The philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.
I don't see how that says rationality cannot come from nonrationality.
Because Naturalism demands rational inferences from observed phenomena. By necessity is discards all irrationality and supernatural ideas. So if we evolved from once unthinking matter, rational thought would have come from lack of thought or nonrational matter. Which would mean by Naturalism's own definition, it can't be rational.
Because Naturalism demands rational inferences from observed phenomena. By necessity is discards all irrationality and supernatural ideas. So if we evolved from once unthinking matter, rational thought would have come from lack of thought or nonrational matter. Which would mean by Naturalism's own definition, it can't be rational.
I don't understand the argument. Are you saying that because we evolved from non-thinking matter, there can never be evidence that rationality is a natural product of brain function? I would say that requires evidence, not just an assertion.
Because Naturalism demands rational inferences from observed phenomena. By necessity is discards all irrationality and supernatural ideas. So if we evolved from once unthinking matter, rational thought would have come from lack of thought or nonrational matter.
If you mean that intelligent humans couldn't have evolved from unintelligent chemicals, that doesn't follow.
There is no reason a sentient brain can't evolve from a non-sentient brain, a non-sentient brain can't evolve from a neuron cluster, a neuron cluster can't evolve from a neuron, a neuron can't evolve from a multi-cellular organism, a multi-cellular organism can't evolve from a single-celled organism, a single-celled organism can't evolve from RNA strands, RNA strands can't evolve from loose proteins, loose proteins can't evolve from organic molecule, or that organic molecules can't evolve from aqueous chemicals, given billions of years and 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars.
In fact, we're already familiar with each and every one on of these processes. Scientists have even managed to replicate the very earliest development: you can generate proteins in an aqueous solution of organic molecules just by giving it a little shock.
@Grond0 "if you don't accept people's views about right and wrong, then do you think democracy is a poor system given that depends on people's views?" It all depends on the people. In both cases. But again, if you truely believe that right and wrong are subjective, can you, or are you willing, to argue that Nazism is good? If you can't/won't that leads me to believe that you do view some things as objectively right or wrong.
I'm not personally willing to argue Nazism is good, no. I would also be suspicious of someone who genuinely made that argument. However, I don't think that's relevant to the discussion. The fact that the vast majority of people believe Nazism is evil just means that there's a lot of agreement in their subjective opinions on that.
In order to claim that moral principles are objective I think you need to demonstrate that this applies to morality in general - I can't really see how an argument can be made that only some moral principles are objective and others subjective.
In relation to can rationality arise from non-rationality, @semiticgod got in first. The question is indeed essentially a variant of can life arise from non-life? While science doesn't have all the answers to that question, nearly all scientists believe that is possible.
@Grammarsalad "'Before' creation, there would have been 'Just God', existence would have been Perfect and Complete. Completeness follows from Perfection because if something ' extra' was needed, then God would not be perfect, would not be the greatest Being conceivable, would not be the necessary ground of being."
This argument only works if God needed creation. God was/is perfect, but whatever existed around Him does not affect His innate perfection. The Bible is really vague about the nature of existence before the universe, only that there was water. From this reasoning, God created a perfect world for Himself, but He Himself, was always perfect.
The idea of His omniscience juxtaposed with the rise of evil in His perfect creation is really interesting. I don't really have a perfect, wrapped up answer for you either. God apparently values will and the ability to choose, that making a creation, "In His image." and not giving it the ability to choose so much that it was more important than the initial perfection of creation. This is never explained in the Bible, only that God views companionship as meaningless with the ability to CHOOSE it.
@ThacoBell Sorry it took so long to get back to you. I literally got flooded. Lol, maybe God is angry with me
'Before*' creation, God = 'Everything that exists'
Thus, what is true of God is True of 'everything that exists'. The argument does not depend on God needing creation; it's rather the opposite. Not only would God not need creation, God would not 'want' creation; as such, creation would not happen if God exists. Why?
'Before' creation, everything is Perfect and Complete as God is the Totality of Existence. Being perfect and complete, anything 'added' would constitute an metaphysical imperfection, a corruption of something that 'was' prefect (i.e. the totality of existence).
