Last night I was talking with an old friend of mine, an atheist Jew, who is now in the best relationship of her life with a devout Roman Catholic. We talked about the fact that she was more surprised than he was about the fact that their connection transcends their difference in metaphysics. He sees himself as a devout Roman Catholic; she sees him as a good human being.
This conversation reminded me of an older thought that’s been swirling around in my head for a few weeks: the disunity of reason.
It is widely held by philosophers (that peculiar sub-species!) that reason is unified: that the ideally rational person is one for whom there are no fissures, breaks, ruptures, or discontinuities anywhere in the inferential relations between semantic contents that comprise his or her cognitive grasp of the world (including himself or herself as part of that world).
This is particularly true when it comes to the distinction between “theoretical reason” and “practical reason”. By “theoretical reason” I mean one’s ability to conceptualize the world-as-experienced as more-or-less systematic, and by “practical reason” I mean one’s ability to act in the world according to judgments that are justified by agent-relative and also agent-indifferent reasons (“prudence” and “morality”, respectively).
The whole philosophical tradition from Plato onward assumes that reason is unified, and especially, that theoretical and practical reason are unified — different exercises of the same basic faculty. Some philosophers think of them as closer together than others — for example, Aristotle distinguishes between episteme (knowledge of general principles in science, mathematics, and metaphysics) and phronesis (knowledge of particular situations in virtuous action). But even Aristotle does not doubt that episteme and phronesis are exercises of a single capacity, reason (nous).
However, as we learn more about how our cognitive system is actually structured, we should consider the possibility that reason is not unified at all. If Horst’s Cognitive Pluralism is right, then we should expect that our minds are more like patchworks of domain-specific modules that can reason quite well within those domains but not so well across them.
To Horst’s model I’d add the further conjecture: that we have pretty good reason to associate our capacity for “theoretical reason” (abstract thinking and long-term planning) with the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and also pretty good reason to associate our capacity for “practical reason” (self-control and virtuous conduct) with the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (and especially in its dense interconnections with the limbic system).
But if that conjecture is on the right track, then we would expect to find consistency between theoretical reason and practical reason only to the extent that there are reciprocal interconnections between these regions of prefrontal cortex. And of course there are reciprocal interconnections — but (and this is the important point!) to the extent that these regions are also functionally distinct, then to that same extent reason is disunified.
And as a consequence, metaphysics and ethics may have somewhat less to do with each other than previous philosophers have supposed.
Well, I could go into my whole “ancient human leadership allegory” spiel. I mean…”kingdom”, “worship”, “lord”, “judgement”…? Seriously? A supposed omnipotent deity can’t move on from ancient human totalitarianism to even a basic oligarchy, to say nothing of a far superior republic?
Why are conservative theists stuck in dark ages thought processes? Because their silly deity wouldn’t even consider the title “president”…
Do you agree with my corollary regarding knowledge (found http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/the-disunity-of-reason/comment-page-21/#comment-122421 in case you missed it.) If so, what does belief have to do with knowledge in your view? If not, explain your disagreement.
So you intend to continuing making baseless assertions and refusing to support them when asked? That behavior is hardly aligned with the goals of this site. It also demonstrates a lack of civility and courtesy.
Try me. Present an actual rational argument and some objective, empirical evidence for your claim that a god exists, or that everyone knows that god exists, or that the Christian god is necessary for knowledge, or any of your myriad other unsupported claims.
If you can’t or won’t support your claims, the honest thing to do is retract them. Attempting to blame other people for your failure to do so is transparent evasion.
Once we’ve established that you have any support at all for your claims, we can discuss the quality of your arguments and evidence.
A much nicer fictional character than the Christian god.
Perhaps you should lead by example.
Also, in the future please address the post not the poster.
Please present your “objective empirical evidence” in support of this claim or do the honest thing and retract it.
You make some odd comments, Mung, and really do provide a wonderful example of how bankrupt theology (to say nothing of Christianity) is in terms of any sort of social or ethical guide.
Are you really suggesting that FMM’s comments hereon have been nothing more than personal opinion? Or, are you really under the impression that opinions about cartoon animals actually parallel theistic claims?
Either way, it doesn’t bode well for the validity of your theology.
Most christians claim god demands being worshiped. That’s an obnoxious god anyway you look at it. Your god may or may not be like that, but who cares
True.
False.
No, I am “suggesting” that Patrick ought to desist from making false claims and that he ought to support his claims with “objective empirical evidence” or retract them (because that would be the honest thing to do).
If someone were trying to make a transcendental argument for God, then objective, empirical evidence is completely irrelevant. It’s an a priori argument, not an a posteriori one.
