Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The fact that you capitalize "Reason" alone tells me that you are intending to use it in a very special way.
Yes, sorry - my bad.
The definitions I find there don´t postulate a "Rationality"-entity out there. They don´t exclude it either, though - I´ll give you that.
They are just definitions, not the full argument. What do you expect?
Your whole argument is hinging on insisting on superimposing a definition on a view that doesn´t mean what you mean when saying the word. In order to show an inconsistency in their theory, you would have to apply their terminlogy, not yours.
...and they postulate something else that fits their view, so they are happy with their explanation.
The point, however, is that I don´t see any problem with non(!)-rational processes resulting in consciousness and consequently an interpretation of reality, based on the feedback reality gives us.
"Justify rationality" - what does that even mean?
Actually, as we are all speaking from the same intellectual tradition, we should all be speaking of the same thing. It is when the inconsistency thereof is pointed out to the Naturalist that he redefines it and then tries to apply it as if he had not.
They aren't postulating anything, but trying to ignore a problem by defining it away.
Neither do I. That is not the problem here. The problem is treating this as anything else than the deterministic phenomena that it would be, akin to kidney function in its 'rationality'.
No, but if we observe something, then we assume the process exists, yes? If you see something moving fast, you can postulate the abstract Speed.
No, obviously we are not.
I have never seen nor understood "rationality" or "reason" as anything else than a process in the human mind. Your ideas aren´t as common as you like to think.
When they don´t postulate anything - how can they possibly even be inconsistent?
From where I stand it looks more like you are defining the need for "Rationality" (aka "God") into existence.
And the problem with the coming into being of rationality and reason being deterministic would be what exactly?
...you can do whatever you want. The question is: Why would you postulate an entity "Speed" out there in order to conclude that something moves fast?
Would be nice if you´d try to make your points in complete sentences. The way you talked here, I don´t understand what you were saying.
I did nothing of that sort, and I don´t need to do anything of that sort.
My 'Rationality' as a thing 'out-there' is not at all what I am talking about. I did make a suppositional extension later when asked why it mattered, but this was not even close to the main argument of the thread. I actually defined rationality earlier, the plain and simple dictionary definition. You are being very disingenuous here.
Please see the previous posts of the thread.
I disagree, and I am not about to reargue the entire thread. Please feel free to ask for clarification on specific points.
It is essentially asking to repeat the thread, yes. So superfluous to the discussion.
Oh, I was under the impression Naturalism meant the assumption that everything arises from natural properties and causes. If you define it differently, then we are at cross purposes.
No, I was saying by the meaning of characteristics of all logical systems such as validity, soundness, completeness, consistency, etc., Naturalism renders itself unable to be shown sound or valid - if accepted it does the same for all human knowledge, upon which of course it is based. So by accepting Naturalism, you accept inherently a system that therefore has no valid support anymore, and in this manner it becomes inconsistent. I am not retreating to any 'weaker' claim; for in a debate, you give your opponents a chance to respond, which I am extending here. I am merely asking for any method by which Naturalists could save their floundering, irrational system; and stating that I have never seen one presented.
I am not dodging anything. By the systems of Formal and Informal Logic, it lies prostate. It has been answered ad nauseam. In the post you quoted, I was referring back to my argument since my first post and therein lies your answer.
It is implied by your answer in post 155: For you denied you were labouring under a misapprehension when I added the necessary statement 'materially-derived', to make such a proposition refer to Naturalism.
So tell me how would you judge Naturalism then, without logic? By the dictionary definition, it is then anyway no longer rational - which is the point.
It is formal logic itself, as well as informal logic at play. I don't understand what you are getting at, for clearly you don't understand what logic means. Logic is the systematic exposition of valid arguments. The argument can be framed in Philosophic Logic, which is how it was done in the OP, it can be expressed by predicate logic or propositional logic or syllogistic logic.
You are adding terms or leaving them out as you see fit. Here you added 'pure'. I have explained this in the previous post. There are no valid epistemological views that are not based on logic, as 'valid' is a term of logic and can only be determined thereby.
