Rationally proving rationality

[Perhaps]

In order to understand one's own argument they must understand their opponent's fully. That is why I posted this thread. I was a staunch atheist until I came across this question. I figured that I could post it on here to see other atheist's opinions on the topic. My point is not to prove or disprove the existence of a deity, although if this is true then it has implications against the support for the non-existence of God.

I understand that many religious individuals are close-minded and naive about their beliefs, which often corresponds with perceived stupidity. I beg you not to consider me in this category. I simply wish to further strengthen my stance of atheism by answering this question. If you can't understand the question then I apologize, but don't attack me for having an alternative motive, please.

Thanks,
Perhaps

[Epimethean]

I could say that a good starting point would be here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reliabilism/

But you may be doubting your ability to take in any information I give you, because I may be a madman, or you may be. If we both are, then one wonders whether we are even having this conversation.

Which reminds me of "Borges and I" in a funny sort of way.


I think.

[Norfolk And Chance]

In order to understand one's own argument they must understand their opponent's fully. That is why I posted this thread. I was a staunch atheist until I came across this question. I figured that I could post it on here to see other atheist's opinions on the topic. My point is not to prove or disprove the existence of a deity, although if this is true then it has implications against the support for the non-existence of God.

I understand that many religious individuals are close-minded and naive about their beliefs, which often corresponds with perceived stupidity. I beg you not to consider me in this category. I simply wish to further strengthen my stance of atheism by answering this question. If you can't understand the question then I apologize, but don't attack me for having an alternative motive, please.

Thanks,
Perhaps

Well OK, you "was" an atheist and the opening statement gave you pause for thought.

Well lets examine the statement. First of all can I say I read it and it didn't make me question anything, because as far as I was concerned it was meaningless philosophical nonsense. How can you rationally prove that rational thinking is the best way to view the world? Does it need to be proven? You have rational thinking based on sound reason and logic, and you have irrational thinking? These two are polar opposites and cannot be equal. The person who made the statement also suggested that rational thought stems from intuition. Well it can do, but reason, logic and evidence help build rational thought.

Secondly, who said it and with what authority? Not that that would make nonsense become sense.

To me, it's a non question and I'm surprised it made you stop and think. Maybe I'm just thick, though.

[Perhaps]

Well OK, you "was" an atheist and the opening statement gave you pause for thought.

Well lets examine the statement. First of all can I say I read it and it didn't make me question anything, because as far as I was concerned it was meaningless philosophical nonsense. How can you rationally prove that rational thinking is the best way to view the world? Does it need to be proven? You have rational thinking based on sound reason and logic, and you have irrational thinking? These two are polar opposites and cannot be equal. The person who made the statement also suggested that rational thought stems from intuition. Well it can do, but reason, logic and evidence help build rational thought.

Secondly, who said it and with what authority? Not that that would make nonsense become sense.

To me, it's a non question and I'm surprised it made you stop and think. Maybe I'm just thick, though.

If I were to ask you why irrational thought wasn't the best way to think what would you say? Because it isn't rational? Well prove it.

In the same sense then:
Of course it needs to be proven. Maybe not in your opinion, but in order for it to have any sort of ground it must be proven.

I'm not enjoying your demeaning tone, and perhaps you are a bit dense for not understanding the necessity. If you make it a point to agitate and verbally harass all who don't believe the same thing your do then you won't go very far in life. Respect is essential in a civil discussion, which you seem to be lacking.

Let's put this another way which may help people understand. I would break it into its components and argue that rationality is the best way to approach a world of causality. In our world, logic is a fine approach to the way the world works because of its closed-system nature.

Where you ran into a snag is to evaluate it within the structure of that closed system. Since all things are equal and all facts are a posteriori, we have nothing more than competing claims based on its functionalism or pragmatic value. This quickly devolves into subjectivism.

If you want to make a claim about the superiority of a value system or in the least a way of thinking, you seek to make a claim that is outside the closed system - which really has no rational basis for support of it.

But as a scientist, you can be assure yourself that the best way for manipulating the material world in both action and thought is through rationalism.

[Epimethean]

If you let go of the swim ladder, I hope you float. It's an ocean out there.

[reverendjeremiah]

I feel that a problem lay in the language of thought. Language helps to form concepts of the mental images we see during thought. Language is a limited process. It has its boundaries within its properties. If it was boundless, it would have no distinction from one word to the next.

