The Disunity of Reason

Posted on by

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.

 

 

1,419 thoughts on “The Disunity of Reason”

  1. fifthmonarchyman: Our imperfect nature makes all human reasoning unreliable that is why we need God to justify knowledge.

    So you think we need to postulate god to justify our knowledge, but then you admit that the knowledge acquired that way is unreliable. Only god can be in possession of true knowledge and be sure it’s true knowledge. Right?

  3. fifthmonarchyman:

    I am not aware of any means for determining the beliefs a person holds other than discussing those beliefs.

    Ever hear of revelation?

    I’ve heard of people claiming to have received revelations. I have never seen any evidence that such claims reflect anything other than subjective, often self-serving, belief.

    An Omniscient God knows your beliefs and can reveal them to who ever he chooses. Don’t you agree?

    I’m discussing mechanisms that are actually known to exist. You have thus far provided no evidence that supports the claim that a god or gods exist.

    Pointing to everything is simply empirical evidence that everything you can point to exists. It provides no support for your claim that a god exists.

    Among other things If God did not exist nothing could exist.

    That’s just another baseless assertion.

  4. dazz: I’m asking you a very simple question, and you refuse to answer it. Why is that?

    I have answered it I will do so again please try and get it this time

    dazz: Is reason (error prone or not) a necessary precondition to postulate and receive revelation or not?

    Yes
    Reason is necessary. That is why God is necessary
    God is Reason

    dazz: You respond to this that you’ve never heard of an alternative cogent way to go about knowing, even though we’ve presented it. You simply reject it

    This is incorrect. An alternative cogent way has not been offered.

    I know this by asking how you know your way of knowing is correct

    If you have no answer to that question you have not offered a cogent justification for knowledge. It’s simple

    peace

  5. fifthmonarchyman: You are again assuming that an omniscient God does not exist!!!

    You need to provide objective empirical evidence for that bold claim before we can tackle the rest of your claims.

    Nope, I’m not assuming anything. I am noting that there is no objective, empirical evidence that supports the claim that any god or gods exist. Until there is, that claim can be logically dismissed.

  6. fifthmonarchyman:

    On what do you base your claim that atheists don’t exist, then?

    It’s not a claim it’s an axiom. It’s based on who God is.

    First, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, it is a claim about reality and one that is contradicted by the actual existence of atheists.

    Second, if you’re not basing that claim on your bible, on what are you basing it?

  7. fifthmonarchyman: I have answered it

    No you haven’t, because you keep equivocating:

    fifthmonarchyman: Yes
    Reason is necessary. That is why God is necessary
    God is Reason

    I’ve been very clear about what I mean by reason. It’s your ability to reason what I’m talking about.
    If god is reason, then can stones postulate things and receive knowledge by means of revelation too?

    fifthmonarchyman: This is incorrect. An alternative cogent way has not been offered.

    I know this by asking how you know your way of knowing is correct

    If you have no answer you have not offered a cogent justification for knowledge. It’s simple

    I have, reason is my axiom, evidence is used to test axioms (unlike you who only assumes them and can’t question them no matter what) evidence confirms repeatedly that one can acquire knowledge by reason and repeated observation. Reason can be used to acquire knowledge which is very reliable by those means. You can cross check results with other people, consilience results… unlike with your “revelations” as you yourself admitted. No gods need to be invoked and the world has advanced and learned so much since this approach to knowledge has been adopted. You know what? As you like to say, the evidence is all around you. And in this case, it really is.

  8. dazz: It’s your ability to reason what I’m talking about.

    Then the answer is no.

    If a person is indwelt by the Holy Spirit then he does not need to rely on his own reason. He is united to Christ

    Patrick: Nope, I’m not assuming anything.

    Sure you are.

    When you claim that a person knows best what he believes you are assuming that an omniscient being who knows everything infallibly does not exist.

    You need to provide evidence for that claim.

    peace

  9. dazz: I have, reason is my axiom

    I’m am very happy you concede this.

    Since God is reason your axiom is my axiom 😉

    Like I said you are not far from the kingdom.

    peace

  10. dazz: No gods need to be invoked and the world has advanced and learned so much since this approach to knowledge has been adopted.

    But you did invoke God when you invoked reason.

