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.
It’s obvious! Heat exists so cold must too!
That’s obviously false.
What is? Sorry for being paranoid. 🙂
The claim that error exists is patently false.
Well, OK, then! 🙂
Is inefficiency the goal of creation? How would you know?
Lack of belief is not the default position of humanity. Many studies have demonstrated we are all born Theists.
It takes effort to overcome this innate tendency.
Besides you have to compartmentalize something awful not to ask yourself “How exactly do I know this stuff?”
I guess you never have been overwhelmed by love and kindness or overwhelmed by a sense of awe and wonder? How very sad
I can’t see how you could live your entire life with out being overwhelmed by something other than force and not be bitter. You are a better man than me
peace
We wouldn’t keep going over it if the other side would just let the subject rest. It never ceases amaze me how much atheists like to talk about a God they supposedly don’t believe in.
It’s almost as if they are trying to convince themselves of something 😉
peace
Do share!
Sounds like an interesting experiment. I love to see the study.
You would first have to prove that those who claimed to be atheists actually were
check it out
http://www.science20.com/writer_on_the_edge/blog/scientists_discover_that_atheists_might_not_exist_and_thats_not_a_joke-139982
Peace
Would truth exist if there were no statements?
Think man
Peace
Do you sometimes think about the meanings of words, and then try not to equivocate?
Because, well, it’s not obvious that you do.
Glen Davidson
It also never ceases to amaze me how otherwise intelligent people can fail to grasp a concept like simple present tense.
Perhaps it would helpful if you imagined a universe where nothing physical at all existed.
Would it be true that nothing physical existed in that world?
think man
peace
You’re definitely on to something.
All those skeptics who appear to enjoy arguing the existence of UFOs, ghosts, Bigfoot and whatever…..secretly believe in those things!
– – – – Cue theremin – – – –
GlenDavidson,
I think that when folks call themselves atheist what they really mean is that they reject the god that they were familiar with as a young child in what ever culture they were raised in .
If God were like the straw-man of the atheist imagination I would reject him too.
peace
Perhaps there is a vast secret network of rabid bigfoot deniers who spend hours on the internet making their case but I’ve never met any of them.
Of course.
And the theists who come here clearly recognize that there is no God, or they wouldn’t bother arguing for God.
So it’s pretty clear that atheists are theists and theists are atheists.
I love self-serving logic, especially since it rarely serves well those using it whenever it is applied beyond the sad little excuses for which it was dreamed up.
Glen Davidson
Who here argues for God? Certainly not me.
God does not need me to prove that he exists. Everyone knows he exists.
I might remind folks of that fact from time to time when they bring the subject up but I see no need to argue the obvious
peace
Oh I see, you do recognize that your baseless statements constitute no argument.
Well I didn’t think you had anything persuasive, to be sure.
Glen Davidson
Why would I need to persuade you of something you all ready know exists.
The very idea is ridiculous.
It would be like me trying to convince you that GlenDavidson exists.
Now if you wanted to know how to be reconciled to the God you have foolishly slandered and mocked for no reason.
I would be more than happy to help you out. 😉
peace
Yes, the usual meaningless drivel.
Does restating your disconnect from reality do you some good, somehow?
Glen Davidson
Don’t think we haven’t noticed.
If you think what I say is drivel feel free to ignore it.
I’m not twisting your arm here. I would much rather talk about the unity of reason rather than your own personal problems with God. It would be a lot more enjoyable.
But if you continue to make nonsense claims about God I will continue to point out your error, That is as long as I can find the time.
Who knows maybe you might try to actually give a credible answer to the question of how you can know stuff given your worldview.
I won’t hold my breath I expect you will continue to act as if your thoughts have grounding with out actually explaining what that grounding is
peace
And Mung loves out-of-context quotes.
Nothing new there.
Glen Davidson
Only accurate claims about God in this thread, please.
I feel free to disregard it, of course, but you’re here to try to restate things over and over again, simply using repetition rather than evidence and sense on the credulous. So no, I can’t totally ignore your lack of substance.
Oh please, tell me more about my personal problems with God. Since I’m unaware of any, and you’re intent on making false statements with respect to myself, some sort of explanation seems in order.
Of course it seems to have to do with you and your inability to treat others with respect and honesty.
It’s unfortunate that nothing you write is either enjoyable or meaningful.
I made no claim about God. I did make claims about miserable self-appointed representatives of God. That you don’t see the difference indicates how really far from contact with reality you really are.
Save your time, unless you can finally understand what’s being written, rather than your pathetic projections.
Maybe you could answer that. Credible is the operative word, not the horseshit you’ve doled out
I expect I’ll continue to make sense according to good epistemology, while you continue to pretend that a stupid fiction is superior to it. And I expect that you’ll merely try to bulldoze over anyone who responds to you, rather than to deal with them in a decent manner. Your lack of manners equals your lack of knowledge.
“Peace,” from someone who always tries to insist he’s right rather than discussing things like a reasonable person. It’s as convincing as the rest of your nonsense.
