Reason

[Anonymouse]

A previous thread touched the topic of reason, its uses or limitations. With that being said, reason is not shunned aside as somehow unnecessary. Reason, logic, rationality, are all manifestations of the same idea. To reason as a verb is to "think logically". Reason as a noun is "a fact that logically justifies some premise or conclusion".

 

Reason, rationality, logic, are all intertwined for they represent the same kernel of truth with regard to its epistemic principles. They all adhere evidence to support a claim, and therefore, logical consistency. It is possible to get into semantics and cherry picking of the differences, but for purposes of clairty they are all more or less under the same cherry tree. The endpoint of reason has been the scientific revolution.

 

While reason has and can answer many things within its own boundaries, it nonetheless remains a belief; a metaphysical assumption. Since all philosophies and religions attempt to understand the fundamental nature of all reality whether visible or invisible they are all by the fact itself in the realm of metaphysics. Since we do not know, we can only believe, thus all things are metaphysical assumptions. From that it follows that whether one adheres to the scientific explanation of life, the world, reality, or the religious one, it matters not, because in the end, it is a all a belief. This belief is based on the choice made by an individual consciousness. The rest is irrelevent. Please share your thoughts.

[Sasun]

I don't mean to be redundant, but wanted to say that I agree to your post. In addition, I believe the soul has (or actually IS) the absolute knowledge that goes beyond the limitations of reason. That is why once man knows his soul he knows everything, even though he was only trying to know his soul. Simultaneously once man knows his soul he also knows God. This path is called self-realization and God-realization at the same time because our true self is actually the absolute Self, otherwise known God.

 

P.S. Do I know myself? No. What I said above is theoretical, I do not know myself in reality, as nearly everyone else.

[DominO123]

For ones rejection of rationality be valid, one must validate it, to validate it one should support this theses by using what he tries to demonstrate as being non-valid.

 

Reason is responsable of our evolution in philosophy and science, and even in religion, one tries to make sense... Reason is an undistinguable nature of man, as philosophy is, it is the most perfect thing, and even only valid thing, we have to understand ourself and the universe... to reject it would be foolish... without reason, no society, no social order, no technology, no valid knowledge... NADA, nothing... without reason Chimps would be more evolved than us, because they do display a basic reasoning capability.

 

Reason is about making sense, and one must make sense to be understood.

[Anonymouse]

I don't mean to be redundant, but wanted to say that I agree to your post. In addition, I believe the soul has (or actually IS) the absolute knowledge that goes beyond the limitations of reason. That is why once man knows his soul he knows everything, even though he was only trying to know his soul. Simultaneously once man knows his soul he also knows God. This path is called self-realization and God-realization at the same time because our true self is actually the absolute Self, otherwise known God.

 

P.S. Do I know myself? No. What I said above is theoretical, I do not know myself in reality, as nearly everyone else.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

To further paraphrase Kant, all knowledge is based on experience. "Religious faith" is nothing more than "faith", for how is the faith a Church goer has in God who is religious, any different than a non-religious in evolution?

[Anonymouse]

For ones rejection of rationality be valid, one must validate it, to validate it one should support this theses by using what he tries to demonstrate as being non-valid.

 

Reason is responsable of our evolution in philosophy and science, and even in religion, one tries to make sense... Reason is an undistinguable nature of man, as philosophy is, it is the most perfect thing, and even only valid thing, we have to understand ourself and the universe... to reject it would be foolish... without reason, no society, no social order, no technology, no valid knowledge... NADA, nothing... without reason Chimps would be more evolved than us, because they do display a basic reasoning capability.

 

Reason is about making sense, and one must make sense to be understood.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

It was nice to read how you laud reason as the endpoint of human genius, and how without it, we would be living in caves without cellphones, but it comes from a perspective of bias. While I admit that reason is very important, it can also be misleading, and has limits, like faith. I do not deny the importance of reason, but acknowledge the dual nature of faith and reason.

 

As you know reason is the epistemological method of something true if it adheres to objective evidence. Faith is the epistemological method of something being true if it adheres to subjective evidence. Both are assumptions as far as gaining knowledge.

 

No one is rejecting rationality. What I am saying is that rationality has limits. While rationality promotes freethinking by the use of reason, what you seem to be advocating is rationalism. Rationality and rationalism are very different. (Although I did not want to go into semantic word play regarding reason, logic, or rationality, but I believe when it comes to rationality and rationalism there is a need to make this distinction.) When something becomes an -ism it moves toward dogmatism. Rationalism is the conceit of rationality. That happens when people are certain that the only way to truth is through the use of reason.

