Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Does Reason Undermine Reason?

Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2013 7:53:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Critical reason has been used to reject traditional "revealed" truth as a product of superstition and legend. The subsequent rejection of traditional religious morality as objectively unjustifiable leaves us with the requirement to justify principles of action based solely on human desires without reliance on the presumed existence of objective value, we therefore need to rely on reason to provide us with principles of actions. But this appears to invoke a circular process that in the end undermines the reliance on critical reason as a principle upon which to act.

If critical reason is used to reject the structural intelligibility inherent in the traditional belief in God, then the structural intelligibility of reason requires another logical foundation. If the contents of human brains are presumed to be the accidental products of blind evolutionary processes, then on what basis should we presume that reason itself "reveals" truth? If reason is seen as an evolutionary survival strategy subordinated to the drive to reproduce, then critical reason necessarily undermines its own authority. For reason to retain the requisite authority, the rejection of the traditional view must be replaced with another way of seeing the universe as sustaining and manifesting intelligibility. In the absence of such logical justification, it seems we have simply replaced an unsupportable and faith based belief in God with an unsupportable and faith based belief in reason. If this is the case, then can we see the battle between reason and faith as nothing more than competing faiths?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2013 8:23:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Reason refers to very process through which we conceive of things. Reason isn't supported by blind faith but axiomatic truth necessarily and inextricably linked to the act of thinking itself. It's a self-containing process - that is unjustifiable yet necessarily justified. Faith does not have that compulsive faculty and therefore does not in any way shape or form occupy the same stage as reason.

I've made the point before that logic, like the human body, must be the adaptive product of evolution and can therefore only be trusted in a localized context, but this is the extent to which we can validly undermine it. As a matter of fact, this limitation of logic to, not just the secular, but the Macroscopic of the secular (given that intuitive logic deteriorates on the quantum scale) destroys the theologian's all-encompassing conclusions - logic that can only be trusted in such a limited context of the universe cannot be trusted to discover or reveal the nature of a being that transcends the universe in its entirety.

This is more of an objection to theism than anything else.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2013 5:04:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/14/2013 8:23:18 AM, 000ike wrote:
Reason refers to very process through which we conceive of things. Reason isn't supported by blind faith but axiomatic truth necessarily and inextricably linked to the act of thinking itself. It's a self-containing process - that is unjustifiable yet necessarily justified. Faith does not have that compulsive faculty and therefore does not in any way shape or form occupy the same stage as reason.

Oh please, this is nothing but faith based dogma. To a theist the existence of God is an axiom of faith, it refers to the very process by which a theist conceives of things, theism isn't supported by blind faith any more than reason is, and both are a self-containing process that are unjustifiable yet necessarily justified. Epistemological claims require a coherence theory of truth; ontological claims require a correspondence theory of truth, implied in a correspondence theory of truth is representation, which makes ontology and epistemology transactional. By applying a coherence theory of truth to the epistemological claims of faith, you can conclude that faith has a more compulsive faculty and therefore occupies a higher stage than reason because it doesn't yield a platform that undermines itself.

I've made the point before that logic, like the human body, must be the adaptive product of evolution and can therefore only be trusted in a localized context, but this is the extent to which we can validly undermine it. As a matter of fact, this limitation of logic to, not just the secular, but the Macroscopic of the secular (given that intuitive logic deteriorates on the quantum scale) destroys the theologian's all-encompassing conclusions - logic that can only be trusted in such a limited context of the universe cannot be trusted to discover or reveal the nature of a being that transcends the universe in its entirety.

Then why do you get all bunged up when somebody says the traditional view transcends logic? If reason can"t be trusted to discover or reveal the nature of a transcendent being, then it can"t be trusted to deny or reject that transcendence either. The point is that the proper application of reason is to a specific domain, and applying it to the traditional view of transcendence is a misapplication of reason.

I've made the point before that the theistic conclusion is not logically coercive, but it does provide an intellectually sound framework for making sense of the broadest possible range of human experience by uniting in a single account, the rich and many layered encounter that we have with a reality that is experienced as full of value. When you apply reason to deny objectivity to such a framework there is a corresponding denial of objectivity to reason itself, it is epistemologically inconsistent. Critical reason ends up simply being critical of foundations in general, and it does so from a platform that is itself without foundation. It is used as a method of challenging a specific truth but it is functionally generalizable as a challenge to all truth. The same scrutiny that provides the ontological conclusion that the object of theism doesn't exist can be applied to effectively arrive at the conclusion that matter does not exist.

