The Disunity of Reason

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

    Again…. for I don’t know the 50th time probably

    I don’t assume my conclusion God is not a “conclusion” in my worldview.

    It’s your worldview that assumes it’s conclusion

    Treating God’s existence like a “conclusion” is assuming that he does not exist from the get go.

    peace

  2. Tell me more about how your world view isn’t circular FMM. To avoid it you went as far as to affirm that postulating stuff can’t be an act of reason but god himself doing his thing. Why do you keep tiptoeing around the logic consequences of the absurd things you are forced to say to avoid the unavoidable, namely, the utter failure of your argument? When you say those things it’s obvious that you’re ready to do anything to avoid abandoning your premises, which begs the question all the same!

    So again FMM, if postulating things doesn’t involve reasoning, but it’s god’s thing instead, what about those scientific theories that have been proven to be false? According to you it must be god producing false knowledge, which in turn means that god is an unreliable source of knowledge and your argument crumbles once again.

  3. dazz: if postulating things doesn’t involve reasoning, but it’s god’s thing instead, what about those scientific theories that have been proven to be false?

    1) I did not say that postulating did not involve reasoning I said that postulating did not have to involve error prone human reasoning.

    God is reason and therefore reason is a axiom of my worldview

    2) scientific theories that are false are obviously not revealed by God

    dazz: what about those scientific theories that have been proven to be false? According to you it must be god producing false knowledge

    No God does not produce false knowledge if something is untrue it is not knowledge.

    Knowledge is justified true belief You can’t know something that is untrue.

    This is pretty basic stuff,

    dazz: Why do you keep tiptoeing around the logic consequences of the absurd things you are forced to say to avoid the unavoidable, namely, the utter failure of your argument?

    You are going to have to expand on that one. I don’t know what you think I’m doing but I assure you i am not tiptoeing around any consequences at least not consciously.

    OTOH I’m not sure that is not what you are doing

    peace

  4. fifthmonarchyman: scientific theories that are false are obviously not revealed by God

    Ha! I knew it, now take some of your own medicine: How do you know, under your world view, if a scientific theory (or any other set of postulates) is false or not?

  5. fifthmonarchyman: 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

    Yes, the epistemological shackles of others will surely be best shown by constantly repeating the presuppositions that keep your thinking in a straitjacket.

    How cunning to demonstrate in your own writing what you allege in others. It must be part of the grand plan that makes you look like you’re unable to consider other opinions, but somehow is quite the opposite, much like atheists believe in God.

    See, it baffles those of us not blessed with your special abilities. To us it looks like it’s just going to expose the vacuity of presuppositionalism, but no doubt in your world it’s going to have the opposite effect.

    Carry on. You have an amazing mind.

    Glen Davidson

  6. A Dialogue:

    Tom: According to presuppositional apologetics, knowledge is only possible if you presuppose the Christian God.

    Nancy: That’s interesting! What does presuppositionalism say to the classic objections to Christianity — the problem of evil, the (apparent) incoherency of the incarnation, (apparent) Biblical contradictions, etc?

    Tom: Each of these involves what looks to us like a contradiction, but they have nonetheless been revealed by God, so we need to believe them anyway. And there is no way for us to resolve the contradictions in the present life.

    Nancy: So in order to know anything at all, we must accept what appear to us as contradictions?

    Tom: Yes.

    Nancy: And how does presuppositionalism show that knowledge presupposes God?

    Tom: Well, the presuppositionalist argues that any attempt to ground knowledge in anything other than God results in contradiction.

    Nancy: And such contradictions show that those worldviews must be rejected?

    Tom: That’s right.

    Nancy: Oh, I see. According to presuppositionalism, we must accept contradictions in order to reject contradictions. Isn’t that . . . ?

    Tom: contradictory? I guess not all contradictions are created equal.

    Nancy: well, that’s just absurd.

    Tom: yep.

    [End scene.]

  7. dazz: How do you know, under your world view, if a scientific theory (or any other set of postulates) is false or not?

    The same way anyone knows anything, revelation.

    An omnipotent God can he he chooses reveal stuff in such a way that a person is justified in believing it,

    Do you disagree?

    peace

  8. GlenDavidson: Yes, the epistemological shackles of others will surely be best shown by constantly repeating the presuppositions that keep your thinking in a straitjacket.

