Reason Is a Higher Power
This is too good to be true. As I’m writing this, it’s April 1, but this comment by a true fundamentalist is actually from March 30, and as far as I can see it’s actually genuine. In a comment on a blog post, Brian Purkiss writes:
So if I can’t use God to determine or prove anything (because of ‘Circular Reasoning’), then you can’t use reason.
Meaning, if I believe something because God says so, then what’s wrong with that? You believe something because ‘reason’ tells you so, what’s the differance? We both believe that a ‘higher power” (God and Reason) determines what we know. Let’s both use that.
I don’t need a hoax. Reality is much better (or worse, depending on your point of view). Equating reason with God. Haha. That’s a good one. Maybe next year I’ll whip up a Christian conversion story to fool you, if I’m still blogging by then, but this year I’ll just laugh at reality.
Filed under: atheism, religion | 36 Comments
-
Recent Comments
angie on Empire State Building, Evoluti… Ereredync on Empire State Building, Evoluti… phil on Empire State Building, Evoluti… Avil on The Blog Is Dead Kevin Trudeu on Starting Your Own Religion: a …
Hi Simen,
I just read Brian’s comment. I’m speechless.
You can’t make this stuff up, it’s way too good.
Honjii
Wow! Interesting.
Praise be to reason.
So I see one of my boys is getting around. Good, I’m glad.
one question…
different people have used reason yet arrived at different conclusions. So, according to your ‘reason’, how can you say that someone else’s ‘reason’ is wrong?
Easy: one of us have made a mistake. Perhaps both. It’s a possibility that both are mistaken. A third possibility is that the question we’re debating is itself meaningless, and we’re both wrong to use reason, because it doesn’t work for meaningless questions.
How do you know who made a mistake if you both appeal to “reason”?
Because reason is not a source of knowledge, it’s a method. If I can show that my opponent has made a mistake in his application of the method, he is wrong. If he can do the same with my conclusion, I am wrong.
This may be difficult to understand if you’re used to getting your knowledge from an authority, say God, instead of a method, say logic or the scientific method.
Well, what if you have different methods? Thats what I meant, sorry for not clarifying. How do you tell which method is the best? I hope that makes sense.
There are no “different methods”. You can cry it out all you want, but if I can prove a logical fault in your reasoning, it is invalid.
Is this a joke? Can anyone not understand the benefits of reason? I could understand it if you agreed with the use of it but disagreed on the conclusion, but I don’t see how anyone can deny the benefits. Why do you think you can communicate with me? How do you think the computer you’re using to read this was built?
Yes, of course I see the benefits of reason, no doubt.
lol, this is not a joke, I just like asking questions.
Speaking of, one more…
where did you get the ability to reason in the first place?
A combination of nature and nurture. Evolution and society, combined with individual effort.
Evolution? So what if reason keeps ‘evolving’? Then who will be right? Perhaps one is more evolved then the other.
Society? What about when society errs?
One thing about evolution: as far as I know, evolutionists say that there is nothing beyond the physical. Thought is not physical. You can’t see it or touch it. According to the most rigid and consistent evolutionists, thoughts occur as a reaction of chemicals in the brain, like every other action of the human body.
Thanks for answering my questions and thinking through this. I’m learning from this discussion.
Reason doesn’t evolve. A statement made in a logic is no less valid even if all people on the planet stopped using that logic (yes, there can be different formal logics, but that’s irrelevant; trust me, it does in no way invalidate what we call logic).
You’re right that science is generally comitted to naturalism. Thoughts are a bit confusing, because they can be several things. On the one hand, there’s the abstraction we use, the concept we call “thought”. On the other hand, there’s the physical representation believed to correspond to the abstract idea we call “thought”.
Think of it this way: can a unicorn be said to be real? On the one hand, it is a concept, so it can be said to be real in that sense. But it’s definitely not an object that exists in this world, so in another it’s not real. The truth is that “unicorn” is an abstract we’ve made to refer to some hypothetical beings that exist in some mythologies and fairy tales. This is the same way thoughts can be “real”. The other way thoughts can be said to be real is that they correspond to mental states in the physical brain.
So do you personally believe that thoughts (I mean ideas, beliefs, logic) are just a chemical reaction in the brain?
With your unicorn example, you said its not real because it does not exist in this world. So if you cannot see or touch actual thought, does that mean that it also is not real?
Thoughts, if they’re chemical reactions in the brain, are real.
How do you know thoughts are real?
How do you know that reason doesn’t evolve?
