Basis for Belief

[Meow Mix]

do you hold to the belief that by reason alone we are able to gain access to and come to an understanding about all of reality? In other words, do you believe that there may be limits to reason?

Yes, reason is the only tool that leads to knowledge by definition. There may indeed be limits to reason though we don't know for sure. Why do you ask?

 

[Zadok]

If I took my SNES cartridge of Super Metroid and took a sledgehammer to it (blasphemy!!!), does Samus Aran (the main character) still exist?

It would be strange indeed if you were to suggest that the game goes right on existing after the cartridge is smashed.

The thing about emergent phenomena is that they emerge out of a specific structure; and are defined by that specificity. If you alter the structure then the emergence vanishes -- no longer exists as that emergence. That doesn't violate any conservation laws because all the mass/energy is still there (after all, the brain is still there after death, and the Super Metroid cartridge's pieces are still there).

This is most interesting to me - so you are in love with emergent phenomena?

I have never played Super Metroid but none the less I do not believe Samus Aran is real.

Again - then in your mind (excuse me – brain) existence is that which is imperially measured? Interesting thought. So your love of anything is nothing more than emergent phenomena?

I think I am understanding – a little bit. I did see the Matrix movie. Good luck with quantum physics and the uncertainty principle.

Zadok

 

[LuisDantas]

Why do people keep talking about Quantum Physics and the uncertainty principle in such contexts? There is no application that I see.

 

[kingdombuilder]

Yes, reason is the only tool that leads to knowledge by definition.

did you come to this conclusion by reason alone?

There may indeed be limits to reason though we don't know for sure.

There are limits to reason, as your reply above actually implies. As you may know, Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason tells us why. Our reasoning is filtered through our experiences and natural senses (sight, touch, smell, ect...) and thus our knowledge is filtered through them as well.

Why do you ask?

If there are indeed limits to reason, then it must also be said that the knowledge we gain from it is limited as well. In other words, to argue against a religious belief based upon reason alone simply will not due since by it's definition, a religious claim is one that is claiming the existence of, or non-existence of (see next sentence), something that exists outside of our natural senses and thus reasoning abilities as well.

The significance of this, I believe, is that it could be argued that the unbelief in a god as well as the belief in one are both ultimately beliefs based upon faith and not reason alone.

 

[Wotan]

did you come to this conclusion by reason alone?



There are limits to reason, as your reply above actually implies. As you may know, Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason tells us why. Our reasoning is filtered through our experiences and natural senses (sight, touch, smell, ect...) and thus our knowledge is filtered through them as well.



If there are indeed limits to reason, then it must also be said that the knowledge we gain from it is limited as well. In other words, to argue against a religious belief based upon reason alone simply will not due since by it's definition, a religious claim is one that is claiming the existence of, or non-existence of (see next sentence), something that exists outside of our natural senses and thus reasoning abilities as well.

The significance of this, I believe, is that it could be argued that the unbelief in a god as well as the belief in one are both ultimately beliefs based upon faith and not reason alone.

So you have "faith" that Zeus does not exist? How about faeries? They exist or no and how do you know?

Maybe invisible unicorns no Mars. You have "faith" they do not exist?

 

[kingdombuilder]

So you have "faith" that Zeus does not exist? How about faeries? They exist or no and how do you know?

Maybe invisible unicorns no Mars. You have "faith" they do not exist?

" ...to argue against a religious belief based upon reason alone simply will not due since by it's definition,a religious claim is one that is claiming the existence of, or non-existence of (see next sentence), something that exists outside of our natural senses and thus reasoning abilities as well.

The significance of this, I believe, is that it could be argued that the unbelief in a god as well as the belief in one are both ultimately beliefs based upon faith and not reason alone."


- Can you prove absolutely by reason alone that they do not? I would note however, that fairies are not claimed to exist outside of our natural senses. I also know of no known religion that actually claims the existence of invisible unicorns, except from self professed atheists and agnostics who think they have actually proved a point and shown that there is no god. So I guess that really only leaves the existence of Zeus for you to absolutely prove or disprove by reason alone. Since you are left with only 1 thing to prove or disprove based on reason alone then it should be much easier for you.

