Reason vs Consciousness

[kskut]

Just watched a documentary about Dawkins and Strauss...and the DC Reason Rally. But it raised a question for me that I hope someone can answer. Dawkins, et al, seem to equate reason and consciousness, and also seem to argue that reason is the end all and cure all. But isn't reason a subset of consciousness? Logical thought is a useful tool, of course. But I am first, then I think. I feel, I emote, I suffer, and no amount of rational thought will trump feelings of loneliness, love, compassion, wonderment, joy, empathy...otherwise we would just be mechanical thinking machines. Reason and logical thought is only one way to arrive at knowledge and truth. There is another way, which some philosophers call ontological. Of course many of the precepts of "religion" are logically absurd. But for many they ring true on a deeper existential level. Do atheists just ignore the ontological, and therefore remain rooted in 19th Century rationalism?

[Jenny A]

Well you can't reason unless you are are conscious. But you can't emote either. For determining what is, reason is all. For determining what you what or feel emotion is all. Ontology does not contradict rationality or endorse emotion. Why do you think it does?

[kskut]

I would argue reason is not all..consciousness is greater and ontology enhances reason. My point is that an atheistic view that is bounded by reason is short sighted. Not saying that religion is the answer...just that atheists who quickly dismiss existential intuitive paths to truths of Buddhists, Hindu, or Christian existentialists as irrational beliefs miss out on the multidimensional nature of human experience. What I feel about my place in the universe may be just as important as what I think.

[Whateverist]

Just watched a documentary about Dawkins and Strauss...and the DC Reason Rally. But it raised a question for me that I hope someone can answer. Dawkins, et al, seem to equate reason and consciousness, and also seem to argue that reason is the end all and cure all. But isn't reason a subset of consciousness? Logical thought is a useful tool, of course. But I am first, then I think. I feel, I emote, I suffer, and no amount of rational thought will trump feelings of loneliness, love, compassion, wonderment, joy, empathy...otherwise we would just be mechanical thinking machines. Reason and logical thought is only one way to arrive at knowledge and truth. There is another way, which some philosophers call ontological. Of course many of the precepts of "religion" are logically absurd. But for many they ring true on a deeper existential level. Do atheists just ignore the ontological, and therefore remain rooted in 19th Century rationalism?

Not at all. Well some do. I am completely without belief in gods but find i have no trouble conceptualizing consciousness as more than reason. Remember atheism isn't anything in particular apart from a lack of belief in gods. I find that no impediment to an interest in the nature of self and personal identity. God is extraneous to consciousness, an optional accessory I choose to do without.

[Aoi Magi]

&

Atheism is simply the rejection of the baseless assertions of various god concepts. IT IS NOT A WORLDVIEW.

If you feel you have a understanding and knowledge of consciousness without reason, then there is reason to think that you may be quite wrong about it. We humans know very little about us, the world around us and the universe, and the best way to understand and learn things with the maximum probability of being correct is to base our learning on reason, logic and evidence. If we just follow our emotions and gut feelings, there's a pretty good chance that we will be wrong.

[ManMachine]

Just watched a documentary about Dawkins and Strauss...and the DC Reason Rally. But it raised a question for me that I hope someone can answer. Dawkins, et al, seem to equate reason and consciousness, and also seem to argue that reason is the end all and cure all. But isn't reason a subset of consciousness? Logical thought is a useful tool, of course. But I am first, then I think. I feel, I emote, I suffer, and no amount of rational thought will trump feelings of loneliness, love, compassion, wonderment, joy, empathy...otherwise we would just be mechanical thinking machines. Reason and logical thought is only one way to arrive at knowledge and truth. There is another way, which some philosophers call ontological. Of course many of the precepts of "religion" are logically absurd. But for many they ring true on a deeper existential level. Do atheists just ignore the ontological, and therefore remain rooted in 19th Century rationalism?

Reason does not preclude emotions. You might believe it reasonable to get really angry and hit someone.

The world we have built around us is an extension of our evolution, our social artifices (because that is exactly what they are) exist because of our biology - including the discipline of ontology.

There is no need to invoke metaphysics to explain our existence beyond recognising our own desire for there to be something more than patterns emerging from complex biological systems.

This doesn't require reason, it requires clarity.

MM

[kskut]

I am not sure you all understand what ontology is or the existential path to knowledge. I understand atheism is not a worldview..no need to shout. Nor am I attempting an argument against atheism. As I stated earlier, I see reason as a subset of consciousness, not apart from it. All I am really asking is do some, all, or no atheists accept that reason has its limits, and that ontological paths to knowledge, as championed by the great existential thinkers, are equally or more viable than the mechanical rationalists of the Enlightenment Project, which many postmodern thinkers regard as "toast."