This is more of an objection to theism than anything else.

Thanks for restating my point, it is certainly used as an objection to theism in practice, but the underlying presumption of reason"s superiority when applied to the traditional view is itself undermined by the process. The approach equivocates between epistemology and ontology to effectively challenge the conceptual veracity of any truth. It calls into question the very notion of truth by turning claims of truth into little more than power plays; it"s an unwarranted logical process that only pretends to objectivity in order to claim status for a competing belief. It amounts to an appeal to ignorance in that it presumes an unwarranted challenge to the foundation of another faith based belief in some way yields a foundation for your own competing faith based belief, it doesn't.

The traditional theistic view is an orienting epistemological framework that guides action, I"d liken it to longitude and latitude lines, the lines don"t physically exist on the earth, they are merely an abstraction overlaid on the earth that provides an orienting grid which yields the ability to locate where one is and providing a means for navigating the journey. God is said to be first and foremost a spirit, "physical" existence is already denied by definition, but the abstract concept provides an orienting framework to guide actions, the theistic framework is an orienting epistemological grid yielding the ability to locate where one is and providing a means for navigating the journey. If you apply an ontology of objects to morality you can conclude that objective morality does not exist, but that simply begs the question by confusing epistemology and ontology, morality is an epistemic guide to action, it isn't an object. The word realize means to make real, objective morality exists as an epistemological ideal which calls us to achieve it, it is by our actions that objective morality is realized.

You have gone to great length to apply this invalid equivocation process to challenge theism, making truth claims that God, objective morality, values, free will and consciousness don"t exist. You seem to be constantly proselytizing a framework of thought that denies the very basis for a framework of thought, proclaiming a truth that denies the basis for truth; I just don"t see how you could be more pointless.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2013 5:19:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
lol you give gish galloping a whole new meaning
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2013 7:18:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/14/2013 5:19:00 PM, 000ike wrote:
lol you give gish galloping a whole new meaning

Typical pointless reply, I already knew you didn't understand.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
CanWeKnow
Posts: 217
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 12:20:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
... what?

Logic & Reason is the only faculty through which we humans can comprehend the data we are presented with. Anything outside of Logic & Reason is simply incomprehensible.

You're correct, we can't use Logic & Reason to prove or disprove the existence of anything outside of Logic & Reason. There may very well be knowledge outside of human knowledge or ability.

I don't see how this changes the value we put on it. It's the only kind of intelligence we have.

Religion, by nature, is just illogical. If it's not logical why value it?

You have yet to prove why Faith or Revelation is more valuable.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 6:45:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 12:20:13 AM, CanWeKnow wrote:
... what?


Logic & Reason is the only faculty through which we humans can comprehend the data we are presented with. Anything outside of Logic & Reason is simply incomprehensible.

Nonsense, human beings simply are not "reducible" to something that the words logical and rational can circumscribe, we are much more than that, those words are essential, but they are by no means exhaustive. We are not just rational beings; we are also sensate, emotional, and spiritual beings. Because of the uniquely human way that we experience reality, we live in a universe imbued with values, meaning and purpose, none of which are reducible to logic and reason. Consequently, a strictly logical, rational, or scientific "worldview" is in principle impossible, it just isn"t comprehensive enough. The worldview that is "natural" to Man is one that includes everything that it means to be human, one that gives full expression to the complete range of human sensitivities. It is a worldview that speaks not just to what we are or what we have been, but also to what we ought to be, and most importantly, to what we could become.

You're correct, we can't use Logic & Reason to prove or disprove the existence of anything outside of Logic & Reason. There may very well be knowledge outside of human knowledge or ability.

There are certainly strong logical reasons to completely reject your premise that knowledge is solely contingent on logic and reason.

Science tells us that what we refer to as "thinking" is the result of the interplay between separate and distinct cognitive structures that work together to constitute "mind" or "thought". Each of these neurological structures has radically different physiological characteristics, different agendas, different ways of processing information, and different ways of expressing itself.