    How do you know that my presuppositions keep me in a straitjacket? it’s seems that you are making a claim that is unsupported and possibly vacuous.

    Peace

  9. fifthmonarchyman: An omnipotent God can he he chooses reveal stuff in such a way that a person is justified in believing it,

    Do you disagree?

    If our unreliable (according to you) reason is involved in believing what is supposed to be revealed to us, then I disagree, and since you already conceded that contradicting interpretations of revelation happen and it’s all our fault, then it’s clearly impossible for an omnipotent god to do such a thing. Unless god can draw square circles…

  10. Kantian Naturalist: Tom: Each of these involves what looks to us like a contradiction, but they have nonetheless been revealed by God, so we need to believe them anyway. And there is no way for us to resolve the contradictions in the present life.

    I’ve never once met a presuppositionalist who believes there is no way to resolve apparent contradictions in the present life.

    One the other hand what I find is that what appears to be a contradiction when viewed from your worldview is often no problem at all when viewed from my perspective.

    It’s all in how you look at things

    peace

  11. dazz: But you already conceded that revelation produces unreliable knowledge because of our own limitations:

    No I have not conceded this.

    Genuine revelation is infallible and totally reliable. Surely you agree that an omnipotent God can overcome our “limitations” if he chooses to that is what we mean by omnipotent

    peace

  12. Kantian Naturalist: A Dialogue:

    I suggest you make an effort to understand my worldview if you want to make assumptions about it.

    If you wondered how I deal with the classic objections to Christianity you could just ask.

    peace

  13. dazz: If our unreliable (according to you) reason is involved in believing what is supposed to be revealed to us, then I disagree

    Please explain what you mean by this I don’t follow.

    Do you think you use your reason to choose what you believe?

    That is clearly not the case. You don’t consciously decide what you will believe you just believe.

    When you believe something you simply regard it to be true.

    What is important for the purposes of this conversation it whether you are justified in your beliefs

    peace

  14. fifthmonarchyman: No I have not conceded this.

    Genuine revelation is infallible and totally reliable. Surely you agree that an omnipotent God can overcome our “limitations” if he chooses to that is what we mean by omnipotent

    You have conceded this because you said that “communication is multifaceted” as a way out from the glaring issue of contradicting claims of revelation. I take that to mean that our unreliable reason can mess up the actual meaning of revelation. If that’s not what you meant, please clarify:

    Can our unreliable reason get revelation wrong or not?
    And answer this too please: “human reason is unreliable”, is also an axiom of yours?

    fifthmonarchyman: Please explain what you mean by this I don’t follow.

    It’s pretty simple, if reason is involved in interpreting revelation, then revelation is an unreliable source of knowledge. It’s the same thing as with postulating

  15. fifthmonarchyman: No I have not conceded this.

    Genuine revelation is infallible and totally reliable. Surely you agree that an omnipotent God can overcome our “limitations” if he chooses to that is what we mean by omnipotent

    peace

    It is a curious irony that those who claim to have access to infallible and totally reliable revelation from a perfect deity can be so wrong and ignorant about so many things…

  16. fifthmonarchyman: Do you think you use your reason to choose what you believe?

    Of course reason is used to choose beliefs. If you show me two boxes and a coin and you put the coin in a box without me seeing which one, then I open one box which turns out to be empty, reason is involved in the process of believing it’s in the second box.

    Reason is obviously involved in picking postulates too. You said false postulates are a product of our unreliable reason, so you conceded that too.

  17. Hey KN

    Here is something you might find interesting. It’s a discussion of the debate about the incomprehensibility of God that occurred in early in the history of presupositionalism,

    It’s verbose and philosophically deep. Just your style but not the best fit for a format like he have here at the SZ.

    The good stuff starts about 10 mins in

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV5PE-y4njs

    peace

  18. Fifth has already stated that he can be mistaken in this sense: It is possible that what he believes to have been revealed to him by God was not, in fact, a revelation, due to his (Fifth’s) fallibility.

    Which is to say that, even if we grant arguendo that an omnipotent God can reveal things to him in a way that justifies belief, Fifth does not, and cannot, know which of his beliefs he has mistakenly ascribed to that sort of revelation.

