Syndicate
User login
Navigation
The Rationality of Rationality
CS Lewis, in "Miracles", proposed that we can not trust our rationale if it is the result of mindless, unplanned, irrational causes. In other words, if the string of rationality is broken in the cause-effect string going back, then there is no rationality.
The implication is that if our logic and rationality is the result of naturalistic evolution, then we can't trust that logic and rationality. If our rationality is thus caused, then the rationality of naturalism has no basis and is self-defeating and internally inconsistent.
Input? Responses? Go vote.
custom-pager custom-pager-1 custom-pager-blog
Technorati Tags: apologia – Thu, 07/26/2007 – 22:32
links inline
links inline
Irrational causes?
I've never heard anyone claim that the source of our rationality is "irrational causes." Naturalistic explanations rely on the effects of natural laws. (When I write "natural laws," I'm referring to the way reality operates, NOT the human descriptions of this reality.) Was Lewis saying that nature is irrational? If rationality is the result of reality, then there's no reason to decry it as self-defeating and inconsistent.
I'm not saying that it's trustworthy by default. After all, emotionality and superstition have the same basic source. However, there's no need to dismiss it out of hand, especially when it's proved itself as incredibly useful.
Perhaps a better term would be arational
I think that his point is not necessarily about reality, but about how we process reality. I am not doing his argument justice, so bear that in mind.
If naturalism offers nothing more than chance mutation and natural selection as the cause of our rationality (as defined by logic, reason, inference, deduction, etc...), then we have no cause to trust that rationailty. Both chance mutation and natural selection are mindless, with no grasp whatsoever of rationality or the "truth/reality" that corresponds to that rationality.
There is no reason whatsoever to imagine that chance mutation or natural selection could or would promote a correspondence between reality/truth and our rationality. It could only (at best) promote the survival of the fittest, with "fittest" defined not as that which corresponds, but that which survives.
So, if the cause of our rationality has no mind towards correspondence, then the effect (rationality) can not be trusted as correspondent. We may just be evolved in such a way that we think that we see a correspondence, but we can not really trust that correspondence because there is nothing in the model to assure a correspondence. Thus any theory relying on that lack of caused correspondence, has proved that proof can not be fully trusted, thus is internally inconsistent. In other words, naturalism is locked into Hume's skepticism, and thus can't call on any proof at all.
Professor Haldane, in "Possible Worlds", spoke similarly:
If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true...and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.
The sum cannot be greater than the parts?
My definition of "fittest" is something along the lines of "what works." If our rationality didn't correspond, at least loosely, with reality, it wouldn't "work."
You're right that we can't really trust our perception of the world as being accurate. We all have our flaws, and some of them (like mental illness) cause bad things to happen.
Our system of rationality is not just individual, it's cooperative. One person can make all the claims of truth he wants, but without agreement from others, he's just a raving lunatic. Even when there's universal agreement, that's no guarantee of accuracy. It all falls back to "what works."
Let me turn this around on you a bit. If theism proposes that a perfect intelligence is the source of rationality, and I think we can agree that our rationality is imperfect, how can we be certain that the perfect intelligence is indeed perfect?
Not in a line of causes and effects
My definition of "fittest" is something along the lines of "what works." If our rationality didn't correspond, at least loosely, with reality, it wouldn't "work."
And how do you know this? What if "what worked" were the creatures with the least association with reality, in that they were the fiercest, bravest? What if "what worked" in our lineage was the fact that the least associated (with reality) females enjoyed sex with the least associated males? Naturalistic evolution has nothing inherent that would promote rationality over non-rationality...
If the cause/effect string of rationality is broken, then rationality can't be trusted. It is built on non-rationality.
Our system of rationality is not just individual, it's cooperative. One person can make all the claims of truth he wants, but without agreement from others, he's just a raving lunatic. Even when there's universal agreement, that's no guarantee of accuracy. It all falls back to "what works."
If rationality is in question, then you can't use rationality (even corporate rationality) to argue its favor. That's circular reasoning. Once you've taken the reliability of rationality out of the box, you have to beg the question to get it back in. And again, "what works" isn't necessarily tied to "what's rational".
Let me turn this around on you a bit. If theism proposes that a perfect intelligence is the source of rationality, and I think we can agree that our rationality is imperfect, how can we be certain that the perfect intelligence is indeed perfect?
You may not be certain this side of meeting Him. But an honest look around yourself may help alleviate the concern. He would have to be at least as intelligent as all of the intelligence we find in existence. He would have to be at least intelligent enough to design and construct the vast complexities of the Universe. He would be so far above our intelligence that defining Him as perfectly intelligent would be perfectly acceptable.
At the very least, I would hope that you would agree that the rational is the best answer to the question of what has the ability to impart rationality.
Again, I am doing little justice to Lewis' philosophy on the matter, and it's not even really a big deal to me, since I don't find this to be a silver-bullet proof for God. I have a hard enough time explaining it that I don't really expect the skeptic to cling to it. :)
I do, however, find it very interesting fodder for discussion, and in that I thank you for indulging me.
Take care...
The filter of reality leaves a footprint
What if "what worked" were the creatures with the least association with reality ... Naturalistic evolution has nothing inherent that would promote rationality over non-rationality...
I beg to differ--Natural selection is simply the hammer of reality knocking away what doesn't work. That's where the correlation lies. If our ability to perceive reality was shaped by natural selection, there's an indirect correlation there. It's not perfect, but close enough.
If rationality is in question, then you can't use rationality (even corporate rationality) to argue its favor. That's circular reasoning.
Likewise, you can't use rationality to argue against it. That's just irrational!
Lewis is trying to say that only theists have a right to use rationality, because no one else can justify the source. My point is that a natural source can't be ruled out, and the fact that rationality "works" gives me every justification for using it, unless/until something better comes along. It sure seems to have a better track record than divine inspiration.
At the very least, I would hope that you would agree that the rational is the best answer to the question of what has the ability to impart rationality.
Not at all. Where's the evidence of that? We humans have created "thinking" machines, but they hardly have a rational decision-making process.
He would be so far above our intelligence that defining Him as perfectly intelligent would be perfectly acceptable.
In my book, powerful != perfect.
It's more about the abilities of the "tracker"
I beg to differ--Natural selection is simply the hammer of reality knocking away what doesn't work. That's where the correlation lies. If our ability to perceive reality was shaped by natural selection, there's an indirect correlation there. It's not perfect, but close enough.
But we are not talking about reality. We are talking about correlation to reality. And there is nothing in natural selection that cares whatsoever about that correlation. This still doesn't explain it well, but it is more about a "suffcient" cause for rationality, and our ability to trust that rationality due to where it came from. With that said, we are back to a break in causes for rationality by non-rationality. Therefore, we have no confidence that what we view as correspondent is in fact a rational correspondence.
Likewise, you can't use rationality to argue against it. That's just irrational!
My model claims a Rational mind as the cause of our rationality. It does not suffer from the break with rationality that yours does. That's the whole point.
Lewis is trying to say that only theists have a right to use rationality, because no one else can justify the source.
Lewis is saying that naturalism is internally inconsistent, since there is no established confidence in its source of rationality. It offers proofs that we can't trust proofs, thus it is self-defeating. What you do with that statement is up to you.
My point is that a natural source can't be ruled out,
And neither can the possibility that that non-rational source promoted irrational thinking for whatever reason. It may very well be that our stage as a non-rational amoeba-like creature promoted a change that forever disallowed a correct correlation between truth and thought. So, it can't be ruled out, but it can't really be trusted.
and the fact that rationality "works" gives me every justification for using it, unless/until something better comes along.
Without the assurances of a correlation between fact and thought... Without an utter confidence in the "aboutness" of your thoughts, you have no confidence what "works", whether it "works", or whether you are truly capable of making that correlation correctly.
I think that is Lewis' point.
It sure seems to have a better track record than divine inspiration.
The dig aside, I just have to ask... What are you using to make the judgment of "better"? ;)
Take care...
Real rationality
But we are not talking about reality. We are talking about correlation to reality. And there is nothing in natural selection that cares whatsoever about that correlation.
Natural selection IS reality, sir. "Care" is a strange word to use here. Reality certainly has a correlation to itself, no?
My model claims a Rational mind as the cause of our rationality. It does not suffer from the break with rationality that yours does.
You've shown no evidence to support your model. Negative evidence against another model (even assuming it's good evidence) is not positive evidence for yours. The fact that rationality is the only tool we can use to distinguish the models makes this discussion pointless, anyway. Your rationality tells you that rationality had to have a "rational mind" cause to be trustworthy. Is that circular enough for you?
Lewis is saying that naturalism is internally inconsistent, since there is no established confidence in its source of rationality.
Lewis can show no established confidence in his rationality either, so let's throw rationality out the window! Sounds good to me. Let's celebrate by sucking eggs.
What are you using to make the judgment of "better"?
Reproducable results. We use rationality to survive, and it seems to work far better than divine inspiration ever did. There's that pesky reality poking it's head in again, confirming that rationality correlates at least somewhat.
Really real rationality
To the contrary, I've shown quite a bit of positive evidence in our exchange of worldviews.
Reality does have a correlation to itself. It's the ability to trust our perception of it that in question. You still have it outside of the box, and are begging the question to get it back in.
Your rationality tells you that rationality had to have a "rational mind" cause to be trustworthy. Is that circular enough for you?
No. My rationality tells me that my rationality has to have a rational cause. See the laws of cause and effect for the distinction. If it's unclear afterward, I'll elaborate. Hints: All effects need a sufficient cause. The cause does not depend on the effect. A string of infinite causes is a logical impossibility.
Lewis can show no established confidence in his rationality either, so let's throw rationality out the window! Sounds good to me.
By rooting his argument in a sufficient cause, I'm sure he has great confidence.
There's that pesky reality poking it's head in again, confirming that rationality correlates at least somewhat.
With nothing to safeguard a correspondence, you may just be the most creative amoeba in the pond.
Really?
My rationality tells me that my rationality has to have a rational cause.
Uh-huh. Nothing circular about that...
See the laws of cause and effect for the distinction.
What is the source of those laws? Hint: they weren't written on a stone and handed to someone. If your rationality tells you they are true, the snake is eating it's own tail again. To break this cycle, you need to dump the self-referential elements. To do that, you've lost your rationality, literally.
A string of infinite causes is a logical impossibility.
To be so sure, your perception of reality would have to be perfect. "Infinite" and "impossible" are powerful words in this realm of philosophy.
Uh-huh. Nothing circular
Uh-huh. Nothing circular about that...
You're still hung up on the false assumption that the causal rationality = our rationality.
What is the source of those laws? Hint: they weren't written on a stone and handed to someone. If your rationality tells you they are true, the snake is eating it's own tail again. To break this cycle, you need to dump the self-referential elements. To do that, you've lost your rationality, literally.
I think you know what my answer to that one is. And, although I appreciate the vote of confidence, I'm not God.
To be so sure, your perception of reality would have to be perfect. "Infinite" and "impossible" are powerful words in this realm of philosophy.
Yes, they are. They're powerful words in science too. Now, I'd like you to find an infinitely long bookshelf and retrieve the last book on it. Once you've found it, you can explain to me how causes and time wouldn't fail on the same basis.
I'll be waiting right here.