    The fact that you don’t recognize reason as God yet does not change the fact that it is.

    Give it time and you will get there or you will abandon your axiom

    peace

  11. Patrick: First, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, it is a claim about reality and one that is contradicted by the actual existence of atheists.

    I disagree, what do we do know?

    Patrick: Second, if you’re not basing that claim on your bible, on what are you basing it?

    I’m basing it (my axiom) on who God is.
    God reveals who he is.

    peace

  12. fifthmonarchyman:
    . . .
    When you claim that a person knows best what he believes you are assuming that an omniscient being who knows everything infallibly does not exist.

    You need to provide evidence for that claim.

    You seem incapable of understanding the burden of proof. You’re making the claim, you have to support it. I’m no more assuming that a god doesn’t exist than I am assuming that leprechauns, faeries, chemtrails, Scottish plesiosaurs, or economically literate Bernie Sanders supporters don’t exist. Until there is some evidence for such a thing, there’s literally no reason to consider it in one’s arguments.

  13. Reciprocating Bill:

    CharlieM: And it is the whole that provides the reality of the plant, the separate entities have no real existence outside this whole.

    An interesting example – as Goethe was wrong about the “archetypal plant,” and it was Darwin, with his interest in the evolution of development, who correctly explained the phenomena that prompted Goethe’s insight that

    “all is leaf.”

    From your link

    The fact that Goethe did not include a developmental perspective in his concept of metamorphosis.

    These few words make it clear to me that the author of your link has no clear understanding of Goethe in this regard.

    From Goethe’s poem The Metamorphosis Of Plants

    Simply slumber’d the force in the seed; a germ of the future,

    Peacefully lock’d in itself, ‘neath the integument lay,
    Leaf and root, and bud, still void of colour, and shapeless;

    Thus doth the kernel, while dry, cover that motionless life.
    Upward then strives it to swell, in gentle moisture confiding,

    From Steiner’s Goethe’s Conception of the World – Goethe’s Conception: Chapter VII: The Doctrine of Metamorphosis (apologies for the length of quote)

    …from Lectures on the first three Chapters of an Outline of Comparative Anatomy (1796): “We should also have come to the point where we could fearlessly maintain that all the more perfect organic beings, among which we reckon fishes, amphibia, birds, mammals, and at the summit of the last, Man, are formed according to one archetype, which only in its constituent parts inclines hither and thither and daily develops and transforms itself through procreation.” Goethe’s caution regarding the thought of transformation is comprehensible. The epoch in which he elaborated his ideas was not unfamiliar with this thought. It had, however, been developed in the most confused sense. “That epoch,” writes Goethe, “was darker than one can conceive of now.” It was stated, for example, that man, if he liked, could go about comfortably on all fours, and that bears, if they remained upright for a period of time, could become human beings. The audacious Diderot ventured to make certain proposals as to how goat-footed fauns could be produced and then put into livery, to sit in pomp and distinction on the coaches of the mighty and the rich! Goethe would have nothing to do with such undue ideas. His aim was to obtain an idea of the basic laws of the living. It became clear to him here that the forms of the living are not rigid and unchangeable, but are subject to continual transformation. He had, however, no opportunity of making observations which would have enabled him to see how this transformation was accomplished in the single phenomenon. It was the investigations of Darwin and the reflections of Haeckel that first threw light on the actual relationship between the single organic forms. From the standpoint of Goethe’s world-conception one can only give assent to the assertions of Darwinism in so far as they concern the actual emergence of one organic species from another. Goethe’s ideas, however, penetrate more deeply into the nature of the organic world than modern Darwinism. Modern Darwinism believes that it can do without the inner impelling forces in the organism which Goethe conceives of in the sensible-supersensible image. Indeed it would even deny that Goethe was justified in arguing, from his postulates, an actual transformation of organs and organisms. Jul. Sachs rejects Goethe’s thoughts by saying that he transfers “the abstraction evolved by the intellect to the object itself when he ascribes to this object a metamorphosis which, fundamentally speaking, is only accomplished in our concept.” According to this view Goethe has presumably gone no further than to reduce leaves, sepals, petals, etc., to one general concept, designating them by the name ‘leaf.’ “Of course the matter would be quite different if we could assume that the stamens were ordinary leaves in the ancestors of the plant-forms lying before us, etc.” (Sachs, History of Botany. 1875, p. 169).