    From that it follows that one, more, or all of the things he “knows” through revelation may be false. God may never have revealed anything to him.

  19. fifthmonarchyman: 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.

    This is one of those absurd and completely irrational notions.

    For FMM then, the fact that he doesn’t know something (no matter what that something is) means he denies it outright. But of course, that’s not actually how most people view the world. Most people are neutral with regards to concepts they’ve either not considered or, if they have considered them, don’t act on said consideration because the concept has no apparent impact on their life.

    So we are no more burdened to deny gods than we are burdened to deny invisible pink unicorns. I don’t have to know that invisible pink unicorns don’t exist even though they have been posited; I can merely live my life neutral towards them since there’s no actual reason to operate on the assumption of their existence. Ditto for FMM god(s). Unless and until someone can actually provide a compelling reason to consider said god(s), the only rational behavior is to act on those phenomenon that have some impact on the individual directly.

    So, for most people, it’s more than reasonable to react as though cars are real, particularly when a person places him or herself in a situation where it appears that person might be directly impacted by one (or several) cars. Even if cars are a complete illusion, given the severity of the consequences of ignoring the impact of a car on either another car or a person outright, it makes sense to act as though cars are real and imminent. There is, however, no similar situation with any proposed deities or invisible pink unicorns or even dark matter. The latter has some pretty compelling indirect evidence, but even there, it’s not like it effects most people personally. Thus most people do not act on any concept of dark matter. And most people do not act on any concept of FMM’s god either for the exact same reason.

    If he wants us to consider his claims more seriously for some reason, then he is burdened with providing some reason to do so. Otherwise, as I’m sure FMM has noticed, most people are simply going to ignore him and go about their lives reacting to those things that appear real and not much consider those things – like his supposed god(s) – that don’t.

  20. Robin: I can merely live my life neutral towards them since there’s no actual reason to operate on the assumption of their existence.

    When you say that a person is the authority on what he believes you are not being neutral on the existence of an omniscient God. You are implicitly denying the existence of an omniscient God.

    You need to support that claim.

    peace

  21. Reciprocating Bill: From that it follows that one, more, or all of the things he “knows” through revelation may be false. God may never have revealed anything to him.

    This is incorrect
    You can not “Know” something that is false

    OTOH My certainty is not necessary for knowledge. It’s about God not about me.

    peace

  22. fifthmonarchyman: You can not “Know” something that is false

    That is why “knows” is in quotes, Fifth. You’ve conceded that things you “know” due to revelation may not have resulted from revelation – so you don’t really know them at all.

  23. RB:

    Fifth has already stated that he can be mistaken in this sense: It is possible that what he believes was revealed to him by God was not, in fact, a revelation, due to his (Fifth’s) fallibility.

    Which is to say that, even if we grant arguendo that an omnipotent God can reveal things to him in a way that justifies belief, Fifth does not, and cannot, know which of his beliefs he has mistakenly ascribed to that sort of revelation.

    From that it follows that one, more, or all of the things he “knows” through revelation may be false. God may never have revealed anything to him.

    Fifth’s logic skills aren’t the best, but I’m pretty sure that even he can see this. What he can’t do is accept it.

  24. Reciprocating Bill: You’ve conceded that things you “know” due to revelation may not have resulted from revelation – so you don’t really know them at all.

    It’s not a concession it’s kinda the point,
    If we know anything it is the result of revelation
    I know things (like this) therefore God exists. 😉

    It’s God or absurdity
    peace

  25. fifthmonarchyman: When you say that a person is the authority on what he believes you are not being neutral on the existence of an omniscient God

    Or an omniscient squirrel

  26. dazz: Or an omniscient squirrel

    If a squirrel were omniscient he would be God by definition.

    peace

  27. fifthmonarchyman: If we know anything it is the result of revelation

    More of your own medicine. How do you know revelation is true, when you admitted it’s filtered by our imperfect reason?

  28. And how do you know god is omniscient? If you ask some theological fatalism incompatibilist, their definition of god is one that is not omniscient. That can’t be a squirrel though. Maybe a raccoon?