From one scientific frame of reference these distinct cognitive structures can be categorized into four distinct neurological structures that developed sequentially in time, the R-Complex, Limbic System, Neocortex, and Prefrontal Cortex. Developmentally over time, the stream of consciousness that we call thought developed into four distinct and autonomous neurological structures, like a river that parted into four heads, so to speak.

Only one of the cognitive structures implicated in "mind", the neocortex, possesses the verbal center, and that neocortical structure itself is made up of two distinct hemispheres that operate in polar opposite ways, one processes information in a linear, analytic fashion associated with logic and reason, and the other processes information in non-linear, synthetic fashion. The left hemisphere of the neocortex processes verbal information in a sequential manner, in isolation, without input from the right hemisphere.

The inputs to these cognitive structures exhibit an alternating pattern of inner and outer, in terms of neurological pathways; the R-Complex is directly connected to the senses, it receives its input in only one direction, exclusively from the outer world. The limbic system receives all of the input of the senses as well as the output of the R-Complex, so it is able to see within. In contrast to the limbic system's ability to process information originating from within ourselves, the incoming neurological pathways of the neocortex are exclusively connected to data streaming in from the outer world. This single direction input of the outer senses is inverted again in the prefrontal cortex, its incoming neurological pathways are exclusively the outgoing neurological pathways of the other three cortical structures, the prefrontal cortex receives all of its data from the inner world.

Scientifically speaking then, what we call "mind" appears to be the result of an alternating pattern of the polar opposites of inner and outer, from the interplay between outer environment and inner awareness mediated by disparate functional capabilities. The result of this process is that human mind forms an integrated, organic whole that "thinks", it is not rational or logical to isolate certain characteristics of only one of the distinct cognitive structures involved in thought and claim that to be a comprehensive representation of "thought" or to proclaim that it constitutes "knowledge".

I don't see how this changes the value we put on it. It's the only kind of intelligence we have.

Therein lies the problem, logic and reason alone do not establish "value", and as explained, it is not the only kind of intelligence we have by any stretch of the imagination.

Religion, by nature, is just illogical. If it's not logical why value it?

If true intelligence involves the ability to view and understanding widely different things from multiple different perspectives, an aptitude for grasping a wide range of truths, relationships, and meanings, and the capacity for abstract and symbolic thought, then it follows logically that the contention that one can reduce reality to only one of its modes, to know it in only one of its forms, is an unintelligent claim.

You have yet to prove why Faith or Revelation is more valuable.

I have nothing to prove because I didn"t say they were more valuable, I said they are more comprehensive and internally more consistent. You have yet to establish that value has meaning under your premise that logic and reason alone constitute knowledge. Values in their final and proper sense fall outside the sphere of logic and reason alone. Logic and reason can deal with instrumental values but not intrinsic ones, they can deal with values descriptively but not predictively, at best they can say what men do prize, but not what they should prize.

All knowledge begins with experience, and the word truth is referential to a dynamic of correspondence between reality and our experience of that reality. Taking truth in its entirety and relating it to Man is his entirety, there can be little truth to a constricted vision of reality that simply denies the human experiential reality of values, meanings and purposes. Logic and reason are tools we can use to understand and explain our experience of reality; they are not properly used tools if they attempt to "explain away" our experience of reality.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 7:07:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/14/2013 5:19:00 PM, 000ike wrote:
lol you give gish galloping a whole new meaning

Aside from the fact that it is not logical and doesn't involve reason, the problem with such obdurate and dogmatic closed mindedness is that everything is one dimensional, there's no depth, nothing at all below a surface level understanding. Allow me to try to explain its source in the context of the evolutionary approach to understanding logic and reason that you referenced earlier.

Paul MacLean"s triune brain thought process posits three distinct groupings of the human brain"s various autonomous structures that, from an evolutionary point of view, developed sequentially in time, and is roughly associated with the emergence of reptiles, mammals, and humans. The brain structures that evolved over time on the way to developing a human brain are the "R-Complex" or reptilian brain, the limbic system or "paleomammalian complex", and the neocortex or "neomammalian complex". As we evolved each sequential brain development necessarily built upon and was added to the preceding structures and result in the general behavioral characteristics typical of the reptiles, mammals, and primates that sequentially emerged and have the added new brain complex in addition to the ones that had previously evolved. MacLean"s central idea is that human thought is a complex interplay of separate behaviors characteristic of our evolutionary development that developed sequentially as these brain groupings were added, this model allow us to learn more about human behavior by examining and relating the behavior of the associated three classes of animals.

