The Idol of Reason

[willy]

We have had many debates about pluralism, reasoning to prove God, and the way it should be. I have noticed a strong trust that many who post here have in their ability to reason.

So as it has been said about God on this forum, why would life be better if we have only faith in reason.

As a conversation starter, I found a quote:

Where did I get it from? Was it by reason that I attainded to the knowledge that I must love my neighbour or not throttle him? They told me when I was a child, and I gladly believed it, because they told me what was already in my soul. But who discovered it? Not reason! Reason has discovered the struggle for existence and the law that I must throttle all those who hinder the satisfaction of my desires. That is the deduction reason makes. But the law of loving others could not be discovered by reason, because it is unreasonable.

Leo Tolstoy

[The Terrible Sweal]

We have had many debates about pluralism, reasoning to prove God, and the way it should be. I have noticed a strong trust that many who post here have in their ability to reason.

So as it has been said about God on this forum, why would life be better if we have only faith in reason.

As a conversation starter, I found a quote:

Where did I get it from? Was it by reason that I attainded to the knowledge that I must love my neighbour or not throttle him? They told me when I was a child, and I gladly believed it, because they told me what was already in my soul. But who discovered it? Not reason! Reason has discovered the struggle for existence and the law that I must throttle all those who hinder the satisfaction of my desires. That is the deduction reason makes. But the law of loving others could not be discovered by reason, because it is unreasonable.

Leo Tolstoy

I don't find Tolstoy's assertions particularly persuasive. "not reason", he says. Well why not? The reason we hold and seek fellowship with other humans is because our evolution disposes us to. And this is reasonable because it is our fellow man who helps us not be eaten by sabretooth tigers, or stokes the fire so it keeps burning while I'm taking a piss, or today writes the software that keeps my computer safe from viruses, or whatever.

Anyway, Kant demonstrated that the golden rule is, in fact, reasonable.

You ask, "why would life be better is we have only faith in reason"?

But we don't have 'faith' in reason, though we do act on a belief that our reasonING is correct. Reason is a faculty of mind, absent which there is no mind. Reasoning, on the other hand is the process and outcome of applying the faculty.

[August1991]

As much as I like Tolstoy, I have to admit that his last chapter in War and Peace really misses the point. He insists on a deterministic viewpoint and finally arrives at the conclusion that one small event can lead to a tremendous event elsewhere.

I mention all this to say that sometimes, things just happen. We do not live in a solely pre-determined world, we live in a world of events influenced by the occasional roll of the die. Although we can explain some things, we can't explain everything.

So, first of all, what do you mean by "reason"?

----

Love? Family? An individual benefits in dealing with others. But in any deal (or co-operative endeavour), the other party may cheat. Hence, we have developed some very sophisticated mechanisms to know when to deal and when to be wary.

This problem is not unique to our species. I agree with Sweal that:

The reason we hold and seek fellowship with other humans is because our evolution disposes us to.

I hope this post is not too off topic.

[willy]

The reason we hold and seek fellowship with other humans is because our evolution disposes us to.

Your examples of evolution are just the development of technology. They have changed the context to which we live. Have we really evolved as people? People still treat each other the same way. We are not more compassionate. Show me examples of how individual behaviour has evolved. We are still self centered, angry, scared, joyful, loving, and hating people we have always been.

The notion of evolution connotes progress. When only grey moths lived through the industrial revolution were they improved because as prey they had better camouflage?

Reason is a faculty of mind, absent which there is no mind. Reasoning, on the other hand is the process and outcome of applying the faculty.

Tacit vs. Explicit Knowledge.

We figure some things out but we don't rely on our reason to breath, we just do.

Emotion vs. Precognition

Many things we react to. This is not an absence of mind but the reaction of mind. Baby in a burning building may cause a parent to run back in.

I am only suggesting that much of our lives are not spent in reason. AND

When we reason we are always bound by our experience, our experience is limited, thus our reason is flawed.

