Do we expect too much from human reason?

[robvalue]

Seems like false equivocation. I'm not even sure if he's trying to give faith more credit than it deserves, or trying to trash human reasoning. To do the latter seems dangerous, as it's all we have. No one is claiming human reasoning is perfect anyway, or making non sequiturs as he seems to be implying.

He could be one of these "uber sceptics" who are so sceptic they don't believe anything ever, not even well established science. That gets tiresome fast, we had a guy in here not long ago carrying on like that. Came off as paranoid and mental.

---

I agree it is important to recognize the limits of human reason, but I'm not getting how it's got anything to do with religion, or even science or scepticism. Almost sounds like the "roadrunner tactic" for those of who have heard of it.

And that's why we have science, we test and retest to remove human error.

Am I missing the point entirely? Wouldn't be the first time :p I'm surprised I don't come a cropper more, I'm such a dumb twat in real life.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yeah, as an equivocation of the two, the argument doesn't work at all. But as a criticism of a blind faith that science and reason will unlock all secrets, I think it works just fine.

Think of the kinds of questions we banter over around here all the time: determinism vs free will; cosmology; origins; purpose; values; ontology. In every case, reason is more useful than theology hands down. But often enough I hear one or the other of us opine how such and such just doesn't make sense and I think, should it? Making sense in terms of what else we know is a valid point. But assuming we know enough about the big picture to say unequivocally what is and isn't possible? Probably an over reach.

That doesn't mean I should throw out my preference for natural over supernatural answers. But what really can I say to another human being that should persuade them to adopt the same bias? Probably no more than they can offer as to why it is I should join them in acknowledging a god. Both are biases but I like to think all useful advances have depended on people who shared my outlook.

But in the end there just isn't any reason I can offer to a theist why naturalism is better. Hell, most of them accept naturalism everyday. They just like to think there's a magic genie holding the natural order together.

The key is understanding the limits of reason and logic. Neither reason nor logic can explain things like emotions (though they may help), creativity, or whim.

[The Grand Nudger]

But assuming we know enough about the big picture to say unequivocally what is and isn't possible? Probably an over reach.

what is and isn't possible based on everything we know of the subject, and what would only be possible if a significant portion (or the entirety) of our knowledge on the subject was wrong from the floor up. For example. It is impossible for there to be, or ever have been - werewolves.

That doesn't mean I should throw out my preference for natural over supernatural answers. But what really can I say to another human being that should persuade them to adopt the same bias? Probably no more than they can offer as to why it is I should join them in acknowledging a god. Both are biases but I like to think all useful advances have depended on people who shared my outlook.

When discussing knowledge, a bias towards knowledge and adequate means of generating knowledge is a boon, not a hindrance. No one has ever "faithed" any knowledge into existence, because faith lacks the ability to do so, as well as any reliability in that regard when someone feels as though it might.

But in the end there just isn't any reason I can offer to a theist why naturalism is better. Hell, most of them accept naturalism everyday. They just like to think there's a magic genie holding the natural order together.

Ital mine...I think you answered your own question there. Whenever there's a disagreement there's a point at which two parties must come together on -something- or no progress can be made. It may be that both parties are in the wrong, but it always proceeds from

-if- we agree that.....

Long story short "why should x prefer naturalism over "goddidit" -because they already do, and they would not grant special pleading arguments themselves. They've agreed both to agree on the one hand (naturalism), and disagree along with you on the other (the value of special pleading). You're not actually providing them any reason to prefer naturalism (and good luck if you had to...crazies gotta crazy), you're helping them to understand that there is no disagreement, only an internal disconnect. It's not even a discussion of naturalism vs the supernatural..whats going on is decidedly less nebulous than gods or spirits.

[robvalue]

Good point. If people refuse to admit any starting ground, you get nowhere. You get people jumping into solipsism, then out again onto an entirely different point. Doesn't work.

[Faith No More]

Yeah, as an equivocation of the two, the argument doesn't work at all. But as a criticism of a blind faith that science and reason will unlock all secrets, I think it works just fine.

Think of the kinds of questions we banter over around here all the time: determinism vs free will; cosmology; origins; purpose; values; ontology. In every case, reason is more useful than theology hands down. But often enough I hear one or the other of us opine how such and such just doesn't make sense and I think, should it? Making sense in terms of what else we know is a valid point. But assuming we know enough about the big picture to say unequivocally what is and isn't possible? Probably an over reach.

That doesn't mean I should throw out my preference for natural over supernatural answers. But what really can I say to another human being that should persuade them to adopt the same bias? Probably no more than they can offer as to why it is I should join them in acknowledging a god. Both are biases but I like to think all useful advances have depended on people who shared my outlook.

But in the end there just isn't any reason I can offer to a theist why naturalism is better. Hell, most of them accept naturalism everyday. They just like to think there's a magic genie holding the natural order together.

I've never heard of anyone claiming that science and reason can and will unlock all of life's secrets. If they have, I would question their validity as a scientist.

Human reason isn't the end all to unraveling the mysteries of the cosmos. It's a filter. Reason is what let's us determine good claims from the bad ones, and the one thing that separates the so-called "faith" in reasoning and the faith that the religious have is functionality. Reasoning has demonstrated is usefulness on countless occasions while faith simply sits empty-handed, insisting that it is beneficial.

We value something's usefulness by the fruit that it bares, so to say that the difference between reason and faith is just perception and subjectivity is disingenuous.

[bennyboy]

Hmmmm what do I expect from human reason? A hot dinner waiting for me after a long day's work? A blowjob on my birthday?

Seriously, though, I think reason is the process of getting all your ducks in a line. That doesn't mean you have enough ducks, though, or the right kind.

[Whateverist]

Nice. That's exactly what I would have wanted to say. It's all about the ducks .. or .. ducks all the way down, I forget which.

[Angrboda]

The article is somewhat trashy reasoning, but we do tend to deify reason, as if it were some kind of sterling hero. The dark side is cognitive bias, but most are ignorant of the psychology of bias, so they're simply unaware that reason is hobbled by an invisible passenger.

[Norman Humann]

Seriously, though, I think reason is the process of getting all your ducks in a line. That doesn't mean you have enough ducks, though, or the right kind.

Some also like to proclaim that their ducks are superior to ours.

My ducks are deeply offended.

[Mudhammam]

Hmmmm what do I expect from human reason? A hot dinner waiting for me after a long day's work? A blowjob on my birthday?

Seriously, though, I think reason is the process of getting all your ducks in a line. That doesn't mean you have enough ducks, though, or the right kind.

ARE YOU SAYING GOD IS A DUCK?