Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
I wish to argue that atheism is irrational, so far as it denies the existence of the supernatural.
How can one have an independent view of observable reality, unless one presumes that reason originates independently of observable reality, and hence has an origin that is ‘above-Nature’, ‘beyond-Nature’ or ‘supernatural’?
Put another way, how can one use reason as an independent measuring stick for describing the observable universe, unless one holds that reason originates independently of that which it describes?
We don’t expect M&Ms; to reason, and yet they’re clumps of molecules, like brain cells, which we DO expect to produce reason.
Isn’t that so because we presume that reason originates independently of that through which it occurs?
If reason does not originate independently of the observable forms through it occurs, and ultimately the observable universe, then people’s opinions can be dismissed by merely pointing out the biases, prejudices, and biological, social, economic and other circumstances in which they reason. e.g. “You just say that because you’re a middle-class Caucasian”, or “You just say that because of your evolutionary psychology”, or “You just say that because you’re a Democrat” - which, really, is largely the standard of political ‘debate’ these days.
... unless, of course, atheism DOES offer a basis for reason?
I wish to argue that atheism is irrational, so far as it denies the existence of the supernatural.
Good luck with that.
Justaskin - 12 May 2011 04:23 AM
How can one have an independent view of observable reality, unless one presumes that reason originates independently of observable reality, and hence has an origin that is ‘above-Nature’, ‘beyond-Nature’ or ‘supernatural’?
First things first. You can’t just presume something exists (i.e. the “supernatural”) just because it conveniently solves a rhetorical issue for you. The idea of something somehow “outside of nature” is nonsensical ... and just how would we naturally bound beings perceive such a realm in order to even determine it exists in the first place? It must be presumed, entirely, by definition, which is actually the only “realm” in which is exists—the realm of ideas, where all definitions “reside”.
Do you have any evidence of the alleged “supernatural” or any means of acquiring such evidence, even in theory? From what source do you think your notion of the supernatural is derived?
—
The real issue here is the idea that atheism should “provide” a basis for reason. Reason/logic (the system/rules by which reality works) must be derived from observing reality, as must our understanding of the same. When religious thinking convinces a believer (a host mind) that it “provides” a basis for reason the “operating system” can be corrupted and things like the supernatural can slip in. Beliefs about things that by definition cannot be derived from any kind of sensory perception (i.e. they inherently have to be fabricated from the imagination) demonstrate that corruption. The notion of “faith-based understanding” has intercepted the signals we get from the world and our natural mechanisms by which we process them and thus develop an understanding of reality. It by-passes the entire mechanism and imposes the fabrication as a counterfeit replacement for genuine understanding. Then you have to apply “faith” to shore it all up ... make it seem legit.
Justaskin - 12 May 2011 04:23 AM
Put another way, how can one use reason as an independent measuring stick for describing the observable universe, unless one holds that reason originates independently of that which it describes?
You’d do well to consider that thought beyond just how to articulate it more clearly. Reason/logic are just the parameters within which reality works, as we’ve observed and thoroughly established. It’s not some arbitrary metric we decide to pull out of the tool chest because we like the results we get. That would be a good description of the metrics many less critical and less intellectually or emotionally disciplined people try to replace it with, though.
I wish to argue that atheism is irrational, so far as it denies the existence of the supernatural.
Good luck with that.
[Cheers, and nice to meet you {shakes hands}. Luck is a good thang. Particularly with formatting, which I shall work on.]
Justaskin - 12 May 2011 04:23 AM
How can one have an independent view of observable reality, unless one presumes that reason originates independently of observable reality, and hence has an origin that is ‘above-Nature’, ‘beyond-Nature’ or ‘supernatural’?
First things first. You can’t just presume something exists (i.e. the “supernatural”) just because it conveniently solves a rhetorical issue for you. The idea of something somehow “outside of nature” is nonsensical ... and just how would we naturally bound beings perceive such a realm in order to even determine it exists in the first place? It must be presumed, entirely, by definition, which is actually the only “realm” in which is exists—the realm of ideas, where all definitions “reside”.
[It’s not merely a ‘rhetorical’ issue. Your statements are assertions of truth, as if you yourself are not bound by your biases, prejudices, and biological etc circumstances. You presume, with respect, that what you say is truth independent of whether I recognise it or not, and yet (you imply) that I should agree with you, because I am bound by that truth. Thus, if I contradict your statement, I am not merely contradicting you, but also some independent standard to which you aspire and to which I too, must aspire if I am to be a reasonable person. No?
I would also assert that you make a distinction between the observable universe or ‘Nature’, and ‘supernature’, which is illogical. Just as ‘Superman’ is a man who is above other men, and a ‘superconductor’ is a conductor that is yet above other conductors (I think?), I would assert that ‘Supernature’ is embodied by Nature and yet goes beyond it. Thus, we can perceive the workings of reason, and yet reason originates independently and beyond that through which it occurs.]
Do you have any evidence of the alleged “supernatural” or any means of acquiring such evidence, even in theory? From what source do you think your notion of the supernatural is derived?
[Well, reason itself is supernatural, I reckon. It exists independently of the biases, prejudices, and circumstances in which I ‘acquire’ it, exercise it and observe it.]