    This view springs from that “fact-fanaticism” which cannot see that the ideas belong just as objectively to the phenomena as the elements that are perceptible to the senses. Goethe’s view is that the transformation of one organ into another can only be spoken of if both contain something in common over and above their external appearance. This is the sensible-supersensible form. The stamens of a plant-form before us can only be described as the transformed leaf of the predecessors if the same sensible-supersensible form lives in both. If that is not the case, if the stamen has developed in the particular plant-form simply in the same place in which a leaf developed in its predecessors, then no transformation has occurred, but one organ has merely appeared in the place of another. The Zoologist Oscar Schmidt asks: “What is it that is supposed to be transformed according to Goethe’s views? Certainly not the archetype!” (War Goethe Darwinianer? Graz. 1871, p. 22.). Certainly the archetype is not transformed, for this is the same in all forms. But it is just because this remains the same that the external forms can be different, and yet represent, a uniform Whole. If one could not recognise the same ideal archetype in two forms developing out of each other, no relation could be assumed to exist between them. Only the conception of the ideal archetypal form can impart real meaning to the assertion that the organic forms arise by a process of transformation out of each other. Those who cannot rise to this conception remain chained within the mere facts. The laws of organic development lie in this conception. Just as Kepler’s three fundamental laws make the processes in the solar system comprehensible, so can the forms of organic Nature be understood through Goethe’s ideal archetypes.

    Kant, who denies to the human spirit the power of understanding, in the ideal sense, a Whole by which a multiplicity is determined in its appearance, calls it “a risky adventure of reason” to seek to explain the various forms of the organic world by an archetypal organism. For him man is only in a position to gather the manifold, individual phenomena into one general concept by which the intellect forms for itself a picture of the unity. This picture, however, exists only in the human mind and has nothing to do with the creative power by which the unity really causes the multiplicity to proceed out of itself. The “risky adventure of reason” consists in assuming that the Earth first allows the more simple organisms to proceed out of her womb and that these then produce from themselves forms with more deliberate purpose; that from these again, still higher forms develop, up to the most perfect living being. Kant holds that even if such a supposition is made, it can only be based on a purposive creative force, which has given evolution such an impulse that all its various members develop in accordance with some goal. Man perceives a multitude of different organisms; and since he cannot penetrate them in order to see how they themselves assume a form adapted to the life-element in which they develop, he must conceive that they are so adapted from without that they can live within these conditions. Goethe, however, claims the faculty of being able to recognise how Nature creates the particular from the whole, the outer from the inner. He is willing to undertake courageously what Kant calls the “adventure of reason” (cp. the Essay: Anschauende Urteilskraft Kürschner. Bd. 34.). If we had no other proof that Goethe regarded as justifiable the thought of a blood-relationship among all organic forms within the limits here specified, we should have to conclude it from this judgment of Kant’s “adventure of reason.”

  14. Patrick: You seem incapable of understanding the burden of proof. You’re making the claim, you have to support it.

    no again…….

    It’s your claim.

    You said that a person is the authority on what he believes. This assumes that an omniscient God does not exist.

    You need to support this claim.

    If you still don’t understand take some time to think about what omniscient means

    peace

  15. fifthmonarchyman:

    First, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, it is a claim about reality and one that is contradicted by the actual existence of atheists.

    I disagree, what do we do know?

    Learn some logic and reason.

    Or here’s another alternative.

    Second, if you’re not basing that claim on your bible, on what are you basing it?

    I’m basing it (my axiom) on who God is.
    God reveals who he is.

    So it’s just your subjective opinion. Got it.

  16. fifthmonarchyman:
    You said that a person is the authority on what he believes. This assumes that an omniscient God does not exist.

    Nope. I said that there is no objective, empirical evidence for any god or gods. That means there is no reason to consider such entities in a rational argument.

    If you want to counter my argument by positing the existence of a god or gods, you are the one who has the burden of proof because you are the one making the positive claim.

  17. dazz: I’ve been very clear about what I mean by reason. It’s your ability to reason what I’m talking about.

