The Argument from Reason

[variant]

I guess I should ask: Do you consider yourself a Naturalist?

Yes. I think all the things we are talking about are byproducts of mundane living systems.

I simply don't think that one can fully explain the system by only talking about the "irrational" or "nonrational" material parts of the system because the abstract parts of the system still exist and are obviously having effects on the system on their own and are integrated into every level of it I know about and produce their own properties.

I think everyone holds that rationality is attached to our beliefs. The question is whether that attached rationality can be fully explained in terms of nonrational causes. Can life, brains, and beliefs be fully explained apart from rationality?

I think the rationality is a natural thing integrated into the system in a similar manner to how I think abstractions and ideas are integrated into a natural system.

Taking out the language, logical and abstract underpinnings of your ideas would be impossible. A certain amount of your beliefs are experiential, for which you would need an identity to process them.

These sort of issues would be present the whole way down the rabbit hole with living systems.

So you only think they can approach logic?

No. Sorry if the wording was confusing.

It seems to me that you are saying rationality cannot be fully explained by nonrational causes.

I object to the term "nonrational" causes. I think the material systems of life incorporate something of what you would (probably) term rationality down to it's basis.

The exact wording doesn't matter, but I don't think the binary (rational/nonrational) is capturing the reality. A natural precursor to rationality could fall into a bit of a grey area.

 

[Chriliman]

Yes. I think all the things we are talking about are byproducts of mundane living systems.

I simply don't think that one can fully explain the system by only talking about the "irrational" or "nonrational" material parts of the system because the abstract parts of the system still exist and are obviously having effects on the system on their own and are integrated into every level of it I know about and produce their own properties.



I think the rationality is a natural thing integrated into the system in a similar manner to how I think abstractions and ideas are integrated into a natural system.

Taking out the language, logical and abstract underpinnings of your ideas would be impossible. A certain amount of your beliefs are experiential, for which you would need an identity to process them.

These sort of issues would be present the whole way down the rabbit hole with living systems.



No. Sorry if the wording was confusing.



I object to the term "nonrational" causes. I think the material systems of life incorporate something of what you would (probably) term rationality down to it's basis.

I don't understand why you object to the term 'nonrational'. Clearly, as a naturalist, you believe in causes that weren't rationally determined(nonrational causes), that somehow resulted in life that has the ability to rationally determine things and therefore rationally cause things, agree?

The trouble is, you can't demonstrate your belief to be true because any demonstration of nonrational causes resulting in rational causes, requires a rational cause(a rational mind) to perform the demonstration.

Essentially, you believe in something that's logically impossible to demonstrate as true, which isn't a rational thing to do.

 

[variant]

I don't understand why you object to the term 'nonrational'. Clearly, as a naturalist, you believe in causes that weren't rationally determined(nonrational causes), that somehow resulted in life that has the ability to rationally determine things and therefore rationally cause things, agree?

I think that minds are made out of matter if that is what you are asking.

I also think pre-rational living systems would have all the components to result in all manners of thought we see today. To call them "nonrational" is again, a binary that I don't think is appropriate.

I also think that life at it's core holds some of these qualities.

The trouble is, you can't demonstrate your belief to be true because any demonstration of nonrational causes resulting in rational causes, requires a rational cause(a rational mind) to perform the demonstration.

I don't see why that would be a problem. If we could build it and understood it and the systems we think produced it, we could also have some idea of whether it could happen on it's own.

I think a greater understanding of how minds work will shed a great deal of light upon how they come about.

Essentially, you believe in something that's logically impossible to demonstrate as true, which isn't a rational thing to do.

I don't think you are correct in your assessment.

Also if you think this, then i think "supernaturalism" is going to be a bit harder to demonstrate.

I tend not to argue what I think is the harder argument to demonstrate. I consider it irrational to do so.

Whether I am open to ideas of "supernaturalism" in the future will depend on the answers to questions like these, but I don't have much hope because the "supernatural" is generally defined in such a way that precludes any real investigation.

 

[Chriliman]

I think that minds are made out of matter if that is what you are asking.

