RE: Do we expect too much from human reason?
March 4, 2015 at 9:06 pm
(This post was last modified: March 4, 2015 at 9:26 pm by JuliaL.)
Every system of thought of which I am aware requires some base axiom or axioms from which true and consistent theorems can be derived. Those can be considered rigid matters of faith, or, they can be regarded as tentative and subject to revision based on future investigation or information.
Theism uses the first system whereas methodological naturalism uses the second. Rasetsu points out that reason appears to offer a consistent and useful system of explanation. I doubt she would disagree that this is potentially only appearance and rationally derived claims to ultimate truths do require faith, for example that reality does exist.
But most atheists do not make claims of absolute truths. Those I know are a pragmatic bunch, and are willing to predict the sun will rise tomorrow and act on that prediction based on prior events and with the understanding that the prediction is only probabilistic and could in fact not be accurate.
Thoughtage appears to point to this faith in reason and claim its equivalence to the faith in revealed truths, or some other, even more undefined means of knowing. Even if this contention were valid and inference from past experience was totally unwarranted, making blind faith in a god or gods equal to blind faith in the results of inquiry, nothing has been resolved. Even if a god was a root cause and justification for the consistency we seem to observe in our universe, nothing has been shown that that god is the ultimate cause. Perhaps there is a meta-god, a god ecosystem, a god evolution, a parallel universe of gods behind the one we know by faith. How does God know she is not a brain in a vat? Turtles all the way down.
There is a third choice apart from faith in gods or faith in reality. That is to reserve judgement, something Thoughtage may or may not consider. If I bike to the intersection at the end of my street and I do not turn right does not mean that I do turn left. This is what makes me a militant agnostic (motto: I don't know ultimate truth and neither do you!) I expect there will always be holes in our knowledge but I will not give leave to anyone to hide a god in them, particularly not a logically impossible internally inconsistent god.
Theism uses the first system whereas methodological naturalism uses the second. Rasetsu points out that reason appears to offer a consistent and useful system of explanation. I doubt she would disagree that this is potentially only appearance and rationally derived claims to ultimate truths do require faith, for example that reality does exist.
But most atheists do not make claims of absolute truths. Those I know are a pragmatic bunch, and are willing to predict the sun will rise tomorrow and act on that prediction based on prior events and with the understanding that the prediction is only probabilistic and could in fact not be accurate.
Thoughtage appears to point to this faith in reason and claim its equivalence to the faith in revealed truths, or some other, even more undefined means of knowing. Even if this contention were valid and inference from past experience was totally unwarranted, making blind faith in a god or gods equal to blind faith in the results of inquiry, nothing has been resolved. Even if a god was a root cause and justification for the consistency we seem to observe in our universe, nothing has been shown that that god is the ultimate cause. Perhaps there is a meta-god, a god ecosystem, a god evolution, a parallel universe of gods behind the one we know by faith. How does God know she is not a brain in a vat? Turtles all the way down.
There is a third choice apart from faith in gods or faith in reality. That is to reserve judgement, something Thoughtage may or may not consider. If I bike to the intersection at the end of my street and I do not turn right does not mean that I do turn left. This is what makes me a militant agnostic (motto: I don't know ultimate truth and neither do you!) I expect there will always be holes in our knowledge but I will not give leave to anyone to hide a god in them, particularly not a logically impossible internally inconsistent god.
So how, exactly, does God know that She's NOT a brain in a vat?