Anatomical brain research, particularly changes observed after selective damage to cortical regions and brain mapping techniques, have since demonstrated a strong correlation between the behavior described and the brain structures described in the model. A great deal of understanding resulted from MacLean"s model as to this day brain researchers think along these lines. The brain did evolve in an additive way and specific types of behavior did emerge sequentially, and there is clearly a spectrum of behavior that ranges from the lowest level reptilian "brain" strongly associated with the ritualistic displays, territoriality, and aggression of reptiles, to the last general brain structure to evolve, the prefrontal cortex which exploded in size during hominid evolution and in a fully developed form, is considered to be what makes us human. The prefrontal cortex is associated with planning, complex problem solving, regulation of emotion, and spirituality.

The aforementioned obdurate and dogmatic closed mindedness is a comprehension problem that stems from an "R-Complex" (lizard brain) dominance, which is behaviorally characterized by stereotypically reptilian ritualistic displays and the typical instincts of dominance, territoriality, and aggression associated with Reptilia class conduct. R-Complex dominance results in a limitation to the range of logical or rational responses as reptile typical automatic and irrational behavioral responses supersede the higher level processes of logical thought and rational behavior. The ability for abstract thought is compromised, and the individual becomes trapped in a surface level understanding, making it difficulty or impossible to comprehend symbolism, metaphor, and meaning. The reason such close minded individuals are so dogmatic is that the irrational reptilian instinct of territoriality becomes attached to ideas and opinions which are then aggressively defended as a matter of self-preservation. The associated constant and illogical repetition of dogmatic assertions is the reptilian phenomena of ritualism making an irrational attempt to socially delineate a hierarchical position of territorial dominance in the realm of ideas and opinions.

In R-complex dominance reptilian behaviors are amplified and the emotional and thinking brains are down-regulated, so for instance, attempts at logical, rational, and socially acceptable interaction trigger reptilian territoriality and aggression and ritualistic displays instead of logical consideration of the other person"s point of view followed by a reasoned response. The R-Complex dominance will desensitize limbic system characteristics such as altruistic behavior and the capacity for intellectual empathy are subordinated to the reptilian instinctual behaviors of aggression and territoriality, and the mammalian functions that allow an individual to distinguish between what is socially acceptable or unacceptable is compromised as the individual becomes desensitized to other people"s thoughts and ideas in favor of repetitive ritualistic displays and the species typical reptilian behaviors of aggression and territoriality. Social ineptness can result in societal isolation and an associated resentment because the reptilian lack of abstract reasoning and the related reptilian inability to comprehend or respect the affective states of others downgrades logical thought and results in a reptile typical and completely territorial attack approach to discussing other people"s ideas.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 7:13:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ijcmu
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 7:26:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The problem with trying to sound clever is that it implies a need. If you need to, you can only ever manage it to other people who are not. This is amongst the various lessons that Sidewalker is yet to take heed of. Until then, I suppose we get deliberately verbose, incoherent screeds unwittingly announcing this shortcoming. We can only hope he grows out of it at some point after leaving school.

That is, assuming he isn't just a troll. I certainly can't rule that possibility out.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 8:34:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 7:26:39 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
The problem with trying to sound clever is that it implies a need. If you need to, you can only ever manage it to other people who are not. This is amongst the various lessons that Sidewalker is yet to take heed of. Until then, I suppose we get deliberately verbose, incoherent screeds unwittingly announcing this shortcoming. We can only hope he grows out of it at some point after leaving school.

That is, assuming he isn't just a troll. I certainly can't rule that possibility out.

Thanks, it's always nice to hear from the lizard in you.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 8:47:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
where do you find the time to type all of this?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 8:55:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 8:47:34 AM, 000ike wrote:
where do you find the time to type all of this?