 

I am not rejecting rationality. I am rejecting rationalism, which from what I gathered in your post, is what you are leaning toward. Because rationalism leads to free thinking, it does not allow free thought to include any irrational belief, in this case, faith. Therefore, it is limited.

[Arvestaked]

a metaphysical assumption

 

'splain.

 

for how is the faith a Church goer has in God who is religious, any different than a non-religious in evolution?

 

Degree.

[DominO123]

It was nice to read how you laud reason as the endpoint of human genius, and how without it, we would be living in caves without cellphones, but it comes from a perspective of bias. While I admit that reason is very important, it can also be misleading, and has limits, like faith. I do not deny the importance of reason, but acknowledge the dual nature of faith and reason.

 

As you know reason is the epistemological method of something true if it adheres to objective evidence. Faith is the epistemological method of something being true if it adheres to subjective evidence. Both are assumptions as far as gaining knowledge.

 

No one is rejecting rationality. What I am saying is that rationality has limits. While rationality promotes freethinking by the use of reason, what you seem to be advocating is rationalism. Rationality and rationalism are very different. (Although I did not want to go into semantic word play regarding reason, logic, or rationality, but I believe when it comes to rationality and rationalism there is a need to make this distinction.) When something becomes an -ism it moves toward dogmatism. Rationalism is the conceit of rationality. That happens when people are certain that the only way to truth is through the use of reason.

 

I am not rejecting rationality. I am rejecting rationalism, which from what I gathered in your post, is what you are leaning toward. Because rationalism leads to free thinking, it does not allow free thought to include any irrational belief, in this case, faith. Therefore, it is limited.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

There is no "ism" in what I brought, I simply answered to your thread.

 

Faith and Reason can not be compared, Faith is about belief, while Reason is about understanding... Faith is needed in science as much as reason as Einstein rightly put when he equal it to "religious." A scientist will research because he has faith, he believes he will discover, he believes there is something more... rationality is the tool to find that answer while Faith is there to push him to find it.

 

There is no competition between faith and rationality.

[Sidd-Dodje]

Anonymouse and what about Buddhism , there is no belief there.

[Armat]

While reason has and can answer many things within its own boundaries, it nonetheless remains a belief;

I could not disagree more. Reason, logic needs tangible proves in order to be reasonable, logical by definition.

[Armat]

Anon

What happened to you?I hope I did not offend you.You started an interesting thread and vanished

Edited November 1, 2005 by Armat

[Sip]

While reason has and can answer many things within its own boundaries, it nonetheless remains a belief; a metaphysical assumption.

 

I don't think that's entirely true. It is no longer an assumption once a belief is tested and shown to be able to predict. An assumption is just that ... an assumption. It should not become a "belief" without proper testing to validate it in reality.

 

What's great about the scientific method of validating beliefs is that it provides a rather reliable means of validating a lot of assumptions. It is not perfect and it doesn't work all the time but to throw it into the same category as "all metaphysical assumptions" is a huge over simplification IMO.

[Sasun]

I don't think that's entirely true. It is no longer an assumption once a belief is tested and shown to be able to predict. An assumption is just that ... an assumption. It should not become a "belief" without proper testing to validate it in reality.

 

What's great about the scientific method of validating beliefs is that it provides a rather reliable means of validating a lot of assumptions. It is not perfect and it doesn't work all the time but to throw it into the same category as "all metaphysical assumptions" is a huge over simplification IMO.

One thing is metaphysical assumption, another thing is metaphysical reality which can be known like physical reality.

[DominO123]

I don't think that's entirely true. It is no longer an assumption once a belief is tested and shown to be able to predict. An assumption is just that ... an assumption. It should not become a "belief" without proper testing to validate it in reality.

 

What's great about the scientific method of validating beliefs is that it provides a rather reliable means of validating a lot of assumptions. It is not perfect and it doesn't work all the time but to throw it into the same category as "all metaphysical assumptions" is a huge over simplification IMO.

 

We should not equal reason with scientific methodology... scientific methodology(according to epistemologists at least) start with the premises that something must be falsifiable to test it, to be "supportable" "scientifically." That is afteral the major criticism of the super string theory, it is considerated at current time, non-falsifiable, because it doesn't make any prediction which could be tested to reject it, while "rationaliticaly" the thing really work.