I can already see that we are NOT going to have any kind of ‘meeting of the minds’ here, implicit in the sophistry you employ in inviting my response. But ... on the off-chance a wider audience may be attending, I’ll take an ‘at-bat’ here — no reason why LogicWings should have to do ALL the heavy lifting for our side ...
“... give an account of something implicit in your claim, which you take for granted; namely, “the realm of reason” itself.”
Reason, as I applied the term, is an orderly, disciplined and purposeful exercise of the conscious human mind intended to integrate whatever we have observed or experienced into useful methods for dealing with the World / Universe we inhabit to further our survival or improve the quality or quantity of our lives.
There are MANY other activities or behaviors our minds are capable of which do NOT constitute ‘reasoning’ and which, if introduced into this little discourse, would serve only as distractions or misdirections away from the actual topic at hand.
For example, our minds can ‘imagine’ the desirability of having a captive genie on-hand to grant us the fulfillment of three ‘wishes’ unrestricted by any ‘inconvenient’ limitations with respect to the way the World / Universe seems to actually be organized or function. But ... the likelihood that the World / Universe will actually provide us with such a boon is vanishingly small.
Any time or effort expended in pursuit of such an ‘imagined’ FEATURE of the World / Universe would be pointless and certainly NOT a demonstration of ‘reason’ in action.
In fact, ANY exercise of the mind which requires the admission of ‘unreal’ or ‘supernatural’ or other components that are not subject to any ‘rules of evidence’ or any other connection to actual experience or observation, while potentially entertaining or amusing, CANNOT be considered within the so-called ‘realm of reason’.
Of course, the World / Universe presents us with innumerable instances of events / experiences / observations that, for a time at least, defy our ability to comprehend or respond appropriately. Until Newton correctly applied a prism to a beam of light, the ineffable light of a rainbow defied human understanding. Pretty, yes, but strangely beyond our capacity to touch or measure. Magically impressive, no doubt. However, the human application of a prism reduced its mystery to a simple set of principles any school child can easily comprehend.
In total ignorance of the principles of optics underlying the appearance of the so-called ‘rainbow’, superstitious minds have constructed ‘Signs of a covenant’ between God and Man never again to drown the entire world in order to punish the wicked and preserve the good. Elsewhere, Norse mythology attribute it to an actual ‘bridge’ between Earth and Heaven, guarded by Heimdall, who allows only Heroes entry into a blessed afterlife. As fundamental as these conjectures might be to the belief systems of their practitioners, they are NO demonstration of ‘reason’ or the successful application of the attributes of the human mind to the processing of ‘reality’.
You make further demands in your post —
“How do you justify or account for the existence of abstract, universal, invariant entities - those laws of thought in the realm of reason - in a materialistic, constantly changing universe, not subject to the control of a personal God?”
The simple fact is, I DON’T. I saw you palm that card, Bud. When you refer to ‘ ... those laws of thought in the realm of reason ... ‘ as instances of ‘ ... the existence of abstract, universal, invariant entities ... ‘, you just swallowed your own tail in a Circular ( beggin’ the question ) fallacy. ( How’m I doin’, LogicWings ??? )
Since this is a strawman of your own conception, NOT mine, I don’t see any purpose in figuring out whatever that gobbledy-gook is supposed to mean — it certainly means nothing to me.
One profound difference between us is that MY Universe is not uselessly cluttered with Noahs and Heimdalls and leprechauns and such. I’m quite content with Newton and his ilk to illuminate ‘reality’ and provide me with entirely human means to cope — with reason — with the World / Universe I inhabit.
I don’t require certain knowledge of “Why does the Universe exist, as it is, and what is MY part in the overall grand scheme of the Universe or the purpose of its supposed Creator ?” in order to live a completely satisfying, meaningful, purposeful and moral existence. All that other ‘stuff’ is well above MY pay-grade ...
But, then, I really don’t expect you to grasp, let alone AGREE with what that actually means, to ME ... You might try examining the concepts of modesty and humility for starters.
One Man’s Opinion
21stCenturion
You wrote: “...superstitious minds have constructed ‘Signs of a covenant’ between God and Man never again to drown the entire world in order to punish the wicked and preserve the good. Elsewhere, Norse mythology attribute it to an actual ‘bridge’ between Earth and Heaven, guarded by Heimdall, who allows only Heroes entry into a blessed afterlife. As fundamental as these conjectures might be to the belief systems of their practitioners, they are NO demonstration of ‘reason’ or the successful application of the attributes of the human mind to the processing of ‘reality’. ...”
You sound like Bill Maher. He takes Scripture literally, and then attacks it for being so literal. When Maher attacks religion, hi is really attacking his own stupidity. http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2008/09/god-is-joke-and-bill-maher-is-barbaric.html
<>
“...what eludes both atheists and religious literalists “is that form and meaning are complementary.” For example, in order to play music, harmony, melody and rhythm are necessary. In their absence, there is only disorganized noise, not music. But to think that music may be reduced to musical theory is also wrong, for form is simply the vehicle but not the substance of music. ....
“To stop at the literal level of the text as a Rev. Jerry Falwell or Sam Harris would, is to leave most of the meaning out, and [to] deify the Bible itself for their purposes (either pro or con) and to miss out completely on the doing of its meaning being actively threaded through the reader’s soul.” Exactly, for the modern deviation of “fundamentalism” is no less a form of debased materialism than materialism proper. In fact, it represents the reaction of a weak soul to the abnormal conditions of modernity — an attempt to combat materialism by fully conceding its assumptions.
“Quite obviously, the Bible is not “the word of God.” It is not the logos. Rather, it is inspired words — inspired (or even “authorized”) by the Word — about the Word. Once again, this conflation of the Bible and the Word — or bibliolatry — is a modern deviation that essentially concedes all ground to the horizontal flatlanders. It is a reduction of that which can only by understood by the nous to that which may be understood by the material ego. ....”
http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2007/02/on-hearing-cosmic-suite-without.html
<>
“...one thing that was different about the past is that people were unaware of other religious traditions, let alone science. Therefore, they lived in a kind of “innocence” (which literally means “without knowledge”) that is impossible for us. ....This is why I [am] hesitant to “join a church,” for fear that one would actually be turning away from spirituality and toward the world. Certainly this is the problem with “fundamentalism,” which is mostly worldly (in a naive, or worse, sometimes cunning sense) and materialistic. It is definitely a response to the abnormal conditions of modernity, and therefore itself abnormal.” Here: http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2007/11/tradition.html
<>
We might as well face the fact that we can never contain God, not in any human words, any institution, or any person, no matter how “realized.” Rather, God — the ultimate — will always shatter whatever you attempt to contain him with.
“....And you will gnotice how often the playful Word Himsoph played with language in such a way that it could never be “contained” by all of the future would-be scribes and pharisees. After all, he could have left an unambiguous “to do” list for humans, couldn’t he? Instead, he largely spoke in the form of parable, symbolism, metaphor, and allegory — all modes which require our own participation to realize their truth. In other words, they are not simple containers of information, i.e., .
Rather, in an odd way, they are always highly provocative and “disturbing” s that require our own to com-prehend, i.e., we must make the effort to wrap ourselves around his rap (even as it wraps around us).
But then it shatters our again! And again. And again. It’s hopeless. And therein lies our hope. For in being shattered and deprived of merely human meaning, we are resurrected and part-icipate in ultimate meaning. “
On Being Shattered, Battered, Scattered, and Made Whole
http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2009/07/on-being-shattered-battered-scattered.html
<>
“...But in reality, “a metaphysical doctrine is the incarnation in the mind of a universal truth.” Right? If that weren’t the case, then there would be no way to prove anything. Which is why, prior to actualizing this or that seed, a kind of cultivation of the soil is necessary; one must “awaken the intellectual faculty in oneself,” and not just superimpose a man-made formulation upon realities that are not explained by, but rather, explain, reason itself. ...” Here: http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2011/09/why-give-enema-to-dead-atheist.html
<>
“.....When he says that the pastor had a knack for making scripture “accessible,” I’m going to take a wild guess and say that he probably had an even bigger talent for vulgarizing it. After all, truth is truth, and if he had been conveying anything deep and useful, [he] would still believe it. It would have “stuck.” [He would not now be an atheist]
On Keeping Faith Alive: The Intellect Doesn’t Slump
http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2008/08/on-keeping-faith-alive-intellect-doesnt.html
<>
Follow the depth. And avoid the deeply shallow false lucidity of the terrible simplifiers. ....