It involves rummaging and some awkward twisting to get his hand 'in place'.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 9:42:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 8:34:54 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 7/15/2013 7:26:39 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
The problem with trying to sound clever is that it implies a need. If you need to, you can only ever manage it to other people who are not. This is amongst the various lessons that Sidewalker is yet to take heed of. Until then, I suppose we get deliberately verbose, incoherent screeds unwittingly announcing this shortcoming. We can only hope he grows out of it at some point after leaving school.

That is, assuming he isn't just a troll. I certainly can't rule that possibility out.

Thanks, it's always nice to hear from the lizard in you.

Hey, good morning, my son. How was your weekend?
This space for rent.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 10:58:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 9:42:39 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/15/2013 8:34:54 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 7/15/2013 7:26:39 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
The problem with trying to sound clever is that it implies a need. If you need to, you can only ever manage it to other people who are not. This is amongst the various lessons that Sidewalker is yet to take heed of. Until then, I suppose we get deliberately verbose, incoherent screeds unwittingly announcing this shortcoming. We can only hope he grows out of it at some point after leaving school.

That is, assuming he isn't just a troll. I certainly can't rule that possibility out.

Thanks, it's always nice to hear from the lizard in you.

Hey, good morning, my son. How was your weekend?

Good, and how was yours?

It was a little slow this AM so I've been entertaining myself with the secular fundamentalist this morning, dug below their surface level understanding and they became quite discombobulated, these fundies are sooooo easy, what a hoot.

By the way, ijcmu stands for I just crack myself up. :)

Oh well, I owe, I owe, it's off to work I go...seeyalaterbye.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 11:10:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The idea that you're even capable of the degree of understanding necessary to be challenging in anything other than a "remedial class material" sense is the first thing to make me laugh in an otherwise crappy Monday afternoon. And you know what that means? You've finally contributed something not awful to the world. Savour it, I doubt you'll manage it again.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 12:01:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 11:10:37 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
The idea that you're even capable of the degree of understanding necessary to be challenging in anything other than a "remedial class material" sense is the first thing to make me laugh in an otherwise crappy Monday afternoon. And you know what that means? You've finally contributed something not awful to the world. Savour it, I doubt you'll manage it again.

LOL, you remind me of something I saw on vacation last year.

There was a little boy, maybe five years old, he was desperately clinging to the side of the hotel pool, frantically kicking his legs and screaming, "Mommy, mommy, look at me, I'm swimming in the deep end".

As Art Linkletter said, "Kids say the darndest things" :)
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
CanWeKnow
Posts: 217
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 12:20:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
OK, not going to lie, TLDR just skimmed.

You rambled way too much. Get to the point lol.

I'm the one making ridiculous claims? No no no, You, Sir, are the one making outlandish claims.

I never once claimed that we could single out any part as the sole place of consciousness and understanding.

"If true intelligence involves the ability to view and understanding widely different things from multiple different perspectives, an aptitude for grasping a wide range of truths, relationships, and meanings, and the capacity for abstract and symbolic thought, then it follows logically that the contention that one can reduce reality to only one of its modes, to know it in only one of its forms, is an unintelligent claim."

Yes, and No. Obviously it is impossible for humans to reduce reality into any one philosophy or -ism. That's why we have so many competing -isms in Philosophy.

"Logic and reason can deal with instrumental values but not intrinsic ones, they can deal with values descriptively but not predictively, at best they can say what men do prize, but not what they should prize."

Yes, it can. There's a whole branch of Philosophy devoted to it. It's called Ethics.

"Logic and reason are tools we can use to understand and explain our experience of reality; they are not properly used tools if they attempt to "explain away" our experience of reality."

... wuh?
Does it matter if it's used efficiently? Many people use their logic and reason to do seemingly pointless things.

Like I said before, you're throwing the baby out with the bath water here.

"I have nothing to prove because I didn"t say they were more valuable, I said they are more comprehensive and internally more consistent."

DF? Don't play semantics with me, Sir. You know very well what I was referring to.

Maybe you're not understanding what I am saying here.

Emotions, Faith, and Revelation in and of themselves are not intelligence by any means. They convey no meaning and provide no understanding of reality without Logic and Reason.

Feeling happy only means that you feel happy.

Emotion and Conscious Cognition are deeply interwoven in a symbiotic relationship necessary to ensure our survival as a species.