    If your axiom is “your unreliable reason” please tell me how you know it’s reliable?

    Of course you can’t

    This is what I mean by inconsistent

    peace

  18. Patrick: Nope. I said that there is no objective, empirical evidence for any god or gods.

    So you want to retract your claim about a person being the authority on what he believes. Is that correct?

    Or do you have an additional claim than the one you mention?

    peace

  19. Patrick: Learn some logic and reason.

    Sounds like a plan. We could all benefit from that sort of learning

    You know that God is reason and logic don’t you?

    Don’t you claim that no objective, empirical evidence for God exists?

    That means that by definition you don’t know if reason and logic exist in your worldview so I’m not sure how you can learn some

    So good luck with that

    peace

  20. fifthmonarchyman: Then the answer is no.

    If a person is indwelt by the Holy Spirit then he does not need to rely on his own reason. He is united to Christ

    So picking postulates is not an act of reasoning, and doesn’t even require reason! Woah, that’s the kind of nonsense your reasoning leads to. Oops, I mean the holy spirit leads to…

    That also means that stones or trees or anything else can acquire knowledge, because in your attempt to circumvent the obvious circularity of your argumentation, you’re left with no option but accept those hilarious consequences.

    So reason is not required in the process of acquiring or justifying knowledge. Did you use reason to figure that out or did god just reveal that to you?

    fifthmonarchyman: That the Christian God exists is not a claim it is an axiom

    fifthmonarchyman: God in my world view is not a postulate

    Are you going to avoid addressing this blatant contradiction?

    fifthmonarchyman: I’m am very happy you concede this.

    Since God is reason your axiom is my axiom

    Like I said you are not far from the kingdom

    LMFAO, no, you don’t get to redefine my concepts, keep your nonsense to yourself, thank you.

    fifthmonarchyman: But you did invoke God when you invoked reason.

    No, I didn’t. In your deep deep delusion you project your postulates to others. I don’t buy that, period.

    Fact remains that your worldview is based on an argument from ignorance. Are you going to keep pretending you’ve never heard about that too?

  21. fifthmonarchyman: If your axiom is “your unreliable reason” please tell me how you know it’s reliable?

    Of course you can’t

    This is what I mean by inconsistent

    Wow, I can’t believe it. I’ve told you already that axioms are put to the test by means of observation and evidence. Does reason produce knowledge? It does, not all the time, not always with a high grade of certainty, but evidence says it can do it, and I don’t and never said reason is unreliable. Reason can be unreliable, sometimes, and can produce some incredibly reliable knowledge.

    Of course since you conceded that (our) reason has nothing to do with knowledge, there’s not much I can say that will get you out of your delusion. In your view, The Law of Gravity was never the product of Newton’s reasoning. What can one say to someone who holds a position like that. Only thing left to do is walk back, slowly, quietly…

  22. To paraphrase FMM, for him it’s just fallacies all of the way down.

    Any problem with one fallacy is “fixed” with another one. No learning necessary, almost none possible in these matters.

    What’s amazing is that he thinks he is capable of being persuasive (and if he claims he’s not trying to persuade, clearly the volume of meaningless banter prevails)–by telling people that what they know is wrong based on his precious fallacies. That’s just another way that he manages to be an example of how presuppositionalism prevents good thinking.

    Glen Davidson

  24. Robin: So I’m curious Mung, do you really believe that everyone…even the aboriginal cut off from all society…holds in his or her heart the knowledge of your understanding of the Christian God…

    No, that would be absurd. And if it were true there would be no need to preach the gospel.

    ETA: And aboriginals are not cut off from society.

  25. Patrick: I honestly can’t understand how a reasonably intelligent, reasonably educated, reasonably sane person could believe, really believe, in the myths of a bunch of bronze and iron age goat herders. Childhood indoctrination is a powerful force.

    More claims that you aren’t making in this thread?

  26. fifthmonarchyman: If you disagree please provide a cogent consistent explanation of how you can get something from nothing.

    I know how to get nothing from something! Ask how they know things.

  28. dazz: So picking postulates is not an act of reasoning, and doesn’t even require reason! Woah, that’s the kind of nonsense your reasoning leads to.

    It requires reason just not my unreliable reason. In this case it requires regeneration.

