Do we expect too much from human reason?

[Thumpalumpacus]

So strange to see reason used to reason against reliance on reason. Is that even reasonable?

Gödel is getting ready to come back and slap someone.

[comet]

no. reason is fine with limits. I guess understanding what we don't know is the mark of a smart person. Reason has limits like any other endeavor of man except "stupid". that seems to have no limits sometimes. And punks? like suckers are born every day.

we do expect too much from people. people don't press their philosophies rigorously enough many times. Or when they do and hit a limit to their understandings they "cry foul" like the little bitches they truly are. Name calling or running away follows shortly after. I see it a lot in literal type people.

---

[Thoughtage]

1. You're assuming that 'human reason' is the cause of the atheism. As has been pointed out to you, that's not necessarily the case: some of the pagan religions are atheist but not because of 'reason', other atheists are simply 'not wired that way' and belief in god-claims are beyond their capabilities (instinct, not reason).

Apologies but, you're quibbling. The overwhelming vast majority of atheists use reason to come to their position. I don't want to argue about what fraction of 1% gets there some other way.

2. You conflate the definitions of 'faith' and 'trust': 'faith' addresses 'belief without evidence' whilst 'trust' addresses 'belief with evidence'.

If we believe that the rules of human reason are binding on all reality, without proof that it is so, we are using faith. And to spare you some typing, we can not calculate the probability that human reason is binding everywhere, as we have not a clue what our sample size is.

Trust has to be earned whereas faith doesn't thus you would be justified in saying that the users of 'human reason' trust in its efficacy due to repeated demonstration of real-world results.

You're stumbling in to the most common form of confusion in atheism. This is the unexamined assumption that because human reason is qualified for very many things, it is therefore automatically qualified to analyze all issues, even where there is no proof of ability.

We can't have "trust" that human reason is binding on all reality, because we don't even know what the phrase "all of reality" refers to. If we can not have trust, all that's left is faith.

Instead you've misdefined the evidence-based approach as 'faith' which is why I called you out for the 'tarring with the same brush' fallacy in my previous post.

You have no data upon which to build your "evidence based approach".

We can measure the area we can observe, but we have no idea what the relationship is between that area and the area claims about being made about. The evidence we have from observing the universe could be 85% of reality, or it could be a percent so small that we don't yet have math adequate to express the relationship. Thus, we have no idea how useful our observation is, in regards to claims and counter claims about the fundamental nature of reality.

You're building a strong opinion, on pretty much nothing.

Just like the theists.

[Thumpalumpacus]

*yawn*

Repeating one's claims do not constitute a reasoned argument.

Also, still waiting for that definition of "foundation of reality", operating on the assumption that you actually have one.

[The Grand Nudger]

It would probably be fair to say that you and I both are only aware of a fraction of 1% of atheists, and that even in that limited sample size neither of us could claim some hard number as to cause or reason, eh (IOW...you're talking out of your ass about sample sizes and fractions of a percent. Apply your criticisms of others statements to your own...and when you're done, recall that no amount of someone else being wrong will make you right.)? I don't fit the particular profile you seem to require in order to discuss the issue. Just cant remember having ever believed in a god. Heard plenty of stories, love em.....I guess they never turned into anything more than stories in my mind. It would be great, if I could bs with with some line about how...as a 5year old, I read the arguments of yadda yadda and determined through rigorous application of reason that - gods are characters in stories......but that's not how it actually happened. Just how strange or rare do you think that is, really?

[Thoughtage]

Simply because you assert that reason is a matter of faith amongst atheists does not make it so. As has already been pointed out to you, reason works.

This is perhaps the most common point of confusion, so it's helpful for you to bring it up.

It's indisputable that reason works for very many tasks. On this we all agree.

But that fact does not automatically qualify human reason to "work" on anything anywhere anytime in all of reality.

It's actually quite easy to make the case that the abilities of 1) one species on one planet in one of billions of galaxies, 2) a species only recently living in caves, 3) a species with thousands of hair trigger nukes aimed down it's own throat, just might not be able to understand what does or doesn't form the foundation of all reality.

Until somebody proves that holy books can deliver credible answers about the fundamental nature of reality, I decline to believe is such an ability.

Until somebody proves that human reason can deliver credible answers about the fundamental nature of reality, I decline to believe is such an ability.

The bottom line flaw in atheism is that it's not loyal to it's own principles.

The other guy's chosen authority is challenged (good) but our own chosen authority is not challenged (bad).

If a poster is not willing to challenge their own chosen authority with the same rigor they challenge the authorities of others, they are not doing reason, but ideology.

[comet]

real is as real as it gets. "reason" is as reasonable as it gets.

No need to play games. Engineer the truth. Its only requirement is that it works under the conditions designed. Here, the god thing, one's description should fit most conditions as possible. "playing around" with philosophy will not shed light on the answer any better than a literal bible.

if you are unsure ... bell curve it.

---

[
It's indisputable that reason works for very many tasks. On this we all agree.

But that fact does not automatically qualify human reason to "work" on anything anywhere anytime in all of reality.

yeah, yeah. we don't know it all. "we don't have "perfect reason or logic". I heard it all before.

now what do you want to do?

[Foxaèr]

But that fact does not automatically qualify human reason to "work" on anything anywhere anytime in all of reality.

Of course it does. When someone prefers the comfort of the lie, he is essentially choosing fantasy over the harsher reality of reason. Reason always works even though someone is too weak to accept the reality associated with it.

[Spooky]

Probably.

[robvalue]

Thoutage: what on Earth is your point? You're trying to say atheists and theists are both stupid, leaving the agnostics as the winners or something? And as I already explained, you're either an atheist or a theist, by normal language. If we go by your definitions, and "just agnostic" is a category according to you, then most atheists on this site would be "just agnostics".

So what is your point?