Humans (and their closest cousins, possibly) are active thinkers, not passive reactors. When given a new situation, we actively assess, contrast and compare and deduce properties of the new situation and then act (or not) on it. And it is our social nature and ability to communicate complex thoughts and strategies that further separates us from lower order animals. We have empathy and sympathy/compassion. We have all of those things because we are able, with our layered brains, to actively imagine ourselves in another’s position, to rationally deduce the long-term effects of our actions upon another.

Quite possibly, with these layered brains, a sense of an ‘Over-brain’ exists to give an instinct-like urgency to societal mores and interactions. Perhaps the ego and the super-ego and the id are policing agencies of the brain, honed by evolution to improve the co-operation within the individual brain to react better in concert with others of the same species to further that species’ survival. And maybe we just can’t help that that ‘little voice’ in our heads sounds more rational than our own emotional/animal voices, so it must be evidence of a superior being. This may go a long way towards explaining how there are so many religions, but so few strikingly different moral dissimilarities. Our Overminds have tricked our self-minds into ‘hearing’ our innate code of social mores. Of course, there has been no proof of innate social mores, but that may well be because we are genetically predisposed to communal living, and therefor, in need of other humans, and their hierarchies and morals. We are raised in groups, and live in groups and rely on fellow members of our groups, so it makes sense that we cannot be self-reared and be expected to exhibit a trait that requires human interaction.

It all goes back to our huge heads. Trust me on this. Big heads=GOD complex LOL!

Tell me about it. I’m getting to work on that tomorrow, assuming I can track down the *censored* forms regarding the *censored* rectory which the *censored* regional church office assumes our parish’s choices regarding them change each year, unless we tell them otherwise, instead of sanely assuming that we’d tell them if we change and not if we stay the *censored* same. Then there’s the *censored* bonus money from funerals that I usually pocket without looking at because that is NOT where my mind is at the time. I don’t charge for the funerals. The money is a gift. But it is taxed as an honorarium. *more censored muttering*

On second thought, don’t tell me about it. Apparently it causes me to rant.

Back on topic:

Are you saying that any time a person is irrational or reaches false conclusions (such as 2 + 2 = 5) that they are not using reason? If so, what do they revert to? Instinct? Some other category of thought?

No, they are either in error in how they use their reason (how many people actually receive training in critical thinking these days?) or are ignorant of some of the pertinent facts (or believe in facts that are not actually facts).

Does that clear things up for you?

In the meantime, I wondered if you could explain some of your statements a little more. I think I might understand what you are saying, but I don’t know for sure, and I want to make sure. Could you explain the following:

Quester said: “What it means is that you can’t use reason to choose something irrational, because the factors that lead your thoughts to one particular conclusion and not another compose reality as you know it.
Simply because I can’t use my reason to conclude that 2 + 2 is 5 or 22, doesn’t mean that my reason is no better than my instinct. Yes, the result is predetermined by factors outside of my control, but that is what makes it reason, not imagination.”

Also, can you answer this question along the same lines: Are you saying that any time a person is irrational or reaches false conclusions (such as 2 + 2 = 5) that they are not using reason? If so, what do they revert to? Instinct? Some other category of thought?

Thanks for your thoughts and patience.

Point one:

Do you have any empirical evidence for this? A valid evolutionary pathway with supportable data?

Nope. Just the grade school version. I didn’t even take biology in high school (I chose physics for my science requirements).

Point number two:

Still not getting you. Imagine that your reason is as free and as objective as you could care for. You still have no basis for your reason besides your experiences and interactions before this point. I’m really not sure what more could be desired.

This means that I cannot choose between reason and instinct, as you stated we have the ability to do, because my thoughts are chosen for me by other factors.

Not in the slightest. What it means is that you can’t use reason to choose something irrational, because the factors that lead your thoughts to one particular conclusion and not another compose reality as you know it.

Simply because I can’t use my reason to conclude that 2 + 2 is 5 or 22, doesn’t mean that my reason is no better than my instinct. Yes, the result is predetermined by factors outside of my control, but that is what makes it reason, not imagination.

Point number three:

I’m sure you don’t believe that atheism is without base because of the actions of “unscrupulous” atheists such as Communist, Socialist, and Nazi leaders of the recent past (and present).

Since atheism is not a philosophy, the point does not arise.

Nor was my argument that Christianity should be judged by it’s unscrupulous leaders. Instead, I was arguing that giving up personal responsibility to blindly follow the will of an other, as communicated by human instruments, risks being taken advantage of by those human instruments.

True Christian theology, by the way, is the opposite of self-centeredness…it is giving up our “right” to choose our own meaning to allow Another to define it for us

Also, true Christian theology does not allow for just anyone to determine our purpose. In fact, the Bible clearly teaches that we are to determine for ourselves how to serve God, and not let leaders determine it for us.

These two points of “true Christian theology” contradict one another. Either you are taking responsibility for your own actions by choosing what you think is best, or you are not.

Quester,
I don’t have time to address everything that we’ve touched on, so I’ll focus on two points that I think are most important.

Point number one:
I said: “Also, where did reason come from? How do you explain its natural occurence through merely biological (or other natural) forces?”
Quester said:
“The natural result of increased complexity in our brains as we evolved in particular ways, in response to particular environmental pressures.”

Could you be more specific? I’m not sure of your training and background, and I don’t want to ask too much, but this response you have given is not really an explanation, but a restatement of what I asked for in my question. I asked how you explain the occurence of reason through naturalistic forces, and you basically replied that reason is the result of complexity which is the result of naturalistic forces. Do you have any empirical evidence for this? A valid evolutionary pathway with supportable data?

Point number two:
I said: “Or maybe all of my thoughts are the end result of all experiences and interactions prior to me thinking them, in which case I have no control over my “reason,” and no reason to trust my reason.”

Quester said: “Wouldn’t that give you more reasons to trust your reason, not less?”

The answer to your question is no…here’s why:
If my thoughts today are the result of the sum total of all past natural interactions (or at least all environmental factors in my life plus genetic influences on me specifically), then I have to be thinking what I am thinking right now. If this is the case then I really cannot choose what to think, my thoughts are chosen for me. This means that I cannot choose between reason and instinct, as you stated we have the ability to do, because my thoughts are chosen for me by other factors. This is the opposite of intellectual reason. This is pre-determined thought. Or perhaps a more illustrative term would be pre-programmed thought. Like a computer, this naturalistic view would necessitate that I respond in such and such a way to such and such a stimulus. And, if it is necessary, pre-determined, pre-programmed, then it is not really reason. We might call it thought, but it is not the ability to objectively evaluate and reach logical conclusions. The conclusions are already pre-determined, therefore we have lost objectivity.

Also, if my thoughts are the result of naturalistic forces and blind chance, then I have no way of knowing if my thought processes are logical or reasonable. For all I know I could only think I am being logical because environmental stimuli and genetic proclivities have prompted me to have such thoughts, when all the time I am really being completely unreasonable… or, even worse, objective reason does not really exist.

You might say, “Well, I know I am being reasonable because I have tested my premises and found them practical and logical.” But, if our thoughts are determined by naturalistic forces and blind chance then how do you know that your premises are practical and logical? Perhaps environmental stimuli and genetic influences have only caused you to think that they are. Maybe you have only been programmed to think that practicality and logic exist.

Reason cannot exist in such a world because we have no reason to trust our conclusions. We have no way of knowing if our thoughts are our own, if our choices are our own, or if we only think our thoughts because of all past experiences.

Point number three:
I know I said only two…but I have to comment.
I said: “True Christian theology, by the way, is the opposite of self-centeredness…it is giving up our “right” to choose our own meaning to allow Another to define it for us.”

Quester said: “Yes, and unscrupulous religious leaders take advantage of that every day to get the money, time and energy of believers.”

