To Know Anything One Must Go Beyond Reason

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

Dimmesdale
Sage
Posts: 726
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: The Temple of Logic
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 85 times

To Know Anything One Must Go Beyond Reason

Post #1

Post by Dimmesdale »

In order to know (almost) anything one cannot merely use reason. Reason, or logic, is insufficient. This is because there is a constant "what if?" hanging over any proposition. In other words, any and all propositions can be doubted. If something can be doubted (we MAY live in a matrix, etc) there is no meaning to the idea of "knowing." Knowing implies certainty. If you have no sure certainty, you can only guess, not know.

There could be some exceptions to this rule, but they are very isolated and basic. Things like "experience exists" (regardless of what the content of that experience entails or implies) and apodictic statements that simply ring true (2+2=4) are ones that come to mind. But when it comes to questions such as "We have a loving relationship" or "I know my God is real" cannot be ascertained using reason. Because there is the possibility that the proposition can be annulled by outside factors, whether in the form of sheer uncertainty (we don't know everything) or outright falsification (after 50 years I realized my wife/husband was lying to me all along). So there is no question of knowledge.

Question for debate: is faith then, not only viable, but also necessary even for the atheist? Or what would you put in place of faith?

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3380
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 263 times
Been thanked: 939 times

Re: To Know Anything One Must Go Beyond Reason

Post #2

Post by Miles »

Dimmesdale wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 2:56 pm In order to know (almost) anything one cannot merely use reason. Reason, or logic, is insufficient. This is because there is a constant "what if?" hanging over any proposition. In other words, any and all propositions can be doubted. If something can be doubted (we MAY live in a matrix, etc) there is no meaning to the idea of "knowing." Knowing implies certainty. If you have no sure certainty, you can only guess, not know.
If something can be doubted then, of course, it wouldn't merit the label "knowledge." But this certainly doesn't mean that nothing is knowable, or that reason is an insufficient means by which one can arrive at knowledge. Surely you know that you are a conscious being, given the definitions of "conscious" and "being." And that you know 2 + 2 = 4. And that you know storks don't bring babies (the human kinds anyway). But why? Is such knowledge beyond the scope of reason? If so, then how does one arrive at such knowledge? Just what mind-mechanics do you use to arrive at your particular pieces of knowledge?

There could be some exceptions to this rule, but they are very isolated and basic. Things like "experience exists" (regardless of what the content of that experience entails or implies) and apodictic statements that simply ring true (2+2=4) are ones that come to mind. But when it comes to questions such as "We have a loving relationship" or "I know my God is real" cannot be ascertained using reason.
A contraire! Considering the definition of "loving," and that my SO and I have a relationship in which both of us have told each other that it is "loving," what prevents me from concluding I know it's so? Within the arena of truthfulness isn't it reasonable that such a conclusion be true? As for knowing that god is real, I do agree that because of a lack of evidence one can't know it's so. But what if sufficient evidence does pop up, Then what? Wouldn't it fit at least one of the definitions of "to know"?

"KNOW
ˈnyü \; known\ ˈnōn
\; knowing
transitive verb
1a(1) : to perceive directly : have direct cognition of
(2) : to have understanding of importance of knowing oneself
(3) : to recognize the nature of : discern
b(1) : to recognize as being the same as something previously known
(2) : to be acquainted or familiar with
(3) : to have experience of"
Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Question for debate: is faith then, not only viable, but also necessary even for the atheist? Or what would you put in place of faith?
Absolutely not! Faith is not a pathway to truth. Faith is the excuse people give for believing and trusting something when they don't have evidence. If people had compelling evidence for god, or whatever, they'd have no use for faith. And, as it turns out, there is nothing that can't be accepted on faith---I have faith that pink unicorns fly. So, does my faith impart any truth to my assertion? Nope. And because this is so, faith has absolutely no expository or confirming power, or impart any truth value whatsoever. Faith is the crutch of need.


.

Dimmesdale
Sage
Posts: 726
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: The Temple of Logic
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: To Know Anything One Must Go Beyond Reason

Post #3

Post by Dimmesdale »

Miles wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 4:51 pm
If something can be doubted then, of course, it wouldn't merit the label "knowledge." But this certainly doesn't mean that nothing is knowable, or that reason is an insufficient means by which one can arrive at knowledge. Surely you know that you are a conscious being, given the definitions of "conscious" and "being." And that you know 2 + 2 = 4.
Those two things. The bare fact of some kind of experience, and pure logical certainty, like in mathematics. That's it. That's all you got.
Miles wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 4:51 pmAnd that you know storks don't bring babies (the human kinds anyway).
I would say that I know this, yes. But I don't think you know this according to your purported calculus. You don't actually. Or you do but in spite of your irreligious philosophy, not because of it. According to the atheistic worldview, storks could very well birth human babies and it just seems that only humans do. We don't know - once again, according to that line of thought.....
Miles wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 4:51 pmBut why? Is such knowledge beyond the scope of reason? If so, then how does one arrive at such knowledge? Just what mind-mechanics do you use to arrive at your particular pieces of knowledge?
I would say due to the in-dwelling presence of God, who is Truth itself. God gives us that added intuition or self-authenticating sense of being, which actually gives us a settled conclusion regarding the facts - as opposed to endless speculation and delusion. God shocks us into realizing truth. Not by discursive reason - but by injecting his presence, his self, into the heart of our souls.
Miles wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 4:51 pmA contraire! Considering the definition of "loving," and that my SO and I have a relationship in which both of us have told each other that it is "loving," what prevents me from concluding I know it's so? Within the arena of truthfulness isn't it reasonable that such a conclusion be true?
Reasonable? I think so. But you can never have absolute certainty that it's the case, at least according to your worldview. It's interesting. Are you willing to admit that you are only 99% sure your SO loves you in turn? Most people want absolute trust and certainty in this area. Not just reasonableness given various indications. But you can only come up with an educated guess given all the conditions that hold in various cases - that you then induct to your particular case. Actually, you don't even know those other cases sufficiently, either. Sorry, but it is only probable that your SO loves you - you may "know" it practically, but not absolutely.....
Miles wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 4:51 pmAs for knowing that god is real, I do agree that because of a lack of evidence one can't know it's so. But what if sufficient evidence does pop up, Then what? Wouldn't it fit at least one of the definitions of "to know"?
I actually think we can know God is real. But this is due to self-authenticating knowledge infused into us mystically by God. Any other way, even if you provided a host of miracles - would not indicate God absolutely. You would always be able to find a way to sneak in some form of doubt. You might say the miracles only indicate a lesser supernatural being, or something similar. You would be able to find some excuse and twist the data to some other conclusion. This is why reason is insufficient - whether you are an atheist or theist.
Miles wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 4:51 pmFaith is not a pathway to truth.
Well, neither is reason. Except for those limited items of existence such as mere experience and logical certainty, in which the conclusion is already contained in the premises (2+2=4) and we can readily discern this - almost like a form of intuition. Maybe it is intuition, not reason, at the root of that.

Miles wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 4:51 pmFaith is the excuse people give for believing and trusting something when they don't have evidence. If people had compelling evidence for god, or whatever, they'd have no use for faith.
You would still need something more to give absolute certainty. That added component I would argue is the self-authenticating Presence of God that quiets anymore doubtful murmurings. That may sound mystical and meaningless to you but I don't care. It is still absolutely necessary and faith for that fits the bill better than most things. Besides some other inner form of conviction. A self-authenticating sense of God's presence. Perhaps faith is preliminary to that. They both are similar in that they do not rely on discursive reason - which only leads to endless speculation and NO FIRM CONCLUSION.
Miles wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 4:51 pmAnd, as it turns out, there is nothing that can't be accepted on faith---I have faith that pink unicorns fly. So, does my faith impart any truth to my assertion? Nope. And because this is so, faith has absolutely no expository or confirming power, or impart any truth value whatsoever. Faith is the crutch of need.
.
Faith signifies one's independence from mere mental wrangling and opens one up to feeling Truth firsthand. You have it the other way around. Relying on reason alone is the crutch. You can never conquer the mind with that attitude. You will always be awash in uncertainty because the mind by itself can never arrive at any ultimate conclusion - only endless speculation.

Faith means eventual independence at least. Reliance on reason alone is slavery.

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3380
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 263 times
Been thanked: 939 times

Re: To Know Anything One Must Go Beyond Reason

Post #4

Post by Miles »

Dimmesdale wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:37 pm
Miles wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 4:51 pm
If something can be doubted then, of course, it wouldn't merit the label "knowledge." But this certainly doesn't mean that nothing is knowable, or that reason is an insufficient means by which one can arrive at knowledge. Surely you know that you are a conscious being, given the definitions of "conscious" and "being." And that you know 2 + 2 = 4.
Those two things. The bare fact of some kind of experience, and pure logical certainty, like in mathematics. That's it. That's all you got.
Miles wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 4:51 pmAnd that you know storks don't bring babies (the human kinds anyway).
I would say that I know this, yes. But I don't think you know this according to your purported calculus. You don't actually. Or you do but in spite of your irreligious philosophy, not because of it. According to the atheistic worldview, storks could very well birth human babies and it just seems that only humans do. We don't know - once again, according to that line of thought.....
Miles wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 4:51 pmBut why? Is such knowledge beyond the scope of reason? If so, then how does one arrive at such knowledge? Just what mind-mechanics do you use to arrive at your particular pieces of knowledge?
I would say due to the in-dwelling presence of God, who is Truth itself. God gives us that added intuition or self-authenticating sense of being, which actually gives us a settled conclusion regarding the facts - as opposed to endless speculation and delusion. God shocks us into realizing truth. Not by discursive reason - but by injecting his presence, his self, into the heart of our souls.
Miles wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 4:51 pmA contraire! Considering the definition of "loving," and that my SO and I have a relationship in which both of us have told each other that it is "loving," what prevents me from concluding I know it's so? Within the arena of truthfulness isn't it reasonable that such a conclusion be true?
Reasonable? I think so. But you can never have absolute certainty that it's the case, at least according to your worldview. It's interesting. Are you willing to admit that you are only 99% sure your SO loves you in turn? Most people want absolute trust and certainty in this area. Not just reasonableness given various indications. But you can only come up with an educated guess given all the conditions that hold in various cases - that you then induct to your particular case. Actually, you don't even know those other cases sufficiently, either. Sorry, but it is only probable that your SO loves you - you may "know" it practically, but not absolutely.....
Miles wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 4:51 pmAs for knowing that god is real, I do agree that because of a lack of evidence one can't know it's so. But what if sufficient evidence does pop up, Then what? Wouldn't it fit at least one of the definitions of "to know"?
I actually think we can know God is real. But this is due to self-authenticating knowledge infused into us mystically by God. Any other way, even if you provided a host of miracles - would not indicate God absolutely. You would always be able to find a way to sneak in some form of doubt. You might say the miracles only indicate a lesser supernatural being, or something similar. You would be able to find some excuse and twist the data to some other conclusion. This is why reason is insufficient - whether you are an atheist or theist.
Miles wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 4:51 pmFaith is not a pathway to truth.
Well, neither is reason. Except for those limited items of existence such as mere experience and logical certainty, in which the conclusion is already contained in the premises (2+2=4) and we can readily discern this - almost like a form of intuition. Maybe it is intuition, not reason, at the root of that.

Miles wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 4:51 pmFaith is the excuse people give for believing and trusting something when they don't have evidence. If people had compelling evidence for god, or whatever, they'd have no use for faith.
You would still need something more to give absolute certainty. That added component I would argue is the self-authenticating Presence of God that quiets anymore doubtful murmurings. That may sound mystical and meaningless to you but I don't care. It is still absolutely necessary and faith for that fits the bill better than most things. Besides some other inner form of conviction. A self-authenticating sense of God's presence. Perhaps faith is preliminary to that. They both are similar in that they do not rely on discursive reason - which only leads to endless speculation and NO FIRM CONCLUSION.
Miles wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 4:51 pmAnd, as it turns out, there is nothing that can't be accepted on faith---I have faith that pink unicorns fly. So, does my faith impart any truth to my assertion? Nope. And because this is so, faith has absolutely no expository or confirming power, or impart any truth value whatsoever. Faith is the crutch of need.
.
Faith signifies one's independence from mere mental wrangling and opens one up to feeling Truth firsthand. You have it the other way around. Relying on reason alone is the crutch. You can never conquer the mind with that attitude. You will always be awash in uncertainty because the mind by itself can never arrive at any ultimate conclusion - only endless speculation.

Faith means eventual independence at least. Reliance on reason alone is slavery.
Far too much confused thinking here, so nothing really worth replying to.

Have a good day.


.

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 7154
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 1287 times
Been thanked: 1509 times

Re: To Know Anything One Must Go Beyond Reason

Post #5

Post by Tcg »

Dimmesdale wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:37 pm
According to the atheistic worldview, storks could very well birth human babies and it just seems that only humans do.
First off, there is no single "atheistic worldview." Secondly, I've never heard any who accept evolution as a fact claim that storks could give birth to humans. We do, however, see strawman creations like this often enough, but never with any sources to back up such claims. Perhaps you can provide some?


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

Dimmesdale
Sage
Posts: 726
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: The Temple of Logic
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: To Know Anything One Must Go Beyond Reason

Post #6

Post by Dimmesdale »

Miles wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 12:36 am Far too much confused thinking here, so nothing really worth replying to.

Have a good day.


.
What? You might as well have responded to one part of all I wrote, if only for civility's sake. I don't think it would have been that hard. So I assume you just don't know how to rebut me then. Since you haven't even tried.

My conclusion is logically airtight as far as I'm concerned. Keep searching for the truth until you find it! ;)

Dimmesdale
Sage
Posts: 726
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: The Temple of Logic
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: To Know Anything One Must Go Beyond Reason

Post #7

Post by Dimmesdale »

Tcg wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 10:57 am
Dimmesdale wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:37 pm
According to the atheistic worldview, storks could very well birth human babies and it just seems that only humans do.
First off, there is no single "atheistic worldview." Secondly, I've never heard any who accept evolution as a fact claim that storks could give birth to humans. We do, however, see strawman creations like this often enough, but never with any sources to back up such claims. Perhaps you can provide some?


Tcg
I am including by "atheistic worldview" the slew of all the worldview contenders in opposition to settled knowledge. By settled knowledge I mean those worldviews that can actually proffer a conclusion that isn't liable to being questioned. It seems to me there really is no such thing as an atheistic worldview in the rigid sense of definite axioms. Like I pointed out, if you cannot stake anything with absolute certainty, you are awash in the mind's speculations and delusions. That is what I wished to illustrate. Of course most atheists use "common sense" to not come to the conclusion that storks give birth to babies, but if you think about it, if you go by the mind alone, there is no reason why one can't speculate that such may be the case. This is because atheism deals only with probabilities and appearances, not firm realities.

A better example would be the belief your spouse loves you, as I alluded before. Are you willing to believe your spouse loves you with 99% probability? You cannot know absolutely if you deal only with probabilities/appearances. So on that basis you can never have complete certainty and therefore no true knowledge. Knowledge being certain.

blackstart
Student
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 4:23 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: To Know Anything One Must Go Beyond Reason

Post #8

Post by blackstart »

Dimmesdale wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 2:56 pm ....
Question for debate: is faith then, not only viable, but also necessary even for the atheist? Or what would you put in place of faith?
Faith, for the theist, is surely a position of assuming subjective knowledge. 'I know my God is real' may well be true for any believer in any god(s) but that is as far as it goes. Such a position can be completely 'viable' for the believer, enabling him/her to lead a very successful and fulfilled life. However if the believer wishes to suggest that such a belief is applicable to all, then he/she has the burden of producing the evidence to substantiate such a statement.

The atheist however(at least this atheist) takes no such position. I do not have any belief in any god. That is not to say that a god cannot exist, only that I have no reason to believe in such a god unless or until substantial objective(or intersubjective) evidence of same is produced. Why would I feel it 'necessary' to have a faith in not believing, when my postion is simply based upon an absence of faith?

Hence I do not put anything in place of 'faith'. I have simply lived my life(I would maintain reasonably successfully) without reference to any god. This has never been any problem for me. Should it have been?

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9459
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: To Know Anything One Must Go Beyond Reason

Post #9

Post by Bust Nak »

Dimmesdale wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 2:56 pm Knowing implies certainty. If you have no sure certainty, you can only guess, not know.
If absolute certainty is required then I am fine with not knowing much of anything. I will stick to reason and logic instead of faith, thank you very much. I am also questioning the idea that you cannot be certain while the "what if?" question is still hanging over a proposition. Certainty comes in degrees, which is why I added the word absolute above. That I've just checked with my own eyes that it's not raining outside warrant the statement "I know it's not raining" even when there is a whole bunch of "what if?" that can be asked.

Dimmesdale
Sage
Posts: 726
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: The Temple of Logic
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: To Know Anything One Must Go Beyond Reason

Post #10

Post by Dimmesdale »

Bust Nak wrote: Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:44 am
Dimmesdale wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 2:56 pm Knowing implies certainty. If you have no sure certainty, you can only guess, not know.
If absolute certainty is required then I am fine with not knowing much of anything. I will stick to reason and logic instead of faith, thank you very much. I am also questioning the idea that you cannot be certain while the "what if?" question is still hanging over a proposition. Certainty comes in degrees, which is why I added the word absolute above. That I've just checked with my own eyes that it's not raining outside warrant the statement "I know it's not raining" even when there is a whole bunch of "what if?" that can be asked.
I would still think absolute certainty is longed for in our interpersonal lives. Consider the inconsistency, if not for your own life, then others' lives.

Most of us live as though we know with certainty that our lives matter. Our lives only matter if is a fact that there is a world outside of us upon which we have an impact. We at least think we know with surety that our friends and life partner love us, that the baby we take care of is a real person, etc. I suppose you are okay with the idea that all of that may possibly be a mirage, but it strikes me as emotionally stunted and an inconsistent marker of your worldview.

Post Reply