Do we expect too much from human reason?

[Cato]

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

So you've stated and keep repeating while evading any real attempt to come to a common understanding of what the terms you use mean precisely.

Reason is the only means we have to understand our universe, which is for all practical purposes "all of reality". Our evolved ability to think abstractly has also allowed us to overcome the limited view of things provided by direct perception. Cataloging every single event in the history of the universe or being able to precisely understand the exact mechanism of all events we can observe may be beyond our current capabilities and perhaps may never be achievable. Acknowledging mysteries does not invalidate the process by which we recognize the existence of the mysteries, particularly given its demonstrated ability of solving previous mysteries. Your entire argument is a non sequitur.

Your inability to provide an example of something impervious to reason nor a demonstration of an alternate means of understanding is telling.

---

Well, one point might be that this discussion has been going on for thousands of years and is not going to be resolved in the next dozen posts. Patience please.

Is this your argument? Reason is ineffective because people are still arguing about the existence of God?

[Thoughtage]

Thoutage, you're ignoring the rebuttals and just re-asserting your claims.

I'm unable to reply to every post by every poster. I keep re-explaining my position because it's obvious a number of posters are challenging me before reading the last nine posts I wrote on the subject. I do however realize they haven't heard this form of challenge before, and I'm trying to be patient.

The God claim is one made by humans, therefore human reason is entirely qualified to evaluate the claim.

Do you see how atheists will never even attempt to prove that human reason is qualified to do what they are trying to do with it? They just assume that it is, or assert that it is. They refuse to challenge their own chosen authority. This is why I call it a faith based operation.

It's not a matter of over-reaching by reason to say that a claim has failed to demonstrate its validity.

It is if the rules of human reason are not binding on the subject under discussion.

It may very well be an area that human reason is not equipped to truly understand, but that does not mean a claim made in that area cannot be dismissed.

Everyone is free to dismiss anything they want for any reason they want. I am not challenging their right to do so.

I'm only saying that everyone involved bears the burden of demonstrating that their chosen authority is qualified to credibly generate conclusions on this topic.

On top of that, reason has justified itself as a useful tool by its functionality.

This is the unexamined and unwarranted leap from the local scale to the infinite scale that defines atheism. I've explained this repeatedly above.

Take Rhythm's waffles example. I'm quite certain that waffles are not responsible for the universe's existence, and it's laughable for you to think that I would be unjustied in saying so.

Comparing waffles to the largest cultural inquiry in human history is not worth my time, apologies.

Given your insistence on maintaining this flawed position, it appears as if this is nothing more than an egoistical attempt to prove yourself to be on the high ground.

Please prove that the rules of human reason are binding on the arena you are making claims about.

[Cato]

Please prove that the rules of human reason are binding on the arena you are making claims about.

The point you are missing is that there is no evidence for the arena.

[The Grand Nudger]

If waffles aren't worth your time then perhaps god shouldn't be either? Split the difference...Wafflegod? I'll say this, perhaps we see god from such different vantage points that this accounts for the entirety of the difference between us? I don't think god is a question, or an answer to a question about the fundamental nature of reality. :Shrugs:

[Thoughtage]

Reason is the only means we have to understand our universe, which is for all practical purposes "all of reality".

The fact that reason is the only means we have does not prove it is qualified for a particular task.

Your inability to provide an example of something impervious to reason nor a demonstration of an alternate means of understanding is telling.

1) Can we fall in love using reason?

2) Your second point about understanding reveals something important.

Both theists and atheists assume the point of this inquiry should be to understand, to establish a "knowing".

What the evidence actually shows that after thousands of years of earnest effort by some of the best human minds on both sides of the debate, nobody has generated a credible knowing on this subject. Thousands of years. Best minds. No credible knowing.

And so we are now in the position of doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results, which Einstein called the definition of insanity.

My argument is that we're unlikely to move this inquiry forward while we keep stubbornly doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.

[The Grand Nudger]

We might know just a few credible things about Amana and Chia, Isis or Astarte. I think you're selling us short.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

So, you don't know what the fundamental nature of reality is, but you're sure that reason is incompetent to get at it, eh?

And why is reason unable to address that question?

Be exact, and if you introduce any vague terms, be sure to define them.

And while you're at it, shitcan the condescension. I've been decent to you thus far, and I expect the same treatment in return. I don't prefer to have ugly conversations, but I will make change in the coin tendered.

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.

I've already acknowledged, in this very thread, that reason has limits. Simply because I don't agree with you about its ability to answer god-claims doesn't mean I haven't considered your views here; it's just that I find them unsatisfactory. Perhaps this conversation would go smoother if you actually read what is posted.

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

And doing so in an entirely unconvincing manner. If this is the best you have to offer, I'd suggest revising and resubmitting. Your point has had several holes knocked in it, holes which you refuse to acknowledge until your feet are held to the fire, and quite frankly, your argumentation is execrable, containing straw men, unsupported claims, and a penchant to ignore countervailing points.

---

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.

This is patently false.

[Faith No More]

Comparing waffles to the largest cultural inquiry in human history is not worth my time, apologies.

Well, if exploring the logical consequences of your argument isn't worth your time, so be it. But I would think the fact that your argument would mean that you would be completely unjustified in dismissing such a nonsensical claim would give you pause.

Please prove that the rules of human reason are binding on the arena you are making claims about.

See, I told you you're ignoring what people say. It's been repeatedly pointed out to you that the "arena" in question is the realm of human claims, not understanding the fundamentals of the universe. If someone says 'X' is responsible for so and so, I am completely justified in evaluating the evidence put forth for such a claim with human reason, regardless of the question the claim tries to answer. The idea that any claim put forth by a human mind is beyond human reasoning to examine is absurd. Your whole argument is entirely predicated on completely ignoring the origin of the god claim.

[Cato]

My argument is that we're unlikely to move this inquiry forward while we keep stubbornly doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.

How long did it take before the Earth was no longer considered the center of the universe? The fact that people reason poorly is not an indictment of reason, let alone a basis for abandoning it.

Why do you ignore widely published statistics bearing out that those disavowing god claims are in the ascendancy? Is this not demonstration of moving the inquiry forward?

Pray tell, what is an inquiry for if not to understand? The suggestion that an inquiry is something else comes across as fatuous.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Both theists and atheists take a stand on one claim only: the god claim. I'm not sure why you feel the need to squeeze all of reality into it.

The god claim is a claim about the fundamental nature of reality. It is a claim that reality arises from a form of intelligence.

That depends on the nature, or definition, of the god in question. Not all gods are credited with creation.