The Argument from Reason

[Quid est Veritas?]

Sure you can.
And indeed it would be better to ask a naturalist rather than me about their tenets.
I can only tell you what I understand "(rational) inference" to mean, and in this understanding rational inference and naturalism are perfectly reconcilable.

Then please do so.

On an more general note, I find it quite unfortunate how you permanently change the keyterms ("rational", "reason", "rational inference", and now even "logic" - and in his recent post to me Zippy even introduced "common sense" ).

They are related terms and this is unfortunately a requirement of the language the arguments are presented in.

Bottom line: Axiomless epistemology can not be had. Thus, pointing out that a certain view involves axioms is just stating the obvious and inevitable.

Bottom line: Naturalism invalidates their own axioms; not that it involves axioms, as all views do.

 

[quatona]

Then please do so.

I have.

They are related terms and this is unfortunately a requirement of the language the arguments are presented in.

Actually, that´s an incredibly good reason to keep them apart carefully.

Bottom line: Naturalism invalidates their own axioms;

No - it invalidates your axioms.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I have.

Citation? Post 10 does nothing of the sort. It does not explain what you understand under rational inference nor how it can be applied to Naturalism.

No - it invalidates your axioms.

Sorry? This response makes no sense whatsoever. The argument of the thread is that the belief that naturalism is true, renders inference irrational and unable to be shown to be sound and therefore the grounds for Naturalism itself. Clearly you aren't paying much attention.
If a belief that is unsupported and irrational, even by its own reasoning, was able to invalidate anything, then human knowledge is in dire straights indeed.

 

[KCfromNC]

I think it means that matter doesn't reason; it doesn't decide things. For example water doesn't reason out whether to flow downhill and then do it, it just does it according to forces which it cannot choose to obey or disobey. It just has to obey, and the result will always be the same. Matter, and its behavior, are irrational.

Weird that people would try and pin a rational or irrational thought process behind inanimate objects in an attempt to discuss the merits of an epistemological system which does the very opposite. It is almost as if the people who believe that there's an invisible hand guiding everything which happens can't even pretend that it doesn't - even just to set up a proof by contradiction.

 

[KCfromNC]

Let's just take the very first definition of "rational" from Merriam-Webster:

1a. Having reason or understanding.​

Now let's restate the premise in terms of this definition:

1. No belief is [inferred by reason or understanding] if it can be fully explained in terms of [causes without reason or understanding].​

Seems obviously false to me. I believe rocks will roll downhill. The cause of that belief is explained as seeing rocks - which have no reason or understanding - rolling down hills - which also have no reason or understanding.

 

[Chesterton]

So--by simple induction--why should I accept a supernatural causation for those things I still don't fully understand?

Because reason is in a class by itself. If it operates in the same fashion as diseases, floods, earthquakes, etc., it is not in fact reason in the sense we know it. Every thought would then be merely an unavoidable event which cannot be true or false, the same as a flood cannot be true or false. A flood is still a flood whether its cause is natural or supernatural, but if reason is natural, it is not reason.

Weird that people would try and pin a rational or irrational thought process behind inanimate objects in an attempt to discuss the merits of an epistemological system which does the very opposite. It is almost as if the people who believe that there's an invisible hand guiding everything which happens can't even pretend that it doesn't - even just to set up a proof by contradiction.

I'm not really sure what you said there.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

I think it means that matter doesn't reason; it doesn't decide things. For example water doesn't reason out whether to flow downhill and then do it, it just does it according to forces which it cannot choose to obey or disobey. It just has to obey, and the result will always be the same. Matter, and its behavior, are irrational.

It could be true that our ability to reason or be rational is an emergent property of the mind that was cultivated through natural processes. Just because the parts that make up the whole can't reason, that doesn't mean we can't. A snowflake might not be able to roll down a hill, but a snowball can.

 

[Chesterton]

It could be true that our ability to reason or be rational is an emergent property of the mind that was cultivated through natural processes. Just because the parts that make up the whole can't reason, that doesn't mean we can't. A snowflake might not be able to roll down a hill, but a snowball can.

I just think "emergent" is a useless word. Something emerged. It doesn't explain anything.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

I just think "emergent" is a useless word. Something emerged. It doesn't explain anything.

Oh, emergent properties aren't a real thing. Thank you. I thought it was an actual phenomenon because of all of the verifiable observations that it is. You are right to dismiss my comment.

 

[Chesterton]

Oh, emergent properties aren't a real thing. Thank you. I thought it was an actual phenomenon because of all of the verifiable observations that it is. You are right to dismiss my comment.

So what would be an example? Like, I put a cold pop tart in the toaster and a hot pop tart emerged? Or what?

 

[quatona]

Citation? Post 10 does nothing of the sort. It does not explain what you understand under rational inference nor how it can be applied to Naturalism.

