Rational Thinking Is Not Natural

[i_am_i]

It has been proposed here on this forum that if human beings are capable of rational thought then there must be a supernatural reason for that. This means that rational thought is not natural to human beings, it isn't something that humans could have arrived at on their own. Instead it is bestowed on us by a supernatural force, an intelligence that created everything, that it was bestowed on us, human beings, by God with a capital G.

I don't agree with that at all. I see this kind of thinking as another example of religious dogma being employed to denigrate humanity. Why anyone would make it a point to do that is beyond me but it is done a lot by religious people, even by the most intelligent religious people.

So. What do you think? If human beings are capable of rational thought then there must be a supernatural reason for that. Taken purely on face value what would you make of that?

[PoopShoot]

I would say that would be compelling evidence for the supernatural, probably some kind of spirit realm.  That said, there is still further evidence needed to say that there are gods or that any one particular god is anything more than myth.  Taken on their own meits, I've seen no reason to believe that any existent god is one of the theistic gods (at least the popular ones).

[Will]

Rationality comes from problem-solving and problem-solving is a natural part of human intellectual development.

[wildfire_emissary]

i agree that rational thought is not natural. It is unnatural not supernatural. It is acquired through time and not inherent in man.

[Heretical Rants]

Yes. Many forms of irrationality can often be the default. We must train ourselves to think rationally.

This is "unnatural" in one sense of the word, but certainly not supernatural.

[Tank]

Rational thinking is not natural.

Rational thinking is the product of a natural object, the human brain.Is it a first order manifestation of the brain, rather than a second order manifestation one example of which would be a flint tool? If one considers language to be a first order manifestation is rational thought, as structured manipulation of memes, a second order manifestation?

I don't think rational thought is unnatural, as we can do it without physical tools. As far as we know it is unusual and possibly unique in the animal kingdom. More questions than answers.

[Cite134]

:hmm: Rational thinking is not natural.

Rational thinking is the product of a natural object, the human brain.Is it a first order manifestation of the brain, rather than a second order manifestation one example of which would be a flint tool? If one considers language to be a first order manifestation is rational thought, as structured manipulation of memes, a second order manifestation?

I don't think rational thought is unnatural, as we can do it without physical tools. As far as we know it is unusual and possibly unique in the animal kingdom. More questions than answers.

Agreed.

[PoopShoot]

I don't think rational thought is unnatural, as we can do it without physical tools. As far as we know it is unusual and possibly unique in the animal kingdom. More questions than answers.

That's one thing that's always gotten me, people seem to think we're special because we have tools.  They say that only we plan ahead, yet chimps at an overcrowded zoo were found to gather rock piles to throw at gawkers, a behavior not seen in the off-season.  They say only we can conceptualize, but crows have made tools that require a concept of the final tool.  The say that only we can philosophize (a typically useless behavior anyway), yet they were wrong about the first two.

[penfold]

If human beings are capable of rational thought then there must be a supernatural reason for that. Taken purely on face value what would you make of that?

Interesting question, I agree that there is something very seductive about such an argument.

Moreover the basic movement from human 'rationality' to a divine 'mind' has deep pedigree. The idea that in some way making sense, organising, of the universe required divine rationality dates back before Socrates with a thinker called Anaxagoras who claimed that the universe was chaos organised by Nous (which roughly translates as mind - in the context a divine mind).

This line of argument was, in part, adopted by the Platonic tradition. I think it is not too much of a leap to link this, through neo-platonists like Plotinus, to the development of medieval Christian theology. In particular this kind of derivation from the fact we have a rational mind, is methodologically the same as the derivation Aquinas makes about our concept of perfection in his ontological proof of God.

Later still we find this kind of argument used by the rationalists. For example Leibniz uses just such an argument to justify his God (the perfect monad which guarantees the divine harmony of our perceptions).

Having said all that I think that the movement from an anthropocentric observation (us humans are capable of rational thought) to a divine reality is ugly in philosophical terms. As PoopShoot so astutely pointed out there is a certain arrogance to assuming that rationality is exclusive to us humans. More deeply though, why should it be any more surprising that the universe gave rise to rational animals, than say, that the universe gave rise to creatures with opposable thumbs? It seems to me that our disassociation of 'rationality' from the natural world (hence the need for a "supernatural" cause) is both arrogant and misguided.