The brain is made out of matter and the mind is what the brain does, which itself is not matter, but something else entirely.

I also think pre-rational living systems would have all the components to result in all manners of thought we see today. To call them "nonrational" is again, a binary that I don't think is appropriate.

I'm referring to the pre-rational, non-living causes that you believe caused pre-rational living systems. The point is you can't demonstrate that these pre-rational causes actually caused pre-rational living systems(which then led to rational minds) because the demonstration would require a rational mind. IOW, by demonstrating it, you will have actually provided greater evidence for the idea that a rational mind(God) was the original cause.

I don't see why that would be a problem. If we could build it and understood it and the systems we think produced it, we could also have some idea of whether it could happen on it's own.

Again, even if it did happen on it's own, you can't demonstrate this to be true because the act of demonstrating it, does not suggest it happened on it's own, rather, it suggests it happened via a rational mind performing a demonstration. Thinking it happened on its' own, would just be wishful thinking, when there's clear evidence that it could have happened via a rational mind demonstrating it.

Also if you think this, then i think "supernaturalism" is going to be a bit harder to demonstrate.

I tend not to argue what I think is the harder argument to demonstrate. I consider it irrational to do so.

There's a difference between trying to demonstrate something difficult and trying to demonstrate something that you know is logically impossible to demonstrate. Demonstrating that pre-rational causes lead to rational causes is one of those logically impossible things to demonstrate.

Whether I am open to ideas of "supernaturalism" in the future will depend on the answers to questions like these, but I don't have much hope because the "supernatural" is generally defined in such a way that precludes any real investigation.

The difference between the natural and supernatural(spiritual) is analogous to the difference between the material that makes up your brain and the mind that your brain sustains. Vastly different, yet mysteriously interlocked.

 

[quatona]

I don't understand why you object to the term 'nonrational'. Clearly, as a naturalist, you believe in causes that weren't rationally determined(nonrational causes), that somehow resulted in life that has the ability to rationally determine things and therefore rationally cause things, agree?

The trouble is, you can't demonstrate your belief to be true because any demonstration of nonrational causes resulting in rational causes, requires a rational cause(a rational mind) to perform the demonstration.

...and since nobody denies that there are rational minds, this isn´t a problem at all.

Essentially, you believe in something that's logically impossible to demonstrate as true, which isn't a rational thing to do.

That´s just your personal brand of "rationality" (or a a very narrow definition of "demonstrating". or both) , and I highly doubt that you apply them consistently. Like, do you believe that there has been a time when no humans existed? Because that´s "logically impossible to demonstrate as true" in the same way - it would require you to have been around to demonstrate it.

 

[Chriliman]

That´s just your personal brand of "rationality" (or a a very narrow definition of "demonstrating". or both) , and I highly doubt that you apply them consistently. Like, do you believe that there has been a time when no humans existed? Because that´s "logically impossible to demonstrate as true" in the same way - it would require you to have been around to demonstrate it.

Indeed, and this is where faith comes in. It takes faith to believe non rational causes resulted in rational minds, just the same, it takes faith to believe a rational mind(God) created our universe and us for a reason. The only difference is the latter could be demonstrated by God, the former can't possibly be demonstrated. There's evidence to support either position, but at the end of the day, only one can be demonstrated and therefore more rational to believe.

 

[variant]

The brain is made out of matter and the mind is what the brain does, which itself is not matter, but something else entirely.

The interactions of the physical/material world would not be "something else entirely" no. The system would still be made out of it's components whether or not it has new properties like life or logic.

I'm referring to the pre-rational, non-living causes that you believe caused pre-rational living systems.

I don't think that it is logically impossible life to come from non life no. If that is what this argument is truly about then we should talk about that.

The point is you can't demonstrate that these pre-rational causes actually caused pre-rational living systems(which then led to rational minds) because the demonstration would require a rational mind. IOW, by demonstrating it, you will have actually provided greater evidence for the idea that a rational mind(God) was the original cause.

Again, even if it did happen on it's own, you can't demonstrate this to be true because the act of demonstrating it, does not suggest it happened on it's own, rather, it suggests it happened via a rational mind performing a demonstration. Thinking it happened on its' own, would just be wishful thinking, when there's clear evidence that it could have happened via a rational mind demonstrating it.

