Grasping Reason

Stuff of interest on the Web...
User avatar
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3930
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Grasping Reason

Post by Lausten » Sat Feb 08, 2014 12:48 am
If you've never heard of Sye Ten Bruggencate, lucky you. He has a large YouTube presence and gets on talk shows about atheism. He has a couple standard challenges about the basis of reason (a C.S. Lewis type argument) and where knowledge of God comes from (um, yeah, it's the Bible). He sticks to his guns and doesn't listen to a thing his debaters say, which makes for lots of time for some of the best atheists around to educate anyone who might listen in.

In the above, Alex Botten from Fundamentally Flawed, a show I'd never heard of before, does an excellent job of attempting to explain a philosophy of epistemology to this guy. It's too hard to stick with, but I got a great takeaway from it at around 15 minutes or so. He is explaining what reason is, and says
“The reality existed before I started to recognize patterns in it” “I have learned how to reason within the reality I am in. I have not created the reality by reasoning.“
The argument that our ability to reason must have come from God, not from a natural evolutionary process only works if you look at how things are and ask how we got here, but then ignore all the available evidence. Pretty much all religion is created with this method of reasoning, or maybe the better word is speculating about how things are, without first doing a little research.

At the intro to this exchange with Sye Ten and Aron Ra, a characterization of his dogma is given as "I know my reasoning is valid because my imaginary friend told me so. I do not have to prove that I am not delusional until you can’t prove to me that you are not delusional about every single thing which you claim which you think you know. You can only prove that by admitting that you can hear my imaginary friend as well.”

I translated this in to something more generic, as I have lots of acquaintances that would reject the "imaginary friend" part,
My conclusions are valid as a result of my method. This method must be followed to reach my conclusion. I don’t have to prove my method or address any side effects of my method. Individual testimony is all that is needed. To prove I am wrong, you must follow my methods and get the same results.
I hope you find this useful, I think I will.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: