Do we expect too much from human reason?

[Thumpalumpacus]

They believe reason is qualified to address the topic.

And it is, for the reasons mentioned above in my first reply to you, which you did not address at all.

If a cause leaves an effect in reality, that cause is more likely to be winnowed out by systematic investigation using peer review and evidentiary standards than it is, for instance, by saying "because I said so".

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.

You don't need to take my word for it. Look at the monitor you're reading these words on right now. That monitor was designed using principles of the universe we call quantum mechanics in order to allow you to read, quite literally, my mind at this very moment when you see these words. Miracles need not apply; appeals to faith need not apply; all you have to do is turn your computer on and you have evidence of reason's efficacy.

That is why trusting reason to investigate reality is more likely to give more accurate returns than appealing to gods -- we have the evidence, directly in front of our eyes in this very discussion, that reason works. That is distinctly not faith. Asserting otherwise ignores the brute fact of the technology you rely upon daily to go about your life.

[robvalue]

Thoutage: I mention that an "agnostic" is still an atheist because you seem to be throwing around assertions about atheists without wanting them applied to you. Or do they apply to you? I'm an agnostic too, an agnostic atheist. I claim no more certainty than you do. Or are you an agnostic theist?

And you ask me why atheists come to atheism? I don't know what you're asking me. It's down to each individual. Why do you want to make general statements about them? And even if it the case that application of reason leads to a consistent conclusion, why is that a bad thing?

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, please put me straight if so. I've got a whole section about it on my website

[Whateverist]

Which is why I am arguing against atheist faith.

I'm an atheist, and I have no faith. I agree that atheists ought to be completely faithless. Some make positive claims of gods not existing; I disagree with those claims for the reason that disproving a premise is exceedingly difficult unless internal contradictions can be demonstrated. I don't think those claims are based on faith, though, but rather a simple overstepping of evidence.

That sounds right to me. I prefer to say I do have faith, and in many things. Just not god claims. No need. Not missed.

[robvalue]

Oh wait, I seem to be replying to a post in another thread. This is confusing. Never mind

[Thoughtage]

I'm an atheist, and I have no faith.

Apologies, but that's not possible, except for those who haven't heard god claims.

I agree that atheists ought to be completely faithless.

Ok, so we will then reject all claims that reason can analyze assertions about what does or doesn't form the foundation of all reality (the essence of god claims) until someone proves that reason is qualified for this task. If we instead use reason to analyze such claims, without proof that reason is qualified for this job, we are using faith.

This is very simple.

1) Have holy books proven they are qualified to credibly tell us what the foundation of reality is or isn't? No. So holy books are set aside.

2) Have ouija boards proven they are qualified to credibly tell us what the foundation of reality is or isn't? No. So ouija boards are set aside.

3) Has human reason proven that it is qualified to credibly tell us what the foundation of reality is or isn't? No. So human reason is set aside.

If we subject ALL chosen authorities to the very same test, which is what reason requires us to do, we will soon see all chosen authorities fail the test, for the question is simply too large.

Some make positive claims of gods not existing; I disagree with those claims for the reason that disproving a premise is exceedingly difficult unless internal contradictions can be demonstrated.

Internal contradictions are irrelevant, until someone proves that the rules of human reason are binding on the arena claims and counter claims are being made about.

The Christian conception of god is one which is riven with contradictions, so I'm perfectly comfortable asserting his absolute nonexistence;

Please prove that the rules of human reason are binding upon all of reality, the realm the Christian god is proposed to rule over.

Here's a hypothetical example to illustrate the point.

What if the Christian god, or any god, both exists and doesn't exist, at the same time?

Many readers will immediately say this is impossible, absurd, ridiculous etc. Let's observe reality to find out.

The overwhelming vast majority of reality from the subatomic to cosmic level is empty space. Space is clearly there, or all of reality would be just one big blob. But space is a void, a nothing, a state of non-existence.

Space both exists, and doesn't exist, at the same time.

Point being, it seems absurd to our human reason that something could exist and not exist at the same time, and thus we always frame the god question as...

Does God exist or not?

The dualistic nature of human thought compels us to ask a yes or no question. And yet, when we actually observe reality, the vast majority of it, we can quickly see the answer is neither a yes or a no.

[robvalue]

Edit: Never mind.

[Ben Davis]

Hi Thoughtage

I gave you quite a firm rebuttal earlier but it seems that some of what I wrote didn't register. Regarding this post:

---

Hi there to you too!

Please pardon this copy and paste, which I rarely do, but here's a post I recently wrote that may stimulate further conversation.

Somebody asked....

Can you list what you see as the tenets of atheism’s
faith?

And I replied....

Somebody makes a god claim. Such claims typically
attempt to describe the source of all reality, the
foundation of everything.

The listener analyzes the god claim with their human
reason. The listener concludes the god claim lacks
sufficient evidence. The listener becomes an atheist.

The foundation of atheism is the assumption that the
rules of human reason are binding upon the area the god
claim is being made about, all of reality, everything.