 

[Meow Mix]

This is most interesting to me - so you are in love with emergent phenomena?

I have never played Super Metroid but none the less I do not believe Samus Aran is real.

Again - then in your mind (excuse me – brain) existence is that which is imperially measured? Interesting thought. So your love of anything is nothing more than emergent phenomena?

I think I am understanding – a little bit. I did see the Matrix movie. Good luck with quantum physics and the uncertainty principle.

Zadok

Regardless of whether the game is fiction you should understand that my analogy was about the emergence of the program, not that I was asserting a fictional character really exists. Super Metroid -- the game -- ceases to exist when I smash the cartridge because the game itself inheres in the specific structure of the cartridge. Likewise, a person's personality most likely only exists as an emergence of the specific structure of their brains.

So yes, it can be said that I love an emergent phenomenon known as Alicia. I don't see a problem with that. I also don't see what this has to do with the uncertainty principle or the rest of QM.

 

[Meow Mix]

did you come to this conclusion by reason alone?

Yes I did. Since knowledge is justified true belief, and justification is the realm of reason, then most certainly did I come up with the assertion that "Knowledge is possible through reason alone" through reason.

There are limits to reason, as your reply above actually implies. As you may know, Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason tells us why. Our reasoning is filtered through our experiences and natural senses (sight, touch, smell, ect...) and thus our knowledge is filtered through them as well.

Not all of our reasoning is filtered through our senses; only our statements about empirical phenomena. So indeed, exactly as you describe, science is in fact tentative and not absolute -- that's a good observation. But it has nothing to do with pure analytical reasoning.

If there are indeed limits to reason, then it must also be said that the knowledge we gain from it is limited as well. In other words, to argue against a religious belief based upon reason alone simply will not due since by it's definition, a religious claim is one that is claiming the existence of, or non-existence of (see next sentence), something that exists outside of our natural senses and thus reasoning abilities as well.

The significance of this, I believe, is that it could be argued that the unbelief in a god as well as the belief in one are both ultimately beliefs based upon faith and not reason alone.

The problem is that you're ignoring that there isn't really a requirement to "argue against a religious belief" beyond asking for justification for it. If they can't justify it, there's no reason for you (the listener) to believe it as well as no reason for them (the believer) to even believe it... rationally, anyway.

Unbelief is not a faith. Neutral skepticism to propositions is the default position until propositions are justified. Theists have failed over thousands of years to properly justify their position. I find that striking and absurd.

 

[LuisDantas]

- Can you prove absolutely by reason alone that they do not?

See, that is indeed the point.

Reason has its limits, but it is still the only way of reaching reliable knowledge.

Religion may and does go beyond those limits... but it can only do so by renouncing reliability. That is one of the reason why there are so many, often mutually exclusive faiths.

I would note however, that fairies are not claimed to exist outside of our natural senses. I also know of no known religion that actually claims the existence of invisible unicorns, except from self professed atheists and agnostics who think they have actually proved a point and shown that there is no god.

Again, that is indeed the point. The claim for the Invisible Unicorn is no more or less privileged than that for any other deity.

There is no particular reason why that specific belief couldn't turn up, and it would blend just fine with other, traditional beliefs.

So I guess that really only leaves the existence of Zeus for you to absolutely prove or disprove by reason alone. Since you are left with only 1 thing to prove or disprove based on reason alone then it should be much easier for you.

Deities are beyond rational proofs. And none the more real or more reliable for that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If there are indeed limits to reason, then it must also be said that the knowledge we gain from it is limited as well. In other words, to argue against a religious belief based upon reason alone simply will not due since by it's definition, a religious claim is one that is claiming the existence of, or non-existence of (see next sentence), something that exists outside of our natural senses and thus reasoning abilities as well.

The significance of this, I believe, is that it could be argued that the unbelief in a god as well as the belief in one are both ultimately beliefs based upon faith and not reason alone.

Anything that, as you say, "exists outside of our natural senses and thus reasoning abilities as well", then it exists beyond knowledge.

