Bad Parts of Reason

[Received]

I don't, dude, other than my speculation on post 10.

Put down your torch.

 

[quatona]

I don´t think my frustration is so hard to understand:
I put quite some effort in a detailed response (which didn´t "idealize" or "idolize" reason in the slightest; which neither explicitly nor implicitly presented it as an end in itself; which clearly praised for being an effective and reliable method, within a certain frame of reference), and next comes your post #10.

 

[Received]

If you're implying that post 10 is a response to yours, it isn't.

If you're implying that I forgot about your post, probably because I was rambling on post 10, you'd be correct.

Frame that on your fridge, quatona.

 

[Received]

That it sometimes leads to undesirable results and insights?

As a pragmatist, I don´t really care if the are true/True/TRUE. I just care for "what works" within that which appears to be the reality of our existence (which may, ultimately, be an illusion itself).


For all intents and purposes, it is sufficient for me to know that I share this potential deception with my fellow beings, and that relying on it leads to remarkably good results.
On top, if the results aren´t good, we have great tools to analyse the way our senses work and to spot and explain the causes for the collective deception.

Yes.

So I take it that's what's preventing you from being a theist or even a Christian is a matter of what works. In terms of...?

Reason does not only lead from sensual experiences to conclusions, it also is a tool to check the reliability of our senses.
It also is a good tool to check the reliability of our intuition. However, intuition seems to be inherently immune towards analysis and trouble-shooting in case of failure.

On another note, since intuition requires experiences and senses, it just adds another uncertainty factor on top of the one that comes with relying on our senses.

Actually, I don't think it's fair to say that intuition "adds" something, as if it were a sort of optional deal plopped on top of reason and other pragmatic things. Intuition is the very bedrock of reason and experience, so it has some use. The question is how far the use can go.

Technically, reason can't validate intuition at all without using the very intuition it's calling into question which underlies reasoning.

I guess what I am trying to say:
What I particularly appreciate about reason is its (self-)correcting powers, and its openness to put itself to scrutinity.

No tool is self-correcting on its own, or has the power to correct itself using itself as the corrector, given that using the thing you're critiquing implies you agree with it enough to critique it. Sort of like how Freddy Nietzsche said that the person who dislikes himself has enough liking of himself to trust his ability to dislike himself (or something or other).

As for "intuition", I guess I still don´t even know what it is supposed to be. I´m tending towards the notion that at worst it is used as a euphemism for bias-confirmation, and at best is the results of reason having become second nature (so that the explicit rational steps can be short-cut). Whereas, if it is posited to be some independent obscure faculty of judgement making, I am not very enthusiastic about it since usually I find the results underwhelming.

It seems to me that reason allows for a permanent "I may be wrong - let´s find out if and why.", whereas "intuition" simply turns out to be right or wrong (in that respect it isn´t that different from throwing a coin), and that´s that (unless we start using reason to explore the mechanisms of "intuition" and the potential error-sources that it comes with).

Conceptually you're not going to get a satisfactory answer, given that conceptualization also presupposes intuition, but here goes: intuition is knowing without reasoning. I'd call it the knowing the precedes reasoning, "know" here not being the rigorous definition philosophers have.

That said, I am glad the way you worded your question implicitly asks for a reasoned response. "What´s your intuition concerning reason?" wouldn´t leave much space for more than, well, mere appeals to personal intuition, after all.

If in doubt, reason is looking for common ground, whereas intuition insists on individual capability.

Well, to me reason stands for the stringing-together of premises with their conclusions. Asking for an explanation or understanding really is asking for something closer to an intuition, given that I'm not asking for a stringing-together, but just a more immediate impression or idea.

 

[Gladius]

What are the downsides to reasoning? It might help to think how you'd be if you only had the ability to connect premises to conclusions. You couldn't know if those premises are true, for example.

A downside to experience is that your senses might be deceiving. A downside to intuition is that your intuition might simply be wrong. How goes it with reason?

Downside = having to face your fears without superstition to protect you.

Upside = having to face your fears without superstition to protect you.

 

[Received]

So reason is good solely from the perspective of superstition?

 

[bhsmte]

Wait. There are plenty of truths that aren't reducible to facts, and aren't reducible to intuition. A priori reasoning is an example. Saying you "assume" a premise for the sake of argument, then taking this to a conclusion is another. No naked intuition, just reasoning with logic to truths.

Then, we use and define reason differently.

 

[Received]

Then, we use and define reason differently.

Is it really surprising that maybe it's the case that the reason some people are atheist and others theist is a differing conception of God?

 

[bhsmte]

Is it really surprising that maybe it's the case that the reason some people are atheist and others theist is a differing conception of God?

What conception do you go by? The bible, or do you only utilize your own personal perception of God?

 

[Received]

What conception do you go by? The bible, or do you only utilize your own personal perception of God?

