The Trap of Pure Rationalism

[Elihu]

I am new here on the boards, so greetings to anyone who reads. I have been reading "Orthodoxy" by G. K. Chesterton and would like to present some of his thoughts on rationalism as I have processed them.

Opening Statement: Pure rationalism leads to both determinism and materialism which ultimately deprive us of our humanity.

Pure Rationalism Defined: Nothing can be accepted as fact which cannot be explained and observed from its first principle in its entirety.

Big Idea: Pure rationalism is a trap that can only be escaped by allowing for that which is mysterious. "Man can only understand everything else by what he does not understand... The mystic allows one thing to be mysterious, and everything else becomes lucid." (47)

Body: My argument is simple. If you are a pure rationalist and cannot accept as fact anything not observable and explainable, then you are trapped in a box that no longer allows for the existence of common humanity as a greater principle. You can be kind, but there is no such thing as kindness. Because nothing beyond the rational box exists, kindness itself, which is really beyond the box, cannot exist except in your own imaginings.

In order to be freed from this box, you must accept a mystery; something you cannot fully understand. Only then can humanity be restored.

"...when materialism leads men to complete fatalism (as it generally does), it is quite idle to pretend that it is in any sense a liberating force." (42)

[Minimalist]

Question: How do you get a philosopher off your porch?



--- Answer: Pay for the pizza.

[The Grand Nudger]

Big Idea: Pure rationalism is a trap that can only be escaped by allowing for that which is mysterious. "Man can only understand everything else by what he does not understand... The mystic allows one thing to be mysterious, and everything else becomes lucid." (47)

Body: My argument is simple. If you are a pure rationalist and cannot accept as fact anything not observable and explainable, then you are trapped in a box that no longer allows for the existence of common humanity as a greater principle. You can be kind, but there is no such thing as kindness. Because nothing beyond the rational box exists, kindness itself, which is really beyond the box, cannot exist except in your own imaginings.

In order to be freed from this box, you must accept a mystery; something you cannot fully understand. Only then can humanity be restored.

"...when materialism leads men to complete fatalism (as it generally does), it is quite idle to pretend that it is in any sense a liberating force." (42)

Might want to remove those numbers in paranthesis, almost seems as though you copy pasted it, I know, perish the thought. So there is no kindness and yet I can be kind. And? Sounds like it doesn't matter, I'm still kind. The mystic allows for many things, lucidity is rarely the outcome.

[Erinome]

Nice little copy and paste job, there.

I don't feel trapped at all. I feel compelled to solve mysteries rather than make up bullshit when I don't know the answer, and I am contented to leave mysterious things with an open ending, but I am quite confident that most mysteries have logical explanations.

[Jackalope]

I question the motives and intellectual honesty of anyone who needs to redefine words ("pure rationalism") to make his argument.

Pro tip: what the OP describes is not rationalism - and naturalists don't depend solely on rationalism. What he describes us closer to empiricism.

Nothing to see here, move along.

[Elihu]

In response (without quotes...):

Do you feel that pursuit of truth is hindered by not allowing for the possibility of supernatural revelation?

Do you feel that there is a basis for ethics outside of the existence of higher authority?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I guess pure rationalism (whatever that is) is probably to be avoided. That's because the only human beings capable of being consistently rational about anything are psychopaths.

Do you feel that pursuit of truth is hindered by not allowing for the possibility of supernatural revelation?

First,you are begging the question; I do not search for truth.I do not believe in a 'big 'T' truth. Second; I have always allowed for the possibility of supernatural revelation. I simply do not believe it's likely. My lack of belief is due to there being no credible evidence for such a thing in recorded history.

Do you feel that there is a basis for ethics outside of the existence of higher authority?

Of course. I do not recognise any outside or transcendent moral authority.

-----------------------------------------------------
My perception is theist apologist tend to be against the rational as justification for faith. (belief without evidence)

Then the apologist may make statements such as the irrational assertion I actually heard recently on TV: that for a believer, a thing can be both true an untrue at the same time*. The rationalist simply dismiss such claims as drivel. (I do not mean half-truths or shades of grey,I mean binary opposites.)


* George Orwell called it 'doublethink'

Doublethink, a word coined by George Orwell in the novel 1984, describes the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts.[1] It is related to, but distinct from, hypocrisy and neutrality. Its opposite is cognitive dissonance, where the two beliefs cause conflict in one's mind. Doublethink is an integral concept of George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. The word doublethink is part of Newspeak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

[Anomalocaris]

Do you feel that pursuit of truth is hindered by not allowing for the possibility of supernatural revelation?

What does it matter how I "feel"? If you are interested in the pursuit of truth, then you ought to be interested in what are the rationale behind what I think.

Do you feel that there is a basis for ethics outside of the existence of higher authority?

Define higher authority.

[xntubes]

After a quick scan of Orthodoxy I have no idea what Chesterton is talking about, but I see two possible reasons why a Christian would criticise "pure rationalism":

1 - In the realm of beliefs/knowledge, empiricism has limits. Technically it is correct to say there is a limit to what we can know with our senses (pure rationalism). But we can't know what we don't know, so there is no way of debating what is beyond our senses, hence debate is futile.

2 - In the realm of values, "pure rationalism" is probably a misnomer for the culture forces unleashed by the Enlightenment (liberalism, individuality, permissiveness, cultural diversity). If so, Chesterton would have been wiser to direct his criticism at those values instead of rationalism because reason/rationalism are value-free data built from our senses. Values comes from emotion, not reason. Indeed, enlightened thinkers could subscribe to a traditional Christian-like culture.

[Mystic]

How does pure rationalism lead to determinism?