Peace

[Jac3510]

It has been proposed here on this forum that if human beings are capable of rational thought then there must be a supernatural reason for that. This means that rational thought is not natural to human beings, it isn't something that humans could have arrived at on their own. Instead it is bestowed on us by a supernatural force, an intelligence that created everything, that it was bestowed on us, human beings, by God with a capital G.

I don't agree with that at all. I see this kind of thinking as another example of religious dogma being employed to denigrate humanity. Why anyone would make it a point to do that is beyond me but it is done a lot by religious people, even by the most intelligent religious people.

So. What do you think? If human beings are capable of rational thought then there must be a supernatural reason for that. Taken purely on face value what would you make of that?

I'm glad you don't agree with that, because neither do I.

I argued that rational thought is impossible if determinism is true. [EDIT: This is true even if God exists and created a deterministic universe. Some Christian theological positions embrace a type of deterministic universe, and they should be rejected for exactly the same reasons that I argue materialism should--it renders rational thought impossible. /EDIT] If determinism is true, everything that humans think or do is natural to them. There is no such thing as anything non-natural. That includes painting pretty pictures to murdering millions of people. The reason is simple enough. If determinism is true (and determinism is the necessary consequence of materialism), then our thoughts--all of them--are determined by nature, not by ourselves.

This thought is hardly original with me. I'm quite a fan of Etienne Gilson's The Unity of Philosophical Experience, so let me quote from him on how this idea came up in Kant's own philosophy:

The first implication contained in the fact of duty is that we should be conceived as able to perform it. An act of pure duty, without any personal motives, is perhaps a psychological impossibility; but the desire to obey the moral law because it is the moral law must at least enter into the composition of our moral decisions. Unless the word

ought is to be wholly meaningless, what we ought, we also can. Now, to be able to determine oneself according to a certain law is to be free. Consequently, freedom must be presupposed as a property of the will of all rational beings. Moreover, since man is not free as a member of the world of sense, which understanding is bound to conceive as strictly determined, it is to be supposed that man, as a moral agent, is a member of another world, purely intelligible, where no sensible motives can interfere with the exigencies of morality. (188)[/list]
Now, while I reject Kant's general view of morality, the point he is making well describes our own discussion. If we are not able to think in any other way than we do, then it is meaningless to say that we ought to think in any other way, in which case the laws of logic are absolutely meaningless. They do not describe "right thinking." They are merely the necessary results of certain physical processes that have absolutely no bearing on reality at all. Irrational thoughts are no more irrational than rational thoughts are rational. They simply are what they are by necessary effect.

The only way to say that we are rational is to say that we ought to think in this way or that way, which is to say we are able to think in other ways, which is to say that we are, in some sense, self-determined. That, however, requires us to admit a reality beyond the natural.

Whether or not that reality terminates in God is another matter of discussion, but the evidence for the supernatural is absolutely irrefutable. If rational thought is to be possible, the supernatural must exist.

[i_am_i]

This thought is hardly original with me.

Are any of your thoughts original with you?

[Jac3510]

This thought is hardly original with me.

Are any of your thoughts original with you?

I would hope not. Does anyone really think that they are so much smarter than all the great minds in human history, past and present, that they've thought of something no one else has ever thought of before? Please.

Beyond that, the origin of an idea has no bearing on its truthfulness. The fact that two and two make four is true whether you realized that on your own or was taught it by your school teacher. We weigh arguments on their own merit, not on where they came from.

[Sophus]

Are any of your thoughts original with you?

I would hope not. Does anyone really think that they are so much smarter than all the great minds in human history, past and present, that they've thought of something no one else has ever thought of before? Please.

Sure. In fact, I probably do it in my sleep.  

[The Magic Pudding]

So. What do you think? If human beings are capable of rational thought then there must be a supernatural reason for that. Taken purely on face value what would you make of that?

So how come those that are so devoted to the supernatural aren't better at rational thought?  

[Jac3510]

So. What do you think? If human beings are capable of rational thought then there must be a supernatural reason for that. Taken purely on face value what would you make of that?

So how come those that are so devoted to the supernatural aren't better at rational thought?  

Because they haven't been trained how to think rationally. If rational thought is possible, then the part of you that thinks is just as supernatural as theirs. The question is only whether or not a person chooses to train themselves in the discipline of logic. There must be a supernatural part of you if you are to think logically. That doesn't mean you have to believe there is a supernatural part of you to think logically anymore than I have to believe that there is a particular source of water to get water from my faucet.