About testimonials

[quaestio45]

I already briefly touched upon it in my last post - intentionality, qualia, and mental causation are excellent reasons to deny Physicalism. There are already many excellent books on the subject (try Nagel to start).

Which Nagel? Ernest Nagel or Thomas Nagel? I’m a little interested on the subject you’re discussing here.

 

[SPBlitz]

Which Nagel? Ernest Nagel or Thomas Nagel? I’m a little interested on the subject you’re discussing here.

Thomas Nagel - he’s an atheist philosopher who wrote the article “What it’s like to be a bat” and the much longer, more academic Mind and Cosmos.

To be honest, I’m not quite sure who Ernest Nagel is…

 

[quaestio45]

Thomas Nagel - he’s an atheist philosopher who wrote the article “What it’s like to be a bat” and the much longer, more academic Mind and Cosmos.

Ah, thank you! I’ll take a look at the article and maybe touch on Mind and Cosmos when I have the time. I appreciate it.

To be honest, I’m not quite sure who Ernest Nagel is…

He’s a philosopher of science apparently. Not even remotely sure what he thinks. Just did a quick google search on Nagel and both Ernest and Thomas popped up.

 

[lelinator]

It is also important which options are rational. Is it rational to trust the apostles, the Church, God?

Any option can be rational, because the concept itself is rather meaningless. I Googled the word “rational”, and this is what I got:

adjective: rational

1. based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

Pretty much anything can be supported by reason or logic, given the right assumptions. Recently there was a member of this forum who insisted that the earth is flat. Now this person wasn’t being irrational, because they had what they considered to be irrefutable evidence to support their position. And specific reasons to reject any arguments to the contrary. Their conclusion was simply based upon their interpretation of the evidence. They just happened to interpret the evidence differently than you or I.

So you have to ask yourself…what is it that makes someone’s argument irrational?

And how do you determine who’s being rational, and who isn’t?

 

[Abrosz]

Pretty much anything can be supported by reason or logic, given the right assumptions.

Actually, reason and logic are not synonyms. There is a difference between “logically correct” and “logically sound” arguments. And we call something “rational” if it is both logically correct and is supported by reality. So they are not the same.

Of course this pushes the question back: what is reality? The physical reality is unquestionable. Some people might question it, the solipsists and the lunatics. The opinion of the lunatics cannot be taken seriously. The opinion of the solipsists can be refuted by a strong kick in the butt - not literally, of course. So solipsists cannot be taken seriously either.

So the question boils down to: “is there a non-physical, ontologically existing reality” - some people call it “spiritual”? Concepts, ideas all “exist”, but not ontologically. They are just inert mental constructs. They are the creation of the mind - which is the product of the physical brain. The existence of the “spiritual” reality is the matter of “faith”. There can be no direct, physical evidence for it.

How about indirect, non-physical evidence? The “spiritual” reality allegedly interacts with the physical reality, so it could be caught “red-handed” at the interface. However, no evidence has ever been supplied for this interaction. So the “spiritual” reality remains a product of faith, which is NOT evidence. And as such, asserted without evidence, discarded without evidence.

 

[lelinator]

Some people might question it, the solipsists and the lunatics. The opinion of the lunatics cannot be taken seriously. The opinion of the solipsists can be refuted by a strong kick in the butt - not literally, of course. So solipsists cannot be taken seriously either.

See, here’s a perfect example of the subjective nature of "rational". What’s rational to me may not be rational to you, although we’re both using the same process of reasoning and logic to reach our conclusions. We’re just using different assumptions.

Although to be precise, I’m trying not to use any assumptions at all, which is what makes me an epistemological solipsist. Yup…I’m a solipsist, and no, solipsism cannot be refuted by a strong kick in the butt.

So you see, saying that reason and logic is what differentiates the rational from the irrational just doesn’t hold up, because reason and logic can lead to differing conclusions depending upon the assumptions that one bases that reasoning on.

Epistemological solipsism is, in my opinion, the purest form of reasoning and logic, because it makes the fewest assumptions.

So am I being rational…or irrational? How do you determine whether I’m one or the other?

 

[Abrosz]

Although to be precise, I’m trying not to use any assumptions at all, which is what makes me an epistemological solipsist.

I have no idea what you mean by “epistemological solipsist”. The word “solipsism” means that we can only know that the “I” (or the self) exists, everything else is just a figment of our imagination. And that could quickly be “cured” by a kick in the butt. No one can deny the external physical reality - precisely because it interacts with our “self”.

But maybe your usage of “solipsism” is different.

Of course Descartes was wrong. We can know ourselves (cogito, ergo sum - which would be much better if he said: “coito”, ergo sum), but our knowledge does not end there. We have our I/O system into the external reality, called the senses. And since the external reality interacts with us - sometimes in a very painful manner - it is impossible to deny its ontological existence.