The process of reason puts individuals as the center of their universe to decide the validity of God, good, bad, and responsibility. Some of these concepts may not be understood by way of reason, and may involve emotion. And as someone who believes in God I can say by design.

[willy]

As much as I like Tolstoy, I have to admit that his last chapter in War and Peace really misses the point. He insists on a deterministic viewpoint and finally arrives at the conclusion that one small event can lead to a tremendous event elsewhere.

War and Peace, long book for a great last chapter. I took a different conclusion out of his last chapter. Individuals are parts of great events but the events are larger than any individual. When I learned history in grade school the focus was on the great leaders or hero's of history but I thought Tolstoy articulated quite well how the actions of many individuals culminates into a historical event. (Not just Bonaparte)

The quote I used here was from Anna Karenina, again in the last few chapters Tolstoy gets to the meat. Levin an intellectual and reasoned fellow comes to his faith in an instant when it occurs to him that it was an emotional decision and not a reasoned process.

As for what do I mean by reason. I was trying to explore the basis many use on this forum to form their world view. Science is king and we will figure out this world. The basis of science in my mind is logical deduction. I would state that deduction or reason is a limited human experience and there is more to life.

I am interested to see if there is a strong argument that this is all there is to life.

[The Terrible Sweal]

When we reason we are always bound by our experience, our experience is limited, thus our reason is flawed.

True, and our reason can be flawed in other ways as well. But we don't have any option. Even if we resort to religion as a supposed substitute for the faults of reason, we have no way to eliminate human (i.e. imperfect) mediation.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear willy,

I am interested to see if there is a strong argument that this is all there is to life.

"The meaning of life is 'to be'. Evolution is simply 'to be' more efficiently, you see?" Theloniusfleabag.

[August1991]

The notion of evolution connotes progress.

Wrong, dinosaurs were the summum of evolution some 80 million years ago. In the future, it may well be cockroaches that will be the summum. The only criteria for "evolution" is what works.

Your examples of evolution are just the development of technology. They have changed the context to which we live. Have we really evolved as people? People still treat each other the same way. We are not more compassionate. Show me examples of how individual behaviour has evolved. We are still self centered, angry, scared, joyful, loving, and hating people we have always been.

Willy, I quote you at length because first, you are right, we haven't changed. Genetically, a "human being" who lived several hundred thousand years ago is no different than you or I. Such a person, raised in the modern world, would be perfectly capable of doodling on the Internet.

But species don't merely transmit information by genetic means, they also transmit information by learned behaviour. A child of 200,000 years ago would need modern parents.

But you are right. The genetic imprint of the individual hasn't changed. It is the social environment that has changed.

We are not more compassionate. Show me examples of how individual behaviour has evolved.

In a world of several billion, we now co-operate and work togther using sophisticated signals that confuse most of us.

When we reason we are always bound by our experience, our experience is limited, thus our reason is flawed.

True, and our reason can be flawed in other ways as well. But we don't have any option. Even if we resort to religion as a supposed substitute for the faults of reason, we have no way to eliminate human (i.e. imperfect) mediation.

Well, we work with what we've got.

Some stuff we know now but we can learn more. (The surface of Titan.) The basic rules we know but we can learn more. (Hydrogen fusion to helium.)

The basis of science in my mind is logical deduction.

To me, the basis of science is "intelligent skepticism" or some such.

Once again, I may be off thread. But I'll finish with a blog by an Iraqi who just "tells it as is".

Healing Iraq

I've bookmarked the guy and check in every so often. I mention him here because his byline is a quote from Jonathon Swift.

"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into."

I haven't verified that quote but, for the 17th century, it's not bad.

[The Terrible Sweal]

The notion of evolution connotes progress.

Wrong, dinosaurs were the summum of evolution some 80 million years ago. In the future, it may well be cockroaches that will be the summum. The only criteria for "evolution" is what works.

I would add:

Evolution simply means gradual change in response to conditions. On the other hand, progress implies change toward a posited outcome or endpoint.

"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into."

Let's hope that's not true. Otherwise most abstract communication is futile.