When it comes to theism in general (as opposed to specific religious beliefs that imply specific measurable consequences), my general approach is to reject theistic belief as unjustified, irrelevant and unnecessary.

 

[kingdombuilder]

Yes I did. Since knowledge is justified true belief, and justification is the realm of reason, then most certainly did I come up with the assertion that "Knowledge is possible through reason alone" through reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meow mix
Yes, reason is the only tool that leads to knowledge by definition.

There appears to be many underlying assumptions and undefined terms in your above comments. How is "justified" defined? Why do you state that justification is only to be found in the realm of reason? How can you say that reason is the only way to gain knowledge?

Not all of our reasoning is filtered through our senses; only our statements about empirical phenomena. So indeed, exactly as you describe, science is in fact tentative and not absolute -- that's a good observation. But it has nothing to do with pure analytical reasoning.

For those who may be uninformed here is a brief description of analytical reasoning :

"No particular experience, beyond an understanding of the meanings of words used, is necessary for analytic reasoning.[1]
For example, "John is a bachelor." is a given true statement. Through analytic reasoning, one can make the judgment that John is unmarried. One knows this to be true since the state of being unmarried is implied in the word bachelor; no particular experience of John is necessary to make this judgement. (Analytic reasoning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

I disagree. How is it we come to know to begin with the definition of the words and concepts being described? Let's take the anayltic argument of God and suffering as an example, one you have brought up more than once in the forums here. How is it that one can even make a comparison between the two concepts unless they have experienced through one or more of their senses the concept of suffering? How is it one can come to the understanding of a god unless it be compared to other concepts and objects which have been previously experienced by the reasoner? I realize I am going out on a limb in disagreeing with philosophers much more intelligent than I, but I simply disagree with the belief that the definitions of various objects and concepts we have in our minds were not at some point first filtered through at least one of our natural senses.

I would also point out that anayltical reasoning would not be able to determine the truth or falsehood of claims of a historic nature from a religion. For example, one would need to argue from synthetic reasoning rather than anayltic in order to attempt to refute the claim from a professed eyewitness of a resurrected Jesus.

The problem is that you're ignoring that there isn't really a requirement to "argue against a religious belief" beyond asking for justification for it. If they can't justify it, there's no reason for you (the listener) to believe it as well as no reason for them (the believer) to even believe it... rationally, anyway.

Again, how is justified being defined? What critera would you use to determine if a religious claim is justified or not?

Unbelief is not a faith. Neutral skepticism to propositions is the default position until propositions are justified.

The belief or unbelief in something that exists outside of our natural senses is ultimately a matter of faith. This does not mean that there may not be good reasons to believe or disbelieve, but simply that at the end of the day the belief one way or the other is taken on faith. Skeptism and unbelief in something is not a neutral position.

Theists have failed over thousands of years to properly justify their position. I find that striking and absurd.

If this is claimed of theists then the same must be said of nontheists for reasons stated immediately above. At the end of the day it is a matter of what faith position one will choose.

 

[LuisDantas]

If this is claimed of theists then the same must be said of nontheists for reasons stated immediately above. At the end of the day it is a matter of what faith position one will choose.

Except that it is not really a faith position to doubt that what there is no evidence of...

 

[BruceDLimber]

I will point out that the scriptures of the Baha'i Faith explicitly endorse and praise science and reason!

Peace,

Bruce

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I will point out that the scriptures of the Baha'i Faith explicitly endorse and praise science and reason!

But do science and reason form the basis for Baha'i belief?

 

[Wotan]

"The belief or unbelief in something that exists outside of our natural senses is ultimately a matter of faith. This does not mean that there may not be good reasons to believe or disbelieve, but simply that at the end of the day the belief one way or the other is taken on faith. Skeptism and unbelief in something is not a neutral position."

No, it is not neutral. It is the default position. If you are going to assert something you must provide evidence and/or argument FOR it. Absent that you have proved nothing and no one has to take any action whatever.

As for claims supposedly made about the dead coming back to life - there is NO verified case anywhere or anytime for that happening. That lack of evidence FOR the proposition makes believing it not only faith based but blind unreasoning unjustified faith.

 

[Meow Mix]

There appears to be many underlying assumptions and undefined terms in your above comments. How is "justified" defined? Why do you state that justification is only to be found in the realm of reason? How can you say that reason is the only way to gain knowledge?

Justification -- or epistemic justification, so we don't confuse it with other types of justification -- is an intellectual obligation to attempt to (ideally) only believe true beliefs and avoid false or random beliefs. It's a process by which beliefs are checked for internal and external consistency and it explains properly why the belief is true or at least as true as can possibly be known with the data at hand.

There's no quick 'n dirty definition of "justification" since it's the study of an entire field (epistemology) -- it's sort of like you can't define physics by just calling it a study of matter and energy.

It's important to know though that any ol' excuse someone offers for why they believe something doesn't count as justification. It's more specific than that. Fallacies can never justify, nor can randomness -- an example I use often is to point out that if you didn't know the capitol of Missouri so you flipped a coin, announcing that if it landed heads up then the capitol is Jefferson City... and then it landed heads up, causing you to believe the capitol of Missouri is Jefferson City... then you would have a true belief, but not a justified belief.

Justification can only be found in the realm of reason because reason is by definition the practice of checking claims for internal and external consistency; a requirement for justification. Therefore there is no justification without the use of reason.

If you can't justify without reason, then you can't have knowledge without reason. This is because knowledge is justified true belief. The difference between just holding a belief and knowing something is that you must justify the belief and it must be true. Both the justification aspect and the truth aspect require reason to discern -- justification for obvious reasons, but truth also because you can't know if something is true or not without checking its consistency (which is, by definition, reason).

Thus, reason is the only way to knowledge.

I disagree. How is it we come to know to begin with the definition of the words and concepts being described? Let's take the anayltic argument of God and suffering as an example, one you have brought up more than once in the forums here. How is it that one can even make a comparison between the two concepts unless they have experienced through one or more of their senses the concept of suffering?

Interestingly, suffering is actually a qualia. Furthermore I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. Should we doubt what our senses are telling us?

How is it one can come to the understanding of a god unless it be compared to other concepts and objects which have been previously experienced by the reasoner? I realize I am going out on a limb in disagreeing with philosophers much more intelligent than I, but I simply disagree with the belief that the definitions of various objects and concepts we have in our minds were not at some point first filtered through at least one of our natural senses.

Only those regarding empirical things, though. For instance the entirety of mathematics can emerge from a mind that doesn't even have an empirical world to sense since the null set Ø, if conceived (or even if not conceived, at that) begets the existence of all the rest of mathematics -- and Ø exists even in the absence of the physical world.

I would also point out that anayltical reasoning would not be able to determine the truth or falsehood of claims of a historic nature from a religion. For example, one would need to argue from synthetic reasoning rather than anayltic in order to attempt to refute the claim from a professed eyewitness of a resurrected Jesus.

I wasn't saying that analytical reasoning is our only tool, just one of them. Of course we would look to empirical evidence for historical claims.

Again, how is justified being defined? What critera would you use to determine if a religious claim is justified or not?

That it isn't fallacious, that it provides warrant, and that it's internally and externally consistent. All fallacies come down to ignoratio elenchi, or "ignorance of refutation" which actually on a deeper level just means ignorance of reason.

The belief or unbelief in something that exists outside of our natural senses is ultimately a matter of faith. This does not mean that there may not be good reasons to believe or disbelieve, but simply that at the end of the day the belief one way or the other is taken on faith. Skeptism and unbelief in something is not a neutral position.

No, it's not at all a matter of faith to doubt an unjustified proposition. It's the theists who carry the onus of proof -- if they fail, atheists are 100% justified in non-belief; which is not faith. Also, this is where analytical reasoning comes into play because there are some gods which can't exist (because they aren't gods, they're not anything) because they have self-contradictions or external contradictions.

If this is claimed of theists then the same must be said of nontheists for reasons stated immediately above. At the end of the day it is a matter of what faith position one will choose.

Incorrect. The ball is in the theist's court. Atheists are still waiting for a pass... until theists justify theism, atheism is 100% justified.