So am I being rational…or irrational? How do you determine whether I’m one or the other?

These categories are not “absolute”. One can be rational in some relation, and irrational in others.

 

[MPat]

It’s reasonable to me.

To you?

That sounds a bit like this:

Any option can be rational, because the concept itself is rather meaningless.

Pretty much anything can be supported by reason or logic, given the right assumptions.

So you have to ask yourself…what is it that makes someone’s argument irrational?

And how do you determine who’s being rational, and who isn’t?

As you can see, he denies that unimpeded reason is able to reach truth.

Well, such a position is clearly an example of something that is self-undermining and thus unreasonable.

So, let’s see: can you affirm that unimpeded reason can reach truth? Perhaps not every possible truth, but truth nonetheless?

You say you have lost faith in God. Have you lost faith in reason?

To this day, I still don’t understand how or why I lost faith.

Well, let’s investigate.

Over four years of desperately trying to find faith again. Praying and discussions and tears and thinking I was the only person that had ever lost my faith before…this is all pre internet.

Something seems to be off…

I would not rule out a possibility that you only lost faith after you gave up, that something else was missing until that point, and you only confused it with faith…

Once I researched secular studies on the Bible, I was really done. You can’t unlearn that stuff and it made much more sense to me than the Christian history.

I don’t believe it to be what the church declares it to be…specifically the oral traditions of the authors writings. I agree with the scholarship that shows that Mark wrote first and Matthew and Luke copied the majority of Mark with additions from a Q source. The names of the gospels were added later in order to give authority to “The writings of the apostles” which it was originally known as.

But… Not only those things are pretty uncertain, it is not all that obvious that they contradict the teaching of the Church.

The Church does not take copyrights so seriously - copying of some text by a gospel writer does not make it ineligible for Bible.

 

[Pattylt]

So, let’s see: can you affirm that unimpeded reason can reach truth? Perhaps not every possible truth, but truth nonetheless?

Sometimes will have to be my best answer. Each person can only go by what seems reasonable to themselves. We all have flaws in our reasoning ability and it also depends on the quality of the (name removed by moderator)uts one uses. If I assume something is a quality (name removed by moderator)ut and I reach what I consider a reasonable assumption using it, I could be spot on or way off base…so, it depends. There are so many areas we use reason the best we are able and still have no certainty of the answer we get.

Since different very smart people reach contradictory truths, I’m not sure we ever get to a Truth…other than mathematics. It’s a problem I have with philosophy, too. I’m not educated in philosophy. When I read someone’s philosophical reasoning, it sounds plausible but it doesn’t mean it matches reality…that’s a problem in my mind with philosophy…there is no way to verify that Truth has been found, only that it’s logical. Not everything logical is true, though.

I would not rule out a possibility that you only lost faith after you gave up, that something else was missing until that point, and you only confused it with faith…

I lost belief in God first. I continued to practice my faith trying to get my belief back. It was years later that I finally told myself that I had no faith left and accepted it…it was all a process, not an overnight change.

But… Not only those things are pretty uncertain, it is not all that obvious that they contradict the teaching of the Church.

The Church does not take copyrights so seriously - copying of some text by a gospel writer does not make it ineligible for Bible.

I’ve been reading secular scholarship on the Bible for a lot of years now. I don’t believe any single scholar is completely correct but I do agree with the consensus…and if the Church agrees with them then they aren’t teaching their members what that is. No, I don’t think the church agrees with scholarship on the NT or they’re lying to the faithful about it. BTW, many pastors do agree with scholarship and admit they lie to their members as they aren’t able to grasp it without losing faith.

 

[lelinator]

lelinator:

And how do you determine who’s being rational, and who isn’t?

As you can see, he denies that unimpeded reason is able to reach truth.

I can’t help but notice that you didn’t answer the question. If two people both use logic and reason to come to different conclusions, how do you determine which one is being rational, and which one isn’t?

 

[MPat]

Sometimes will have to be my best answer.

I suppose it could be worse…

Since different very smart people reach contradictory truths, I’m not sure we ever get to a Truth…other than mathematics.

Well, given that, we can be sure of some other facts. For example, that sometimes people do disagree (or, if you want to be extra careful, that they appear to disagree). And that this fact needs an explanation.

And the possible explanations are not numerous. Either the contradictions between opinions are real or just apparent. If they are real, then either opinions are all true, though contradictory, or some are false. And if some are false, then either unimpeded human reason can reach truth, or it cannot. Thus the four possibilities:

1. Contradictions between opinions are only apparent.
2. Reality itself is contradictory.
3. Unimpeded human reason can reach truth, but it is often impeded.
4. Unimpeded human reason cannot reach truth.