  29. Robin: It is a curious irony that those who claim to have access to infallible and totally reliable revelation from a perfect deity can be so wrong and ignorant about so many things…

    Good thing there’s no one like that here!

  30. fifthmonarchyman: When you say that a person is the authority on what he believes you are not being neutral on the existence of an omniscient God. You are implicitly denying the existence of an omniscient God.

    You need tosupport that claim.

    peace

    Even if I did say something about belief, which I didn’t, I’d still not be burdened with any claim of denying any gods. See my actual statement. I don’t deny gods or invisible pink unicorns or dark matter exists, so I have no burden to disprove any of them. But, I have no compelling reason to operate in my day-to-day life as though they exist either since none of them appear to impact me in any way.

    You are free to show me where I’m wrong about invisible pink unicorns having actual impact on my life though.

  31. dazz: Of course reason is used to choose beliefs.

    Reason is used to justify beliefs. Or they can be taken as properly basic. Self-evident.

  32. keiths: Fifth’s logic skills aren’t the best, but I’m pretty sure that even he can see this. What he can’t do is accept it.

    Apparently you think logic is infallible. You know this by empirical investigation? Do tell.

  33. fifthmonarchyman: I know things (like this) therefore God exists.

    It could be statements like this that lead people to think you have the existence of God as a conclusion.

    🙂

  34. dazz: How do you know revelation is true, when you admitted it’s filtered by our imperfect reason?

    Seriously? Revelation comes from God. God cannot lie. Revelation cannot be not true.

  35. The position of the sceptic who questions without denying is impregnable.

    – Bertrand Russell

  36. Personally I think we have a problem in trying to square omnipotence with freedom. There are three important qualities that humans have in varying degrees, power, love and wisdom. Through thinking we can gain wisdom, through feeling we experience love and through our will we can wield power over others. Parents hold a great deal of power over their children which they must relinquish as the child matures. The parents give up power in order to let their children to take increasing control over their own lives. In order to let us have any freedom whatsoever a personal God would have to cede some power to us. Of course if we are to the Divine as a drop is to the ocean then it can be said that our power is in fact just a very small part of God’s power. But then does God have to take responsibility for the evil we do?

    Love is different from power in that it can be given out without it being in any way diminished in the giver. Prior to the birth of our second child my wife told me that she was worried that because she felt so much love for our firstborn that she would not have enough for the newborn. As she later discovered, she needn’t have worried, she has enough love for both of them and for our grandchild and I’m sure those to come.

    I prefer to believe in an All Loving God, but a God who has sacrificed some Power to allow us the potential for freedom. And a Divinity who has spread out Wisdom in the natural world and given us the means to see it.

  37. fifthmonarchyman: It’s not a concession it’s kinda the point,
    If we know anything it is the result of revelation
    I know things (like this) therefore God exists.

    You have created an imaginary gap, where you can locate your god of the gaps.

  38. CharlieM: Personally I think we have a problem in trying to square omnipotence with freedom.

    Once you realize that “omnipotent” is just a misspelling of “impotent”, that problem goes away.

  39. Mung: Revelation cannot be not true.

    Can you, Mung, be mistaken about revelation? That is, take something as revelation, when it wasn’t?

  40. The following has often been attributed, apparently wrongly, to Francis Bacon, and similarly, to Roger Bacon:

    In the year of our Lord 1432, there arose a grievous quarrel among the brethren over the number of teeth in the mouth of a horse. For thirteen days the disputation raged without ceasing. All the ancient books and chronicles were fetched out, and wonderful and ponderous erudition such as was never before heard of in this region was made manifest. At the beginning of the fourteenth day, a youthful friar of goodly bearing asked his learned superiors for permission to add a word, and straightway, to the wonderment of the disputants, whose deep wisdom he sore vexed, he beseeched them to unbend in a manner coarse and unheard-of and to look in the open mouth of a horse and find answer to their questionings. At this, their dignity being grievously hurt, they waxed exceeding wroth; and, joining in a mighty uproar, they flew upon him and smote him, hip and thigh, and cast him out forthwith. For, said they, surely Satan hath tempted this bold neophyte to declare unholy and unheard-of ways of finding truth, contrary to all the teachings of the fathers. After many days more of grievous strife, the dove of peace sat on the assembly, and they as one man declaring the problem to be an everlasting mystery because of a grievous dearth of historical and theological evidence thereof, so ordered the same writ down.

