The Trap of Pure Rationalism

[Minimalist]

The mystic allows one thing to be mysterious, and everything else becomes lucid."

The mystic allows himself to fall into the "goddidit" trap and stop thinking altogether.

[Anomalocaris]

The mystic allows one thing to be mysterious, and everything else becomes lucid

Any moron, but only morons, can feel fulfilled by the sort of false lucidity that comes with promiscuous embracing of a central bullshit.

Rationalism tells you whether what is central to you is bullshit ot not.

The mystic is the moron who reflexively insist it is not bullshit while not genuinely caring whether it is bullshit or not.

[Elihu]

Thank you for the replies.
------------------------
So, I am curious to hear a reply to a commonly used argument I am sure you have heard.

If you say there is no "T"ruth with a big "T", you are in fact saying that the "T"ruth is that there is no "T"ruth. The statement itself requires absolute truth to exist. What is your response?
-----------------------

Also, by saying the mystic allows everything else to become lucid, the point is that the most basic assumptions (God does / does not exist) cast light on the rest of our thinking (or this is my understanding). So, if you know by revelation the existence of God (for example), then you can think clearly about the meaning (or lack thereof) in the universe. Otherwise "thinking" becomes unguided; built upon presuppositions that have no basis and therefore all conclusions unverifiable.

-------------------------

I asked how you "feel" because without revelation you have no basis for thinking anything on these issues. They are unknowns. You can have an opinion, but not a fact. No matter how much you think about them, you cannot know anything for sure. (not to mention I am not exactly taking the time to consider the semantics of every single statement I am making... I, like the rest of you, do have responsibilities).

-------------------------

I agree fully that we should try to understand mysteries rather than automatically attributing them to magic or Deity. However, I believe that there are certain things we can only know by revelation (Plato and Aristotle had a difference of opinion on this point).

[Anomalocaris]

However, I believe that there are certain things we can only know by revelation (Plato and Aristotle had a difference of opinion on this point).

How is that distinguishable from "there are certain things we can only know by indulging in wishful thinking about knowing it"?.

[Minimalist]

However, I believe that there are certain things we can only know by revelation

Wouldn't that require a "revealer?"

[downbeatplumb]

Also, by saying the mystic allows everything else to become lucid, the point is that the most basic assumptions (God does / does not exist) cast light on the rest of our thinking (or this is my understanding). So, if you know by revelation the existence of God (for example), then you can think clearly about the meaning (or lack thereof) in the universe. Otherwise "thinking" becomes unguided; built upon presuppositions that have no basis and therefore all conclusions unverifiable.

-------------------------

I asked how you "feel" because without revelation you have no basis for thinking anything on these issues. They are unknowns. You can have an opinion, but not a fact. No matter how much you think about them, you cannot know anything for sure. (not to mention I am not exactly taking the time to consider the semantics of every single statement I am making... I, like the rest of you, do have responsibilities).

Did you realise that the normal meaning of revelation, to an outsider, looks a lot like self delusion.

Prove to us that any revelation was not self delusion.

In short, show us the evidence for the source of your revelation.

I'll start holding my breathe.......now.

[The Grand Nudger]

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

The only one doing the limiting here is your "supernatural force" who hasn't revealed anything whatsoever. So, put in the word to whoever you talk to and get this whole issue cleared up?

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

Do you feel that you would be asking this question if you were a mollusk, a panda, or a rock? That human beings exhibit some behavior or have some concept in their heads in now way means that you can extend this onto the cosmos at large. On the other hand, if you'd like to explain to me why it's so easy to argue that herd animals behave "ethically" without any such revelation from your "higher authority" I would appreciate it. The claim that a "higher authority" (seriously, just say god) has a hand in morality is garbage, use the search function on the forums here because we have to deal with this trash every couple of days.

All of us collectively are a higher authority than any of us individually, and thusfar this is exactly how we've decided issues like this.......even those who claim to have received "godly laws" are ignoring the fact that their godly laws are also an invention of a large group of people, and draw their authority from the numbers of followers they can drum up to enforce them. Thankfully our opinions of what is right and wrong change over time (the religious are no different here) and when enough people decide that some law or ethical mandate is trash, we get rid of it. Even if there is a claim to the divine attached.

[Happy UnBeliever]

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)

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.

People accept a god with no rational explanation. So is accepting something you cannot see rational?

[Elihu]

In regards to a higher authority:

Assuming that God exists and created animals, it would make perfect sense that he designed them to, on some level, obey laws that are in keeping with that God's nature.

Appealing to the collective as a means of determining morality sounds good in theory, but what if the collective decides that murder is a perfectly acceptable behavior? Don't we all have an innate sense that murder is, well, wrong?

An Apparent Key Issue:

As has been pointed out, one of the key issues is the credibility of divine revelation. The outsider has no reason to think it is anything other than wishful thinking.

Assuming that God is a personal God and the One who is doing the revealing, you'll have to talk to God about it.

I agree that if revelation is, well, revelation, then it is only available to the one to whom it has been revealed. That an outsider sees it as wishful thinking does not change its reality. It just makes the outsider an outsider.

I would tell you to seek God, but that requires believing in God first. Our presuppositions can limit our options.
------------------------------------------

Could each of you please give me a logical reason that you do not believe in God?

Please go into more depth than, "Why would I believe in some spaghetti monster in the sky?" That is not a logical reason. It assumes the answer.

[The Grand Nudger]

Assuming, in this case, only makes an ass out of you.

Apparently we don't have an innate sense that murder is wrong. Que war. Que murder. Some of us, or perhaps even most of us, feel that murder is wrong (sometimes). That's what you'd expect from highly social animals. What does that have to do with god? Not a damned thing.

There's already a great thread on "revelation" to the tune of "how can you know that it is god, and not the devil" revealing anything to you? Search function.

Here's my logical reason. Because neither you, nor any other believer have ever given me a single shred of evidence in support of the existence of god, and I've never heard so much as a compelling argument, let alone a valid or sound argument, for the existence of said god. Combine this with the mountains of evidence that we have for fairy tales, superstition, and just general ignorance in the area of religion. Also, the compelling, sound, and valid arguments that conclude that your god is, at best (and if he even exists in any way), not what you describe him to be. In short, if you're insinuating that there is some logic or reason to your claims of god, then perhaps you should look into deism; an equally useless but much more well thought out claim to the divine

Here's the thing, I was just being nice when I offered this up. I don't have to, because I'm not claiming that something exists. You have a burden to meet, we have two threads entitled "evidence for the existence of god", now get to work. Make your own case, and stop asking garbage questions (the same garbage questions that we hear every fucking day btw) as though if you were to somehow find your "gotcha" moment we would magically be left with nothing but your god as an authority, or an explanation.

How about you give us a logical reason why you believe in god? Don't say "Because he told me too"...because that assumes the answer. "Revelation" is a fucking joke, and if you are hearing voices in your head that cannot be explained(or have heard these voices in the past), you need to seek professional help.