Nuwanda

If I was a Naturalist or an Atheist I would struggle to give a logical argument for the very existance of reason and/or logic. I'm not implying that there isn't a good argument, I just haven't heard it.

Question:

1) Is the natural universe a closed system (free of the supernatural)?
2) If it is a closed system, and assuming that the system has no independant thought process capable of logic and reason: how did reason/logic come to be?

In other words: can reason/logic have its roots in the non-rational/non-logical? Or is there another alternative without involving a supernatural God?

I'm honestly looking for intelligent feedback from clear-headed naturalist and atheists, not yawning smiley faces and anti-religious rants. Thanks.

David Vestal

Logic and reason are abstract concepts. They don't "exist" in the same sense that a cactus exists. Also, nature didn't "create" us.

It is inarguable that the properties of effects aren't necessarily a subset of their causes. With this in mind, I don't see how your question is at all difficult to answer.

The natural universe is by definition free not supernatural. If you're asking whether I think supernatural things exist, the answer is no.

They're abstract concepts. They don't "exist" for the same reason that "ugly" and the number 3 don't exist. These concepts exist only as a way to describe things that we've arbitrarily decided to describe as such.

The alternative described above.

I was getting to those, but I suppose now that you've asked, I won't.

Preno

Well, the use of reason depends on irrational assumptions about the world, such as that it is at least in part understandable by rational processes, that there is a systematic relationship between what we see and reality, etc. (in fact, I find that truth itself is basically an irrational concept). And reason is just an instrument, so we need to have some purpose for which we use this instrument, and this purpose is again esssentially irrational (for example, the desire to understand the world).

From the evolutionary point of view, it can of course be said that reason is a faculty that is strongly advantageous to survival.

trendkill

Well, that sounds like a bit of a non sequitur. I've never heard it argued that reason/logic couldn't exist without God; I've heard arguments to the effect that reason couldn't be trusted if there was no God, but thus far I've not seen anyone brash enough to claim that reason couldn't exist at all without God. Perhaps you could present your argument to that effect, i.e. fill in the gaps in "the universe is a closed system, therefore X Y and Z, therefore reason can't exist".

EssEff

Reason & logic came about as a result of evolution. Nothing supernatural about it at all. From the first time humans cooperated to bring down an edible beast, reason & logic have helped us adapt to various environments.

Nuwanda

I like your sense of humor David.

So, reason/logic are only abstract concepts that we've arbitrarily decided to describe as such, and they don't "exist"? I follow you. Only, I think the word "ugly" and the number 3 are in a different category all together. I don't believe it's safe to generalize language in this fashion, for some obvious reasons - ugly is subjective, the number 3 is objective, and logic is suppose to be more than just an arbitrary description of a mental faculty, wouldn't you agree? If our idea (understanding) of reason/logic is merely abstract, how then do you put any stock in it at all? It would seem that reason/logic is no more a reality than a supernatural God.

No attempt here to 'win a debate' I'm only trying to understand your conclusions. Straighten me out.

Nuwanda

For me, this is nothing more than the argument a believer usually puts forth for God - "Reason & logic came about through a Creator, nothing natural about it."

This is vague evolution rhetoric (no offence). We all know where naturalists believe logic came from, I'm asking how it's possible to come that way.

Philo_66

Excellent question! This is sort of a 'project' of mine--how to understand things like reason, intention, will, and intelligence with a 'closed system' view. Good arguments for this are hard to find and for good reason. I believe it really is not possible to make purely objective arguments for these things as they are... well... issues of subjectivity.

Why would 'closed system' imply 'free of the supernatural'? Unless that's simply the way you define it. That's fine with me. Actually I think it's a good definition. I also believe that if such a system did include the 'supernatural', it wouldn't be supernatural. Which is why I don't really care to call myself a 'Naturalist'. It doesn't really mean anything. If everything is 'natural' then there is nothing that is distinctively natural, so where is the 'definition'? For all I know, everything is supernatural and what we are really studying is the 'nature' of the supernatural. How could we ever tell if there is nothing to compare it against?

But, yes, I assume the system is closed. Assuming external agents is just plain cheating. There's no challenge to it.

Let me state up front that I do believe this is possible. I need to make this clear because I'm going to restate your questions and it might look like I'm arguting that there must be an external agent of some kind.

First off, I think we need to ask what is intelligence (or reason/logic)? Is there a way we can detect intelligence? IOW, if we observe only the actions of something, is there a test we can apply to determine if any kind of intelligence has been applied?

You see, the scientific method is designed to be objective. (It's not totally objective as nothing can be, but that's at least it's goal.) Intelligence is subjective (it is with respect to a goal chosen by an agent). Therein lies the rub.

So our inability to describe/understand/detect intelligence is not an indication that it doesn't exist or that it requires an external agent, it's simply a fact of our way of understanding things.

Phil

Philo_66

I'm interested in why you find truth to be irrational. Do you mean it's contradictory, or tautological?

Again, why do you see this as irrational?[/QUOTE]

Karen M

Logic is just the study of how to deduce if claims are “true” or “false.” As long as things fit into these two categories, there will be a method with which to classify them. Your question is basically asking, “Can there be truth without God?”

I think the concept of truth is just a part of reality. The moment you can say “this exists” or “that doesn’t exist,” you are making a truth claim.