I’m not saying that FMM is actually making that argument; he clearly isn’t, and neither is anyone else here. I’m just pointing out that there is an a priori argument for the existence of God. The debate between theism and non-theism does not have to be conducted solely on the basis of a posteriori evidence.
So he’s mistaken about his belief that his presuppositionalist theism offers an objective foundation for knowledge.
Being disingenuous and creating equivocations is a positive example of Christian teaching, is it? My bad…
You mean desist from posting his opinions? Like his opinion concerning preferences for mythological characters? In what logical way could someone support an opinion with empirical evidence? And assuming one could, in what way would it stay a claim?
Provide a link to any false claim I have made.
Easy as pie.
If I understand him correctly, fifth believes God is the only foundation for either objectivity or knowledge. You can. of course (along with anyone else) show him to be wrong by providing an alternative foundation.
Or you can deny that any foundation for knowledge is necessary, or you can go for full blown skepticism.
I don’t see what the big deal is. There’s a challenge on the table. Fifth’s claim is that you cannot meet it. So far the evidence is on his side.
What, exactly, would you regard as “a priori evidence”? I think I understand that “the bible says it, I believe it, that settles it” is a difficult position discuss, there being nothing worth discussing.
This is just silly. Fifth has no evidence of anything. He asserts, but does not see any reason to demonstrate. Plenty of people here (and everywhere) have provided alternative foundations, resoundingly supported by both observation and philosophy. We all understand that nobody can possibly penetrate through the wall with any of this — the indications are there’s nothing on the other side of the wall anyway.
Fifth’s challenge is that we cannot convince him of anything he is not already committed to. This is a challenge not worth accepting. Admittedly, the evidence that he cannot learn, cannot think, cannot even consider an alternative is all on his side.
That is not a false claim. Try again or retract your accusation.
You’re as confused about the burden of proof as he is. It’s his claim, he has to provide the evidence and argument to support it.
And you’re confused in thinking this has anything to do with burden of proof. And if you think it does, then you are making a claim. Or should I say, repeating a prior claim.
It’s false on it’s face. Hard to get more obviously false than that.
I don’t need to prove him wrong, he needs to prove himself correct. One does not establish objective facts by mere assertion, yet that is all he offers.
From what I understand — bearing in mind that theology is not my area — there are basically two a priori arguments for the existence of God.
The first is the Thomistic argument that we are rationally required to assert the existence of a necessary ground of being in order to account for the kinds of beings and their properties that we observe in the world as we experience it. The second is the transcendental argument that we are rationally required to assert the existence of a necessary ground of being in order to have any objective knowledge at all.
I’m not saying that these are good arguments, or that they can’t be refuted. I’m just pointing out that there are arguments that don’t rely on a posteriori evidence, which means that empirical evidence isn’t the only set of epistemic criteria worth considering.
I see at least three claims in this one post alone:
1.) I [Patrick] am not making claims in this thread.
2.) fifth is making claims in this thread.
3.) fifth is utterly failing to support any claim he has made in this thread.
Even if we grant that (2) is true, (1) and (3) are not true. You might be forgiven for thinking (3) is true. (1) is blatantly false.
It’s blatantly false. It will be a day to remember here at TSZ when I start retracting my true claims because you refuse to admit your false claims are in fact false.
Do you want me to go through all 23 pages of this thread and show where you have in fact made other claims as well? It won’t be at all difficult, I assure you.
Fifthmonarchyman has made numerous claims in this thread, including that the Christian god exists, that atheists don’t exist, that his god is required for knowledge, etc. Pointing that out is not making a claim, it is simply an easily confirmed objective observation. The person making the positive claim, e.g. “a god or gods exist”, has the burden of proof.
You’re at The Skeptical Zone, not UD.
It’s a simply, easily confirmed, objective observation. Evidence, not a claim. Not unlike the observation that your recent comments are better categorized as “playing silly buggers” than “reasoned discourse.”
There’s no big deal. Fifth’s claim has been demonstrated to be absurd. Oh…that is…unless you can point to where Fifth demonstrated that my “I’m hungry” exercise is somehow in error (or, any of the other responses that have been proffered in this thread from others that have not been rebutted either). Funny…I haven’t seen that yet. Just keep seeing his boring repeats.
And I kind of doubt he’s going to actually try to demonstrate any of the posts concerning other foundations for knowledge have issues given this post:
Seems he’s pretty much closed the door on actually considering any rebuttals to his challenge then given that it’s clear he doesn’t know where other folks are coming from and doesn’t seem really interested in finding out. He hasn’t tried very hard thus far anyway.
I have no objection to you taking that approach. Perhaps you can convince every one else to follow in your footsteps.
Again, observations, not claims. Objective evidence.
If it will slow down your usual prolific generation of content-free comments, I actively encourage you to do so.
Man…I hate to do this, but I have to side with Mung on this. Here:
Hate to say it, but that’s a claim.
