0
   

Is reason and intelligence inherent in nature and reality?

 
 
Pythagorean
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 11:51 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;135408 wrote:
What claim do you mean? You don't mean that we should invent plausible arguments to support the claim that God exists that we do not believe are sound, do you. Or do you?




What particular argument are you referring to? It remains to be determined whether an argument is sound or not unless we have one before us to deal with.

And why would one desire unsound arguments?

I am not the one who is treating religious adherents as if they are witches.
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 11:55 am
@prothero,
Pythagorean wrote:

I am not the one who is treating religious adherents as if they are witches.


Who here do you think is doing that?
Pythagorean
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 12:07 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;135425 wrote:
Who here do you think is doing that?


As long as we're clear about it.
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 01:54 pm
@prothero,
Yes. Well, I would rather be part of a plan than part of an accident, and it seems to me, we are free to choose which depiction to endorse, as there is no-one to really adjudicate the issue, either way.

Incidentally, and by way of comparison, a Buddhist does not look to God for salvation, nor regard the universe as the work of a divine creator, but does believe that there is a moral law, and that one may either understand it and observe it or suffer the consequences for not doing so.
0 Replies
 
prothero
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 03:30 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;135418 wrote:
Listen, we all have own set of irrational beliefs, or at the least, beliefs we do not have justification for, even if we try to be as rational as possible. But the key is being wise enough to distinguish these from our rational beliefs, the beliefs we do have justification for.
.
Do you think the notion that reason and intelligence may be inherent in hature and reality is an irrational notion?
Do you think it violates some scientific theory or fact?
Do you think it is inconsistent with anything we seem to "know"?

Because this notion was held by virtually every major name in relativity and quantum physics. See Quantum Mysteries by Ken Wilber, a collection of the mystical writings of Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Einstein, Pauli, De Broglie, Jeans, Planck and Eddington.

Are you saying all these indiviudals were being irrational, or violating some rule or principle of the educated person when they engaged in philosophical specualtion about the source of the rational structure and mathematical expressiblity of the nature and natural law?
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 03:39 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean;135421 wrote:
What particular argument are you referring to? It remains to be determined whether an argument is sound or not unless we have one before us to deal with.

And why would one desire unsound arguments?

I am not the one who is treating religious adherents as if they are witches.


Well, neither am I. So I suppose neither of us does that. I was just pointing out that no one should intentionally construct unsound arguments in order to try to establish that God exists. I suppose you would agree with that.
Pythagorean
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 03:51 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;135575 wrote:
Well, neither am I. So I suppose neither of us does that. I was just pointing out that no one should intentionally construct unsound arguments in order to try to establish that God exists. I suppose you would agree with that.


Yes, I will consent to that.
0 Replies
 
prothero
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 03:52 pm
@Pythagorean,
[QUOTE=Pythagorean;135368] Why does God then, leave us so unprotected? When we get sick we don't go to a priest we go to a medical doctor. Look at the suffering in those parts of the world that are unaffected by the scientific movement. Are we created by God in order to suffer so much? [/QUOTE] This is the question of god as a "personal", a protector, a god who plays favorites or intervenes in natural process "a supernatural deity". This together with the "problem of evil both natural and moral". I purposefully put forth the notion of god as rational, ordering and creative agent; not god as "personal" or "moral" agent.

I would be happy to discuss any sense in which god could be "personal" or any sense in which man may have "value" to such a god; as well as any sense in which man represents "made in the image" but to introduce those issues here, will obscure the larger goal of testing whether god as the source of order, reason and creation in the universe is a notion which conflicts with science or is in some way irrational or inconsistent with the "facts"..

This is the most basic of notion of the divine as rational ordering and creative agent. If one rejects the notion of the universe as the product of reason and with some purpose then no other conception or property of god will be worthy of discussion with that person. For there is no science or fact that excludes reason and intelligence from being inherent in reality and the universe, in fact there is good reason to accept the hypothesis.

[QUOTE=Pythagorean;135368] God does not help the sick, he does not provide material comfort. The creator must not be related to his creation directly, or so it seems. If there is divinity there is also an important seperation between it and us. If reason and intelligence are inherent in the universe, then scientific progress may be precisely the means that would reduce the seperation between any universal intelligence and human minds. [/QUOTE] Assuming there is a god for the moment
Gods purposes do not appear to be mans purposes.
God methods do not appear to be mans methods.
I am not sure our human sense of morality corresponds in any way with divine value.
God would not appear to be "personal" in the sense of saving some and forsaking others.
There is no apparent afterlife, heaven or hell.

Still the notion that there is rational intelligence in the universe and that our reason and our science permits us to glimpse the truth, is comforting (at least to me) as opposed to the notion that nature is primarily inert, insensate, lifeless, mindless, blind, purposeless indifference. In fact I do not know how or why one would choose the latter over the former.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 03:56 pm
@prothero,
prothero;135588 wrote:

Still the notion that there is rational intelligence in the universe and that our reason and our science permits us to glimpse the truth, is comforting (at least to me) as opposed to the notion that nature is primarily inert, insensate, lifeless, mindless, blind, purposeless indifference. In fact I do not know how or why one would choose the latter over the former.


Because there is no evidence of the former?
north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 03:56 pm
@prothero,
it seems so , since if there is a god , intelligence questions god
Twirlip
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 03:57 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;135300 wrote:
In other words, evolutionary theory, as a philosophy, is defined by what it denies. In this context, the absence of a cause is understood as a cause. We don't really need to grapple with the large idea of what might be understood as a 'first cause' or 'the ground of being', because, whatever it is that is behind it, it is not God. What is behind it, is the God that is not. The denial of the sufficient cause of being, is now the cause of being.

That puts me in a quandary, because although I want to agree with part of what you are saying here, and I think it's important, I first have to say that, at least according to my vague understanding of the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution by genetic inheritance, random genetic mutation, and natural selection, the scientific theory (a) is true (although it may not tell the whole story), and (b) does not in any way depend upon any hypothesis of a theological character, such as the non-existence of some specified kind of 'God'. It seems to me like an extremely well-supported and extremely important piece of genuine science. I'm almost 100% with Dawkins et al. on that
jeeprs;135300 wrote:
But the larger questions of why anything is the way it is are now met by the universal solvent of adaptive necessity. 'It is, because it survived. And it survived, because it is'. This is the Universal Principle which now replaces Ratio, Logos, The First Cause, Prime Mover, Moral Law, and any number of other superannuated religious and philosophical concepts which presumably are now confined to the last remnants of pristine wilderness prior to the woodchippers moving in. And furthermore, this principle is sufficiently elastic and non-specific to surmount any empirical obstacle that might appear to threaten it. That is one of the beautiful things about Darwinian theory: given that we lack the one real means of testing any of its hypotheses - namely, some other life-bearing planet - then whatever happens can easily be accommodated by a nip here, a tuck there. Easy, really.

That's the bit I agree with. I'm quite sure there is a kind of atheistic, scientistic pseudo-religion, in which the absence of a God is worshipped, and an evolutionary dogma is applied as a universal solvent to all problems. If the solution isn't intellectually very substantial, why then, the problem was no good in the first place, so there's no need to worry. All praise to the absent God, and let no infidel dog dare question His Divine Absence!

So, you are absolutely right; but so is evolutionary theory, as I see it. It's not perfect, but it's a good scientific theory, which deserves defending, or else the whole of science falls, and with science, the whole of reason - not because science is the whole of reason (it isn't), but because it is part of reason (although as a social institution science, like religion, can be quite irrational - just as with 'God', we need to be careful as to what we are talking about when we talk about 'science').
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 03:58 pm
@north,
north;135594 wrote:
it seems so , since if there is a god , intelligence questions god


How does the conclusion follow from the premises?
Pythagorean
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 03:59 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;135593 wrote:
Because there is no evidence of the former?


And there is no evidence to refute the former. We have already established that. That is the basic theme of the thread.
north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 04:00 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;135597 wrote:
How does the conclusion follow from the premises?


it doesn't but some are on and on about god so I put my thoughts on this
0 Replies
 
prothero
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 04:04 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;135593 wrote:
Because there is no evidence of the former?
There is no "evidence" for the latter either, in fact I think what little "evidence" there is(the rational intelligibility of nature, the ability of mathematics to express natural law, and the fact that we are here to comprehend it all) favors the former. What is the evidence for the latter? I am not making large claims here about a personal or a moral god.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 04:04 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean;135600 wrote:
And there is no evidence to refute the former. We have already established that. That is the basic theme of the thread.


But to argue that because there is no evidence to refute some proposition, that proposition is true, is to commit the fallacy of the argument from ignorance. Look it up. Would you accept the following argument: There is no evidence to refute the existence of The Spaghetti Monster. Therefore we have reason to think that there is a Spaghetti Monster? I hope not!
prothero
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 04:07 pm
@north,
north;135594 wrote:
it seems so , since if there is a god , intelligence questions god
Actually about 90% of the intelligence believes in or favors god. Of course the other 10% claim they have more of the intelligence but science itself began as a project to explore gods creation and many major scientific discoveries were and are made by theists of various sorts.

---------- Post added 03-03-2010 at 02:08 PM ----------

kennethamy;135603 wrote:
But to argue that because there is no evidence to refute some proposition, that proposition is true, is to commit the fallacy of the argument from ignorance. Look it up. Would you accept the following argument: There is no evidence to refute the existence of The Spaghetti Monster. Therefore we have reason to think that there is a Spaghetti Monster? I hope not!
Dont you think that that the notion that nature is blind, indifferent and purposeless is a proposition too?
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 04:10 pm
@prothero,
prothero;135607 wrote:
Actually about 90% of the intelligence believes in or favors god. Of course the other 10% claim they have more of the intelligence but science itself began as a project to explore gods creation and many major scientific discoveries were and are made by theists of various sorts.


Are you actually arguing that because many major scientific discoveries were made by theists, theism is true? Please tell me you aren't. Of course, you ought to give some reason to believe that dubious premise too.
north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 04:12 pm
@prothero,
Quote:
prothero;135607 wrote:
Actually about 90% of the intelligence believes in or favors god. Of course the other 10% claim they have more of the intelligence but science itself began as a project to explore gods creation and many major scientific discoveries were and are made by theists of various sorts.


I don't

---------- Post added 03-03-2010 at 02:08 PM ----------

Quote:
Dont you think that that the notion that nature is blind, indifferent and purposeless is a proposition too?


explain further
Pythagorean
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 04:13 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;135603 wrote:
But to argue that because there is no evidence to refute some proposition, that proposition is true, is to commit the fallacy of the argument from ignorance. Look it up. Would you accept the following argument: There is no evidence to refute the existence of The Spaghetti Monster. Therefore we have reason to think that there is a Spaghetti Monster? I hope not!


He never claimed that his proposition was true. Read the beginning of the thread. He is constructing a circumstantial case. And one would have to be blind or prejudical to miss the elegance and consistency of his case.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 06/16/2021 at 11:48:53