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Not sure how one would go about quantifying a restriction on reason, unless perhaps when one is dealing with something that is by definition unreasonable (eg. a god hypothesis asserted to be true without anything to substantiate).

My opinion of postmodernism, doubly so when applied so liberally within a conversation about a given subject, has always been this:

[Whateverist]

I am not sure you all understand what ontology is or the existential path to knowledge.

I'm equally unsure whether you understand "ontology", let alone "knowledge". An "existential path" to knowledge? This ought to be good. Go ahead, show us what you got.

I understand atheism is not a worldview..no need to shout.

Who shouted?

I see reason as a subset of consciousness, not apart from it. All I am really asking is do some, all, or no atheists accept that reason has its limits ..

You've already had this answered only to dismiss it as coming from people unqualified to understand ontology. Again, yes, when it comes to self knowledge, I hold many beliefs which are not the result of reason. I hold them by way of direct experience. I don't reject these beliefs for the lack of rational justification. Further, I act on these beliefs with confidence. However, what I don't do is call it knowledge in the interpersonal sense.

Knowing I have no justification that can be conveyed rationally, I realize that others will either share those beliefs or not according to their own experience. I have no self-knowledge claims I would attempt to persuade others to adopt.

I consider god belief to be a form of self knowledge. When someone tells me he knows God is there, what I understand is that this is a truth about their subjective experience. God is one way to relate to the totality of the self. It is far from necessary in my own experience but I don't begrudge anyone that interpretation. It just isn't anything they can justify to me or others anymore than I can justify my self knowledge.

.., and that ontological paths to knowledge, as championed by the great existential thinkers, are equally or more viable than the mechanical rationalists of the Enlightenment Project, which many postmodern thinkers regard as "toast."

You over state your case.

[Jenny A]

I am not sure you all understand what ontology is or the existential path to knowledge.

Existentialism? Ontology? Postmodernist? Oh my! Lions, and Tigers, and Bears. . . Oh No! Sartre, Heidegger, and Camus. . . Oh My!

Seriously, ontology, is a rather broader subject than existentialism. Ontology as a philosophic subject (not biological ontology which is different) deals with whether there are fundamental categories of being and what it means to be. Say the word ontology and I'm thinking of Plato and the idea that concepts actually exist as ideal things. Because it deals with the meaning of individual being, and whether there are such things as morality, existentialism is a subset of ontology.

But, even existentialists seem unable to agree to a definition of existentialism. If I were to try to define it, I would say something like this: "existentialism" is the belief that philosophical thinking begins not with just the rational mind, but also the feeling acting mind of the individual. But that's not very enlightening. And I'm not sure how enlightening it could be because existentialism is so diverse.

Some would say that existentialism is about the true essence of being a person. Existentialists argue that existence precedes essence. In this context "existence" means to be a conscious, independent, responsible, individual; and "essence" means the roles, stereo types and preconceived categories into which an individual fits. Existentialist maintain that for individuals existence is much more important than essence. What a person actual does is their "true essence." In creating our true essence, we create whatever meaning our lives have.

Unfortunately most existentialist go on to some form of absurdism. They assert that because there is no intrinsic meaning to life, there is not real morality, right and wrong, etc. That way leads to suicide and despair.

If you define ontology and existentialism differently, please say so, because there's a lot of room to differ since the existentialists themselves seem to differ so much.

Now, with that in mind and in answer to your specific question:

I see reason as a subset of consciousness, not apart from it. All I am really asking is do some, all, or no atheists accept that reason has its limits, and that ontological paths to knowledge, as championed by the great existential thinkers, are equally or more viable than the mechanical rationalists of the Enlightenment Project, which many postmodern thinkers regard as "toast."

emphasis mine

Reason, logic, and mathematics are all tools for describing and deducing things about the real world. They can and have been used to analyze emotion and the human mind. As such they are remarkably effective. Nothing about rationality, logic, or mathematics, implies that there is a meaning to life. Abstract value judgements about meaning are precisely the kind of question rationality is not aimed at.

Ontology is to some extent concerned with meaning but I've never found the meanings asserted by Plato and others particularly elucidating. Existentialism has proved remarkably ineffective at saying much of anything concrete, except that that there is no preconceived meaning to life. That there is no "meaning of life" beyond that which you, as an individual give it, is a concept that I, and many atheists would agree with. But I didn't need existentialism to get there and I don't need the baggage associated with existentialism.