I don't think we are handcuffed to the idea that if a human can replicate the process than the process must necessarily be caused by an intelligent creature.

Otherwise glass could not be caused by lightning hitting sand.

We would also need to show how it could or likely did happen on it's own.

There's a difference between trying to demonstrate something difficult and trying to demonstrate something that you know is logically impossible to demonstrate. Demonstrating that pre-rational causes lead to rational causes is one of those logically impossible things to demonstrate.

It is not logically impossible to demonstrate, just difficult.

The difference between the natural and supernatural(spiritual) is analogous to the difference between the material that makes up your brain and the mind that your brain sustains. Vastly different, yet mysteriously interlocked.

The only mystery is exactly how it works. God doesn't explain anything in these terms, it is just another mystery to add to the puzzle instead of an explanation.

Thankfully for your philosophy, there will always be something we don't understand, and that will give you plenty of room to fit your deity in.

 

[Chriliman]

The interactions of the physical/material world would not be "something else entirely" no. The system would still be made out of it's components whether or not it has new properties like life or logic.

There must be a difference between the material and the rational systems which the material sustains. To say there is no difference is to either say the material itself is rational or the rational systems(minds) is just an illusion(not actually a rational system).

I don't think that it is logically impossible life to come from non life no. If that is what this argument is truly about then we should talk about that.

I don't think it's logically impossible either, just logically impossible to demonstrate, since only living beings can intentionally perform the demonstration. If you want to say life from non-life will happen again, apart from any intentionality, then that's another thing.

I don't think we are handcuffed to the idea that if a human can replicate the process than the process must necessarily be caused by an intelligent creature.

I'm not saying we're handcuffed to the idea, I'm saying the idea is a logical conclusion.

It is not logically impossible to demonstrate, just difficult.

It is logically impossible to demonstrate. It would be similar to demonstrating how a car accident can happen, while concluding the demonstration is actually an accident. No, it'd be a logical contradiction to conclude that. Now, I'm not saying car accidents can't happen, I'm saying it's logically impossible to intentionally demonstrate an actual accident.

 

[variant]

There must be a difference between the material and the rational systems which the material sustains. To say there is no difference is to either say the material itself is rational or the rational systems(minds) is just an illusion(not actually a rational system).

No I think the "rational" are systems by which relationships and abstractions are encoded into material systems.

Your problematic assumption is that you think "rationality" is made out of something else.

I don't think it's logically impossible either, just logically impossible to demonstrate, since only living beings can intentionally perform the demonstration. If you want to say life from non-life will happen again, apart from any intentionality, then that's another thing.

I think evidence gathering and modeling is quite capable of demonstrating this.

I'm not saying we're handcuffed to the idea, I'm saying the idea is a logical conclusion.

One is a metaphor for the other.

It is logically impossible to demonstrate. It would be similar to demonstrating how a car accident can happen, while concluding the demonstration is actually an accident. No, it'd be a logical contradiction to conclude that. Now, I'm not saying car accidents can't happen, I'm saying it's logically impossible to intentionally demonstrate an actual accident.

No we would be concluding that the demonstration showed what happened in the accident not that it was one. We don't need to recreate the accidental nature of it to know or gather information on what happened.

So we can indeed recreate what happened in an accident enough conclude what happened in an accident. To say otherwise would mean we can not model reality in any way.

Your epistemology is unnecessarily stilted.

 

[Chriliman]

No I think the "rational" are systems by which relationships and abstractions are encoded into material systems.

Right, you believe it's unintentionally encoded for no rational reason. IOW, you believe there's no rational reason why/how we have rational minds, it's all a result of un-rational, unintended happenstance. If there is a rational reason, then you must admit Naturalism can't account for it.

Your problematic assumption is that you think "rationality" is made out of something else.

I believe rationality in humans is possible through the combination of material and intentional action.

No we would be concluding that the demonstration showed what happened in the accident not that it was one. We don't need to recreate the accidental nature of it to know or gather information on what happened.