    Epilogue:

    After much turmoil, however, people did count the horses’ teeth for themselves, and they gave the numbers (oddly for the story, it differs between mares and stallions, and has a range for both sexes, rather than exact numbers). And lo, one of the wisest of councilors asked, how do you know? And people said, well, see, we counted the teeth. And the wise one asked, how do you know to count the teeth? And they replied, well, it certainly works. And the wise councilor asked, how do you know that it works? And the people responded, we learned. And the wise one asked, how do you know that you learned something true, unless it was revealed to you by an invisible being? And they said, we checked things out. The wise one asked, how did you check things out if you didn’t have an invisible being giving you the basis for knowing? And pretty soon they said, wow, what obtuse claptrap.

    Then they asked the wise one, how do you know things via an invisible being? And he said, it is defined that the invisible being can do so, for “omnipotent” has been chanted by believers. Then they asked, so what? And he replied, someone said it, I believe it, and that settles it for you.

    Since the epilogue occurred at TSZ, however, the pointless back and forth continued for many months, which turned into years, until they all died without anyone changing anybody’s mind.

    Glen Davidson

  41. fifthmonarchyman: 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.

    You’re wrong from the beginning.

    I said that a person is the sole authority about his or her beliefs.

    When you asked me to support that, I identified known entities that could potentially speak more authoritatively about a person’s beliefs. Those include trained therapists, friends, other people, and machines that detect patterns in the brain.

    I then pointed out that other people, including trained therapists, can only get insight into the details of a person’s beliefs by communicating with that person. While a therapist might have sufficient experience to hazard a good guess at beliefs that a person holds, only that person can confirm that guess.

    I also pointed out that, as far as I know, none of the existing brain monitoring machines are able to identify beliefs.

    So, given all the known mechanisms, I conclude that an individual is the only authority on that individual’s beliefs.

    Now, my wife has a friend who thinks she (the friend) is psychic. Should I consider her as a possible authority on other people’s beliefs? The answer is no, not until she demonstrates that she really does possess psychic abilities. Thus far she hasn’t.

    Over at UD, Kairosfocus might suggest that demonic entities could know a person’s beliefs. Again, without evidence that such things exist, there is no reason to consider them in the argument.

    There are conspiracy theorists who think the CIA have mind control beams. Again, without evidence that such a thing exists, there is no reason to consider it as a possible mechanism. Besides, I suspect Apple is more likely to get the technology working first.

    Now we come to your presupposed god. Unless and until you present objective, empirical evidence that such an entity exists, there is no reason (literally no reason) to take it into consideration.

    The bottom line is that there are an infinite number of unevidenced mechanisms that could be proposed. If you think one or more of them warrants inclusion in the discussion, you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that they actually exist.

    There is no assumption that any of those things don’t exist, there is just the rational behavior of only considering mechanisms known to exist.

  42. Reciprocating Bill: Fifth has already stated that he can be mistaken in this sense: It is possible that what he believes to have been revealed to him by God was not, in fact, a revelation, due to his (Fifth’s) fallibility.

    Which is to say that, even if we grant arguendo that an omnipotent God can reveal things to him in a way that justifies belief, Fifth does not, and cannot, know which of his beliefs he has mistakenly ascribed to that sort of revelation.

    From that it follows that one, more, or all of the things he “knows” through revelation may be false. God may never have revealed anything to him.

    Exactly the point I was trying to make. Even if it is logically possible for God to reveal things to me such that I would be justified in believing it, I would always have to use my finite, fallible human cognition to judge whether or not I was receiving a genuine revelation.

    And since I could always be mistaken about that, I can never know that God really has revealed to me what I think He has. Any putative revelation could be for all I know an error — a hallucination, a psychotic episode, etc.

    FMM insists that the issue here is entirely about what it is logically possible for an omnipotent being to do.

    But that is not the case: the issue here has nothing to do with whether is logically possible for an omnipotent being to reveal something, but whether it is ever epistemically possible for a finite being to be rationally justified in believing that what he or she takes to be a revelation really is one.

Leave a Reply