Reason is God

[Carle]

I just read a contemporary account of the plague.
source: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sourc...us-plague.html

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Now in the case of all other scourges sent from heaven some explanation of a cause might be given by daring men, such as the many theories propounded by those who are clever in these matters; for they love to conjure up causes which are absolutely incomprehensible to man, and to fabricate outlandish theories of natural philosophy knowing well that they are saying nothing sound but considering it sufficient for them, if they completely deceive by their argument some of those whom they meet and persuade them to their view. But for this calamity it is quite impossible either to express in words or to conceive in thought any explanation, except indeed to refer it to God. For it did not come in a part of the world nor upon certain men, nor did it confine itself to any season of the year, so that from such circumstances it might be possible to find subtle explanations of a cause, but it embraced the entire world, and blighted the lives of all men, though differing from one another in the most marked degree, respecting neither sex nor age.

The writer argued that it was impossible to explain the black plague, and criticized those who attempted to do so as trying to deceive others to their view.
This, of course, is nonsense.
It can be difficult to imagine life before science. Twenty years ago, computers were expensive (and bulky) luxuries. One hundred years ago, antibiotics and airplanes were still in the R & D phase. Two hundred years ago, men on horseback were lucky to travel 30 miles in a day. There was a time when men didn't even know how many continents there were, and now we have Google Earth. Men used candles at night and kept time with sundials. Men baked in the heat and froze in the winter. A scratch could kill you, if the starvation, malnutrition and warfare didn't get there first. A peasant would be lucky to see a single fruit in a year, and now we have supermarkets. 90% of Europeans were completely illiterate, and now we mock random people we've never seen nor spoken to for writing in internet shorthand on youtube.

Reason is the king of the world- for all intensive purposes, analogous to God. Anything that attempts to subjugate reason- faith in the Church, loyalty to the State, trust in Authority- is incorrigibly evil and thoroughly alien to civilization. This is why I am not religious. Faith is always blind, and blind faith is a greater plague on humanity than any disease in history.

[Helm]

Faith is always blind.

[Carle]

This is religious reasoning at its best: amusing, if not necessarily substantial.
Faith brings comfort to the suffering and hope to the damned. It also makes good men commit great evils in the name of God and Justice.

[Justice and Mercy]

Reason is the king of the world- for all intensive purposes, analogous to God. Anything that attempts to subjugate reason- faith in the Church, loyalty to the State, trust in Authority- is incorrigibly evil and thoroughly alien to civilization. This is why I am not religious. Faith is always blind, and blind faith is a greater plague on humanity than any disease in history.

Thinking is man’s only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed. And his basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one’s consciousness, the refusal to think—not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know. It is the act of unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to escape the responsibility of judgment—on the unstated premise that a thing will not exist if only you refuse to identify it, that A will not be A so long as you do not pronounce the verdict 'It is.' - Ayn Rand

I agree.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

You need to read a better libertarian than Rand: Rougier's Les Paralogismes du Rationalisme, for instance, debunks blind rationalism like wheat in a scythe. Another good author I can think of who does that is Brunschvicg.

Feyerabend is better against Scientism, admittedly, which is not exactly equal to Rationalism, but nonetheless a good read against any such dogmatism.

EDIT - Oh wait sorry, not meant to be patronizing, but the OP was very very elementary.

[Carle]

You need to read a better libertarian than Rand: Rougier's Les Paralogismes du Rationalisme, for instance, debunks blind rationalism like wheat in a scythe. Another good author I can think of who does that is Brunschvicg.

Feyerabend is better against Scientism, admittedly, which is not exactly equal to Rationalism, but nonetheless a good read against any such dogmatism.

EDIT - Oh wait sorry, not meant to be patronizing, but the OP was very very elementary.

I'm 18. Plenty of room to learn.
In any event, I've never heard of any of those authors, and the only Libertarian ideology I'm familiar with is political.

[Justice and Mercy]

I'm 18. Plenty of room to learn.
In any event, I've never heard of any of those authors, and the only Libertarian ideology I'm familiar with is political.

Not to mention that Ayn Rand was very clear in seperating herself from the libertarians.

EDIT: Man I hate Papal Encyclicals. Way too long.

Seriously folks, discuss.

Don't just point us to this and that.

[Justice and Mercy]

You need to read a better libertarian than Rand: Rougier's Les Paralogismes du Rationalisme, for instance, debunks blind rationalism like wheat in a scythe. Another good author I can think of who does that is Brunschvicg.

Feyerabend is better against Scientism, admittedly, which is not exactly equal to Rationalism, but nonetheless a good read against any such dogmatism.

EDIT - Oh wait sorry, not meant to be patronizing, but the OP was very very elementary.

You can point us to obscure (and at a glance terrible) philosophers who can't be read by those who don't speak French, or you can attempt to actually argue the points.

This is a discussion forum.

[XIII]

You can point us to obscure (and at a glance terrible) philosophers who can't be read by those who don't speak French, or you can attempt to actually argue the points.

This is a discussion forum.

A bit hard since I can't find anything to reply to in the OP. He made assertions, not arguments. Very generalized too, at that. As I skim it, I'm finding it very hard to find anything to reply to (how do you respond to generalizations?). Anyway, let's focus on this:

Reason is the king of the world- for all intensive purposes, analogous to God. Anything that attempts to subjugate reason- faith in the Church, loyalty to the State, trust in Authority- is incorrigibly evil and thoroughly alien to civilization. This is why I am not religious. Faith is always blind, and blind faith is a greater plague on humanity than any disease in history.

You need to elaborate on:

1. First and foremost, why is reason incorrigibly good (an ethical distinction)?
2. Why is civilization a good that ought to be valued (since you implied that anything alien to civilization is undesired and ought to be dismissed)?
3. How does faith subjugate reason (or for that matter, loyalty or trust)?
4. How is faith always blind? There is such a thing as reasonable faith.

[Justice and Mercy]

A bit hard since I can't find anything to reply to in the OP. He made assertions, not arguments.

Arguments are assertions directed at a particular point of view.

Just for the hell of it, I'll answer your questions. If you don't want to reply, don't.

1. First and foremost, why is reason incorrigibly good (an ethical distinction)?

Because man's nature is that of a being that lives and thrives by understanding the universe in which it lives.

"If a drought strikes them, animals perish—man builds irrigation canals; if a flood strikes them, animals perish—man builds dams; if a carnivorous pack attacks them animals perish—man writes the Constitution of the United States." - Ayn Rand

2. Why is civilization a good that ought to be valued (since you implied that anything alien to civilization is undesired and ought to be dismissed)?

Because man's rational faculty can achieve more in a civilized country. What would be the existence of Newton if he were alone on a desert island?

3. How does faith subjugate reason (or for that matter, loyalty or trust)?

Because reason means to derive your conclusions solely from the facts of reality, faith means to NOT do that.

There is no middle ground, and no meeting place. So much for that Papal Encyclical, hmm?

4. How is faith always blind? There is such a thing as reasonable faith.

Faith means to accept a conclusion as true without proof. That is the opposite of "reasonable."

[XIII]

Because man's nature is that of a being that lives and thrives by understanding the universe in which it lives.

"If a drought strikes them, animals perish—man builds irrigation canals; if a flood strikes them, animals perish—man builds dams; if a carnivorous pack attacks them animals perish—man writes the Constitution of the United States." - Ayn Rand

I asked for a reason we we ought and all you gave me is an is. How does this solve the 'is-ought' problem of deriving an ought from an is? The answer, it seems to me, is that it does not and that my question remains unanswered.

Suppose that it does, however, and that the reason we ought to value rationality in that in allows us to thrive (i.e. flourish). This only pushes the question up a notch.

Because man's rational faculty can achieve more in a civilized country. What would be the existence of Newton if he were alone on a desert island?

Which presupposes that we ought to value man's rational faculty as a 'good' that ought to be valued. Refer above. I suspect that it will be our central bone of contention.

Because reason means to derive your conclusions solely from the facts of reality, faith means to NOT do that.

There is no middle ground, and no meeting place. So much for that Papal Encyclical, hmm?

Reason is compatible with faith. At the end of the day, even reason is simply faith in the reliability of our rational faculties. Life is full of epistemic gaps that can only be negotiated via 'leaps of faith'.

Faith means to accept a conclusion as true without proof. That is the opposite of "reasonable."

Isn't this circular? If you define faith as meaning to accept a conclusion as true without proof, then, of course, it becomes opposed to reason. Let me give you a counterexample of why this definition, at least, is mistaken: your faith that a friend will pay you back because he's a good friend.

[Carle]

1. First and foremost, why is reason incorrigibly good (an ethical distinction)?

Any moral code must necessarily derive itself from reason or else you rely on fiat. Unless you consider the Bible (or any "authority" religious or otherwise ) as wholly inerrant, you are placing reason above faith, where it belongs.

2. Why is civilization a good that ought to be valued (since you implied that anything alien to civilization is undesired and ought to be dismissed)?

Technology, medicine, communications, safety, security, food, law, education... no crops, no laws, no safety, anything more than chucking a rock at a deer is part of civilization.

3. How does faith subjugate reason (or for that matter, loyalty or trust)?

I didn't mention loyalty or trust, that I recall. They aren't directly associated with morality, either. You can be loyal to an immoral leader; you can trust a lying friend.

4. How is faith always blind? There is such a thing as reasonable faith.

Your arguements are proving my point- you are resorting to rational debate and discussion instead of trusting in my words. Language is itself an artificial construct borne of the human mind.
Also, can you define "reasonable" faith? Give me an example.

[XIII]

Any moral code must necessarily derive itself from reason or else you rely on fiat. Unless you consider the Bible (or any "authority" religious or otherwise ) as wholly inerrant, you are placing reason above faith, where it belongs.

That may be but it still misses the point. You gave me an 'is', i.e. that any moral code is necessarily derived from reason. Debatable but suppose it's true. You still haven't shown why we ought to value reason.