Dictionary.com:

verb (used with object), inferred, inferring.
1. to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence:

Sorry? This response makes no sense whatsoever. The argument of the thread is that the belief that naturalism is true, renders inference irrational

...and my argument against it it that this isn´t so, until you superimpose a standard for "rationality" upon it that isn´t necessarily held by naturalism.

If a belief that is unsupported and irrational, even by its own reasoning,

...but it isn´t irrational by its own reasoning - it´s irrational by your creative and question begging definition of rationality/reason/logic or whatever is your preferred term at this point.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

So what would be an example? Like, I put a cold pop tart in the toaster and a hot pop tart emerged? Or what?

Nope, that is not an emergent property. That's just a change in properties. I don't know why you would so readily dismiss something you are unfamiliar with, but I hope I can clarify. I gave you a crude example of an emergent property with the snowball. A snowball rolls even though the snowflakes that comprise it do not. Basically, the whole of something has different properties than the parts that make it. A heart pumps blood, but the cells of the heart do not. Blood-pumping is an emergent property that is possible when the many elements are present.

To say that something is incapable of performing a task because the elements that make it up are incapable of performing the task is to make the Fallacy of Composition. If you look into "emergent properties" and the "composition fallacy," you might have a clearer picture of why I contested your statement. I hope that helps.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Nope, that is not an emergent property. That's just a change in properties. I don't know why you would so readily dismiss something you are unfamiliar with, but I hope I can clarify. I gave you a crude example of an emergent property with the snowball. A snowball rolls even though the snowflakes that comprise it do not. Basically, the whole of something has different properties than the parts that make it. A heart pumps blood, but the cells of the heart do not. Blood-pumping is an emergent property that is possible when the many elements are present.

To say that something is incapable of performing a task because the elements that make it up are incapable of performing the task is to make the Fallacy of Composition. If you look into "emergent properties" and the "composition fallacy," you might have a clearer picture of why I contested your statement. I hope that helps.

But if it is an emergent property of irrational matter, it is still dependant on the unreasoned iterations that caused it - So quite frankly, this does not alter nor answer the Argument from Reason.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Dictionary.com:

verb (used with object), inferred, inferring.
1. to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence:

The question is rational inference - and here we see 'reasoning' is part of the definition. Now Rational is "based on or in accordance with reason and logic" according to the Oxford Dictionary. So you still need to explain how this is possible for Naturalism, which has not as of yet been achieved.

...and my argument against it it that this isn´t so, until you superimpose a standard for "rationality" upon it that isn´t necessarily held by naturalism.


...but it isn´t irrational by its own reasoning - it´s irrational by your creative and question begging definition of rationality/reason/logic or whatever is your preferred term at this point.

Its irrational by the definition of irrationality; and the rules of logic dictate the rest. You are clutching at straws, denying something without adressing the criticism at all.

 

[Chesterton]

Nope, that is not an emergent property. That's just a change in properties. I don't know why you would so readily dismiss something you are unfamiliar with, but I hope I can clarify. I gave you a crude example of an emergent property with the snowball. A snowball rolls even though the snowflakes that comprise it do not. Basically, the whole of something has different properties than the parts that make it. A heart pumps blood, but the cells of the heart do not. Blood-pumping is an emergent property that is possible when the many elements are present.

To say that something is incapable of performing a task because the elements that make it up are incapable of performing the task is to make the Fallacy of Composition. If you look into "emergent properties" and the "composition fallacy," you might have a clearer picture of why I contested your statement. I hope that helps.

I don't argue that the whole can't have different properties, but it cannot have properties wholly unlike its parts, i.e., the parts used in making an automobile cannot be rearranged in any way to make a living deer.

I also don't say the brain doesn't perform a task. Obviously we have thoughts, and particles play a role in that, but it's the nature of the task which is in question.

 

[jayem]

But if it is an emergent property of irrational matter, it is still dependant on the unreasoned iterations that caused it - So quite frankly, this does not alter nor answer the Argument from Reason.

This is what I still don't understand. And let's keep it specific to brain function. Why can't a large collection of nerve cells, acting by electrochemical means, produce in a structure that can interpret sensory input, solve problems, and perform other functions that are associated with reason and logic?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

This is what I still don't understand. And let's keep it specific to brain function. Why can't a large collection of nerve cells, acting by electrochemical means, produce in a structure that can interpret sensory input, solve problems, and perform other functions that are associated with reason and logic?

It can certainly mimic it in this manner, but such a system would be deterministic and in toto dependant on the underlying physiology's unreasoned activity. As I explained in my initial post, it cannot establish the validity of its logic, nor is it rational.

 

[zippy2006]

Nope, that is not an emergent property. That's just a change in properties. I don't know why you would so readily dismiss something you are unfamiliar with, but I hope I can clarify. I gave you a crude example of an emergent property with the snowball. A snowball rolls even though the snowflakes that comprise it do not. Basically, the whole of something has different properties than the parts that make it. A heart pumps blood, but the cells of the heart do not. Blood-pumping is an emergent property that is possible when the many elements are present.

To say that something is incapable of performing a task because the elements that make it up are incapable of performing the task is to make the Fallacy of Composition. If you look into "emergent properties" and the "composition fallacy," you might have a clearer picture of why I contested your statement. I hope that helps.

While I appreciate the relevant objection, it has been addressed in my post that quatona has shied away from answering:

You are claiming that the argument commits something like the fallacy of composition with respect to the set of causes and the effect. That is to say, even if no cause has property X, it does not follow that the effect of those causes does not have property X. But like the fallacy of composition, this is not universally true. For example, if I construct a wall out of bricks that are not red, I will never produce a wall that is red.

Rational inference is another case where the fallacy does not obtain. If a set of nonrational causes come together to create some belief, that belief cannot have been rationally inferred. Rational inference requires reason, understanding, and an inferred conclusion based on the laws of logic and the premises at hand. Nonrational causes preclude such things. It cannot be the case that the statement, "It is raining outside," is fully explained by brain damage and at the same time is rationally inferred by the subject.

I´m not sure there´s any naturalists who believes they have "rationally inferred" this belief - by your definition of "rational inference" (i.e. when they say "rational inference" they don´t mean what you mean). So it´s not like they are inconsistent, it´s more like their belief and the idea and criteria of "rational inference" that you superimpose on them are irreconcilable.

I have never subscribed to the concept of "rational inference" as postulated by Lewis etc., to begin with. And I am not even a naturalist.

As has already been pointed out, there is nothing peculiar about Lewis' definition of rational inference. It is the same basic definition that has been in effect for millenia.

But if you really wish to pursue this argument you would be required to note the relevant distinction between Lewis' understanding of rational inference and your own. How does Lewis misunderstand rational inference, and how does your own definition correct his misunderstanding?

Specifically, consider the statement related to my OP, "Either he said it is raining outside because he has brain damage or else because he rationally inferred it." According to Lewis' understanding of rational inference it must be one or the other--if it is fully explained by brain damage then it is not also explained by rational inference. Apparently you think it can be both. How does that work?

 

[Gene Parmesan]

While I appreciate the relevant objection, it has been addressed in my post that quatona has shied away from answering:





As has already been pointed out, there is nothing peculiar about Lewis' definition of rational inference. It is the same basic definition that has been in effect for millenia.

But if you really wish to pursue this argument you would be required to note the relevant distinction between Lewis' understanding of rational inference and your own. How does Lewis misunderstand rational inference, and how does your own definition correct his misunderstanding?

Specifically, consider the statement related to my OP, "Either he said it is raining outside because he has brain damage or else because he rationally inferred it." According to Lewis' understanding of rational inference it must be one or the other--if it is fully explained by brain damage then it is not also explained by rational inference. Apparently you think it can be both. How does that work?

Thank you for posting that again. So hard to remember things from A DAY AGO! Haha. I'm not known for my impeccable memory.

I wouldn't suggest that every characteristic is different from the parts that comprise it. Of course, that wouldn't preclude us from considering if our ability to reason (or be rational) is not, in fact, an emergent property of the mind.

So we can talk about if we can be rational or not. We can also discuss the source of this rationality. But even if someone were unable to properly account for our ability to reason or think rationally, that isn't then evidence of a supernatural explanation.

And what if we determine that our reasoning is totally not rational? What then? Wouldn't the claim that we are irrational be irrational? We would then just go on living our lives under the illusion that our reasoning is rational because good luck surviving without trying to reason rationally.

 

[zippy2006]

This is what I still don't understand. And let's keep it specific to brain function. Why can't a large collection of nerve cells, acting by electrochemical means, produce in a structure that can interpret sensory input, solve problems, and perform other functions that are associated with reason and logic?

There was a recent thread on Alvin Plantinga's idea that Evolutionary Naturalism precludes reliable rational faculties. You seem to be thinking along those same lines. While Lewis' argument is similar in some ways to Plantinga's, it is at bottom quite different.

The centerpiece of Lewis' argument is not the reliability of a rational faculty, but rather a belief that is rationally inferred. The idea of rational inference is really quite straightforward, and can be illustrated by the classic modus ponens syllogism:

1. If p, then q
2. p
3. Therefore, q

Conclusion (3) is rationally inferred from premises (1) and (2). If we understand what each premise means, then we must know that (3) logically follows from (1) and (2). This is an example of rational inference.

With Lewis' argument you always want to keep in mind a rationally inferred conclusion, and one in particular, namely the conclusion that, "Naturalism is true." The Naturalist inevitably is said to reach such a conclusion based on a reasoning process involving a set of premises and rules of inference--it is a rationally inferred conclusion.

Instead of redundantly reiterating what I spell out in the OP, I'll just leave it at that and direct you back to the argument of the OP.