How do you know that Hitler wasn’t wrong when he slaughtered the ‘inferior races?’ After all, he was following Survival of the Fittest – even though he was pushing it along. What makes you say he was wrong?
“Thoughts” an abstraction for the thinking process. I know I think. I can only assume, based on the behavior of others, that they do too.
How do you know that reason doesn’t evolve?
I could’ve just as easily asked you how you know God doesn’t evolve. We’re dealing with human concepts here. When humans invent a concept, that concept is unaffected by evolution.
Hitler wasn’t following survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest isn’t an ethical theory, it’s a catchphrase used to describe natural selection. So, Hitler wasn’t following it, he was following his racial ideology.
As for what makes him wrong: nothing and everything. Nothing, in the objective sense, because I don’t think there is anything objective about ethics. Everything, in the sense that I share the ethical view that most people have that racial purges are wrong. I do this both because it’s a moal view that I’ve gotten from a combination of nature and nurture, and because it makes sense. Hitler didn’t manage to prove in any sense that the “races” he attacked were inferior, and he didn’t give any reasonable justification for killing “inferior” races.
So you think everyone is entitled to his own moral opinion? That he can create his ‘right’ and ‘wrong’?
No and yes. On the one hand, I don’t believe that morality can be objective and so in a sense everyone can create their right and wrong. On the other hand, my subjective opinion is that some people, e.g. nazis, are horribly wrong and that their moral systems are totally off the mark. There is a distinction between metaethics (theories about ethical theories), where I am a subjectivist, and ethics, where I hold other opinions. As an aside, god-given morals aren’t objective either, they’re just the subjective opinions of one specific subject (God).
You could have asked me, but you didn’t.
Howerver, I shall answer your question anyways. Because the Bible says so. The Bible tells us that God doesn’t change. He has always been, and always shall be.
You still didn’t answer my question.
So what you’re saying is you’re picking and choosing what is right and wrong.
You don’t like what one person believes, so you think it’s wrong. There is no way to judge him/her for being wrong, because there is no higher standard.
If Joe felt that it was alright to kill Bob, what’s to stop him? The law, yes, but what you’re saying is that there are no true ethical standards to compare to.
You think, therefore it is.
You believe something to be wrong, therefore it is wrong.
But, if I think I’m a bird and jump off a cliff, that doesn’t mean I’ll fly away.
I can see where this is going. If you’re going to say that without God there is no true morality, no reason to be good, you can save yourself the effort. I don’t care to listen to such crap. The preposition has been so thoroughly refuted that it is beyond irrational to still bring it up. If you truly believe that the only thing keeping you from stealing and killing and lying and doing all sorts of nasty things is the fear of God, you have exposes yourself as what in almost any person’s mind is an unethical person.
If the preposition has been so thoroughly refuted, then please enlighten us.
I have not heard any such evidance.
-
How so?
That is to say, if your fear of a god is the only thing that keeps you from doing all sorts of nasty stuff, you are a person devoid of any compassion for others, and probably a sociopath of some sort. As it happens, I don’t believe that your fear of a god is what keeps you from doing evil. If it truly is the case, you should probably be comitted to mental treatment.
The fact that there are many morally good atheists and many immoral theists is evidence to the fact that theism doesn’t lead automatically to good and atheism doesn’t automatically lead to evil. If you want, I can point you to many crimes commited by theists, but I won’t unless you ask me to, because it’s so damn obvious what with atheists being such a minority that most crimes are commited by theists. That’s not to say that atheists are any better, at least not inherently.
You have yet to prove in any way that fear of a god is necessary for good behavior. You are faced with evidence to the contrary. Now would be a good time to back out and admit that your claim is wrong.
As I said, I have no interest to go down this road. This path has been trodden by atheists many times before. Google it if you like.
In any event, the morality of atheists has nothing to do with either God’s existence or this post’s topic, which is that comparing God and reason is so stupid I can’t do anything but laugh.
I never said that.
But, just because some Theists are bad and some Atheists are good doesn’t mean anything.
That’s a logical fallacy: What’s true of part is true of the whole.
They could easily have something worked out wrong.
Example: Muslims. They’re Theists – but they believe if they kill themselves and others then they get a ‘get out of jail free card.’
I believe that is wrong and I bet you do too.
All I’m saying is that there is no way to truly have a ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ if you have nothing to compare it to.
Agreed.
Let’s not get sidetracked.
-
What’s wrong with comparing God to reason?
From my point of view, God created reason.
*shrugs*
If you prove something using reason, why can’t I prove something using God?
Tell me what’s wrong with that?