So we can indeed recreate what happened in an accident enough conclude what happened in an accident. To say otherwise would mean we can not model reality in any way.

The analogy was used based on the understanding that the investigator doesn't know whether it was an accident or not. So it may be that in the process of recreating what happened, the investigator may discover that it wasn't actually an accident, but intentional. The trick would be the ability to distinguish accidental causes from intentional causes, which means having an equally open mind to both possibilities and just follow the evidence.

 

[variant]

Right, you believe it's unintentionally encoded for no rational reason. IOW, you believe there's no rational reason why/how we have rational minds, it's all a result of un-rational, unintended happenstance. If there is a rational reason, then you must admit Naturalism can't account for it.

No, I think it is a basic component of what life is. I don't think there is no reason I think it is fundamental.

The analogy was used based on the understanding that the investigator doesn't know whether it was an accident or not. So it may be that in the process of recreating what happened, the investigator may discover that it wasn't actually an accident, but intentional. The trick would be the ability to distinguish accidental causes from intentional causes, which means having an equally open mind to both possibilities and just follow the evidence.

The problem here is that you're asking to differentiate between an accident and an intentional being that you think can leave exactly zero evidence.

I wouldn't begin any investigation with that kind of assumption.

 

[quatona]

Indeed, and this is where faith comes in. It takes faith to believe non rational causes resulted in rational minds, just the same, it takes faith to believe a rational mind(God) created our universe and us for a reason.

I think this is where parsimony kicks in.

The only difference is the latter could be demonstrated by God,

How so, and to whom?

There's evidence to support either position,

If there were evidence for your position you would present it, instead of resorting to questionable tenets such as:
Believing in something that can possibly be demonstrated is more rational than not believing in it. If that were the case, we all would have to believe in a whole bunch of unfalsifiable claims.

 

[Chesterton]

I object to the term "nonrational" causes. I think the material systems of life incorporate something of what you would (probably) term rationality down to it's basis.

What do you mean by that?

 

[Chriliman]

No, I think it is a basic component of what life is. I don't think there is no reason I think it is fundamental.

So you think reason is fundamental to life? Well, so do all theists.

The problem here is that you're asking to differentiate between an accident and an intentional being that you think can leave exactly zero evidence.

I wouldn't begin any investigation with that kind of assumption.

I never said God can leave zero evidence, that'd be a contradictory thing for me to say because if God left zero evidence then no one would have reason to believe in Him, yet millions do believe in God, so He must've left evidence because beliefs can't form without some form of evidence. Sure, you can argue that they could be holding false beliefs, but that's your own assumption, you don't actually know that God doesn't exist.

Keep following the evidence with a desire for truth, I'll do the same and maybe we'll finally meet in agreement about what's true someday.

 

[jayem]

I don't understand why you object to the term 'nonrational'. Clearly, as a naturalist, you believe in causes that weren't rationally determined(nonrational causes), that somehow resulted in life that has the ability to rationally determine things and therefore rationally cause things, agree?

Yes. What we call rationality is simply a byproduct of how the brain works. It's not a distinct attribute that is endowed upon the brain externally. It's an inherent property--maybe you could call it an epiphenomenon. An analogy might be how an electrical charge is related to a proton. It's an innate characteristic of the particle. Rationality is innate to any complex neural network that evolved to process information. You know it's not unique to humans. We can observe that non-human animals use what clearly appears to be reasoning in order to solve problems. I believe consciousness is the same (and is related.) Any neural network of sufficient complexity, with the ability to sense its environment will possess consciousness. I'll refer you a 2001 book by the late Gerald Edelman (a Nobel Medicine/Physiology Prize winner) that discusses current ideas regarding consciousness, thought, and reasoning as intrinsic properties of the brain.

A Universe of Consciousness

The trouble is, you can't demonstrate your belief to be true because any demonstration of nonrational causes resulting in rational causes, requires a rational cause(a rational mind) to perform the demonstration.

Essentially, you believe in something that's logically impossible to demonstrate as true, which isn't a rational thing to do.

