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.
The first thing that I need answered is whether or not Justaskin’s name is pronounced Just askin’ or Just a skin.
Secondly, I’d like to know if natural selection is the only determining force in the evolution of the species, why did we develop humor, aesthetics, myriad emotions besides fight flight fuck and feed, and consciousness itself? Why weren’t we make into unthinking robots that reproduced without ever sighing over a sunset or painting on the walls of our cave?
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”.
Hi Matthew. Thanks for tuning in. But I don’t even mention God. Also, you haven’t addressed my question. Instead, you’ve just set out why you think it’s a dumb or difficult question for me to argue, before again equating supernature with God.
As to your points, I’m merely asking how reason can claim to offer an independent view of the observable universe, unless we hold that it originates independently of the observable biases, prejudices and circumstances in which we reason.
The first thing that I need answered is whether or not Justaskin’s name is pronounced Just askin’ or Just a skin.
Secondly, I’d like to know if natural selection is the only determining force in the evolution of the species, why did we develop humor, aesthetics, myriad emotions besides fight flight fuck and feed, and consciousness itself? Why weren’t we make into unthinking robots that reproduced without ever sighing over a sunset or painting on the walls of our cave?
Have a look at a concept called exaptation.
Here. I’ll help a little bit:
Jefe - 27 August 2008 05:58 AM
The anti-theist - 27 August 2008 04:01 AM
The question that always sticks in my mind is what was the purpose of us evolving such a complex brain? What was the evolutionary need for philosophy and physics? !
Here’s one thought on how it may have come about:
Early man, living on the savanna, evolved to throw a spear. Being able to successfully throw a spear allowed early humanity to hunt/gather more food, and thus a better chance to pass on the genetics that allow for well-thrown-spears. To throw a spear well, humans must be able to instinctively calculate to allow for wind, motion of target, up-hill, down-hill throws, etc.
As a side effect of being able to instinctively calculate a well-thrown spear (survival adaptation) when humanity later invents mathematics and trigonometry, humanity finds they have a built-in aptitude for this kind of thinking.
Exaptation = An unlooked for side effect of evolved behaviors.
An interesting side effect of this is that a larger right-brain (computation) makes for better antelope catching. The larger right brain allows for quicker instinctive calculation of prehistoric antelope artillery - making for quicker kills, more prosperous humans, and more reproduced genes to select from.
Further, it is easier for the genetic map to simply allow for a larger over-all brain, than simply a larger right-brain. So consequently the left-brain (linguistics, imagination) also gets larger.
Ultimately the result is the evolution of poetic artillery-men. (*grin*)
Paraphrased from PZ Myers, Prof. Biology, University of Minnesota.
I’m not saying that’s necessarily exactly how it happened. But if greater cognition was a selection trait for part of our brain, it’s much easier for nature to make the whole thing bigger. Thus there could be a whole bunch of piggy-backed cognitive structures that developed - not purely for selection, but because a larger brain allowed them, and the larger brain was a selection trait.
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”.
Hi Matthew. Thanks for tuning in. But I don’t even mention God. Also, you haven’t addressed my question. Instead, you’ve just set out why you think it’s a dumb or difficult question for me to argue, before again equating supernature with God.
As to your points, I’m merely asking how reason can claim to offer an independent view of the observable universe, unless we hold that it originates independently of the observable biases, prejudices and circumstances in which we reason.
Kind regards,
j
Justaskin
Your argument seemed strongly reminiscent of the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God (i.e. TAG). I’ve never encountered anyone that used the “reason must originate independently of the thing it is applied to” who wasn’t ultimately trying to argue for TAG. But feel free to assure me that this isn’t the case.
The first thing that I need answered is whether or not Just name is pronounced Just askin’ or Just a skin.
Secondly, I’d like to know if natural selection is the only determining force in the evolution of the species, why did we develop humor, aesthetics, myriad emotions besides fight flight fuck and feed, and consciousness itself? Why weren’t we make into unthinking robots that reproduced without ever sighing over a sunset or painting on the walls of our cave?
I like ‘just a skin’. But I’d like to see a 4 in there somewhere.
Re natural selection, I’d say that, as far as we know, natural selection/evolution is the only force that has caused us to be as we are. There’s no evidence for anything else. Natural selection and evolution gave us plants, insects, fishes, reptiles, mammals… We are just another species of primate in the class Mammalia.