    Mung: No, that would be absurd. And if it were true there would be no need to preach the gospel.

    ETA: And aboriginals are not cut off from society.

    I agree,

    Unreached folks know enough about God so that they are without excuse but they don’t know all there is to know. The biggest thing they don’t know is the Gospel.

    In his Grace God allows us to share that part with them. What a privilege!!!!

    peace

  29. dazz: Wow, I can’t believe it. I’ve told you already that axioms are put to the test by means of observation and evidence.

    How do you know this??
    Are you really this dense?

    dazz: Reason can be unreliable, sometimes, and can produce some incredibly reliable knowledge.

    How do you determine whether it is reliable at any particular time?

    By applying your own possibly unreliable reason to observation and evidence of course.

    That is what I mean by inconsistency.
    That you are apparently unable to see something so obvious that simply amazes me

    peace

  30. fifthmonarchyman: Unreached folks know enough about God so that they are without excuse

    I don’t know what’s more mind boggling, the fact that you still think that your position makes sense or the fact that you actually believe it should sound convincing to others, especially atheists. I’m mind fucked by your incredible level of delusion. You’re something special FMM, one of a kind

  31. fifthmonarchyman: How do you determine whether it is reliable at any particular time?

    By applying your own possibly unreliable reason to observation and evidence of course.

    There’s nothing inconsistent there. You really are the one who is dense here.

  32. So to sum things up from our interchange, to retain your axioms FMM, you must:

    1. Deny that atheists exist.
    2. Deny that picking postulates is an act of reason
    3. Deny that scientific knowledge is consistent (despite it’s amazing consilience, but when pointed out to you that “revelation” seems to produce inconsistent knowledge, all you have is hand-waving)
    4. Ignore the fact that your entire world view relies on an argument from ignorance

    And you still have the guts to use that self-righteous tone to tell us how we have no excuse to adopt your views. Bwaaaahahahaha!!

  33. dazz: There’s nothing inconsistent there.

    FMM— how do you know stuff?
    Dazz—-by applying my possibly unreliable reason
    FMM—-How do you know your possibly unreliable is reliable in a particular case?
    Dazz—–By applying my possibly unreliable reason?
    FMM—-Really??? Do you not see a problem??
    Dazz—-Heck no, nothing to be concerned about at all. It’s you who are being dense
    FMM—How do you know this?

    Dazz—– by applying my possibly unreliable reason Of course . I have offered a perfectly reasonable justification for knowledge based on my possibly unreliable reason and you just reject it.

    peace

  34. dazz: Deny that scientific knowledge is consistent

    I never denied that scientific knowledge is consistent. Scientific knowledge is consistent precisely because God exists!!

    dazz: Ignore the fact that your entire world view relies on an argument from ignorance

    No my worldview relies on no argument at all
    It relies on God who reveals.

    That you still don’t understand this amazes me

    peace

  35. fifthmonarchyman: FMM— how do you know stuff?
    Dazz—-by applying my possibly unreliable reason
    FMM—-How do you know your possibly unreliable is reliable in a particular case?
    Dazz—–By applying my possibly unreliable reason?
    FMM—-Really??? Do you not see a problem??
    Dazz—-Heck no, nothing to be concerned about at all. It’s you who are being dense
    FMM—How do you know this?

    Dazz—– by applying my possibly unreliable reason Of course . I have offered a perfectly reasonable justification for knowledge based on my possibly unreliable reason and you just reject it.

    peace

    No, it goes like this:

    I assume reason can produce knowledge, and can be reliable. That’s not to say that it’s always going to produce true knowledge, just that it CAN produce knowledge. I don’t assume my axioms as some unmovable fact, so to check them, we go and check if reason seems to produce knowledge or not.
    So we observe, postulate explanations for those observations, use logic to make predictions based on those postulates, and test those predictions with more observation, and cross check results with other independent sources. We assume reason is reliable all the way, from interpretation of observation, to postulating explanations. Now, are the predictions fulfilled? If they are then the postulated explanation is supported, and reason as a necessary postulate is too.

    That’s how science works. It produces knowledge and there’s nothing inconsistent or circular in that. Of course sometimes someone postulates phlogistons or the likes that turn out to be wrong, but even when we do, we learn: we know now that phlogiston theory is wrong.