Tell me, if I “proved” something by referring to the Invisible Pink Unicorn, would you believe me? Of course not. That’s a fallacy called appeal to authority, that is, instead of laying out a valid argument for your claims, you just appeal to an authority that said it was true. That’s why God can never be a valid source of knowledge. If you didn’t understand that, don’t bother replying. There’s no way I can explain that in plainer terms. Truly, you seem to be too far away to get any help.
You didn’t answer my question.
I understand logical fallacies. I am currently studying them in one of my classes.
But, the “appeal to authority” is also a form of logical argument. It’s an appeal to someone who is knowledgeable on the subject.
It is a fallacy when you appeal to someone who is not a legitimage authority.
From my point of view, God is the authority because He created everything.
From your point of view, reason (which can be flawed at times) is the authority.
If you use reason to determing right, wrong, truth, reality, etc – then why can’t I use God to determine right, wrong, truth, reality, etc?
What’s wrong with that?
You need to read a bit more from your link, methinks. Look: “It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge, but a fallacy in regard to logic, because the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source.”
You can’t use God to prove God, for instance. That would be circular logic. Reason compels me not to believe in a god. You can’t say “I believe in God because God says so”, because that’s circular. It’s like saying “I believe that I’m God because I say I’m God”. Reason, again, is a method for obtaining knowledge, whereas God is a supernatural entity that may or may not exist. If you still don’t get this, I see no further point in arguing. Use your head. Think.
How about you read the entire post – particularly the part titled Appeal to Authority as a Sound Logical Conclusion.
I am aware that you can’t use God to prove God. That is circular logic. But I don’t just use God to prove God. Check out my post Is the Bible Reliable I use many sources for proof to the validity of the BIble and thus God.
The whole point of my comment that you scoffed at is this:
You’re going to say that God may or may not exist and all that.
But, how do you know that reason exists? If we came about by chance, then how can you know that you’re using reason? After all, shouldn’t your ‘thought’ just be random electrons firing in your brain in response to your enviorment?
The only way for an appeal to authority to be valid is to take as an additional premise that the authority is never wrong. That premise is impossible to prove, so appeal to authority can never be valid unless you use special pleading as a justification.
Now, would you please stop asking these incredibly stupid questions? I don’t care to dig up knowledge for you. Your arguments are nothing but personal ignorance. I have no wish to hold your hand on a journey through all of modern science, especially not when you have decided it’s wrong before we even begin.
Hello again!
First off, count me in on the mental treatment. Because I do believe in this stuff you call crazy.
Secondly, I’m listening. I haven’t decided you’re wrong yet, but I come to this discussion with a strong bias, like you and everyone else has.
Lastly, I will agree to think through what you are saying as long as you also think through it. I will agree to not ask stupid questions as long as you answer the sane ones.
Again, I want to know how you came to the beliefs you are living with now. I don’t need for you to “hold my hand on a journey through all modern science”, I want to walk on a journey of thinking through all of this. Its up to you whether or not you want to be open-minded and discuss these things with us, or whether you want to stay where you are.
God Bless!
Very well. But, I believe that God is always right, true, correct, etc.
So what’s wrong with that?
You can’t prove that God doesn’t exist.
And you can’t prove that reason is always true – because it is not.
So why can’t I use God to prove things when you can use reason to prove things?
It’s a simple question – and it was my original question – and it hasn’t been answered.
You believe, but you can’t prove it.
You rely on logic all day long. If you start accepting faith as a way to prove something, you must to be consistent accept all views based on faith . This means that if you faithfully believe in God, and I on faith believe that God doesn’t exist, you must accept both. This is clearly absurd, but since you’ve thrown logic out of the window, what do you care? If you don’t accept my faith, then you’re pleading for special treatment, and we’re back where we started.
Faith isn’t, wasn’t, will never be a way to prove anything. One person’s faith or a billion’s, it is not evidence one way or the other.
I partially agree with you. No, a ‘majority’ faith does not prove anything. And I haven’t thrown logic out of the window. Basically, reason strengthens my faith.
What will you accept as evidence for our faith?
I do believe it – and I can’t scientifically prove it – neither can you.
In order to scientifically prove it you would have to observe it happen.
I agree with you – all views are based on faith.
So what?
And I do agree that faith is not a way to prove anything.
Where’d you get the impression that I said that?
How have I thrown logic out the window?
And since you still haven’t answered my original question, I assume you don’t have a response to it but don’t want to acknowledge that I’m right.
So why can’t I use God to prove things when you can use reason to prove things?
You’re wrong. Dead wrong. It’s not my fault that you don’t understand it.