Justaskin - 12 May 2011 04:23 AM
Put another way, how can one use reason as an independent measuring stick for describing the observable universe, unless one holds that reason originates independently of that which it describes?
You’d do well to consider that thought beyond just how to articulate it more clearly. Reason/logic are just the parameters within which reality works, as we’ve observed and thoroughly established. It’s not some arbitrary metric we decide to pull out of the tool chest because we like the results we get. That would be a good description of the metrics many less critical and less intellectually or emotionally disciplined people try to replace it with, though.
[Sorry, I gotta’ disagree with your statement that “reason/logic are just the parameters within which reality works. The fact that we’ve observed the workings of reason, in the human brain in particular, where thinking has been found to correspond to electrical activity, does not establish that physical, observable matter exhausts reason. Were that so, reason could not offer an independent account of the brain through which it occurs. No?
Nor is reason an arbitary metric we pull out of the tool chest. Again, it originates independently of the circumstances in which we observe it to occur.]
Basing reason on God doesn’t solve the problem of dependence. It just shifts it from the universe (an existent without an agenda) to God (a being, according to nearly every religion in human history, with an agenda). So if you’re trying to say that basing reason on its origins within the universe makes it more biased and prejudicial than basing it on God, you have a difficult path ahead of you.
Basing reason on God doesn’t solve the problem of dependence. It just shifts it from the universe (an existent without an agenda) to God (a being, according to nearly every religion in human history, with an agenda). So if you’re trying to say that basing reason on its origins within the universe makes it more biased and prejudicial than basing it on God, you have a difficult path ahead of you.
Not to mention the problem that this being with an agenda inherently has to be made up if it’s the traditional “supernatural” critter we’ve all come to know and love as “God”.
‘I wish to argue that atheism is irrational, so far as it denies the existence of the supernatural’
This premise is incorrect from the git go. Atheism/rationalism does not DENY the existence of supernaturalism, it just does not see any evidence for it at this time, or at any time in human past history.
Show us the evidence, we’ll consider it and evaluate it and possibly accept it.
We are waiting.
What there is evidence to support, is rational. What is projected without evidence or understanding or defineablity, irrational.
‘I wish to argue that atheism is irrational, so far as it denies the existence of the supernatural’
This premise is incorrect from the git go. Atheism/rationalism does not DENY the existence of supernaturalism, it just does not see any evidence for it at this time, or at any time in human past history.
That’s a good point, but it also applies only to most conscientious atheism.
As we tend to have to go over every so often (i.e. perpetually), atheism isn’t some kind of system of belief or a world view, it’s simply the absence of belief that any gods exist (rather than the lack of belief that any gods exist, except for one, or except for one pantheon). Of course it’s part of a world view, but “atheism” is no more a world view in-and-of itself than “optimism” or the lack of belief that ghosts exist, or that The A Team is the best popular TV series ever created, as well as an ideal framework for understanding how best to ethically live in the cosmos with others.
‘I wish to argue that atheism is irrational, so far as it denies the existence of the supernatural’
This premise is incorrect from the git go. Atheism/rationalism does not DENY the existence of supernaturalism, it just does not see any evidence for it at this time, or at any time in human past history.
That’s a good point, but it also applies only to most conscientious atheism.
As we tend to have to go over every so often (i.e. perpetually), atheism isn’t some kind of system of belief or a world view, it’s simply the absence of belief that any gods exist (rather than the lack of belief that any gods exist, except for one, or except for one pantheon). Of course it’s part of a world view, but “atheism” is no more a world view in-and-of itself than “optimism” or the lack of belief that ghosts exist, or that The A Team is the best popular TV series ever created, as well as an ideal framework for understanding how best to ethically live in the cosmos with others.
There is a whole continuum along which people who call themselves atheists lie. I have met atheists who ardently deny the possibility of the existence of God, and at the other end I have met atheists who want to believe that God exists but cannot simply will themselves to do it (i.e. their agnosticism precludes knowledge of God, and thus belief). The original poster should take care not to paint with too broad a brush lest unnecessary confusion result.
We don’t expect M&M’s to reason, and yet they’re clumps of molecules, like brain cells, which we DO expect to produce reason.
Isn’t that so because we presume that reason originates independently of that through which it occurs?
We don’t expect M&M’s to run Internet Explorer, either, and yet they’re clumps of molecules, like the microprocessor in your computer. Isn’t that so because we presume that Internet Explorer runs independently of that through which it occurs?
We don’t expect M&M’s to reason, and yet they’re clumps of molecules, like your brain cells—which apparently don’t produce reason, either.
If you sift through some of the unfortunate language that justaskin uses, there is an interesting thought there. Forget for a moment the concept of “god” or “supernatural,” or the question of whether atheism offers a basis for reason, and just focus on the idea that we use reason to objectively describe and understand the universe. What justaskin is saying is that if reason is an appropriate tool to analyze the universe, then “reason” as a principle must exist apart from the universe. Otherwise, it is simply a product of the universe, and using it to analyze the universe ends up being an exercise in logical bootstrapping.
If reason exists as an entity or principle apart from the universe, then there is a basis for arguing that intelligence exists apart or independently of the universe, and then there are consequences of that conclusion. So, in order to keep this thread from becoming another Cage of Shit-throwing Monkeys that is so common around here, I propose that we discuss this idea.