Another problem I feel is the duality of the human mind searching for patterns. The human mind searching for patterns in everything it perceives can be both good and bad. It is this ability that has created cures for diseases, but also notices "The man in the moon". Culture plays strong upon our intent for the search of patterns, and therefore some may see a face in the moon, where others (such as native Americans) will see a rabbit, or a man grinding medicine. It is a duality as the search for patterns can turn up useful and useless information, and sometimes simultaneously.

God isnt actually the biggest question in my mind. The biggest question in my mind is if my perception can be trusted, or to put it more descriptively "can I know that what I see is fact?". I am WELL aware that my thoughts are biased in many more ways than just one.

Absurdism is related to agnosticism, in that it claims no perceivable way to know for a fact wether or not deities exist or not. As the philosophy points out, if there is a designer (single god, multiple deities, whatever) then that designer would be responsible for the absurd human/cosmos relationship.

I personally feel very strong on the notion that the concept of deities, supernatural, that sort of stuff, is based on these biased paterns. A group of events may happen, and even though they are completely unrelated in reality, the human mind still tries to find a related pattern to connect them all.

[Epimethean]

The mind seeks patterns for good reasons. Dwelling too long on seeing beyond those patterns might bring about a true sense of detachment-or a Lovecraftian madness.

[reverendjeremiah]

The mind seeks patterns for good reasons. Dwelling too long on seeing beyond those patterns might bring about a true sense of detachment-or a Lovecraftian madness.

you're right.

For now on my biggest question will be "Am I going to get laid tonight?"

[Norfolk And Chance]

If I were to ask you why irrational thought wasn't the best way to think what would you say? Because it isn't rational? Well prove it.

In the same sense then:
Of course it needs to be proven. Maybe not in your opinion, but in order for it to have any sort of ground it must be proven.

I'm not enjoying your demeaning tone, and perhaps you are a bit dense for not understanding the necessity. If you make it a point to agitate and verbally harass all who don't believe the same thing your do then you won't go very far in life. Respect is essential in a civil discussion, which you seem to be lacking.

Let's put this another way which may help people understand. I would break it into its components and argue that rationality is the best way to approach a world of causality. In our world, logic is a fine approach to the way the world works because of its closed-system nature.

Where you ran into a snag is to evaluate it within the structure of that closed system. Since all things are equal and all facts are a posteriori, we have nothing more than competing claims based on its functionalism or pragmatic value. This quickly devolves into subjectivism.

If you want to make a claim about the superiority of a value system or in the least a way of thinking, you seek to make a claim that is outside the closed system - which really has no rational basis for support of it.

But as a scientist, you can be assure yourself that the best way for manipulating the material world in both action and thought is through rationalism.

So when do we get to the "well I can't rule out god despite rational thought, because rational thought carries no more weight than irrational thought" bit? I'm getting impatient.

[reverendjeremiah]

In order to understand one's own argument they must understand their opponent's fully.

Thats what I like about you so far..I have the same mentality.

That is why I posted this thread. I was a staunch atheist until I came across this question. I figured that I could post it on here to see other atheist's opinions on the topic. My point is not to prove or disprove the existence of a deity, although if this is true then it has implications against the support for the non-existence of God.

You can still be a stauch atheist and question things like this...nobody says you cant consider that you may be wrong while still being an atheist. Atheism is merely a statement of belief, not knowledge. How can you believe in something you are not sure of?

I understand that many religious individuals are close-minded and naive about their beliefs, which often corresponds with perceived stupidity. I beg you not to consider me in this category. I simply wish to further strengthen my stance of atheism by answering this question. If you can't understand the question then I apologize, but don't attack me for having an alternative motive, please.

I dont consider you that way. in fact I consider you a refreshing addition to the site.

Give the other members time to get to know you...remember, you did come on pretty strong right off the bat. Not bad, just strong. most people kind of wait to get known before they jump right into a topic such as this.

---

So when do we get to the "well I can't rule out god despite rational thought, because rational thought carries no more weight than irrational thought" bit? I'm getting impatient.

That is a good question, but I dont think that is what he is asking.

I do believe what he is asking is "How can we KNOW FOR SURE that rationality is dependable."

Of course this right away conjures ideas of space aliens using mind control devices and such to fool you into thinking shit contrary to reality, but what he asks is a legitimate question. It also brings up humorous side questions such as "How can we know an apple is really an apple." Or "What if C-A-T really meant 'Dog'?"

How can we KNOW that rationality is actually rational.