Well, I'd say that it would be enough to demonstrate that complex neural networks appeared by natural processes. Rationality would simply be a byproduct of their function. True, the exact mechanisms involved in neural evolution and operation are not fully understood by any means. But it's certainly not sensible or useful to claim a supernatural cause.

 

[Chriliman]

Yes. What we call rationality is simply a byproduct of how the brain works. It's not a distinct attribute that is endowed upon the brain externally. It's an inherent property--maybe you could call it an epiphenomenon. An analogy might be how an electrical charge is related to a proton. It's an innate characteristic of the particle. Rationality is innate to any complex neural network that evolved to process information. You know it's not unique to humans. We can observe that non-human animals use what clearly appears to be reasoning in order to solve problems. I believe consciousness is the same (and is related.) Any neural network of sufficient complexity, with the ability to sense its environment will possess consciousness. I'll refer you a 2001 book by the late Gerald Edelman (a Nobel Medicine/Physiology Prize winner) that discusses current ideas regarding consciousness, thought, and reasoning as intrinsic properties of the brain.

A Universe of Consciousness

Thanks for the reference. There is scripture that suggests God began and will never end. For instance you often see "In the beginning, God..." So it could be that God began in some way, but will never end, which we could say the same for consciousness, at least in humans, of course any consciousness that lasts forever would have to be immortal, like God.

 

[variant]

So you think reason is fundamental to life? Well, so do all theists.

I'm not a theist.

The problem with the argument from reason is, reason its self does not necessitate any Gods as far as I know.

I never said God can leave zero evidence, that'd be a contradictory thing for me to say because if God left zero evidence then no one would have reason to believe in Him, yet millions do believe in God, so He must've left evidence because beliefs can't form without some form of evidence. Sure, you can argue that they could be holding false beliefs, but that's your own assumption, you don't actually know that God doesn't exist.

Peoples reasons for believing in Gods doesn't mean they have been convinced by evidence.

The problem I was pointing to is that God can be defined in such a way as to leave no real evidence that could clearly show it exists.

And, without being able to clearly show God from not God, then the problem isn't even defined well enough for an investigation.

Keep following the evidence with a desire for truth, I'll do the same and maybe we'll finally meet in agreement about what's true someday.

I'm sure we agree about plenty, just not that one thing.

 

[variant]

What do you mean by that?

I think the fundamentals of "reasoning" are also fundamental to life itself, but I mean that to mean that the physical nature of life gives rise to things like abstraction, identity, goals orientation ect inherently.

So, I don't think there is any inherent conflict between "rationality" and systems made of matter.

 

[Chriliman]

I'm not a theist.

The problem with the argument from reason is, reason its self does not necessitate any Gods as far as I know.



Peoples reasons for believing in Gods doesn't mean they have been convinced by evidence.

The problem I was pointing to is that God can be defined in such a way as to leave no real evidence that could clearly show it exists.

And, without being able to clearly show God from not God, then the problem isn't even defined well enough for an investigation.



I'm sure we agree about plenty, just not that one thing.

Reason does necessitate a mind and you claim to believe reason existed before human minds existed("reason is fundamental to life"), therefore you believe in a reasoning mind that came before humans. You can't assert reason without a mind to do the reasoning.

It'd be different if you believe reason is an emergent property of life, but this can't mean reason is fundamental to life. Theist believe reason is fundamental to life because God is alive and reasonable and makes things(us) in his image.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I think the fundamentals of "reasoning" are also fundamental to life itself, but I mean that to mean that the physical nature of life gives rise to things like abstraction, identity, goals orientation ect inherently.

So, I don't think there is any inherent conflict between "rationality" and systems made of matter.

This sounds more like Shaw's Life Force than anything else.

You cannot define 'rationality' as you wish it to be defined. It has a time-worn meaning and would be the manner it is used in day to day life. This is a Procrustean attempt, it lobs off the actual meaning of the word, leaving it impotent. By how it has been understood for millenia, matter alone cannot be rational, for it cannot determine its own veridical nature. That is the whole argument and the inherent flaw of the Naturalist position - either rationality as it has always been understood is a myth, or if it exists, Naturalism refutes itself thereby.