Consciousness, once it began to develop, aided our survival. Simple as that. That is why it has stayed with us and continued to develop. As for humor, aesthetics, etc, I imagine it would be difficult to become as conscious as we have and not be able to see the funny side or our situation. There’s a sort of cosmic irony staring us in the face as we contemplate our circumstances. If we didn’t laugh we’d cry. Some animals, bower birds for example, show a sort of pseudo- or proto-aesthetics. Others, including apes and cetaceans clearly demonstrate a sort of proto-morality and culture. We ought not think we are so special. It’s all just a product of physics, chemistry and evolution. Nothing spooky about any of it IMO. Sorry - I know others find this hard to accept and cope with. But there it is. That’s what the evidence is telling us.
Your argument seemed strongly reminiscent of the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God (i.e. TAG). I’ve never encountered anyone that used the “reason must originate independently of the thing it is applied to” who wasn’t ultimately trying to argue for TAG. But feel free to assure me that this isn’t the case.
So, you’re saying that the question doesn’t interest you, and you’d rather not offer an explanation of the basis of reason offered by atheism ... I guess?
I’d like to know if natural selection is the only determining force in the evolution of the species, why did we develop humor, aesthetics, myriad emotions besides fight flight fuck and feed, and consciousness itself? Why weren’t we make into unthinking robots that reproduced without ever sighing over a sunset or painting on the walls of our cave?
Do you see non-human animals as being unthinking robots, saralynn? Unless you’re able somehow to enter—even if only via fMRI scaning—the inner realms of some of the more intellectually inclined species such as elephant, dolphin, or dog, it makes sense to observe their behaviors and languages and not comment beyond our reach. Sorry. I certainly don’t mean to stop you from talking and asking, saralynn. But certain things, until direct answers are in place, need not be discussed with any tone approaching certainty, wouldn’t you say? I’m not implying that you have done this, saralynn. Your questions are entirely appropriate. It’s perhaps unresearched answers you might be seeking that concern me.
By the way, one of my favorite hobbies has been to try to find connections between things such as humor or aesthetics and natural pathways to their bio-cognitive systems. I find aesthetics particularly explainable by the everyday evolutionary unfolding of sexual cues getting generalized in interesting ways.
Obviously that’s a thread or two in itself, and my spare time is limited these days. Of course, if you start something, I may not be able to resist at least reading what you come up with.
Your argument seemed strongly reminiscent of the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God (i.e. TAG). I’ve never encountered anyone that used the “reason must originate independently of the thing it is applied to” who wasn’t ultimately trying to argue for TAG. But feel free to assure me that this isn’t the case.
So, you’re saying that the question doesn’t interest you, and you’d rather not offer an explanation of the basis of reason offered by atheism ... I guess?
Thanks for, um, contributing.
My question to you was an attempt to ensure I wasn’t putting words in your mouth. And here you respond by doing the very thing I was trying to avoid doing to you. Shall I take this evasion of my question to be an affirmation that you are seeking to argue for TAG, or not?
The first thing that I need answered is whether or not Just name is pronounced Just askin’ or Just a skin.
Secondly, I’d like to know if natural selection is the only determining force in the evolution of the species, why did we develop humor, aesthetics, myriad emotions besides fight flight fuck and feed, and consciousness itself? Why weren’t we make into unthinking robots that reproduced without ever sighing over a sunset or painting on the walls of our cave?
I like ‘just a skin’.
Re natural selection, I’d say that, as far as we know, natural selection/evolution is the only force that has caused us to be as we are. There’s no evidence for anything else. Natural selection and evolution gave us plants, insects, fishes, reptiles, mammals… We are just another species of primate in the class Mammalia.
Consciousness, once it began to develop, aided our survival. Simple as that. That is why it has stayed with us and continued to develop. As for humor, aesthetics, etc, I imagine it would be difficult to become as conscious as we have and not be able to see the funny side or our situation. There’s a sort of cosmic irony staring us in the face as we contemplate our circumstances. If we didn’t laugh we’d cry. Some animals, bower birds for example, show a sort of pseudo- or proto-aesthetics. Others, including apes and cetaceans clearly demonstrate a sort of proto-morality and culture. We ought not think we are so special. It’s all just a product of physics, chemistry and evolution. Nothing spooky about any of it IMO. Sorry - I know others find this hard to accept and cope with. But there it is.
But when you say that “It’s all just a product of physics, chemistry and evolution… There it is”, you’re asserting that that is a fact, according to some standard that is independent of your own biases, prejudices and circumstances.
