Are reasons the same as causes? Let's say the door to my bedroom closes because I don't want to wake up my wife. Let's say the door to my bedroom closes because the wind blows it shut. Are they really the same thing? Physics can study the second case but can it study the first? Reductionists might say that ultimately both scenarios reduce to the same kind of explanation, even though the first explanation is much more complex and sophisticated and involves neuro-chemistry, but can it ultimately be explained in the same way? I tend to say "No" but I'm eager to hear the other side.
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
Reasons and Causes
Collapse
X
-
Reason and cause can be the same thing but are not necessarily the same thing."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostAre reasons the same as causes? Let's say the door to my bedroom closes because I don't want to wake up my wife. Let's say the door to my bedroom closes because the wind blows it shut. Are they really the same thing? Physics can study the second case but can it study the first? Reductionists might say that ultimately both scenarios reduce to the same kind of explanation, even though the first explanation is much more complex and sophisticated and involves neuro-chemistry, but can it ultimately be explained in the same way? I tend to say "No" but I'm eager to hear the other side.
I think . . .
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostCauses have reasons that result in the cause and effect outcome. Reasons(?) by themselves may apart of reasoning which do not necessarily have a cause and effect outcome.
I think . . .
I thinkThe first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
It kinda depends on what point with which you begin:
The rack broke because the cue ball hit it. Starting from there, reason and cause are the same.
The rack broke because Bob started playing pool. Now reason and cause are separate.
I hit him because he is annoying. Reason and cause are the same.
He has a bruise because he annoyed me. Reason and cause are now different.
I don't think this would necessarily apply to direct causality."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostIt kinda depends on what point with which you begin:
The rack broke because the cue ball hit it. Starting from there, reason and cause are the same.
The rack broke because Bob started playing pool. Now reason and cause are separate.
I hit him because he is annoying. Reason and cause are the same.
He has a bruise because he annoyed me. Reason and cause are now different.
I don't think this would necessarily apply to direct causality.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostMaybe the same chain of cause and effect events from different perspectives."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostYep - but that's also how we normally view them. If we are talking direct causality, I think reason and cause would rarely coincide as the same thing - but I can't rule it out. And arguably, the reason sets cause in motion...
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostIf you take this argument to a philosophical conclusion (Which has its limits in logic based on the premises) the Theist may argue for a first cause, ie God. The atheist or other materialist may argue simply that the eternal Laws of Nature are the reason and there is no first cause.
And as I said, this may not occur at all in direct causality - which also eliminates this possibility."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Then there Hume:
Hume argues that assumptions of cause and effect between two events are not necessarily real or true. It is possible to deny causal connections without contradiction because causal connections are assumptions not subject to reason.
We cannot justify our assumptions about the future based on past experience unless there is a law that the future will always resemble the past. No such law exists. We can deny the relationship without contradiction and we cannot justify it with experience.
Therefore, we have no rational support for believing in causation. Hume suggests that our assumptions are based on habit, not reason, and that, ultimately, our assumptions about matters of fact are based in probability. If experience teaches us that two events occur together repeatedly, we will assume a link between them. So, Hume explains, we must be able to reduce all meaningful concepts to the simple impressions on which they are built. Since no simple impression of causation or necessary connection exists, these concepts might appear meaningless. Rather than dismiss these assumed connections entirely, however, Hume acknowledges their usefulness and limits them to being nothing more than simple observations of repeated conjunction between two events.
https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/hume/section4/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 Teallaura View PostNo, it would not - you still have a singularity appearing from nothing.
When you say 'a singularity appearing from nothing,' you need to define the 'nothing' you, and 'what is appearing?' are referring to. The science of physics and cosmology does describe the origin of our universe as; 'a singularity appearing from nothing,'
The case itself wouldn't support this conclusion - neither does physics. If anything, it makes it worse - why would a singularity be there at all? (Needing now both cause and reason).
Come back again with a coherent science perspective.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostYes it would based on science.
When you say 'a singularity appearing from nothing,' you need to define the 'nothing' you, and 'what is appearing?' are referring to. The science of physics and cosmology does describe the origin of our universe as; 'a singularity appearing from nothing,'
As above you need to define your terms in terms of science, and not mix the philosophical 'nothing' with the concept as how nothing is used in science. At best all you can 'try' and do is 'argue from ignorance' and not science.
Come back again with a coherent science perspective."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostHume is a moldy oldy. You would have to dig him up to give a relevant discussion on the contemporary scientific view, and not an old philosophical view base don old assumptions."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostHume is a moldy oldy. You would have to dig him up to give a relevant discussion on the contemporary scientific view, and not an old philosophical view base don old assumptions.
We cannot justify our assumptions about the future based on past experience unless there is a law that the future will always resemble the past. No such law exists. We can deny the relationship without contradiction and we cannot justify it with experience.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
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment