Rationalism

[Born_in_Crewe]

We often hear scientific-minded Atheists describe themselves as ''rationalists''. I have been thinking about deep topics over the last year or so, and especially since a conversation in January with someone at my church (an intellectual 50-something man) who said that the problem with someone like Dawkins is that he qualifies his un-belief by saying he has ''thought it through'', and yet what is thought? If you take out God, then the brain is just a machine, and somebody else with a different machine could disagree.

The same could be said of freethought, if you say there is no God then how can you know that freethought exists, it may be that your thoughts are decided by the machine that is your mind.

 

[Johnv]

The problem with Dawkins is that he believes religion interferes with one's ability to rationalize or think freely. On the contrary, discernment is required by people of faith, albeit not everyone of faith uses discernment.

 

[billwald]

There are so few true atheists in the world that it doesn't matter what they think. A belief in some kind of god seems to be hard wired into the human brain. Atheists are mutants. <G>

 

[billwald]

>The same could be said of freethought, if you say there is no God then how can you know that freethought exists, it may be that your thoughts are decided by the machine that is your mind.

There is no objective test which will differentiate between "God" and "Matrix."

 

[Born_in_Crewe]

The thing is, there may not be many atheists in some American states but there are plenty in the UK. What do you mean by the ''matrix''?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

We often hear scientific-minded Atheists describe themselves as ''rationalists''. I have been thinking about deep topics over the last year or so, and especially since a conversation in January with someone at my church (an intellectual 50-something man) who said that the problem with someone like Dawkins is that he qualifies his un-belief by saying he has ''thought it through'', and yet what is thought? If you take out God, then the brain is just a machine, and somebody else with a different machine could disagree.

The same could be said of freethought, if you say there is no God then how can you know that freethought exists, it may be that your thoughts are decided by the machine that is your mind.

It depends on how the process works. For instance do they follow the same rules of deduction? What views are consistent and which are not. Did both machines inlcude the same data? etc... As for your last question there is no real free thought since all human beings adhere to both reason and instinct. However it is the instinct that limits free tought not the machine. A machine works through processes. Though this occures it does not negate individuality or uniqueness of thought.

 

[billwald]

Matrix - the movie. We exist in computer memory. Our world is not physical. There is no objective way to tell if we exist in the mind of God or a computer program.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It depends on how the process works. For instance do they follow the same rules of deduction? What views are consistent and which are not. Did both machines inlcude the same data? etc... As for your last question there is no real free thought since all human beings adhere to both reason and instinct. However it is the instinct that limits free tought not the machine. A machine works through processes. Though this occures it does not negate individuality or uniqueness of thought.

So free thought may occur dependent on the randomness of variables which the human brain (computer) processes. If a human mind is wired differently than another than the process of data interpolation will provide a "uniqueness of thought. So the rationalist may have a serious point.

 

[billwald]

In the 250 years after Newton the scientists who were discovering the physical relationships that exist in this universe (not God's Laws), because of the limitations of their measuring instruments, came up with a "mechanical, clock work" universe that functioned the same if one prayed about it not. This seemed to make God unnecessary.

As measurement became more precise it was discovered that Newton's Laws only produced approximations and that God had created a universe that had built in random factors. The principle of direct cause and effect was overthrown. It was also demonstrated by Kurt Godel that all mathematical and logical systems were ultimately circular.

 

[Born_in_Crewe]

''So the rationalist may have a serious point.''

Do you mean my church friend or the generalised atheistic rationalist?

 

[Johnv]

.... the physical relationships that exist in this universe (not God's Laws)...

A deist philosopher would argue that the laws of the unverse are God's laws. They are God's laws for the physical universe.

 

[billwald]

Newton's "laws" are God's approximations, good enough for most uses.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

A deist philosopher would argue that the laws of the unverse are God's laws. They are God's laws for the physical universe.

I heard a pastor say once in a sermon that you can say that when you put water in the fridge God will turn it to ice. When the study of how water becomes ice at a certain temperature it is still equally true that God turned the water to ice in the fridge since it was God who created the laws of the natural universe.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

''So the rationalist may have a serious point.''

Do you mean my church friend or the generalised atheistic rationalist?

I don't necissarily seperate the two. The Athiest is just as much a member of the natural order as the church member. Natural laws and mechinations apply to both.

 

[billwald]

>God who created the laws of the natural universe.

OK, say he did. The Creationists and IDers, in effect, argue that God was required to create the laws in the form that we find them else he couldn't have invented humans. <G>

 

[Thinkingstuff]

>God who created the laws of the natural universe.

OK, say he did. The Creationists and IDers, in effect, argue that God was required to create the laws in the form that we find them else he couldn't have invented humans. <G>

I'm not sure what you're saying but how we find humans is greatly reliant on the order which the universe operates.