Originally posted by seer
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Can Atheism Account For Rationality
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
I'm one of those who regularly calls out binary thinking when I encounter it, but I think you used a poor example of how binary thinking fails when you chose an apparent linguistic paradox, for the reasons previously cited. Where I think binary thinking fails is when people take an attribute that exhibits the characteristics of a continuum, and assign it a binary true/false value. This happens far too often. I am called "liberal" and many here call themselves "conservative." That is a simple binary categorization that hides a complex underlying reality. In fact, I have values across the political spectrum - fairly "far right" on some, and pretty "far left" on others and still others nearer the center. Tossing a label has become a convenient way of identifying tribes and dismissing those who have views that are not aligned with one's own. An amazing number of statements made to me here include "you liberals" in one form or another. The label is sometimes accurate, and sometimes completely wrong, depending on the topic in question.
So "Carpe is a liberal" is a statement that does not have a neat, clean true/false value, despite all efforts here to force it to. It is too broad and vague. It gets a "maybe" at best.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostYou mean like what people like Sam Harris are Steve Pinker are proposing? Are they smoking something too Shuny?
What Neuroscience Says about Free Will
We're convinced that it exists, but new research suggests it might be nothing more than a trick the brain plays on itself
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...out-free-will/
Further the observed fractal nature of cause and effect outcomes in nature negates a rigid determinism including the false? or sarcastic assertion that everything is determined by genetics.Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-24-2019, 01:58 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostI think that would hurt...Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-24-2019, 01:56 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostPossibly, but I did not expect to hear it from you.
Selective quotes does not reflect the spectrum of views in neuroscience. Many support a version of compatibilism where some free will is compatible with a foundation of natural determinism.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostBut I believe in free will.
As we discussed in the past the free will of compatibilism is not free will in the libertarian sense (ability to choose otherwise).
It is true we disagree concerning libertarian free will, which I do not consider a viable option.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThat was not obvious from your post.
Actually true for many various views of compatibilism we do not really have the ability to do otherwise, but not all. Some advocate the ability to choose otherwise to a limited extent as in at least Harry Frankfurt's hierarchical mesh theory.
It is true we disagree concerning libertarian free will, which I do not consider a viable option.Last edited by seer; 06-24-2019, 02:36 PM.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostThe Christian believes that the laws of logic reflect the the immutable rational mind of God, which make said laws universal and absolute. So how does the atheist account for said laws? They are not physical; you can't touch, taste or see them. They are conceptual, it takes a mind to conceive them. But human minds are fickle and often wrong, and human minds are not universal. So human minds can not be the source of conceptual logical truths. The law of excluded middle for instance says that statements are either true or false, but it takes a mind to make that distinction. But again human minds are fallible and limited and can not be the ultimate source for absolute conceptual truths.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostI have been arguing against determinism right along, that it is not compatible with rationality.
So you don't believe that the ability to choose otherwise is viable or possible?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Zara View PostIt is forceful in terms of being a reason to do so and so, and since we are rational beings, rationality, not causality, makes a demand on us to act in accordance to our rational nature.
Originally posted by Zara View PostI am just following the Kantian thought, "concepts without intuitions are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind." My response reflected both sides, it wasn't clear - sorry.
Originally posted by Zara View PostAgain, I am just following the Kantian concept / intuition requirement for thought - where the former is a priori to the possibility of experience as such. We use the categories to make sense of intuitions, as one unified experience. Those categories are an a priori part of possibility space. They also have their own rules around moral demands on us - i.e., having a (rational) mind means we have a duty to act rationally according to our rational nature - which when it comes to our will, means moral activity.
Beyond that observation, I think I have officially lost track of what this discussion is about. Do you want to start over and articulate your position from its very beginning?The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostOf course they are all driven by genetics if materialism is true - what else is there?
Originally posted by seer View PostI'm not sure what you think wouldn't be determined, even with an infinite number of possible results?
Originally posted by seer View PostOf course the calculators would be determined to give the answers they do.
Originally posted by seer View PostI'm not making Plantinga's argument per se, but jumping on a side issue. And no, you can not take steps to reduce error, you have no choice in the matter. You could not decide that 2+2=5 was in error any more than the wrongly programmed calculator could. As Darfius said we don't choose what to think or how to act we just obey the dictates of our biological natures.
Originally posted by seer View PostWell we are speaking of determinism vs. free will. And no I'm not arguing for perfect knowledge but if determinism is true there is nothing to break the causal chain. Free will would break the chain. We are not slaves to antecedent conditions.
And, BTW, the theistic worldview falls apart under Plantinga's argument as well.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostYou mean like what people like Sam Harris are Steve Pinker are proposing? Are they smoking something too Shuny?
What Neuroscience Says about Free Will
We're convinced that it exists, but new research suggests it might be nothing more than a trick the brain plays on itself
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...out-free-will/The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostCarp if you are determined to believe that 2+2=5 how is that rational?
We always have a gap between ourselves and reality: the gap is the brain and sensory equipment we use to perceive reality. If it is malfunctioning, we may not know it and we may behave irrationally. And we might even think ourselves to be rational. Until you have evidence that we actually are, I'll accept that we're not. The rationality I'm using seems to be sufficient to keep me alive and functioning. And the rational principles we are using are consistent with one another and useful in understanding this reality. Until I have a practical reason to think they are flawed, I'll take them and move on.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by little_monkey View PostI agree with most of what you say. But I believe you did not understand my initial post to seer. The reason I chose the self-referential statement "this sentence is false" is to bring out the idea that logic has limited applicability. It was first discovered by Bertram Russell and that eventually led to Godel's incomplete theorem. However my intention to seer was to dispel this ridiculous idea that theists proclaim not only on this forum but on so many others that logic is somehow God's laws, when in fact it is a human construct, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that it is limited and fails to encompass many realities. Perhaps my communication was less than efficient.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment