The Rational Empiricist's Dilemma

[bluethread]

I am what I think,
And I think that I see,
And I think what I see is fact.
So, I test what I see,
By what I think,
But what I see is not what I think, in fact.

What I see is what I use,
And what I use makes me think,
That the thing that I think is fact.
So, I name what I think,
And that name that use,
Excludes what is not named from fact.

Now, I do not believe,
What I see, think, or name,
Because, if I believe, that's not fact.
But how does one see, think, or name,
If one does not believe,
For seeing is believing, in fact.



Question: Is this a true characterization of rational empiricism and how can the rational empiricist define reality without belief?

[2ndRateMind]

On what basis do they see more value in rational conclusions than in irrational conclusions?

Because rational conclusions are based on sound logical reasoning. Irrational conclusions are based on unsound illogical thinking.

Or emotion. That may be good or bad. But 'Le cœur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connaît point.'* And I seem to recall that Jesus' fundamental commandments were to 'Love God', and 'Love each other', not to define them, or to reason with them, or even to understand them. That all can follow on later, once the loving relationship is established. And maybe, if we love God and His entire creation, we can live perfectly contented, fulfilled, sustainable lives without definitions or reason or understanding. I wouldn't recommend it, I prefer deliberate understanding, but maybe it is a perfectly viable way to live out one's life.

Best wishes, 2RM.

*Blaise Pascal 'The heart has its reasons, of which reason knows nothing'

[2ndRateMind]

Like it's obvious that ancient religious myths were clearly the invention of men and cannot be describing any supposedly all-wise supernatural creator God.

Not to me, it's not. And not, it seems, to the millions of Jews, Christians and Muslims around the world. And that's just the Abrahamic religions, who think that myths, even if not all literally true, still contain yet deeper truths we would do well to consider.

So, maybe its not obvious at all. Maybe this is just unsupported assertion, irrational speculation of the kind you pretend to deplore. Indeed, whenever someone claims 'It's obvious that...' I immediately start to think; 'Aha! So he/she has no rational justification for their point of view!'

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Divine Insight]

On what basis do they see more value in rational conclusions than in irrational conclusions?

Because rational conclusions are based on sound logical reasoning. Irrational conclusions are based on unsound illogical thinking.

Or emotion. That may be good or bad. But 'Le cœur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connaît point.'* And I seem to recall that Jesus' fundamental commandments were to 'Love God', and 'Love each other', not to define them, or to reason with them, or even to understand them. That all can follow on later, once the loving relationship is established. And maybe, if we love God and His entire creation, we can live perfectly contented, fulfilled lives without definitions or reason or understanding. I wouldn't recommend it, but maybe it is perfectly viable way to live out one's life.

Best wishes, 2RM.

*Blaise Pascal 'The heart has its reasons, of which reason knows nothing'

No, basing conclusions on emotions is not rational.

Is it possible that a person can live a perfectly happy life basing all their decisions on emotion. I based many of my decisions on emotion. Just because a search for truth should be rational doesn't mean that every choice a human makes needs to be rational. Is it rational to build a garden model railroad in my front yard? Probably not. But it is fun. So it gives me enjoyment.

Keep in mind that this thread is about "defining reality" (or more to the point) discovering the truth of reality.

We can "define" reality however we wish. But that doesn't make our definition true.

And why do you need to include "Loving God" in your emotional reality? You may as well base a reality on "Loving Santa Claus".

I mean really. If there is no tangible evidence for the "God" that you claim to be loving, then why even bother with the concept at all?

Can't a Rational Empiricist (or Secular Atheist) base their behavior on a "Love of Life". At least life is something we know exists. And what would be the difference between loving an imaginary God who supposedly created life, or just loving life itself?

Actually there's no difference at all. In fact, if we love the thing that some God created, then by association, we automatically love the creator whether we know that they exist or not.

Therefore any Rational Empiricist who loves life, automatically loves any gods that might have created life. And the love and happiness that follows from that would be every bit the same as someone who has taken it a step further to claim to love the creator of life.

There is no difference in that regard.

Therefore a theist who claims to based their behavior in life on loving God would be no different at all from a rational empiricist who bases their behavior in life on a love of life. Other than the fact that the theist may be praying to an imaginary entity there would be no difference in their actual behaviors at all.

In short, there is no need to imagine a Creator God to value life. It's just an unnecessary imagined entity. So because of this, a theist could never claim to have any kind of advantage over a rational empiricist.

In fact, the only advantage they can even imagine is to imagine that their God is real, and will love them and hate the rational empiricist for not believing in the God.

But what kind of a horrible God would that be anyway?

The moment you create a God is the moment you create divisive tribalism. Now that you have a God you have a reason to dismiss or denigrate anyone who doesn't believe in your God. This not only includes secular atheists, but it also includes all the other people who have created Gods different from the one you claim exists.

So the moment you buy into a God myth is the moment you buy into religious bigotry. (i.e. Bigotry against anyone who doesn't buy into the same God myth).

And then you'll end up looking at them saying, "But your the bigots for dismissing my belief in my God".

But this doesn't change the "source" of the bigotry one iota. The source of the bigotry still comes from the fact that you somehow think it's better to believe in the God of your faith, rather than to believe in anything else.

Just think, if we all based on lives on a "Love of Life" instead of making up imaginary Gods, then we'd certainly have one less thing to divide us.

[2ndRateMind]

On what basis do they see more value in rational conclusions than in irrational conclusions?

Because rational conclusions are based on sound logical reasoning. Irrational conclusions are based on unsound illogical thinking.

Or emotion. That may be good or bad. But 'Le cœur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connaît point.'

No, basing conclusions on emotions is not rational.

Indeed. Yet, if I see on television an image of a Yemeni child with the stick thin limbs and swollen belly that indicate severe malnutrition, and am moved to donate $10 to Oxfam's famine relief effort, is that really so irrational?

Most of us that pursue the truth do so because we love the truth. Is that also irrational?

Best wishes, 2RM

[Divine Insight]

On what basis do they see more value in rational conclusions than in irrational conclusions?

Because rational conclusions are based on sound logical reasoning. Irrational conclusions are based on unsound illogical thinking.

Or emotion. That may be good or bad. But 'Le cœur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connaît point.'

No, basing conclusions on emotions is not rational.

Indeed. Yet, if I see on television an image of a Yemeni child with the stick thin limbs and swollen belly that indicate severe malnutrition, and am moved to donate $10 to Oxfam's famine relief effort, is that really so irrational?

Most of us that pursue the truth do so because we love the truth. Is that also irrational?

Best wishes, 2RM

What would donating money for humanitarian relief have to do with defining reality?

Also, are you suggesting that Rational Empiricists would not be moved to donate to humanitarian efforts?

It would seem to me that their motivation would be two-fold; both emotional and logical. After all, it is rationally logical for someone who is well-off to help someone who is suffering great hardships.

It's not like a rational empiricist is not permitted to have feelings. Having emotions is part of the human condition. A rational empiricist isn't going to deny this obvious truth.

The OP was asking about "Defining Reality".

If the question instead was, "Can a Rational Empiricist act on emotional feelings?"

Then the answer is, "Of course they can."

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 9 by 2ndRateMind]

To be consistent I will not address "objective truths" here, since, in my experience, they are not valued by rational empiricists. In my experience, "objective fact" appears to be their stock and trade. That is what I am addressing on this thread. The argument is that faith is not necessary to establish fact, because facts exist outside of a belief system. Now, even if that latter is the case, how does one discover "objective fact" empirically, when, physiologically, we do not sense things rationally, but viscerally? It is only after having experienced something viscerally that we organize them rationally. So, all "empirical facts" are rationalizations, because they must needs be acted upon before they can be analyzed.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 16 by bluethread]

Indeed, it may be that we cannot discover objective truths, only objective falsehoods. It may be that human progress towards complete objective truth is not by discovering or deducing what is true, but by the rational rejection of what cannot be true.

Best wishes, 2RM

[bluethread]

On what basis do they see more value in rational conclusions than in irrational conclusions?

Because rational conclusions are based on sound logical reasoning. Irrational conclusions are based on unsound illogical thinking.

Also if you are going to make any sort of "argument" for a particular view you have already embraced the ideals of logical reasoning. There is no sound logical reasoning for jumping to irrational conclusions.

However, that is circular reasoning, a logical fallacy. It is also not empirical, because logic is a mental construct and not an observable fact.

Let's not speculate on what one another is thinking. Rather let us address the questions and statements that are being presented.

In that case, rational empiricism is the only means by which we as humans can evaluate the world. After all, what else is there? Irrational speculation?

There is also rational mysticism, non-rational empiricism, non-rational mysticism and, of course irrational mysticism. That said, I don't know what that has to do with speculating on what someone else thinks. One need not speculate. One can simply respond to what has been stated, or ask for clarification.

So there are some things that a Rational Empiricist can know.

Like what specifically?

Like it's obvious that ancient religious myths were clearly the invention of men and cannot be describing any supposedly all-wise supernatural creator God.


It's not my intent to bring religions into this. But you asked what Rational Empiricists can know and this is certainly one of the many things that they can know.

If it is not your intention to bring religion into this, then there will be no need to justify or rebut the tenets. All we need do here is examine how such a thing, as an example, can be obvious. Of course, in the current context obvious would mean self-evident, since it should not require any effort to discover. So, how is such a thing self-evident to the Rational Empiricist? What is the empirical stimuli that makes it so?

What does this have to do with the question of the nature of belief in defining reality for the rational empiricist?

Because your assumption that a rational empiricist is trying to define reality is already mistaken. What a rational empiricist does is similar to the method attributed to Sherlock Holmes. They simply rule out what's obviously false, and whatever is left is the most likely candidate for truth. This does not amount to defining reality, but rather it amounts to accepting what reality reveals to us.

If we're going to discuss rational thinking shouldn't we consider all aspects of what this entails?

How does the RE establish something as "obviously false"? Physiologically, we rule out everything that is not useful. How can one be sure that one is not excluding something as "obviously false", based on simply not finding it useful? What makes something empirically false?

Well, when a supporter of a religious paradigm actually references those scriptures by book, chapter, and verse, they can hardly complain when the claims of those scriptures are considered in a reply.

Corinthians was mentioned. Those are writings of a man named Paul who did not write rational claims. To the contrary, he wrote extremely irrational claims that were clearly based upon unverifiable superstitions.

That was in response to your comment regarding theism. 2nd Rate is not complaining. I am. Please do not use this thread on Rational Empiricism as a sounding board for bashing theism. That is clearly off topic.

If you are going to ask questions about Rational Empiricism you can hardly complain when things are being ruled out that a Rational Empiricist would see no evidence for.

The bottom line truly is to ask, "What else is there beyond Rational Empiricism" that could have any value? Especially if someone is seeking to discover any truths about our reality.

No, that is not the question. That is the fallacy of ignorance. Though deduction is a useful tool, the requirement that a philosophy not be examined until all alternatives have been exhausted is absurd. When that argument is used to require a specific alternative be thoroughly examined is a diversion at best.

The group in question also holds that a supernatural entity exists, who makes all manner of commandments, demands, and promises about an afterlife. Let's not pretend that this isn't part of what this group holds to be true. Also, those supernatural claims are not part of an ideology, but rather they are nothing other than unverifiable superstitious beliefs. Beliefs that cannot be demonstrated to have any validity at all.

That has nothing to do with the topic. We are not asking about views that RE's do not hold, but views that they do hold.

You asked how a Rational Empiricist "defines Reality". Well what they don't do, is embrace ancient superstitions for which there is no credible evidence.

Perhaps this topic validates a question being asked of the OP:

"What other method of inquiry could possibly be used to discover the truth of reality?"

In other words, what is a valid alternative to Rational Empiricism for inquiring into the true nature of reality?

Are you arguing that theism is the answer to the Rational Empiricist's dilemma? This seems hardly likely, since everything you have posted opposes that view. So, it appears that you are attempting to change the topic of the thread by introducing a straw man argument. If you wish to examine another question, please create another thread. This is a thread about Rational Empiricism and not specific kinds of theism.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 16 by bluethread]

Indeed, it may be that we cannot discover objective truths, only objective falsehoods. It may be that human progress towards complete objective truth is not by discovering or deducing what is true, but by the rational rejection of what cannot be true.

Best wishes, 2RM

Ah, but how does the RE determine that something can not be "true"? If by using reason, then the RE would need something that is "true" to verify that which is not "true". Also, so we do not get off track, we need to remember that we are not just talking about rationalism in general, but reason as it is applied to empiricism. Empiricism is not accepting of something that is simply "true". It requires that something that is "true" be "fact" or at least based in "fact". So, we are back to the dilemma of how the RE establishes something as "fact". Is it not via the five senses?

[bluethread]

The OP was asking about "Defining Reality".

If the question instead was, "Can a Rational Empiricist act on emotional feelings?"

Then the answer is, "Of course they can."

This thread is not about what the OP is asked, but the question posed by the OP. No one is saying that the RE can not act on emotion. In fact, 2nd rate proposed emotion as a basis for establishing "fact". If you disagree, please provide an argument as to why emotion is not a proper basis for "fact', for the RE. Mind you, if such an argument is valid, the dilemma still remains. How is it that the RE is able to establish a "fact"?