Logic and Reason is all that WE, humans, have at our disposal. It CAN reveal objective truth in relation to human existence. It CAN refute religious Faith.

Why? Because claiming to have knowledge outside of human comprehension is simply insane.
"I know the truth! I don't understand it. I can't comprehend it. I'm not even really sure what it is. Nobody can understand, but it's True! Because I know it!"

Get a grip.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 12:29:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 7:07:46 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
Paul MacLean"s triune brain thought process posits three distinct groupings of the human brain"s various autonomous structures that, from an evolutionary point of view, developed sequentially in time, and is roughly associated with the emergence of reptiles, mammals, and humans. The brain structures that evolved over time on the way to developing a human brain are the "R-Complex" or reptilian brain, the limbic system or "paleomammalian complex", and the neocortex or "neomammalian complex". As we evolved each sequential brain development necessarily built upon and was added to the preceding structures and result in the general behavioral characteristics typical of the reptiles, mammals, and primates that sequentially emerged and have the added new brain complex in addition to the ones that had previously evolved. MacLean"s central idea is that human thought is a complex interplay of separate behaviors characteristic of our evolutionary development that developed sequentially as these brain groupings were added, this model allow us to learn more about human behavior by examining and relating the behavior of the associated three classes of animals.

Anatomical brain research, particularly changes observed after selective damage to cortical regions and brain mapping techniques, have since demonstrated a strong correlation between the behavior described and the brain structures described in the model. A great deal of understanding resulted from MacLean"s model as to this day brain researchers think along these lines. The brain did evolve in an additive way and specific types of behavior did emerge sequentially, and there is clearly a spectrum of behavior that ranges from the lowest level reptilian "brain" strongly associated with the ritualistic displays, territoriality, and aggression of reptiles, to the last general brain structure to evolve, the prefrontal cortex which exploded in size during hominid evolution and in a fully developed form, is considered to be what makes us human. The prefrontal cortex is associated with planning, complex problem solving, regulation of emotion, and spirituality.

The aforementioned obdurate and dogmatic closed mindedness is a comprehension problem that stems from an "R-Complex" (lizard brain) dominance, which is behaviorally characterized by stereotypically reptilian ritualistic displays and the typical instincts of dominance, territoriality, and aggression associated with Reptilia class conduct. R-Complex dominance results in a limitation to the range of logical or rational responses as reptile typical automatic and irrational behavioral responses supersede the higher level processes of logical thought and rational behavior. The ability for abstract thought is compromised, and the individual becomes trapped in a surface level understanding, making it difficulty or impossible to comprehend symbolism, metaphor, and meaning. The reason such close minded individuals are so dogmatic is that the irrational reptilian instinct of territoriality becomes attached to ideas and opinions which are then aggressively defended as a matter of self-preservation. The associated constant and illogical repetition of dogmatic assertions is the reptilian phenomena of ritualism making an irrational attempt to socially delineate a hierarchical position of territorial dominance in the realm of ideas and opinions.

In R-complex dominance reptilian behaviors are amplified and the emotional and thinking brains are down-regulated, so for instance, attempts at logical, rational, and socially acceptable interaction trigger reptilian territoriality and aggression and ritualistic displays instead of logical consideration of the other person"s point of view followed by a reasoned response. The R-Complex dominance will desensitize limbic system characteristics such as altruistic behavior and the capacity for intellectual empathy are subordinated to the reptilian instinctual behaviors of aggression and territoriality, and the mammalian functions that allow an individual to distinguish between what is socially acceptable or unacceptable is compromised as the individual becomes desensitized to other people"s thoughts and ideas in favor of repetitive ritualistic displays and the species typical reptilian behaviors of aggression and territoriality. Social ineptness can result in societal isolation and an associated resentment because the reptilian lack of abstract reasoning and the related reptilian inability to comprehend or respect the affective states of others downgrades logical thought and results in a reptile typical and completely territorial attack approach to discussing other people"s ideas.

Definitely going to copy-paste this for the next political trollbot I come across on the internet. If you're a troll, you're the most sophisticated one ever.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 1:13:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's morbidly fascinating to observe the vociferation unfolding here.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com...
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 10:51:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 8:47:34 AM, 000ike wrote:
where do you find the time to type all of this?