Of those, first and second are too obviously silly, thus people usually do not even try to claim to believe them. That leaves third and fourth.

So, what happens if you choose one of them?

If you choose the third one, we conclude that human reason has been impeded in many ways. By laziness, by cowardice, by pride, by ignorance (or “knowing” falsehoods), by inattentiveness… And, most likely, that applies to your reason as well. Therefore, you have to fight all those impediments. And before you can do that, you have to look for them and admit them when found, which tends to be unpleasant. But if you do all that, a “prize” awaits you: truth.

And the fourth option avoids all this hard work. If human reason cannot reach truth anyway, there is little point to look for ways in which your reason is impeded, admit them, fight them. You can believe you are smart and wise and knowledgeable and so on. But in that case, you can’t help anyone else reach the truth, nor can anyone else help you. One can only show off. Yet there is little reason to admire someone like that. Only to use him as an example.

and if the Church agrees with them then they aren’t teaching their members what that is.

I specifically referred to the very first example you gave, which, at the very least, is not obviously contradicting teaching of the Church.

I lost belief in God first. I continued to practice my faith trying to get my belief back. It was years later that I finally told myself that I had no faith left and accepted it…

I find it pretty likely that you felt you no longer believed. I find it far less likely that you truly did not believe at that time.

I can’t help but notice that you didn’t answer the question. If two people both use logic and reason to come to different conclusions, how do you determine which one is being rational, and which one isn’t?

I can’t help but notice that you act as if you think I should answer it, but did not yet explain why it would be so.

 

[nicholasG]

If two people both use logic and reason to come to different conclusions, how do you determine which one is being rational, and which one isn’t?

Realistically it’s not possible, one persons logic and reason MUST be flawed. If you can’t determine who’s is flawed then you wind up agreeing with the one who’s conclusions best fit your own bias.

 

[lelinator]

Thus the four possibilities:

1. Contradictions between opinions are only apparent.
2. Reality itself is contradictory.
3. Unimpeded human reason can reach truth, but it is often impeded.
4. Unimpeded human reason cannot reach truth.

I see no reason to accept these four possibilities. Specifically, I think that number two is inaccurate. It’s not necessarily reality that’s contradictory, but rather it’s rationality that’s contradictory by its very nature. It’s contradictory because it’s dependent upon the information upon which it’s based, and humans, not being omniscient, will always form differing opinions about the proper interpretation of the available information. And as such they will always be prone to reaching contradictory, yet supposedly rational conclusions.

Humans aren’t omniscient, at some level they will always disagree about the correct interpretation of the available information.

That being said, it could be argued that reality itself is indeed contradictory, because the information necessary to ultimately reach a definitive conclusion simply isn’t possible. It may not be possible to definitively answer the question of why there’s something rather than nothing. And lacking that information, reality itself may be inherently self-contradictory.

 

[MPat]

I see no reason to accept these four possibilities.

And…?

Is there some reason for anyone else to care?

As we can see, you couldn’t answer why I should care to answer your questions. Can you provide any reason why I should care what you think and say?

For, you see, that’s what you get if you deny that uninhibited human reason can reach truth.

In such case you can’t help others reach truth, nor can anyone help you reach truth. You can only show off as a “deep and original thinker”, but then there is no audience to admire you for that…

And then there is little point to talk with you, although there might be a point in talking about you, using you as a cautionary tale…

And in hoping that, if you made yourself immune to reason, perhaps at least misery will wake you up…

 

[lelinator]

Realistically it’s not possible, one persons logic and reason MUST be flawed. If you can’t determine who’s is flawed then you wind up agreeing with the one who’s conclusions best fit your own bias.

This being the case, and humans not being omniscient, isn’t solipsism the only truly rational ideological position, because only solipsism accepts the fact that the only definitively knowable thing about reality, is that I am? The nature of everything else, and ultimately even myself, is inevitably unknowable.

 

[MPat]

This being the case, and humans not being omniscient, isn’t solipsism the only truly rational ideological position,

Nah, it is one of obviously irrational and silly positions.

because only solipsism accepts the fact that the only definitively knowable thing about reality, is that I am?

But “I am.” and “[T]he only definitively knowable thing about reality, is that I am.” are two (2) distinct propositions.

Thus a solipsist can’t know that “[T]he only definitively knowable thing about reality, is that I am.” or “The nature of everything else, and ultimately even myself, is inevitably unknowable.”.

Silliness of most other silly positions takes a bit more time to demonstrate.

Of course, one can easily see a solipsist make still more confident assertions that he is not entitled to, for example, “humans not being omniscient”, but that one is sufficient.