And, yet, we cannot judge the merits of a philosophy based on its unscrupulous members/leaders. I’m sure you don’t believe that atheism is without base because of the actions of “unscrupulous” atheists such as Communist, Socialist, and Nazi leaders of the recent past (and present).

Also, true Christian theology does not allow for just anyone to determine our purpose. In fact, the Bible clearly teaches that we are to determine for ourselves how to serve God, and not let leaders determine it for us. The fact that many Christians do not practice this does not invalidate Christian theology in the same way unscrupulous leaders do not invalidate it.

Ok…sorry for the length. There is much more that I would like to comment on, but I have used up too much space already. Thank you very much for the sincere discussion. I am enjoying this opportunity to explore our points of view.

How come a majority of people aren’t satisfied with all they need, but always want more? I’m not sure, but it’s not healthy.

That might be good enough for you, to determine by yourself why you exist, but, ultimately, “meaning” will come from knowing why you are here…at least that’s what most people pursue.

If most people believed the earth was flat, it would not make it true.

To add to what I wrote to writerdd above…where is the satisfaction in knowing that you have supplied your own purpose, and that whatever purpose it is it will ultimately be pointless and meaningless in light of the fate of your life and our planet/universe.

If you can not be satisfied by feeding someone who hungers because he will be hungry again, with spending time with someone lonely, because they will be lonely again, or otherwise making things better in a world where things often get worse, I can not help you. You are responsible for your own choices.

Also, where did reason come from? How do you explain its natural occurence through merely biological (or other natural) forces?

The natural result of increased complexity in our brains as we evolved in particular ways, in response to particular environmental pressures.

How do we know it is not just instinct telling us that we have reason, or environmental forces influencing us to think that we can reason

Because we can choose to follow either our reason or our instincts, or neither. Besides, if I do not think, but only think that I think, is there any practical difference?

Or maybe all of my thoughts are the end result of all experiences and interactions prior to me thinking them, in which case I have no control over my “reason,” and no reason to trust my reason.

Wouldn’t that give you more reasons to trust your reason, not less?

That seems to nearly be the definition self-centeredness: to claim importance and purpose for yourself when you have none.

Realizing that if something is going to be done, you have to get up and do it for no one will do it for you is not being self-centred. It is being responsible.

True Christian theology, by the way, is the opposite of self-centeredness…it is giving up our “right” to choose our own meaning to allow Another to define it for us.

Yes, and unscrupulous religious leaders take advantage of that every day to get the money, time and energy of believers. It is easy for them to do this because of how easily the vague revelations of this “other” can be interpreted in so many different ways.

When you give up your responsibility to think for yourself and choose your own actions, what do you have left?

And, isn’t defining your own meaning like putting a bandaid on the problem?

Only if you persistently persevere in seeing the absence of externally applied meaning as a problem. Is flying in an airplane a bandaid on the problem of gravity? Is gravity a problem because so many people dream of flying and are unsatisfied with going from one place to another over the surface of the ground?

People are unsatisfied with reality. That doesn’t make fiction a better source for seeking a basis on how to live.

Because they’ve been taught that they have a higher purpose, usually derived from religion. I truly think it’s that simple.

Plus we’re incredibly vain as a species. We want to think we are important. Recognizing that we have no ultimate purpose and we must define our own purpose if we want to have meaning in our lives is just one more step in moving us from our imagined center of the universe. Our mothers all told us this, but we didn’t really believe them. It’s true though. The universe does not revolve around us.

Quester,
To add to what I wrote to writerdd above…where is the satisfaction in knowing that you have supplied your own purpose, and that whatever purpose it is it will ultimately be pointless and meaningless in light of the fate of your life and our planet/universe.
Also, where did reason come from? How do you explain its natural occurence through merely biological (or other natural) forces? And, if our current state is the result of chance and natural forces, how do we know that we can trust our “reason”? How do we know it is not just instinct telling us that we have reason, or environmental forces influencing us to think that we can reason independently of outside stimuli? Or maybe all of my thoughts are the end result of all experiences and interactions prior to me thinking them, in which case I have no control over my “reason,” and no reason to trust my reason.