LOL...It's usually when I can't sleep, note the time stamps, a 7:00 AM post probably means I woke up at 2:00 am and couldn't get back to sleep.

Recognize that I'm providing a valuable service here in case you have the same problem...reading these long posts helps put you guys to sleep doesn't it? :)
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 6:50:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Perhaps you are assuming that reason includes the implicit assumption that reason is the correct method for determining the nature of the world. If you instead treat reason as a tool rather than a way of life and simply investigate its consequences can you still say it is internally inconsistent? In this case I would say that religion and reason have equivalent epistemological standing but that reason (for me) has greater empirical standing?
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 12:26:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 10:03:18 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Probably.
Absitively, posolutely, a probable definiteness.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 12:22:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The fundamental problem with saying that reason can be undermined is that it leaves you with no basis to make that statement.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2013 11:15:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/14/2013 8:23:18 AM, 000ike wrote:
Reason refers to very process through which we conceive of things.

How do you fit in other knowledge discourses we use to understand the world/ourselves? To call things like faith, introspection, irrationalism, or critically reflexive philosophies (which clearly have a 'conceiving' function) Reason is to over-extend the concept.

Reason isn't supported by blind faith but axiomatic truth necessarily and inextricably linked to the act of thinking itself. It's a self-containing process - that is unjustifiable yet necessarily justified. Faith does not have that compulsive faculty and therefore does not in any way shape or form occupy the same stage as reason.

Elaborate.

I've made the point before that logic, like the human body, must be the adaptive product of evolution and can therefore only be trusted in a localized context, but this is the extent to which we can validly undermine it. As a matter of fact, this limitation of logic to, not just the secular, but the Macroscopic of the secular (given that intuitive logic deteriorates on the quantum scale) destroys the theologian's all-encompassing conclusions - logic that can only be trusted in such a limited context of the universe cannot be trusted to discover or reveal the nature of a being that transcends the universe in its entirety.

This is more of an objection to theism than anything else.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2013 11:22:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 12:20:13 AM, CanWeKnow wrote:
... what?


Logic & Reason is the only faculty through which we humans can comprehend the data we are presented with. Anything outside of Logic & Reason is simply incomprehensible.

Incomprehensible through this specific knowledge set. But give that the logic-discourse is limited to its own set of operative assumptions/practices, it can't give us a 'reasonable' view of other types of knowledge. At least not without collapsing in on itself.

You're correct, we can't use Logic & Reason to prove or disprove the existence of anything outside of Logic & Reason. There may very well be knowledge outside of human knowledge or ability.



I don't see how this changes the value we put on it. It's the only kind of intelligence we have.

Define intelligence. Do you mean knowledge? Or epistemological paradigm?

Religion, by nature, is just illogical. If it's not logical why value it?

Critical reflexivity of reason/logic doesn't necessitate religion. But even so, yer still having a problem understanding why the logic/reason are necessarily valued (or why such a thing would even be relevant if it shows itself to be inconsistent with its unique set of operative assumptions).

You have yet to prove why Faith or Revelation is more valuable.

You'll find that there's no revelation-reason dichotomy.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2013 7:10:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/18/2013 11:15:01 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 7/14/2013 8:23:18 AM, 000ike wrote:
Reason refers to very process through which we conceive of things.

How do you fit in other knowledge discourses we use to understand the world/ourselves? To call things like faith, introspection, irrationalism, or critically reflexive philosophies (which clearly have a 'conceiving' function) Reason is to over-extend the concept.

I don't really see how any of those present a conceiving function in the same way that logic does. Intuitions differ and are often falsifiable. Axioms of logic are the opposite.

Reason isn't supported by blind faith but axiomatic truth necessarily and inextricably linked to the act of thinking itself. It's a self-containing process - that is unjustifiable yet necessarily justified. Faith does not have that compulsive faculty and therefore does not in any way shape or form occupy the same stage as reason.

Elaborate.

I mean that faith is an unnecessary form of conception whereas nothing can be understood without application of logical rules. Neither faith nor logic is justifiable. However logic is a necessary presupposition of thought, but faith is not. Maybe Occam's razor applies here
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault