Interesting thoughts - thanks for sharing - and so much to talk about I scarcely know where to begin.
Trivia first: I am trying to kick a nasty chest cough that has
been bugging me for the past two weeks. It is slowly receding,
but not fast enough for my liking. Also we adopted a puppy a
couple of weeks ago. She is keep us very busy.
You mused on the nature of thought. I would like to briefly do so
too. Certainly a lot of thinking is irrational. We can have
dreams where we simultaneously play more than one character.
Obviously not a rational position.
However there is most definitely a set of thoughts that are 'rational'
or logically sound. It is a strict discipline of logical
consisting of axioms, premises and conclusions.
************************
A rational person provides reasons, a series of coherent propositions
that support their claim: in other words, a proof. Something cannot be
proved except by means of something else, no matter how strongly you
may feel it is true. Any conclusion, on it's own, without proof, no
matter how sound it may be, is simply an "assertion". In logical
argument, there is the proposition to be proved (the assertion) and the
propositions by which it is proved. A proposition X is said to be
provable in a system if there is a finite chain of statements S1 ->
S2 ->S3 ->X where Sn is either an axiom of the system or is
'justified' from previous S's by means of a 'rule of inference.' The
inferential rules are those of a formal system, logic.
The axioms are fundamental. Classical logic rests upon the
following axioms. These axioms are held to be 'self evident'. We hold
that they are self evident because all syllogisms rely on them, and
because they can be defended through retortion. "Retortion" means that
any attempt to create a syllogism to refute these axioms will require
an argument that relies on these axioms - leading to a self refutation
(we call this type of self refutation the "Stolen concept fallacy").
- The Law of Identity: For things, this law asserts
that "A is A" or "anything is itself." For propositions: "If a
proposition is true, then it is true."
- The Law of Excluded Middle: For things, "anything
is either A or not A." For propositions: "A proposition, such as P, is
either true or false." We also refer to such statements as "tautologies"
- The Law of noncontradiction: For things: "Nothing
can be both A and not-A." For propositions: "A proposition, P, can not
be both true and false."
All of our syllogisms rely on these laws - that any thing is equal to
itself, that tautologies must be true, and that contradictions must be
false. Everything has a definite, non-contradictory nature. A
metaphysical law of identity would hold that to be perceived or even
exist at all it must have a definite, non-contradictory nature, but for
our purposes, it is enough to say that If A, then A.
*************************
Using premises based upon these axioms we can produce (or critique)
logical argument. We assert conclusions and use premises to
support the validity of the conclusion. This is an important
difference between rational and irrational thought. Irrational
thought requires no intellectual rigour, it requires no premises, no
argument, and no logic to support its conclusions. As such its
conclusions remain unsupported. That is not to say that
irrational conclusions are 'wrong', just that there is no reason to
consider them correct.
Rational thought on the other hand is subject to the rules of logical
deductive and inductive inference. In deductive inference if the
premises are true and they support the conclusion, then the conclusion
MUST be true. In inductive inference, if the premises are true
and support the conclusion then the conclusion is more likely to be
true. In inductive inference a conclusion can never be certain to
be true. Likewise if the premises are false or do not support the
conclusion them the truth value of the conclusion remains unknown, it
can be either true or false.
There is a lot of literature on logic and reason going back some 3,000
years. I strongly recommend at least a quick study in the area,
it is very illuminating.
On to your points.
[Family Member B] "Therefore how much real in dependant control do you have over your thoughts?"
I generate my thoughts, but they are influenced by my
environment. On an internal basis they pretty much roam free and
I am free to pick and choose what to examine and retain. If I
were the only being in the universe then this would be
sufficient. ie. what I chose to retain becomes the
definition of reality. However I am not alone. It is
necessary for me to interact with others. To do so I need to
formalize ideas and concepts. - I need to control the
transmission of my thoughts to others. The more skilled I am at
communicating the more control I have over my thoughts - at least those
that have any value in the wider world.
[Family Member B] "Consider the case of any common crook"
A justification is not necessarily the same as a logically sound
justification. To justify (or 'rationalize') one's action in
one's own eyes is likely to be merely self-delusion. It has no
epistemological value outside the individual. If there is a
cogent logical argument for this justification then this needs to be
presented and evaluated on it's merits. This is a confused
criticism of the value of rational thought.
[Family Member B] "It shows us that rationalism can be utilised to
support just about any action, and more especially so when it operates
in a moral vacuum."
Untrue. As explained earlier any rationale relies on the rules of
logic. These can be examined for a truth value and assessed to
see if they support the conclusion. An argument is not
necessarily a good or valid argument.
I see you are also introducing the topic of morals. I ask you is
there any such thing as a moral vacuum? Unless an individual is
totally isolated they will inevitably acquire a set of morals that
allow them to interact with the society within which they live.
Regardless moral standards have no impact on the validity of sound
arguments.
[Family Member B] "Therefore if you get rid of religion you will embrace a system with potentially far worse consequences."
This sounds like the conclusion to an argument. I'd like to examine it.
I'm assuming you are asserting:
1. That religion is the only source of moral values (Premise 1)
2. That moral values are absolute (Premise 2)
3. That moral values are universal (Premise 3)
4. That without religion there are no morals (Premise 4)
5. That without moral values anything can be justified (Premise 5)
6. That a society without morals will be worse that one with morals (Premise 6)
7. That a society without religion will be worse that one with religion (Conclusion)
Perhaps this is an unfair characterization of your argument, if I apologise and ask if you could please improve it for me.
So let's look at the argument.
- Is the conclusion supported by the premises? I think so.
Premises 6 and 1 certainly seem to offer strong support for the
conclusion.
- Are the premises valid?
- Premise 1: Invalid. I hope it is self evident that
individuals and societies without religion have moral values. To assert
that religion is the only source of moral standards certainly seems
unsubstantiated. This alone is sufficient to invalidate any
support for the conclusion.
- Premise 2: False. If it were correct then we would still
embrace slavery, summary execution, etc. Morals change over time
and among societies.
- Premise 3: False. Morals change over time and among societies.
- Premise 4: False. Non religious individuals and societies have moral values.
- Premise 5: False (I think). Moral values are largely
irrelevant to cogent justification. I would be more accurate to
say that without logical argument anything can be justified.
- Premise 6: False. Or at least unsupported. First
we would have to decide if it is possible to have a society without
morals. Civilized society seems to almost be defined by a set of
moral standards.
So is this a valid argument? I think I have put a fairly strong
case to suggest that the conclusion is supported only by a series of
invalid premises. this does not necessarily mean the conclusion
is wrong - just that there is no presented logical reason to assume it
is correct.
My personal opinion is that the conclusion might well be correct.
Perhaps more so in the past then the present, and perhaps in some
societies more than others. But not for the reasons you have
suggested.
[Family Member B] "I say system, but I should say systems because the varieties of rationalism are many."
The discipline of reasoned argument does not come in many varieties.
If you want to look at variety, look no further than religion, gods ,
and mysticism. There are, and have been innumerable competing,
and mutually exclusive varieties in these fields. As Dire Straits
put it "Two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong".
[Family Member B] "At this stage it is plain to me that you have no
hope of constructing any sort of universal rationalism to which all
could subscribe. It just won't happen voluntarily, but it could
be implemented by force in much the same way that communism was."
In order to operate in society, people already subscribe to some degree
to a rationalist point of view. That they do not do so
consciously does not make it any less real. What a dull world it
would be if all were totally rational all of the time. I doubt
anyone would want the world to be this way. I know I would
not. I hope this is sufficient to convince you that I am not
interested in such a concept.
However, objective rational, logical, cogent discourse DOES exist and
in matters of import and disagreement it is the only societally
reliable method to ascertain truth or at least an appropriate level of
confidence in an assertion.
I'm not sure why you alluded to communism. I suspect it was an appeal to emotion, I intend to leave it alone.
[Family Member B] "I believe it to be true that people in general act
emotionally and then seek to justify it rationally. This is the
common human condition that you are up against."
People act for many different reasons. To ascribe acts primarily
to emotion seems very one dimensional. Of course you are free to
believe what you like, but without justification or evidence it is just
that - a personal conviction. It also seem reasonable that people
will seek to justify their actions. Again, a justification or
'rationalization' is not necessarily valid. An invalid
justification (or 'rationalisation') is really no justification (or
'rationaisation') at all.
[Family Member B] "I suppose that Eve was the first rationalist and that rationalism of hers brought about the first sin."
Well, I will try to argue this. But first I have to stress that
in my opinion we are arguing the absurd. But since it is in all
likelihood merely a
fairy tale I guess we can deal with it on its own merits.
The facts as I understand them are as follows:
1. There is God. omnipotent, omniscient, etc.
2. There is Adam - ignore him for the moment as a bit-part player
3. There is Eve - innocent and perfect.
4. There is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
5. There is Satan. omnipotent, omniscient, etc? I really don't know - can you help me there?
6. To eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil will make Eve more like God
7. To eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil will make Eve aware of good and evil
Eve, prior to eating the fruit therefore had no knowledge of good and evil.
God told Eve (or was it just Adam) not to eat the fruit. No reason why - Just blind obedience required I guess.
Satan told Eve to eat the fruit. I think he gave a reason - not sure what it was.
So without even having the concept of evil, Eve is somehow culpable for
committing evil. How screwed up is that? Also she had an
omnipotent being telling her to eat it. Telling her that
knowledge is a good thing. How is she equipped to reason the
correct action?
Also if God is omnipotent, etc then he MUST have known that Eve will
eat the fruit. So he is culpable of corrupting an innocent.
This is such a pitiful story that it barely warrants the effort of
criticism.
If you are looking for justifications think about how you might justify
putting the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the middle of the
garden, then telling your innocent automatons not to eat it's
fruit. If they were true innocent automatons they would have
mindlessly obeyed. So you needed to include a bad guy just as powerful
(and culpable) as yourself (or not) to tell your innocents to disobey
you and eat the fruit so that you can damn them in perpetuity.
How would you even start you justify such a petulant, vindictive
scenario.
Just as well, as I said earlier that it's all a big 'ole fairy tale.
[Family Member B] "Now that process will always lead to disaster, because you cannot ignore God.
True that following a logical course of action is no guarantee of
avoiding disaster. But trusting in imaginary friends has led to
many, many disasters. At least working with the best knowledge
available and recognizing your limitations and the unknowns gives you a
fighting chance. The alternative is to cast your fortunes to
random chance. Sometimes you are going to win - then you thank
God. Other times you lose - and then you also thanks God ... oh
no wait... then you blame yourself for sinning.
[Family Member B] "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."
Poppycock. That is merely an argument to force. Fear of the
non-existent is just an irrational fear. It is the antithesis of
wisdom.
[Family Member B] "Had Eve shown a little common sense then we shouldn't be in the mess that we are in today."
Suspending credulity and assuming the fairy tale is real for a moment,
how on earth could Eve have shown any common sense? She had NO
KNOWLEDGE of good and evil. She had an omnipotent, omniscient
being telling her what a good idea it is to eat the fruit. C'mon
give the gal a break. In no way is she in the least bit
responsible for her actions. If you want someone to blame look at
the guy that set it all up. It seems to me that he should be
behind bars. (Assuming of course that he was real).
[Family Member B] "Rationalism is not enough. We need revelation too."
Great - if there were any revelation. As Tom Paine put it, any
revelation we do not receive first hand is not a revelation at
all. It is merely here-say. (I'm paraphrasing). Perhaps
some people have received revelation. There is no way of
knowing. That people believe they do receive revelation I have no
doubt. But how they would know the difference between a
revelation and an overactive imagination I have no idea. As you
rightly said earlier on, we do not always have control of our
thoughts. This is precisely why we must apply intellectual rigour
and logic if we are to have any confidence in the validity and
genuineness of our thoughts.
There is no reliable revelation. All we have is rationalism. Like it or lump it.
bravenet.com