.... if you want to prevent people from knowing about that deeper truth, you don’t have to even argue. Rather, all you have to do is erect a barrier to depth. ....
Last week I quoted Gurdjieff, who said that I have very good leather to sell to those who wish to make shoes. Do you see the point? He doesn’t sell shoes. Rather, he only sells the good leather for you to make your own shoes, which is to say, to have a realization. Paradoxically, if he gives you the shoes, you cannot have the leather!
But it is absolutely no different with religion: if someone gives you the answer, you can’t have it. It will be like a museum piece, or like a couch covered with plastic, or like a toe with no body attached....
Human beings are mental beings, and to the extent that religion cannot offer a deep and satisfying vision to man’s intellect, then it has failed in its saving mission. A religion should not only illuminate your mind, but save it — and not just from “the world,” but from yourself. Can I get a witness? Thank you. Left to his own devices and voices, there is obviously no end to the nonsense man will come up with. ....
Knowledge vs. Realization: Follow the Depth
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8580258&postID=2070263310285273565
<>
The field of nature is a thophany, a meeting point of vertical and horizontal energies. The serpent-—the most horizontal of all beasts-—represents the self-enfolded world of scientistic materialism or Spinozean pantheism or Marxist dialectics. ....”
http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2006/04/noble-raccoons-trousered-baboons-and.html
Reason, as I applied the term, is an orderly, disciplined and purposeful exercise of the conscious human mind intended to integrate whatever we have observed or experienced into useful methods for dealing with the World / Universe we inhabit to further our survival or improve the quality or quantity of our lives.
That's an interesting definition of reason. I notice that in your definition you again presuppose the existence of those things to which I referred, and asked you to account for or justify in a materialistic, constantly changing universe, not subject to the control of a personal God, namely abstract, universal, invariant entities:
"order"Are the above materialistic entities?
"discipline"
"purpose"
"useful"
"to further"
"improve"
"quality"
Any time or effort expended in pursuit of such an ‘imagined’ FEATURE of the World / Universe would be pointless and certainly NOT a demonstration of ‘reason’ in action. In fact, ANY exercise of the mind which requires the admission of ‘unreal’ or ‘supernatural’ or other components that are not subject to any ‘rules of evidence’ or any other connection to actual experience or observation, while potentially entertaining or amusing, CANNOT be considered within the so-called ‘realm of reason’.
If I were to ask you how you would go about proving that statement itself, how would you do so? Have you experienced or observed every instance of the "rules of evidence" and every empirical observation or experience?
If you say that the statement is true by the rules of evidence or reason, then you are just engaging in circular reasoning, simply assuming what must be proved. Please note that my point is NOT to say that you don[t have any commitment to rules of evidence or reason, but simply to observe that your preclusion of anything supernatural from being part of the explanation from the outset is just a pre-commitment or a presupposition. It is not something that you has proven by empirical observation or reason, but rather it is that by which you proceeds to prove everything else.
Since this is a strawman of your own conception, NOT mine, I don’t see any purpose in figuring out whatever that gobbledy-gook is supposed to mean — it certainly means nothing to me.
The existence of abstract, universal, invariant entities has certainly been a subject of philosophical discussion for centuries, if not millennia, That you are unaware of this history is indicative only of your lack of knowledge of this particular subject, and why you have apparently have not even begun to comprehend the problem. You are an engineer. Try looking at the problem as an engineer. If you were examining an engineering problem wouldn't you at least want to familiarize yourself with the history of the problem?
I don’t require certain knowledge of “Why does the Universe exist, as it is, and what is MY part in the overall grand scheme of the Universe or the purpose of its supposed Creator ?” in order to live a completely satisfying, meaningful, purposeful and moral existence. All that other ‘stuff’ is well above MY pay-grade ...
That's fine with me. I don't have any problem with that.
But, then, I really don’t expect you to grasp, let alone AGREE with what that actually means, to ME ... You might try examining the concepts of modesty and humility for starters.
You seem to know a lot about what the blind, impersonal, accidental evolutionary process wants us to do.
How do you derive abstract, universal, invariant values of modesty and humility from a presupposition of blind, impersonal, omnipotent matter in motion?
Cordially,