people basing their decisions on what they've learned?

2. Given the above, if the computer makes a "bad" move, you can't logically say it "ought" to have done this or that instead. The computer doesn't have the option to "make that choice." Given the same circumstances, the computer will make that same move an infinite number of times. In a very real way, playing chess with a computer isn't at all like playing with a person. It is more like reading a "choose your own ending" book--with just a lot more endings and a lot more starting points.

This is also not true of Deep Blue as can be seen by looking over the matches, Kasparov started out two games making the same moves assuming that the computer would continue act predictably (this was how the previous chess program was defeated), however the computer did not continue making the same moves, it changed, not due to randomness, but to what it "learned" (collected data, processed the data and used that to redefined its values), from the first match. Now I'm sure that if I attempted the same moves every time with Deep Blue it would continue to make the same moves, but that would be because I have hardly a chance at beating it, and there's no reason (for a computer or human), to change a strategy that works.

And again, given the above, we see that Deep Blue's moves were still determined. Had Kasparov been aware of the algorithms Deep Blue would employ, and had he been able to do all the same calculations Deep Blue would do (see the descriptive language; not ought to do, but would do), then Kasparov could have perfectly predicted what Deep Blue would do given its new dataset.

How is that different from, "if I knew what Kasparov knew, what he was thinking and how he thinks then I'd know what he would do"?

Deep Blue, then, is an outstanding example of this very debate. It did not make a single rational choice. It just was capable of very complex computations, and it always acted in accordance with what it was programmed to do. There is no ought. There is only "is." There is no prescription, only description. If we can speak of Kasparov being rational at all, then we must speak of his ability to act irrationally, a thing which we cannot speak of in terms of Deep Blue. One had free choice. The other didn't.

So, by your definition; in order to be rational, one must be able to act irrationally?

[Tank]

Jac3510-........no atheist has the right to say that atheism is more rational than Christianity.

Torquemada would have supported that view quite strongly I would think. Be careful when you deny people the 'right' to speak freely lest you are denied the same freedom. Secular states would defend your right to say what you think free of the threat of punishment, torture, imprisonment or death. Muslims can say what they like in the US. You on the other hand would be imprisoned for attempting to set foot in some parts of the world simply because you hold the views you do.

[Jac3510]

[humblesmurph]

Jac3510,

  I've already addressed your 3 part proof.  I was asking you to clarify statements that you made in this thread that have nothing to do with the proof.  You still haven't clarified them. You claimed that Christianity is more rational than atheism.  You've claimed that certain atheist camps are "militant".  You've claimed that materialism is the basis for most types of atheism.  None of these things are related to your proof. None of these things are true.   If you want to simply retract these statements, that's cool.  If you'd like me to start a separate thread to ask you to explain these statements, that's cool too.

[Jac3510]

Jac3510,

  I've already addressed your 3 part proof.  I was asking you to clarify statements that you made in this thread that have nothing to do with the proof.  You still haven't clarified them. You claimed that Christianity is more rational than atheism.  You've claimed that certain atheist camps are "militant".  You've claimed that materialism is the basis for most types of atheism.  None of these things are related to your proof. None of these things are true.   If you want to simply retract these statements, that's cool.  If you'd like me to start a separate thread to ask you to explain these statements, that's cool too.

No, you raised the mind-body problem, which asks how rational thought is possible given determinism on one hand or substance dualism on the other. This was finally boiled down to my saying:

Rational thought can only be possible if there is a part of us that has, to use your word, free will. Free will necessitates that there is a part of us that does not work under the laws of nature (else our will would not be free). Thus, if rational thought exists, then so does the supernatural. That's a very simple proof. Not much technical language there, my friend

Now, again, how rational thought works isn't related to the question of whether rational thought exists. (2) in my argument just assumes it does without answering the mind-body problem.

You can, of course, argue, "Well, rational thought is possible somehow in a deterministic universe, but we just don't know how," which would just be a flat denial of (1). Of course, now you are making an unfounded assertion for which there is absolutely no evidence and, in fact, much against it. If your position is based on blind faith, it isn't rational in the first place. That doesn't make it wrong. It just means your atheism (as you define it) isn't rational.

I have plenty of potential ways to solve the mind-body problem. My own solution is fairly technical and is rooted in Thomistic composite-dualism, but there are other answers as well, including epiphenomenalism, occasionalism, and a host of others. These only make sense with God in the picture. In any case, the point is that the theist has several logically consistent, internally coherent answers to the mind-body problem, even if we haven't settled on the right view yet. Materialists have no such answer because their basic assumptions forbid it.

So, again, the mind-body problem on which you reply says absolutely nothing about the proof. You can rely on it in mere blind faith if you like, of course. Or, you could disavow materialism and posit that there is, in fact, a supernatural aspect to the human being. It doesn't matter how you solve the mind-body problem from my perspective, because you have plenty of theoretical possibilities. You will, then, have accepted a supernatural entity, though, which is all I am trying to prove here.

[i_am_i]

I wish that people, Christians especially, were not so blind in their faith. The Bible demands otherwise (1 Pet. 3:15).

1 Peter 3:15 (King James Version)

"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear."

I don't see how that passage could be interpreted as demanding that Christians not be blind in their faith. All it says is to be ready to give an answer. It doesn't say what that answer would be or what, if any, critical thinking the answer is based upon.

"Meekness and fear?"

[Sophus]

I wish that people, Christians especially, were not so blind in their faith. The Bible demands otherwise (1 Pet. 3:15).

1 Peter 3:15 (King James Version)

"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear."

I don't see how that passage could be interpreted as demanding that Christians not be blind in their faith. All it says is to be ready to give an answer. It doesn't say what that answer would be or what, if any, critical thinking the answer is based upon.

"Meekness and fear?"

Especially when you consider it calls you a fool for not believing in god.

[i_am_i]

I wish that people, Christians especially, were not so blind in their faith. The Bible demands otherwise (1 Pet. 3:15).

1 Peter 3:15 (King James Version)

"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear."

I don't see how that passage could be interpreted as demanding that Christians not be blind in their faith. All it says is to be ready to give an answer. It doesn't say what that answer would be or what, if any, critical thinking the answer is based upon.

"Meekness and fear?"

Especially when you consider it calls you a fool for not believing in god.

Well at least we're finally getting down to the nitty-gritty, meaning that Jac has reached the point where he's citing scripture. I can only guess that his next opus will be "Arguments For Why Everything In The Bible is True."

[PoopShoot]

Well at least we're finally getting down to the nitty-gritty, meaning that Jac has reached the point where he's citing scripture. I can only guess that his next opus will be "Arguments For Why Everything In The Bible is True."

Let me cover that entire thread right now.


that was easy