Glen Davidson
Is it “reasonable” to blaspheme and denigrate the most important being in my life and expect me to quietly take it?
How would you feel if I talked about your wife like you talk about God?
You claim he does not exist.
You claim he lied when he said you know he exists.
You claim he has offered no evidence for his existence when the entire universe is evidence for his existence.
Then you turn around and act all innocent and accuse me of not being civil for simply calling you on it.
How do you know it’s good epistemology? How could you possibly know?
Yet you continue to respond for some reason.
Often with profanity Why is that?
peace
Is it reasonable for you to repeat your false accusation that I blaspheme and denigrate your God?
Do you lack any ability to discern what truth is? You have no right to repeat false claims against me. You’re an appalling representative for your “God.”
How would you feel if I falsely accused you as you falsely accuse me?
I didn’t say anything about that here. Quit with the false claims, you buffoon.
I most certainly didn’t say anything like that.
You’re just making up shit because you can’t deal with what I did write.
Utterly false.
You have no shame.
I am innocent, as your lack of evidence indicates, and you’re just making up shit.
Because, unlike you, I’m not ignorant.
You’re making false accusations. Liberally, and without any regard for anyone else, like the selfish being you are.
You don’t even know what profanity is, moron.
Glen Davidson
GlenDavidson,
I ask you to go back over your comments in this thread and see if you have behaved civilly.
If you still believe that I’m the one who is behaving unreasonably here. I don’t know what to say?
I will apologize for lumping you with your comrades here instead of taking you as an individual.
It’s no excuse but It’s hard to keep up when you are being quadruple teamed
peace
Do you know that God exists?
Could God communicate with you so that you know something if he chose to?
peace
I don’t obey you, especially when you continually make false claims about me. You never backed up your false claims, that’s what matters.
So you’re incompetent, what’s new?
What about the many false accusations?
Then actually deal with what’s written instead of your projections. That’s the only decent thing to do, and you rarely do it.
Glen Davidson
I did deal with your claim that financial incentive would cause folks to abandon their belief in God and you said………..
quote:
Do you sometimes think about the meanings of words, and then try not to equivocate?
Because, well, it’s not obvious that you do.
end quote:
Does that sound like someone who is wanting to have a civil discussion?
peace
Is it false to say that you believe that there is no good evidence that God exists?
I don’t want to discuss your equivocations. Your link was about “atheists not really being atheists,” when clearly they’d count as atheists (as does the author of the study) in the usual sense of the word. Only a rather extraordinary sense of “being atheists” would be “ruled out” by the study, and, as I recall, it was a study of university students anyway, not atheists in the general population.
You were equivocating, whether or not you meant to do so. You weren’t dealing civilly with me in equivocating terms (if you’re too ignorant to know better, study for once, and with a minimum of your prejudices), hence the response. Rather than you beginning to deal properly with these issues, you went on to come up with increasingly bizarre and false accusations.
Glen Davidson
That–“no good evidence that God exists”–isn’t what you wrote regarding my statements.
Quit with the false aspersions already.
Glen Davidson
The evidence that your god exists in your imagination is quite good. The evidence that your god exists nowhere else is equally good.
What exactly is the usual sense of the word? Atheist means one who denies the existence of any god.
However I’ve said that most folks who claim to be be atheists are really only denying the straw-man version of God that they knew as a child.
I’ve also made it clear that God is truth. That is clearly more in line with the beliefs in the study than the usual “imaginary sky daddy” belief that is railed against here.
No I was not and it is uncivil to accuse me of such a thing when I was treating the subject honestly and openly.
That was just the beginning of your attacks by the way
peace
From the “atheists might not exist” article: “Metaphysical thought processes are more deeply wired than hitherto suspected.” That really is a pretty good summary of the meaning that the study actually has for us.
The link, again
But it’s old hat to anyone who’s ever gotten a bit into philosophy. Of course we’re animals with a kind of phenomenologic perspective, not hard-wired scientists. We have to learn how to deal with the world analytically, rather than “metaphysically” or phenomenologically. As Husserl stated, science begins in the spiritual–at least in that sense of the word meant in the article.
That’s a lot the point of science and of scientific consensus, that in numbers people don’t get away with wishful thinking, whether it’s their own desires (to make a big discovery, etc.) or some kind of mistaking of phenomena for data. Kind of the ID mistake, in fact.
The article is more or less hype about long-understood human biases. Yes we tend to be more on the order of animists if we aren’t educated to be analytic, and our “animistic” natures continue whatever we learn. That doesn’t mean that we can’t make sound judgments–or how did anyone involved in the study come to a sound judgment regarding human knowledge?
The whole matter is complex, of course, and it’s pretty easy to see that people aren’t exactly objective judgment machines. Nevertheless, we do seem to have gained knowledge and made sound judgments in many spheres, at least collectively, and the fatalism of the article is not only misplaced, it would completely undermine its own conclusions if taken as fully true.
Glen Davidson
I wrote that
You claim God does not exist.
You claim God lied when he said you know he exists.
You claim God has offered no evidence for his existence.