There is no proof that the rules of human reason are
binding on all of reality, an arena we can not yet
define in even the most basic manner.

Thus, the foundation of atheism is faith.

The assumption that the rules of human reason are
binding on all of reality is a very understandable and
common belief. But it is still faith.

Most atheists take the qualifications of reason for
this particular question as an obvious given. Thus,
they don’t realize they are operating from faith and
making an unproven assertion.

Thus, when atheists commonly say “I am not asserting
anything”, they are usually sincere, but always
mistaken.

It is also not proven that human reason is NOT
qualified for analyzing claims about the fundamental
nature of all reality. It’s pretty easy to make a case
that human reason is probably not so qualified, but
that’s just a speculative argument, and not proof.

---

...there are 2 main problems:

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). That said, there is a good proportion of atheists who subscribe to the ideas of material naturalism, PEARLism and other methods which would use the type of 'human reason' you illustrate to reach a conclusion that belief in god(s) is not justified. You need to be more rigorous in your definitions and segmentation lest you fall prey to fallacies of crass generalisation, which would invalidate your claims.

2. You conflate the definitions of 'faith' and 'trust': 'faith' addresses 'belief without evidence' whilst 'trust' addresses 'belief with evidence'. 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. 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. Of course, for those who's atheism isn't based on reason, faith may be a valid explanation but I doubt it's the only one and certainly can't be used to classify 'reasonable' atheists.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm an atheist, and I have no faith.

Apologies, but that's not possible, except for those who haven't heard god claims.

You're wrong. You'd do well to not tell me what I do and don't think.

Ok, so we will then reject all claims that reason can analyze assertions about what does or doesn't form the foundation of all reality (the essence of god claims) until someone proves that reason is qualified for this task. If we instead use reason to analyze such claims, without proof that reason is qualified for this job, we are using faith.

As I've already pointed out, twice now, we have evidence that reason is capable of sussing out reality.

If you're not going to read what I write, I'm not going to continue this discussion. This is a simple courtesy, and if you cannot extend it, you do not merit it.

This is very simple.

1) Have holy books proven they are qualified to credibly tell us what the foundation of reality is or isn't? No. So holy books are set aside.

2) Have ouija boards proven they are qualified to credibly tell us what the foundation of reality is or isn't? No. So ouija boards are set aside.

3) Has human reason proven that it is qualified to credibly tell us what the foundation of reality is or isn't? No. So human reason is set aside.

Firstly, you'll need to define "foundation of reality".

Secondly, you'll need to explain why, with all its success at plumbing the depths on the physical processes which have built our Universe, you think that somehow reason will come up against a wall. Without such an explanation, this looks like an ad hoc claim unworthy of attention.

If we subject ALL chosen authorities to the very same test, which is what reason requires us to do, we will soon see all chosen authorities fail the test, for the question is simply too large.

Given your misuse of the word "authorities", this sentence is meaningless. Find a better noun for what you mean.

Some make positive claims of gods not existing; I disagree with those claims for the reason that disproving a premise is exceedingly difficult unless internal contradictions can be demonstrated.

Internal contradictions are irrelevant, until someone proves that the rules of human reason are binding on the arena claims and counter claims are being made about.

No, you must first prove that some other arena exists than our particular reality.

The Christian conception of god is one which is riven with contradictions, so I'm perfectly comfortable asserting his absolute nonexistence;

Please prove that the rules of human reason are binding upon all of reality, the realm the Christian god is proposed to rule over.

Once again, you're not reading what I've written.

Here's a hypothetical example to illustrate the point.

What if the Christian god, or any god, both exists and doesn't exist, at the same time?

Many readers will immediately say this is impossible, absurd, ridiculous etc. Let's observe reality to find out.

It is.

The overwhelming vast majority of reality from the subatomic to cosmic level is empty space. Space is clearly there, or all of reality would be just one big blob. But space is a void, a nothing, a state of non-existence.

Space both exists, and doesn't exist, at the same time.

Spacetime exists. It encompasses the entirety of our reality, so far as we can tell. If you wish to demonstrate that it doesn't, you're doing it wrongly.

Point being, it seems absurd to our human reason that something could exist and not exist at the same time, and thus we always frame the god question as...

Does God exist or not?

That is because your analogy is flawed. Spacetime exists, even if much of it is void. The fabric of reality exists, and we see that in many different phenomena.

The dualistic nature of human thought compels us to ask a yes or no question. And yet, when we actually observe reality, the vast majority of it, we can quickly see the answer is neither a yes or a no.

Again, you're wrong. But that's okay.

[Whateverist]

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

[robvalue]

It's certainly not.

If your plan is to demonstrate we have no reason, how can you do that without using our reason to do it? And if you succeed, you have no tools left to demonstrate anything at all.

So... At best you've just described the problem of solipsism again. I'm all too well aware of it, but it's not an argument for... whatever this guy is trying to prove, I have no idea.