Atheism, Theism, Science & Philosophy

[Love]

Accounts for everything? Well, that's a rather strange way to perceive reason, I think. Regardless of whether or not it can account for everything we're still stuck with the trouble of trying to account for -anything- without it. I've never, personally, felt that reason offered such a comprehensive accounting of all things (what would that even mean, unknowns unknowns and all) - but it does offer a very apt description of the manner in which we seem to be capable of competently considering things. If it cannot be reasoned - it is nigh impossible to conceive of, nigh impossible to discuss. This is probably why so many "unreasonable" propositions are -rationalized-. Whether that has to do with "reason" or the limits of the human mind I suppose would be a matter of opinion (I prefer the latter).

I should not have used the word "everything" as it comes across as a sweeping generalisation. What I actually meant by "everything" is as follows: I believed that the scope of reason and logic is comprehensive enough to account for the entirety of external universal existence and internal subjective experience, including making sense of love and morality et cetera. Ultimately, I lost my "faith" in my perception that reason is all encompassing, and started to become heavily interested in philosophy (epistomology, metaphysics, philosophy of mind, philosophy of science and philosophy of mathematics). I would like to you ask you a question: do you think it is possible to have conscious "awareness" of something without conceptualising it from a rationalist perspective? I predict that your answer will be "no". By this, I mean the kind of state at which one arrives during transcendental meditation.

As to the problems, depends on the specific of what you offer, though loosely, transcendental arguments are always subject to objections of experience (and here again, we see your preference for reason btw..when do I get to see the "un-reason" stuff? You keep mentioning it, implying that it's useful, but what it is, where it applies, and how it's useful remains a mystery - you seem content to simply attempt to erode some other position via use of their position by-the-by,- rather than establish your own).

Could you please reframe this paragraph because I don't really understand the point you're trying to make.