You are a regular on a website where almost everyone claims these things and you never as far as I know of said anything different despite repeated opportunities to do so
Why are you now so cagey as to what you believe?
Can you understand why I would think you believe these things?
peace
I never said that humans being hardwired to some sort of theist thinking is evidence for the existence of God.
I merely pointed out the uncontroversial truth that atheism is not the default position of humanity.
And you went on the attack.
that seems to be a pattern
peace
Oh please, you’re not even close. Learn something for once.
And completely without proper evidence for said claim.
Making shit up isn’t civil, even if you’re too ignorant to know better.
No you haven’t, you’ve unconvincingly asserted and reasserted that vacuous claim.
It is not. Neither is particularly close to what the article is discussing, which isn’t even necessarily religious or theist at all (why is belief in the soul held in the article to be religious, rather than just a belief lacking evidence?). What is more, while some may rail at “imaginary sky daddy,” many have dealt with much different ideas of “God.”
I allowed that you may be too ignorant to know better, but it most certainly is equivocating, however great your lack of knowledge is. I don’t agree much with the article anyhow, but there’s nothing in there that really suggests that someone who intellectually concludes that there’s no evidence for God is at all disingenuous or “theistic.”
Said with as little contact with the truth as the rest of your many false accusations. Of course I loath your gross inability to deal substantively with anything related to religion, and such equivocations are hardly warranted in any civil discussion of things. You don’t deal with what people write, you do bring in “authorities” without understanding their relevance or non-relevance to the discussion, and you make false attacks based on your great ignorance of the very people you’re mischaracterizing.
Glen Davidson
Oh well I gave it the old college try.
Have a good day.
The latter two are grossly false claims, and the first depends on context that you didn’t care to include.
So what? I wasn’t discussing God at all, merely your ignorant claims that you completely failed to back up. You went on the attack over something I wasn’t discussing, like the false accuser that you are.
Because it had no relevance to what I was writing. Can you even understand that, or do you think everything is about your evidence-free claims about God?
Like it’s relevant. Deal with the issues being discussed, rather than bringing in your idiotic claims. I try to avoid those, and you, rather than responding to issues being discussed, turn to false accusations about your precious and baseless belief system.
Glen Davidson
The issue being discussed is the unity of reason. The rest is just digression. And a rather silly digression at that.
Why is your chosen digression important and mine not worth you time?
Peace
And just from where did that idiotic line come from? Did I suggest that you did say that?
Which wasn’t what I had discussed.
Anyway, you’re falsely characterizing the discussion again. You actually wrote: You would first have to prove that those who claimed to be atheists actually were
Which neither dealt with what I was discussing, the voluntary aspects of belief, nor did it include anything with respect to how you misrepresented it here. Quit making shit up.
It does seem a pattern where you “answer” irrelevantly and wrongly to what was being discussed, falsely accuse others of attacking because your answer was dimwitted and irrelevant to the discussion and treated as such, and then to mischaracterize matters afterward as you did here.
If you’d deal with what people write instead of to your projections it would help immensely.
Glen Davidson
Avoiding honest disclosure of your beliefs while attacking the beliefs of others might be a way to score debate points but it is not cool.
The problem is I’m not interested in a debate about God’s existence.
peace
So? I was not discussing free will except as a little aside in response to an inquiry and you felt the need to go down that rabbit trail.
You implied that monetary incentive would cause folks to become atheist by choice. I presented evidence that that was probably not the case and encouragement for you to put your money were your mouth was.
You questioned my integrity and the rest is history.
So it’s my fault that I responded to your ignorant claims. Your projection is amazing.
No, I implied that voluntary actions, in response to incentives, could change minds on atheism (could have been the other way around).
You equivocated, even if via your gross ignorance, and it was idiotic for me to respond to your “challenge,” given that there’s nothing new about atheists with “metaphysical” beliefs, nor is there anything “non-atheist” about students not believing in God while still being affected by “metaphysical” beliefs. Why should I have to bother with crap that you believe in your gross ignorance?
I said it was equivocation, not the same as questioning your integrity. Your copious false accusations answer that issue well enough.
And really, I’ve spent too much time dealing with an ignorant, falsely-accusing person such as yourself. You’re going on ignore for a while.
Glen Davidson
Right
Why not talk about the topic of the thread then?
I don’t do that. If you want to know what I believe just ask. I’ll tell you. I’m not ashamed.
I never did this. It was a discussion about your lack of civility.
Your supposed claims about God were part of that discussion. I have apologized for confounding your opinions with those of everyone else here.
By the way you still have not denied that you agree with the mob on these things
peace
Thanks, because I was presenting the very same objection. You were just not reading right.
Good misdirection! Standing ovations!
Now, can you show me how you are still talking about Horst’s model where minds “can reason quite well within those domains but not so well across them”, i.e. minds can reason across domains? Or alternatively show how consciousness has nothing to do with the mind, so that unity cannot be applied to the mind. (The word “mind” comes from your own OP when you referred to Horst’s model.)
Mung:
keiths:
walto:
He knows what I mean by ‘absolute certainty’, unless he’s forgotten. We’ve discussed it before.