Do we expect too much from human reason?

[Faith No More]

The problem with this argument is that atheism is not about trying to understand what underlies all reality. It is simply a response to a claim made by other humans, which is certainly within the realm of human reason's capability. When someone completely fails to demonstrate a claim I am completely justified in rejecting that claim, which is all atheism is. Quite frankly, the attempt to conflate this with religious faith reeks of elitism.

[robvalue]

Yeah, I've got no frickin idea what I'm supposed to be gleaning from this, except a continual strawman of atheism.

[LastPoet]

We expect far more on fantasies

[Fidel_Castronaut]

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.

That's a lot of text that doesn't really say anything.

So human reason is flawed. So? Get to the point.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

So far as we have seen, it does.

Also, this is an unabashed god of the gaps plea.

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.

Please link and cite where I claimed otherwise, or abandon this strawman.

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.

[Emphasis mine -- PT]

I've already asked you to define what you mean by that nebulous term. Please do so now.

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).

Speak for yourself. I regularly question my premises to determine their ongoing validity. I also take aboard other opinions, when they arer coherent.

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.

Agreed. The problem I have with your screed here is that you are taking a subset of the atheist community and acting as if they are the totality of the community.

I've already acknowledged in this thread that reason as a tool has limits. I've even mentioned that much to you. Your continued insinuations otherwise look like you're either not listening, or engaging in dishonest argumentation.

[Thoughtage]

I've already asked you to define what you mean by that nebulous term. Please do so now.

What is the fundamental nature of reality? Does reality arise from a form of intelligence, or is reality a result of the random collision of mechanical forces? Welcome to the theist vs. atheist debate.

Speak for yourself. I regularly question my premises to determine their ongoing validity. I also take aboard other opinions, when they arer coherent.

Ok, great. So please show us your posts where you question whether the rules of human reason are binding on all of reality, the realm addressed by god claims. Thanks.

Agreed. The problem I have with your screed here is that you are taking a subset of the atheist community and acting as if they are the totality of the community.

I'm addressing that part of the atheist community that came to their view through a reasoning process.

[Cato]

Deploying reason to demonstrate its inefficacy is dubious.

[Thoughtage]

The problem with this argument is that atheism is not about trying to understand what underlies all reality.

If you'll read my posts again, you'll see I'm not trying to make that point.

My point is that atheism assumes the rules of human reason are binding on all of reality, the realm addressed by god claims. My point is that this assumption has not been proven.

It is simply a response to a claim made by other humans, which is certainly within the realm of human reason's capability.

When someone completely fails to demonstrate a claim I am completely justified in rejecting that claim, which is all atheism is.

Try this. Imagine that I reject a god claim because my ouija board says that claim is wrong. It would be entirely reasonable for you to dismiss my rejection because my chosen authority, the ouija board, has not been proven qualified to conduct this analysis.

You would reasonably require me to prove the qualifications of my ouija board.

If I used a holy book to come to a conclusion, you would reasonably require me to prove it's qualifications.

But when it comes to human reason, your chosen authority, you give it a total free pass. You don't question it's ability to do the job being asked of it in this particular case. You don't offer proof of it's qualifications. You probably don't even realize proof is required, because you likely take reason's qualifications for this particular job as an obvious given.

But those qualifications are not an obvious given. They're not proven either. Nobody even attempts to prove those qualifications, they just assume them.

Reason requires us to challenge all chosen authorities with equal vigor. The very same challenge that is presented to holy books must be presented to human reason too, or any other chosen authority.

Challenging the other fellow's chosen authority while leaving ours unexamined is not reason, it's dogmatic ideology. There's no point in challenging theism with yet another faith based dogmatic ideology. No point.

[The Grand Nudger]

My point is that atheism assumes the rules of human reason are binding on all of reality

The trouble with that point, is that it doesn't. No debate is required, and none can salvage that point. If you -need- that to be true...to have anything further to say....then you probably don't have much to say. When someone says "I'm an atheist" - it means that they don't believe in gods, it doesn't mean that they assume that our current knowledge or current methods are capable of full knowledge, or some deep and as yet undiscovered truth about the fabric of the cosmos, it doesn't mean that they prefer chocolate to vanilla...or cotton over lace. You get that, right?

[Thoughtage]

Deploying reason to demonstrate its inefficacy is dubious.

This is a common and understandable complaint. If you will read again,
you will see I am not challenging reason globally, only in regards to those tasks where it's relevance and qualifications have not been demonstrated.

Is reason a great tool for building bridges? Yes, we have thousands of standing bridges as proof.

Are the rule of human reason binding on all reality? Nobody knows. We don't even know what "all of reality" refers to.