I don't think anyone really fully goes by the biblical conception, given typical deconstructionist problems like the inaccessibility of authorial intent. Which to me doesn't make the bible completely useless, just our perceptions limited in determining a completely right interpretation.

So I go by definition on my own personal perception, both by appealing to the text, while keeping in mind that the texts aren't literal, and that they're contradictory if taken literally, and reasoning from philosophical premises that are implicit in this text (like God being a creator, which implies being "beyond" space and time which are created things, e.g.).

 

[bhsmte]

I don't think anyone really fully goes by the biblical conception, given typical deconstructionist problems like the inaccessibility of authorial intent. Which to me doesn't make the bible completely useless, just our perceptions limited in determining a completely right interpretation.

So I go by definition on my own personal perception, both by appealing to the text, while keeping in mind that the texts aren't literal, and that they're contradictory if taken literally, and reasoning from philosophical premises that are implicit in this text (like God being a creator, which implies being "beyond" space and time which are created things, e.g.).

In my experience, fundamentalists do go by the biblical conception, at least their personal interpretation of scripture, because they desire to take it literally, which in essence, makes it simpler for them.

Of course, this creates all kinds of issues with reality and I wouldn't want to experience the cognitive dissonance these folks do, because it can't be pleasant.

 

[Received]

In my experience, fundamentalists do go by the biblical conception, at least their personal interpretation of scripture, because they desire to take it literally, which in essence, makes it simpler for them.

Of course, this creates all kinds of issues with reality and I wouldn't want to experience the cognitive dissonance these folks do, because it can't be pleasant.

I'd say it goes further than simplicity. Lots of fundies take biblical literacy and inerrancy not because they really care about truth, but because these are facets of their cultural tribe. You can't really blame them for this to some degree. And cognitive dissonance presupposes some degree of thinking about what they believe, BTW.

 

[bhsmte]

I'd say it goes further than simplicity. Lots of fundies take biblical literacy and inerrancy not because they really care about truth, but because these are facets of their cultural tribe. You can't really blame them for this to some degree. And cognitive dissonance presupposes some degree of thinking about what they believe, BTW.

Agree on the cultural tribe.

Also, just viewing and observing the fundamentalists on CF, shows they do incur cognitive dissonance, because they show all the signs of it, when presented with facts, that go against their tightly held belief.

 

[Received]

Agree on the cultural tribe.

Also, just viewing and observing the fundamentalists on CF, shows they do incur cognitive dissonance, because they show all the signs of it, when presented with facts, that go against their tightly held belief.

Right. I guess in a way we all have cognitive dissonance, just to varying degrees. It's pretty much impossible for us, if we're thinking about life to any degree, not to have a currently held belief that contradicts with new information we come across.

 

[bhsmte]

Right. I guess in a way we all have cognitive dissonance, just to varying degrees. It's pretty much impossible for us, if we're thinking about life to any degree, not to have a currently held belief that contradicts with new information we come across.

Correct, we all experience it at some point, just as we all use denial and confirmation bias to some degree.

At some point though, relatively healthy minds will accept obvious reality, some just take a little longer than others.

What separates the fundy though, is the lengths they go to and how powerful their defense mechanisms are, that they have built over time to protect their belief. It is really something to watch in action.

 

[Received]

Correct, we all experience it at some point, just as we all use denial and confirmation bias to some degree.

At some point though, relatively healthy minds will accept obvious reality, some just take a little longer than others.

What separates the fundy though, is the lengths they go to and how powerful their defense mechanisms are, that they have built over time to protect their belief. It is really something to watch in action.

It really is.

 

[quatona]

Is it really surprising that maybe it's the case that the reason some people are atheist and others theist is a differing conception of God?

It seems to me that different god concepts (and the practically unlimited space that exists for god concepts) is the reason why there are so many theists.
I could easily define "god" in way that would render me a theist. None of my convictions would change, just the label.

 

[Received]

It seems to me that different god concepts (and the practically unlimited space that exists for god concepts) is the reason why there are so many theists.
I could easily define "god" in way that would render me a theist. None of my convictions would change, just the label.

You speak as if the label is everything, and doesn't cover up an otherwise phenomenal naked something.

 

[Resha Caner]

It seems to me that different god concepts (and the practically unlimited space that exists for god concepts) is the reason why there are so many theists.
I could easily define "god" in way that would render me a theist. None of my convictions would change, just the label.

That's why such an approach is useless.

 

[quatona]

You speak as if the label is everything, and doesn't cover up an otherwise phenomenal naked something.

No, I am speaking as if when a person says "I am a theist" all I get is a label.
"Theist" tells me even less than "atheist" about any "naked something" that it´s meant to point to.
I have spoken to many self-professing theists, and I have experienced that there´s literally nothing (beyond the label) that I can be sure a self-professing theist believe in.