It would be like having the perfect work of art that could not possibly be better, that needed nothing more, and then flinging a piece of poop on it. (btw, this argument gets away from a notion of evil as a nod to Descartes, but you could easily think of it in moral terms-- in that case you might imagine a morally prefect Being starting with a prefect world but then deciding to allow the holocaust to happen...it literally makes no sense).
*I use scare quotes for the word "before" because God would have created time( and space, etc.). Because the word before is temporal, it is actually senseless to talk about 'before' creation.
Thus, what is true of God is True of 'everything that exists'. The argument does not depend on God needing creation; it's rather the opposite. Not only would God not need creation, God would not 'want' creation; as such, creation would not happen if God exists. Why?
That depends on what God wants - and who are we to determine that? If He created Man in his image though, that might suggest human characteristics - like for instance finding perfection incredibly boring ...
Thus, what is true of God is True of 'everything that exists'. The argument does not depend on God needing creation; it's rather the opposite. Not only would God not need creation, God would not 'want' creation; as such, creation would not happen if God exists. Why?
That depends on what God wants - and who are we to determine that? If He created Man in his image though, that might suggest human characteristics - like for instance finding perfection incredibly boring ...
I mean, the whole ' in His image stuff' is supposed to represent what is best in man.
God: You know what would really spruce-up the place? The worst atrocities imaginable.
*poof*
The devil: My man! Don't worry, bro. I'll totally make this interesting
Is this what we should aspire to imitate? A bored old man that craves atrocity for stimulation?
Even if such a creature exists, I'm comfortable in my atheism
Edit: so I'm not such a Debby downer, this is the best response to the Problem of evil I've ever read. I strongly recommend it:
@FinneousPJ@semiticgod No to both counts. I'm sorry, I'm clearly struggling to get my thoughts across clearly. I'll try one more time and if I can't communicate it, I might have to drop it for now.
1.Naturalism holds that rational thought can be used to explain the world. As well as this, existence only consists of the physical, measurable world. 2. As well as embracing the rational, the school of thought intentionally discards all that is nonrational. Non rationality is counter to Naturalism, and does not fit within the model. So rationality cannot come from non rationality. 3. The problem arises here. If we evolved from non-life, or even just non-sentient matter, then we have rationality coming from nonrationality, which runs counter to the core tenet of Naturalism. It is self defeating in this way.
So if Naturalism is self-contradicting, then it must be false. Naturalism states that only the physical, measurable world exsits. So by extension, the non-physical, non-natiral, aka the supernatural, MUST exist.
@Grammarsalad "It would be like having the perfect work of art that could not possibly be better, that needed nothing more, and then flinging a piece of poop on it."
It would be more like, man, thats a good painting. Let's make another one next to it. The painting was perfect, but creating another does not take away the perfection of the first painting.
"God: You know what would really spruce-up the place? The worst atrocities imaginable.
*poof*
The devil: My man! Don't worry, bro. I'll totally make this interesting."
This is also incorrect. God did not create evil. The Devil, was at one point, the highest ranking angel. He staged a coup and failed. Even Satan isn't inherently evil, none of creation is, but his choice put him at odds with all that is good. That's the tricky thing. Choice is simultaneously God's greatest gift to His creations, and their biggest danger. Its a responsibility greater than all others.
Natural being the physical world we live in, with observable and measurable phenomena. So anything that is not spiritual or supernatural.
Rational, as in reasoning and self awareness. "I exist and I can contemplate my existence."
I thought I had been consistent in my use of them. As for different language, I'm not sure what I can do. I tried my own words, the standard argument as stated by a few other people, then back to my own words.
1.Naturalism holds that rational thought can be used to explain the world. As well as this, existence only consists of the physical, measurable world. 2. As well as embracing the rational, the school of thought intentionally discards all that is nonrational. Non rationality is counter to Naturalism, and does not fit within the model. So rationality cannot come from non rationality. 3. The problem arises here. If we evolved from non-life, or even just non-sentient matter, then we have rationality coming from nonrationality, which runs counter to the core tenet of Naturalism. It is self defeating in this way.
So if Naturalism is self-contradicting, then it must be false. Naturalism states that only the physical, measurable world exsits. So by extension, the non-physical, non-natiral, aka the supernatural, MUST exist.
That sounds like an odd interpretation of Naturalism. Do you have any source suggesting that non-rationality is seen as unacceptable? I wonder if there's some confusion about the principle that naturalism says there is an objective reality shared by rational observers? That principle does not imply that naturalism excludes non-rational factors, but is just getting at the idea that natural laws govern processes.
If there are people talking about non-rationality being unacceptable I think that will be in the context that nature is governed by laws that we can discover through observation and experimentation (as opposed to supernatural explanations that we can never discover). That's a different thing from talking about rationality in people - after all the vast bulk of the universe is non-rational in that sense. There should be no problem in naturalism with natural laws that result in the growth of life, intelligence and rationality where there was originally none of that.
Why would the existence of rational people in the universe need a supernatural explanation? I think contemporary neuroscience does a quite excellent job of showing us how sentience, intelligence, and rationality emerge from quite measurable natural means.
If "God" is needed as a "First Cause", to explain how life can emerge naturally in the universe from the absence of life, then what "caused" "God"? Why not just simplify the model and say that the universe caused life through natural means, such as physics, biochemistry, natural selection, and evolution?
If "God" is needed as a "First Cause" to explain how there is any existence at all, where causation is an infinitely reducible chain into something we don't yet understand, and "God" is that thing or force that can cause itself, has existed eternally, and always will exist, then why not just take the unobserveable and untestable factor of "God" out of the inquiry, and accept that the universe itself is the "First Cause" that does not need a prerequisite cause?
If "God" for you is the cause of everything mysterious and that we do not yet understand, then you are appealing to what Neil Degrasse Tyson calls "The God of the Gaps". It is a very old strategy for theists who want to maintain their political control when they're given it, and for theists who are desperately holding onto their fantasy that death is not a real thing, to the point of shunning former friends and family, and even killing to defend the fantasy.
"The God of the Gaps" is what theists throughout history have invoked to "explain" all the mysteries of the natural world and of existence for which science does not yet have a satisfactory explanation. So, if that's your "God", then your "God" is getting smaller, and smaller, and smaller, the more that human beings using the scientific method discover about the universe, that used to be mysterious and unknown, and that now is quite known, and even common.
Sidenote: I've recently been giving Pillars of Eternity 1 another chance where I had not played it very much before. I'm finding its theme of "gods" using technology thousands of years beyond Eora's to more or less enslave the entire population of the planet, even beyond their apparent physical deaths, to be quite engaging, especially in light of this thread. It is not a new theme in sci-fi. See "Stargate - Goa'uld", the newer version of "Battlestar Galactica", and any number of Star Trek episodes and movies.
@Grond0 "That sounds like an odd interpretation of Naturalism. Do you have any source suggesting that non-rationality is seen as unacceptable?" Because the whole core of Naturalism is that only rational inference is reliable/valid. If something is non-rational it, by definition, runs counter to Naturalism.
@FinneousPJ "Ok so redo the argument by using either reasoning or self awareness. They are not the same "
I never claimed they were? Not sure what you are trying to say.
@BelgarathMTH "Why would the existence of rational people in the universe need a supernatural explanation?"
They don't, necessarily. I jumped the gun and extended my main argument apparently before properly explaining the argument from reason. The core of this argument is that rationality cannot both be the only answer to everything and have the physical, natural world being the whole of existence. They work either/or, but not together. And no, I don't subscribe to the "God of the gaps", you're right, the holes that argument takes advantage of are shrinking all the time.
Spoilered for wall of text.
1. No belief is rationally inferred if it can be fully explained in terms of nonrational causes.
Reasoning requires insight into logical relations. A process of reasoning (A therefore is rational only if the reasoner sees that B follows from, or is supported by, A, and accepts B on that basis. Thus, reasoning is only valid if it involves a special kind of causality, rational insight into logical implication or support of evidence. If part of reasoning can be fully explained by nonrational causes, such as fibers firing in the brain or a bump on the head, then the reasoning is not reliable, and cannot yield knowledge. Example: Person A refuses to go near a dog because he had a bad childhood experience with dogs. Person B refuses to go near the dog because one month ago he saw it attack someone. Both have given a reason for staying away from the dog, but person A’s reason is the result of nonrational causes, while person B has given an explanation for his behavior following from rational inference (animals exhibit patterns of behavior; these patterns are likely to be repeated, this dog has shown aggression towards someone who approached it; there is a good chance that the dog will show that aggression again if approached. Anither once: Person A says that he is afraid to climb to the 8th story of a bank building because he and humans in general have a natural fear of heights resulting from the processes of evolution and natural selection. He has given an explanation of his fear, but since his fear results from nonrational causes (natural selection), his argument does not follow from logical inference.
2. If naturalism is true, then all beliefs can be fully explained in terms of nonrational causes.
Naturalism holds that nature is all that exists, and that all events in nature can be explained without using supernatural or other nonnatural causes. Naturalists claim that all events must have physical causes, and that human thoughts can ultimately be explained in terms of material causes or physical events (such as neurochemical events in the brain) that are nonrational.
3. Therefore, if naturalism is true, then no belief is rationally inferred (from 1 and 2) 4. We have good reason to accept naturalism only if it can be rationally inferred from good evidence. 5. Therefore, there is not, and cannot be, good reason to accept naturalism.
Naturalism undercuts itself. If naturalism is true, then we cannot sensibly believe it or virtually anything else.
This arugment is specifically against Naturalism and its worship of the rational. Its not a debunk of science, or even aimed at evolution. Its an argument stating that Naturalism cannot be true, because rational and measurable things come from non-rational sources.
@Grond0 "That sounds like an odd interpretation of Naturalism. Do you have any source suggesting that non-rationality is seen as unacceptable?" Because the whole core of Naturalism is that only rational inference is reliable/valid. If something is non-rational it, by definition, runs counter to Naturalism.
2. If naturalism is true, then all beliefs can be fully explained in terms of nonrational causes.
Naturalism holds that nature is all that exists, and that all events in nature can be explained without using supernatural or other nonnatural causes. Naturalists claim that all events must have physical causes, and that human thoughts can ultimately be explained in terms of material causes or physical events (such as neurochemical events in the brain) that are nonrational.
3. Therefore, if naturalism is true, then no belief is rationally inferred (from 1 and 2) 4. We have good reason to accept naturalism only if it can be rationally inferred from good evidence. 5. Therefore, there is not, and cannot be, good reason to accept naturalism.
Naturalism undercuts itself. If naturalism is true, then we cannot sensibly believe it or virtually anything else.
I agree with much of your argument, but you're using different definitions of rationality in different places. Naturalism does indeed say that only rational inference is reliable/valid. In other words the universe works according to laws and we can only deduce those laws by rational means.
That does not mean though that people can never have irrational beliefs - just that the way those beliefs were arrived at can be explained through natural laws. If we look at the fear of dogs, both Person A and Person B believe that a particular dog is dangerous as a result of what they've seen and heard - those experiences trigger changes in the brain resulting in the belief. Science is now able to see at least some of these types of changes in the brain and naturalism predicts that ultimately we will fully understand that process.
Just because a process is fully understood though doesn't mean that it won't occur. One method of treating phobias is to get people to understand their origin, so we would expect greater understanding to lead to a reduction in phobias directly. We would also expect that if the process for causing phobias is understood, we would be able to design better treatments to help reverse that process. The fact the phobia exists at all though (or any other non-rational beliefs) provides no evidence for supernatural causes and is therefore not a problem for naturalism - the theory requires only that all natural laws can be understood rationally, not that all the results of those laws are rational.
@FinneousPJ "Ok so redo the argument by using either reasoning or self awareness. They are not the same "
I never claimed they were? Not sure what you are trying to say.
You do claim they are the same by defining rational as both. "Rational, as in reasoning and self awareness." Drop the word rational and redo the argument.
@Grond0 I agree with most of what you say as well. What you describe is a looser form of Naturalism, which I find much more reasonable. The argument I use only really refutes strict forms of naturalism that attempt to explain everything in physics or pure mechanics (Which is the classical form of it).
We come from same moral meta, so here goes: there is not as much "objective" morality, as there is enlightenment (or lack thereof) - as in jointly held humanistic, legalistic values.
And there is intrinsic behaviours, especially through socialisation, by us humans as animal (or divine) species - I tend to be somewhat optimistic in my view, so I resonate with Tomansello ("Why we cooperate"), finding out that human babies are helpful by nature.
I am also most certainly Lutheran in my non-belief, while surprisingly aggressively secular. Dragon Age - series highlighted this to me by forcing me to realise how much I hated the qunari. Tallis & Iron Bull got my default dislike and suspicion coz of belonging into an extreme theocracy.
As to your questions:
- You should not be sexist in Finland / Scandi / EU- setting because of legal framework from a position of power, because it is punishable. Ref: Alma Media case, for example - times two, no less!
I do tend to view morality based on fear of punishment inferior to actual positive subscription to a moral / legalistic framework. I know I am unadmirable when I slow down just for the speed cameras.
On that spin, I'd say: provided that you are a male, you have already highly likely benefitted from sexism in terms of discriminatory power structures.
Confirmation bias with previous accumulation of wealth or desicion power keeps it that way. You are likely to not challenge this, and so it goes - but that is still unadmirable, unless your starting premise is that women are less deserving.
Apostoli Paavali: "Kaikille ei ole uskoa suotu." Eikä tämä mielestäni ollut tuomitseva, vaan toteava. (NB: I'm referring to Apostle Paul, specifically him writing that "Not each of us is granted faith" but not sure that is the right translation.)
It's both amusing and a bit unsettling to realise you are a stick in the mud; meaning that you are shaped by Lutheran values and society around you, and you are not really cynical, even if unfaithful.
For example: the work ethic; the sense of guilt where we are to reconcile our wrongs within our very own conscience without external ritual; the ideal of practical and non-zealous faith that aims at social justice and ecumenic sensibility.
My grand mother was that great Lutheran Christian in a quiet, private way, and would that I could have it in me, but alas, Apostle Paul.
In the same way I cannot abide dogmatic zeal, I find myself frowning upon cynical adoption of a faith. Any conversions to marry someone, particularly in a royal setting, irk me. I could not just do what I have dubbed "crotch conversion." (Say, for example, Duchess of Sussex, or a rare male peer, Omar Sharif)
I don't know what you're trying to say, but I'm afraid there cannot be a discussion if you're going to assume you know me and what I'm like without even trying to figure it out.
I don't know what you're trying to say, but I'm afraid there cannot be a discussion if you're going to assume you know me and what I'm like without even trying to figure it out.
...that was really weird. I think @TStael was just talking about "Lutheran non belief", about the influence of Lutheranism on their life and outlook despite their lack of faith.
I was raised Lutheran, but all I remember about that is the distain my pastor had for the Mother Mary. Also, the church has a playground, and I would always get splinters from the jungle gym.
An ancient relic of his noodliness was discovered in 2015.
Only my god can make me feel significant.
Perhaps sometimes you feel like an insignificant human being, living a meaningless life on a rock flying through space at an unsightly pace. This is of course false, because FSM created you and loves you!
Atheism is just another religion.
You cannot prove FSM does not exist. Therefore, atheism is necessarily wrong.
Evolution is bad.
Some people believe in a thing called “evolution”. Do not be fooled – this is a test of faith from his noodliness, and you must use your faith to overcome.
Our world is too beautiful to be an accident.
One word: beer. His noodliness actually created beer before man; in fact, man was a drunken mistake.
My god created the universe.
I simply don’t have enough faith to believe that FSM did not create the universe. After all, it’s either that or universe-farting unicorns, and that’s just silly.
Believing in my god makes me happy.
Praying to his noodliness always gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling, his noodly appendage touching me, comforting me. Have you not felt his touch?
Comments
The philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.
I don't see how that says rationality cannot come from nonrationality.
There is no reason a sentient brain can't evolve from a non-sentient brain, a non-sentient brain can't evolve from a neuron cluster, a neuron cluster can't evolve from a neuron, a neuron can't evolve from a multi-cellular organism, a multi-cellular organism can't evolve from a single-celled organism, a single-celled organism can't evolve from RNA strands, RNA strands can't evolve from loose proteins, loose proteins can't evolve from organic molecule, or that organic molecules can't evolve from aqueous chemicals, given billions of years and 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars.
In fact, we're already familiar with each and every one on of these processes. Scientists have even managed to replicate the very earliest development: you can generate proteins in an aqueous solution of organic molecules just by giving it a little shock.
In order to claim that moral principles are objective I think you need to demonstrate that this applies to morality in general - I can't really see how an argument can be made that only some moral principles are objective and others subjective.
In relation to can rationality arise from non-rationality, @semiticgod got in first. The question is indeed essentially a variant of can life arise from non-life? While science doesn't have all the answers to that question, nearly all scientists believe that is possible.
Sorry it took so long to get back to you. I literally got flooded. Lol, maybe God is angry with me
'Before*' creation, God = 'Everything that exists'
Thus, what is true of God is True of 'everything that exists'. The argument does not depend on God needing creation; it's rather the opposite. Not only would God not need creation, God would not 'want' creation; as such, creation would not happen if God exists. Why?
'Before' creation, everything is Perfect and Complete as God is the Totality of Existence. Being perfect and complete, anything 'added' would constitute an metaphysical imperfection, a corruption of something that 'was' prefect (i.e. the totality of existence).
It would be like having the perfect work of art that could not possibly be better, that needed nothing more, and then flinging a piece of poop on it. (btw, this argument gets away from a notion of evil as a nod to Descartes, but you could easily think of it in moral terms-- in that case you might imagine a morally prefect Being starting with a prefect world but then deciding to allow the holocaust to happen...it literally makes no sense).
*I use scare quotes for the word "before" because God would have created time( and space, etc.). Because the word before is temporal, it is actually senseless to talk about 'before' creation.
God: You know what would really spruce-up the place? The worst atrocities imaginable.
*poof*
The devil: My man! Don't worry, bro. I'll totally make this interesting
Is this what we should aspire to imitate? A bored old man that craves atrocity for stimulation?
Even if such a creature exists, I'm comfortable in my atheism
Edit: so I'm not such a Debby downer, this is the best response to the Problem of evil I've ever read. I strongly recommend it:
https://www.amazon.com/Problem-Evil-God/dp/0800637755/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1534337873&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=the+problem+of+evil+and+the+problem+of+god+dz+phillips&dpPl=1&dpID=418LDIbYf7L&ref=plSrch
Weird link. This is the book, which can be googled:
The Problem of Evil & the Problem of God by
D. Z. Phillips
1.Naturalism holds that rational thought can be used to explain the world. As well as this, existence only consists of the physical, measurable world.
2. As well as embracing the rational, the school of thought intentionally discards all that is nonrational. Non rationality is counter to Naturalism, and does not fit within the model. So rationality cannot come from non rationality.
3. The problem arises here. If we evolved from non-life, or even just non-sentient matter, then we have rationality coming from nonrationality, which runs counter to the core tenet of Naturalism. It is self defeating in this way.
So if Naturalism is self-contradicting, then it must be false. Naturalism states that only the physical, measurable world exsits. So by extension, the non-physical, non-natiral, aka the supernatural, MUST exist.
@Grammarsalad "It would be like having the perfect work of art that could not possibly be better, that needed nothing more, and then flinging a piece of poop on it."
It would be more like, man, thats a good painting. Let's make another one next to it. The painting was perfect, but creating another does not take away the perfection of the first painting.
"God: You know what would really spruce-up the place? The worst atrocities imaginable.
*poof*
The devil: My man! Don't worry, bro. I'll totally make this interesting."
This is also incorrect. God did not create evil. The Devil, was at one point, the highest ranking angel. He staged a coup and failed. Even Satan isn't inherently evil, none of creation is, but his choice put him at odds with all that is good. That's the tricky thing. Choice is simultaneously God's greatest gift to His creations, and their biggest danger. Its a responsibility greater than all others.
Or as @semiticgod suggested can you offer consistent definitions for rational and natural
Rational, as in reasoning and self awareness. "I exist and I can contemplate my existence."
I thought I had been consistent in my use of them. As for different language, I'm not sure what I can do. I tried my own words, the standard argument as stated by a few other people, then back to my own words.
If there are people talking about non-rationality being unacceptable I think that will be in the context that nature is governed by laws that we can discover through observation and experimentation (as opposed to supernatural explanations that we can never discover). That's a different thing from talking about rationality in people - after all the vast bulk of the universe is non-rational in that sense. There should be no problem in naturalism with natural laws that result in the growth of life, intelligence and rationality where there was originally none of that.
If "God" is needed as a "First Cause", to explain how life can emerge naturally in the universe from the absence of life, then what "caused" "God"? Why not just simplify the model and say that the universe caused life through natural means, such as physics, biochemistry, natural selection, and evolution?
If "God" is needed as a "First Cause" to explain how there is any existence at all, where causation is an infinitely reducible chain into something we don't yet understand, and "God" is that thing or force that can cause itself, has existed eternally, and always will exist, then why not just take the unobserveable and untestable factor of "God" out of the inquiry, and accept that the universe itself is the "First Cause" that does not need a prerequisite cause?
If "God" for you is the cause of everything mysterious and that we do not yet understand, then you are appealing to what Neil Degrasse Tyson calls "The God of the Gaps". It is a very old strategy for theists who want to maintain their political control when they're given it, and for theists who are desperately holding onto their fantasy that death is not a real thing, to the point of shunning former friends and family, and even killing to defend the fantasy.
"The God of the Gaps" is what theists throughout history have invoked to "explain" all the mysteries of the natural world and of existence for which science does not yet have a satisfactory explanation. So, if that's your "God", then your "God" is getting smaller, and smaller, and smaller, the more that human beings using the scientific method discover about the universe, that used to be mysterious and unknown, and that now is quite known, and even common.
Sidenote: I've recently been giving Pillars of Eternity 1 another chance where I had not played it very much before. I'm finding its theme of "gods" using technology thousands of years beyond Eora's to more or less enslave the entire population of the planet, even beyond their apparent physical deaths, to be quite engaging, especially in light of this thread. It is not a new theme in sci-fi. See "Stargate - Goa'uld", the newer version of "Battlestar Galactica", and any number of Star Trek episodes and movies.
Because the whole core of Naturalism is that only rational inference is reliable/valid. If something is non-rational it, by definition, runs counter to Naturalism.
@FinneousPJ "Ok so redo the argument by using either reasoning or self awareness. They are not the same "
I never claimed they were? Not sure what you are trying to say.
@BelgarathMTH "Why would the existence of rational people in the universe need a supernatural explanation?"
They don't, necessarily. I jumped the gun and extended my main argument apparently before properly explaining the argument from reason. The core of this argument is that rationality cannot both be the only answer to everything and have the physical, natural world being the whole of existence. They work either/or, but not together. And no, I don't subscribe to the "God of the gaps", you're right, the holes that argument takes advantage of are shrinking all the time.
Spoilered for wall of text.
Reasoning requires insight into logical relations. A process of reasoning (A therefore
Example: Person A refuses to go near a dog because he had a bad childhood experience with dogs. Person B refuses to go near the dog because one month ago he saw it attack someone. Both have given a reason for staying away from the dog, but person A’s reason is the result of nonrational causes, while person B has given an explanation for his behavior following from rational inference (animals exhibit patterns of behavior; these patterns are likely to be repeated, this dog has shown aggression towards someone who approached it; there is a good chance that the dog will show that aggression again if approached.
Anither once: Person A says that he is afraid to climb to the 8th story of a bank building because he and humans in general have a natural fear of heights resulting from the processes of evolution and natural selection. He has given an explanation of his fear, but since his fear results from nonrational causes (natural selection), his argument does not follow from logical inference.
2. If naturalism is true, then all beliefs can be fully explained in terms of nonrational causes.
Naturalism holds that nature is all that exists, and that all events in nature can be explained without using supernatural or other nonnatural causes. Naturalists claim that all events must have physical causes, and that human thoughts can ultimately be explained in terms of material causes or physical events (such as neurochemical events in the brain) that are nonrational.
3. Therefore, if naturalism is true, then no belief is rationally inferred (from 1 and 2)
4. We have good reason to accept naturalism only if it can be rationally inferred from good evidence.
5. Therefore, there is not, and cannot be, good reason to accept naturalism.
Naturalism undercuts itself. If naturalism is true, then we cannot sensibly believe it or virtually anything else.
This arugment is specifically against Naturalism and its worship of the rational. Its not a debunk of science, or even aimed at evolution. Its an argument stating that Naturalism cannot be true, because rational and measurable things come from non-rational sources.
That does not mean though that people can never have irrational beliefs - just that the way those beliefs were arrived at can be explained through natural laws. If we look at the fear of dogs, both Person A and Person B believe that a particular dog is dangerous as a result of what they've seen and heard - those experiences trigger changes in the brain resulting in the belief. Science is now able to see at least some of these types of changes in the brain and naturalism predicts that ultimately we will fully understand that process.
Just because a process is fully understood though doesn't mean that it won't occur. One method of treating phobias is to get people to understand their origin, so we would expect greater understanding to lead to a reduction in phobias directly. We would also expect that if the process for causing phobias is understood, we would be able to design better treatments to help reverse that process. The fact the phobia exists at all though (or any other non-rational beliefs) provides no evidence for supernatural causes and is therefore not a problem for naturalism - the theory requires only that all natural laws can be understood rationally, not that all the results of those laws are rational.
Oh, Finneous.
We come from same moral meta, so here goes: there is not as much "objective" morality, as there is enlightenment (or lack thereof) - as in jointly held humanistic, legalistic values.
And there is intrinsic behaviours, especially through socialisation, by us humans as animal (or divine) species - I tend to be somewhat optimistic in my view, so I resonate with Tomansello ("Why we cooperate"), finding out that human babies are helpful by nature.
I am also most certainly Lutheran in my non-belief, while surprisingly aggressively secular. Dragon Age - series highlighted this to me by forcing me to realise how much I hated the qunari. Tallis & Iron Bull got my default dislike and suspicion coz of belonging into an extreme theocracy.
As to your questions:
- You should not be sexist in Finland / Scandi / EU- setting because of legal framework from a position of power, because it is punishable. Ref: Alma Media case, for example - times two, no less!
I do tend to view morality based on fear of punishment inferior to actual positive subscription to a moral / legalistic framework. I know I am unadmirable when I slow down just for the speed cameras.
On that spin, I'd say: provided that you are a male, you have already highly likely benefitted from sexism in terms of discriminatory power structures.
Confirmation bias with previous accumulation of wealth or desicion power keeps it that way. You are likely to not challenge this, and so it goes - but that is still unadmirable, unless your starting premise is that women are less deserving.
Apostoli Paavali: "Kaikille ei ole uskoa suotu." Eikä tämä mielestäni ollut tuomitseva, vaan toteava.
(NB: I'm referring to Apostle Paul, specifically him writing that "Not each of us is granted faith" but not sure that is the right translation.)
It's both amusing and a bit unsettling to realise you are a stick in the mud; meaning that you are shaped by Lutheran values and society around you, and you are not really cynical, even if unfaithful.
For example: the work ethic; the sense of guilt where we are to reconcile our wrongs within our very own conscience without external ritual; the ideal of practical and non-zealous faith that aims at social justice and ecumenic sensibility.
My grand mother was that great Lutheran Christian in a quiet, private way, and would that I could have it in me, but alas, Apostle Paul.
In the same way I cannot abide dogmatic zeal, I find myself frowning upon cynical adoption of a faith. Any conversions to marry someone, particularly in a royal setting, irk me. I could not just do what I have dubbed "crotch conversion." (Say, for example, Duchess of Sussex, or a rare male peer, Omar Sharif)
@FinneousPJ - this is not you, is it?
I was raised Lutheran, but all I remember about that is the distain my pastor had for the Mother Mary. Also, the church has a playground, and I would always get splinters from the jungle gym.
Hail Satan.
50 Reasons to Believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster
Based on 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God by Guy P. Harrison
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2014/10/archbishops-computer-contained-over-100000-child-porn-files/
Archbishop’s computer contained over 100,000 child porn files
*** UPDATE ***
Wesolowski died on August 27, 2015, while living in the Vatican under house arrest. He was never prosecuted for his crimes.