    Of course none of this makes sense to someone who claims that all reason and all postulates are an act of god and not the individual postulating them. But of course if that’s your position, then god must be responsible for all the phlogiston blunders in history. Another amusing consequence of your hilarious attempts to avoid the obvious circularity in your axioms

  36. fifthmonarchyman: No my worldview relies on no argument at all
    It relies on God who reveals.

    fifthmonarchyman: since no one has been able to provide a consistent cogent justification for knowledge sans the Christian God then I can only conclude tentatively that all knowledge is impossible if the Christian God does not exist

    QED

    fifthmonarchyman: Scientific knowledge is consistent precisely because God exists!!

    No, because science doesn’t use your stupid postulates. Carve that in your brain once and for all. Calling dibs on knowledge aquired by other epistemological disciplines is childish and pathetic

  37. dazz: I assume reason can produce knowledge, and can be reliable.

    and

    dazz: We assume reason is reliable all the way, from interpretation of observation, to postulating explanations.

    FMM—– but your reason can be unreliable
    Dazz—-Yes but I assume it’s reliable
    FMM—- So your reason is possibly unreliable but you base your worldview on the erroneous assumption that it is reliable.
    Dazz—yes that is how it works. Get that into that thick skull of yours

    FMM—-How do you know?

    and bye the way I rest my case 😉

    peace

  38. fifthmonarchyman:

    Nope. I said that there is no objective, empirical evidence for any god or gods.

    So you want to retract your claim about a person being the authority on what he believes. Is that correct?

    . . .

    I have no idea how you got from my statement to yours.

  39. fifthmonarchyman: you base your worldview on the erroneous assumption that it is reliable

    No, that’s not how it works and that’s not what I said. SMFH, I give up

  40. dazz: I don’t know what’s more mind boggling, the fact that you still think that your position makes sense or the fact that you actually believe it should sound convincing to others, especially atheists. I’m mind fucked by your incredible level of delusion. You’re something special FMM, one of a kind

    Agreed..

  42. Fifth:

    Click…whirrr…ticka ticka ticka ticka…*spoink*:

    “FMM—-How do you know?”

  43. There’s no debate about the fact of knowledge. There’s room for disagreement over the mechanism of knowledge. We’re still working that out. But there’s no reason to insert God into the gaps in our understanding.

  45. dazz: No, that’s not how it works and that’s not what I said.

    I don’t want to misrepresent you. I want to give you every opportunity to clarify and expand on your answer

    Is there something else you rely on to know your possibly unreliable reason is reliable in a particular case?

    Please be specific

    What specifically do you use to evaluate evidence if not your possibly unreliable reason?

    Thanks in advance
    peace

  46. Mung: And yet you call me slow.

    Never! You’re definitely the smartest intelligent design creationist here. When you spend more time at UD than TSZ, the average IQ of both sites goes up.

  47. dazz: I don’t know what’s more mind boggling, the fact that you still think that your position makes sense or the fact that you actually believe it should sound convincing to others, especially atheists.

    I don’t think you understand

    I don’t think my position will be convincing to you any more than your position is convincing to me. We look at the world from radically different perspectives.

    I am certain that absent the grace of God you will continue to believe things that I find to be the height of foolishness.

    My purpose here is not to convince you that my worldview is the correct one.

    It is to point out the obvious paucity of your position to those not burdened by your epistemological shackles

    peace

  48. Patrick: I have no idea how you got from my statement to yours.

    It went like this

    You claimed that a person was the authority on his beliefs.
    This is an implicit claim that an omniscient God does not exist.
    ……….
    I asked you to support that claim
    ………….
    You then said you did not make that claim but instead claimed that no objective empirical evidence existed for God.
    ………..
    I then asked you if you were withdrawing your original claim that implied that an omniscient God did not exist

    and that is how we got here.
    From now on I would appreciate it if you made the effort to keep up

    thanks in advance

    peace

  50. fifth, to dazz:

    It is to point out the obvious paucity of your position to those not burdened by your epistemological shackles

    Poor dazz. His “epistemological shackles” prevent him from assuming his conclusion, while fifth is free to do so.

Leave a Reply