Feel free to address the topic, and to specify the basis of that assertion…
[W]hen you say that “It’s all just a product of physics, chemistry and evolution… There it is”, you’re asserting that that is a fact, according to some standard that is independent of your own biases, prejudices and circumstances.
Feel free to address the topic, and to specify the basis of that assertion…
Books that address the topic fill library shelves in every modern city in the world. What do you want from Rob?
It seems obvious that magical thinking is the missing ingredient in Rob’s analysis. If only he could see things through the tricked-out lens that you have.
My basis is a litttle thing called evidence. There are vast amounts of it that suggest, indeed, demonstrate, that we got here through the natural working out of the laws of nature. On the other hand, there is zero evidence of anything spooky. And it’s got nothing to do with my “biases, prejudices and circumstances”. I can only go on what my senses and there extensions tell me. IMO, we have no other way of ‘knowing’ anything. Our cognitive and reasoning abilities are just a product of our highly developed consciousness which is istelf just a product of our large, complex brains.
[W]hen you say that “It’s all just a product of physics, chemistry and evolution… There it is”, you’re asserting that that is a fact, according to some standard that is independent of your own biases, prejudices and circumstances.
Feel free to address the topic, and to specify the basis of that assertion…
Books that address the topic fill library shelves in every modern city in the world. What do you want from Rob?
It seems obvious that magical thinking is the missing ingredient in Rob’s analysis. If only he could see things through the tricked-out lens that you have.
Hi nonverbal
What do I want from Rob? A statement of that oh-so-obvious principle by which atheism offers a basis for reason. As in the title of the topic. Atheists assume it, like everyone else, but atheism undermines it, so far as it holds that the observable circumstances in which people reason exhaust reason itself.
My basis is a litttle thing called evidence. There are vast amounts of it that suggest, indeed, demonstrate, that we got here through the natural working out of the laws of nature. On the other hand, there is zero evidence of anything spooky. And it’s got nothing to do with my “biases, prejudices and circumstances”. I can only go on what my senses and there extensions tell me. IMO, we have no other way of ‘knowing’ anything. Our cognitive and reasoning abilities are just a product of our highly developed consciousness which is istelf just a product of our large, complex brains.
Hi rob, thanks for engaging
But isn’t reason an independent standard by which you measure evidence; a standard which, you assert, also binds me, if I am to be a reasonable person? Thus, your biases, prejudices and circumstances are the way in which you (and I) experience the objective evidence of the laws of Nature.
I’m simply arguing that in order for reason to offer an independent perspective upon Nature, it must originate independently of the observable forms in which we use it.
Reason itself is “spooky” (i.e. supernatural), so far as it must originate independently of that which it describes - the laws of Nature. No?
You also asserted that reason is “just a product of our highly developed consciousness which is itself just a product of our large, complex brains”. So, if Agent Smith from The Matrix came to Earth, and wanted to exterminate us as being merely “a virus”, you wouldn’t have a claim to any independent standard of reason, a standard that could coincide with his own processes of reasoning?
Your argument seemed strongly reminiscent of the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God (i.e. TAG). I’ve never encountered anyone that used the “reason must originate independently of the thing it is applied to” who wasn’t ultimately trying to argue for TAG. But feel free to assure me that this isn’t the case.
So, you’re saying that the question doesn’t interest you, and you’d rather not offer an explanation of the basis of reason offered by atheism ... I guess?
Thanks for, um, contributing.
My question to you was an attempt to ensure I wasn’t putting words in your mouth. And here you respond by doing the very thing I was trying to avoid doing to you. Shall I take this evasion of my question to be an affirmation that you are seeking to argue for TAG, or not?
Or not. I would rather discuss whether reason itself suggests the existence of supernature, than get into a religious argument. Considering that it didn’t address the topic posed, I think it fair to say that I wasn’t evading your question by implying that you were seeking to evade the topic.
One thing that’s been overlooked in the OP is that atheism is lack of belief in God, not lack of belief in the supernatural.
Not only are there superstitious atheists who beleive in all kinds of hocus pocus, there are those, like many here, who have no problem at all with the idea that something exists beyon the nature of this universe. So the OP was off from the get go.
Hi stardust
As I point out in another post, Wikipedia, quoting Encyclopaedia Brittanica, descrbes atheism in terms of a-theism.
It’s not so ridiculous as to be basis for refusing to engage with the topic, unless you really didn’t want to engage in the first place, for other reasons.