…in this thread.
Walto even notes so two posts down.
So…yeah…Mung is technically correct. If you want to brow-beat him for not adhering to the intent of the site, have at it. But alas, your statement:
…is demonstrably false.
You are free to disregard logical fallacies to your hearts content. I confess I don’t know what logical argument to use to convince people who don’t care about logic.
Well, I do have a suggestion to offer, but it’s the same one that kicked this whole exchange off in the first place.
Honestly, what does this have to do with anything that I wrote?
If you can avoid telling fifth that he is wrong and stick to asking him to support his position there’s nothing wrong with that.
Problem is, he will never support his claims. See KN’s comment on presuppositional apologetics; the whole basis of the approach is that the presupposition – that God is the basis of rational thought (more precisely, that Christian Faith is the basis of rational thought) and that the bible is divine revelation – must be proven wrong by those who think otherwise. But since presuppositionalist holds that God is the basis of rational thought, they can never consider God not being the basis of rational thought and thus any other foundation is false by definition. Neat trick, huh?
But, as KN notes, there are plenty of noted weaknesses to the presuppositional apologetics position. One of the better ones I’ve seen put forth is replacing “God” with “Satan” or “Odin” and running with that. I mean, if someone like FMM actually buys into the line of reasoning, then he will have a tough time refuting it for another equally powerful deity. Such a discussion generally boils down to, “yeah…but I believe…” and then it’s over. It’s not like the presuppositionalist can actually defend a claim like, “but God is more powerful than Satan or Zeus.” (How could anyone “know” such a thing given the presupposition that either Satan or Zeus would intend for the presuppositionalist to presuppose such…) Such is merely an admission of defeat.
I’m happy to be corrected if I’ve misspoken, but do you actually consider that a claim? It’s a report of a personal experience. Am I missing something?
Yup, we’re back to the beginning where you haven’t shown that I’ve made any claims in this thread.
fifthmonarchyman clearly has and has equally clearly not supported them (objective observation). Your attempt to distract from that with semantic games is transparent and ineffective.
Per fifth” If definitions are merely human constructs we have no way of knowing if they are correct.”
FMM, if someone tells you god has revealed him that fans of heavy metal music are satan worshippers and has commanded true christians to kill them all… do you question his revealed knowledge or do you join him in his quest?
Who said God want’s a relationship with it’s sentient creations?
Certainly not me. Perhaps you are thinking of the God you thought you understood as a small child?
Peace
Who said God needs anything? Certainly not me.
Maybe you are thinking of the God you thought you understood as a small child?
Worship is merely the proper response to being in the presence of God. Just like awe is the proper response to being in the presence of profound beauty.
When I meet someone who has a problem with worship I assume that person does not understand the feeling one gets when comprehending the majesty and Glory of God.
I feel sorry you have missed that emotion. It’s an amazing feeling
peace
Oh
You have been on trial for a long time. In the interest of civility I won’t reveal your marks 😉
peace
I’m not making claims. I’m asking questions
peace
Can anyone here besides Robin explain the “I’m hungry” exercise? Because I truly have no idea what he is getting at.
Thanks in advance
peace
Untrue. You have claimed that a god exists, that your god is required for knowledge, that atheists do not exist, etc. throughout this thread and others.
1) That the Christian God exists is not a claim it is an axiom
2) That Atheists don’t exist is not a claim it is part of the axiom that is the Christian God
3) In this context that God is necessary for knowledge is a hypothesis that can be falsified if a consistent cogent justification can be given for knowledge sans God
See no claims
peace
Nope, it is a claim about reality, particularly since you also claimed to have objective, empirical evidence that is true.
Nope, it’s a rude and incorrect claim that violates the rules of this site.
I note in passing that you haven’t explained what the impact on your positions would be if you became convinced that atheists really do exist. Park your priors at the door, as required by the rules, and assume for the sake of argument that some people here actually lack belief in a god or gods. So what? What does that mean to you?
No, it’s a claim that requires support by the person making it. You have the burden of proof.
You know in the sense of true
No it is part of the definition of knowledge.
Sorry but that is incorrect
check out John 16:13-14 and other places
peace
I disagree vehemently . What do we do now?
Are you accusing me of being dishonest about what I believe?
Do you know what I believe better than me?
How do we know which of us is correct?
Who has the authority to judge these things?
What is the standard?
peace
Wow. Just wow. I’ll have to remember this in the future. The disciples were not making claims, they were just reporting personal experiences.
Yes, something blatantly obvious.
The following is a claim, not a report of a personal experience::
If I was convinced that atheists really exist it would mean that all knowledge is impossible and therefore I could not be convinced of anything including the postulate that atheists exist.
I would become a radical skeptic.
peace