Technology, medicine, communications, safety, security, food, law, education... no crops, no laws, no safety, anything more than chucking a rock at a deer is part of civilization.

I'm beginning to think you don't know what the is-ought problem is.

I didn't mention loyalty or trust, that I recall. They aren't directly associated with morality, either. You can be loyal to an immoral leader; you can trust a lying friend.

You didn't answer the question. What about faith then?

Your arguements are proving my point- you are resorting to rational debate and discussion instead of trusting in my words. Language is itself an artificial construct borne of the human mind. Also, can you define "reasonable" faith? Give me an example.

That's because I value reason too. But that's beside the point. I'm asking you why you ought to value reason as a good that ought to be valued.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

You can point us to obscure (and at a glance terrible) philosophers who can't be read by those who don't speak French, or you can attempt to actually argue the points.

This is a discussion forum.

Publicly known information is well labelled as advertising, FYI . And French is the language of high culture, par excellence.

Popper, ironically, is also nice in some points: namely, when he points out in the "Open Society and its Enemies" that Rationalism constitutes a blind faith in human reason.

But anyway, I would definitely recommend reading Rougier on the matter, since he debunks not only A-T attempts at justifying ontologically the existence of God, but also the exaggerate rationalism of Enlightenment sophists.

There are also many many other names I could cite... Some disliked by the establishment, others just plainly not for the masses like an Ayn Rand, a Dawkins or a Karl Marx. Henri Bergson, for instance.

[Monarchist]

Everyone, I command you to read blessed J.P. II's encyclical Fides et ratio, Faith and reason. This explains everything and leaves you evil atheists in the dust.

If you don't read it, terrible curses will befall you by Reason's Almighty Hand!

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/jo...-ratio_en.html

[The Dude]

You need to read a better libertarian than Rand: Rougier's Les Paralogismes du Rationalisme, for instance, debunks blind rationalism like wheat in a scythe. Another good author I can think of who does that is Brunschvicg.

Feyerabend is better against Scientism, admittedly, which is not exactly equal to Rationalism, but nonetheless a good read against any such dogmatism.

EDIT - Oh wait sorry, not meant to be patronizing, but the OP was very very elementary.

And your recital of names is very, very pretentious.

[Justice and Mercy]

And your recital of names is very, very pretentious.

I wouldn't mind so much if they weren't so damned obscure that I can't find a single English version of their work, much less any kind of summary that can be discussed in this thread.

EDIT: Ah, I'm referring to the Frenchies. Feyerabend, of course, can be found. Feyerabend is pretty much your average "militant agnostic" as I like to call them. An ideal advocate of "the open mind."

Rand, of course, answers properly against Feyerabend and other advocates of "epistemological or scientific anarchy":

A “closed mind” is usually taken to mean the attitude of a man impervious to ideas, arguments, facts and logic, who clings stubbornly to some mixture of unwarranted assumptions, fashionable catch phrases, tribal prejudices—and emotions. But this is not a “closed” mind, it is a passive one. It is a mind that has dispensed with (or never acquired) the practice of thinking or judging, and feels threatened by any request to consider anything.

What objectivity and the study of philosophy require is not an “open mind,” but an active mind—a mind able and eagerly willing to examine ideas, but to examine them critically. An active mind does not grant equal status to truth and falsehood; it does not remain floating forever in a stagnant vacuum of neutrality and uncertainty; by assuming the responsibility of judgment, it reaches firm convictions and holds to them. Since it is able to prove its convictions, an active mind achieves an unassailable certainty in confrontations with assailants—a certainty untainted by spots of blind faith, approximation, evasion and fear.

[Carle]

The issue I have with empiricism is that reason is ultimately the arbiter of all "knowledge" innate or otherwise. I can understand that the senses dictate our thoughts- it would be impossible for perception not to influence us- but what's the point of it all? Nothing within the universe exists independently of anything else; we can only understand what we can experience (directly or indirectly), and we can only experience something within the realm of our existence. Inventions are an example of this- lightbulbs are described based on the prior experiences of their inventors, and we inherited this reference.

[Justice and Mercy]

The issue I have with empiricism is that reason is ultimately the arbiter of all "knowledge" innate or otherwise.

There is no such thing as "innate" knowledge. Such a notion makes one wonder, knowledge of what?

Knowledge means knowledge of something.

Logic does not just come to us by some form of divination, nor is it just a social convention (as one of the Frenchies referenced earlier believed.)

ALL knowledge is knowledge of the world, gathered by the senses and then put together first by the perceptual faculty and then the conceptual faculty.

[Carle]

There is no such thing as "innate" knowledge. Such a notion makes one wonder, knowledge of what?

Knowledge means knowledge of something.

Logic does not just come to us by some form of divination, nor is it just a social convention (as one of the Frenchies referenced earlier believed.)

ALL knowledge is knowledge of the world, gathered by the senses and then put together first by the perceptual faculty and then the conceptual faculty.

Exactly. Reason is not equivalent to knowledge, hence why I said that it's the arbiter of knowledge, innate or otherwise.