[HydrogenBond]

Reason as the controlling force in the universe, may mean the laws of nature follow rational principles. If you can reason you can figure out how nature works, since nature follow rational principles. Without reason nature appeared to be controlled by the whims of the gods and goddesses. For example, before Newton, gravity would have been modeled with sort of a primitive version of random and chaos, only because humans could not yet reason it out. They projected their own limitations and forced fitted gravity into their own superstition. When Newton figured out how to do it with reason than reality of gravity followed rational principles.

If you look at the gods of mythology they were fickle and therefore not subject to cause and affect. To the non reasoning person of ancient times cause and affect could not exist because one of the gods could mess things up at any time. In reality, the universe is controlled by reason. Zeus, lady luck, chaos or any other god or goddess was considered superstition.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

Yes, that is exactly what I mean, a force or law of the universe. Doesn't that make sense? Reason, is the controlling force of the universe, speaks of the forces or laws of the universe.

Our minds precieve the reason, but the reason is out there. The reason is something we can observe and expereince. We say, the gravity is the reason things fall to earth. The reason things fall to earth is not in our brains. Gravity is out there and our brains precieve it. We precieve the reason and our brains think about the reason, but it is all out there. Hum, this leading to several philosophical argument, which I assume few are ready to grasp.

nutronjon,

I'm affraid that you are misusing the term "reason" in this discussion and in your sentence structure which is what is causing the confusion. Let me explain:

There are two primary uses or definitions of the term "reason." Please see the definition linked.

1) noun - An explanation for or cause of some occurance. Example: When I let go of the ball, it fell to the ground. What is the reason for this? The reason it fell to the ground is that the force of gravity was acting on it.

2) verb - A thought process. Example: That was a great idea you had. You were able to reason that well. Also, reasoning or thinking.

These uses are not interchangeable.

So let's apply the term to your statement, "Reason is the controlling force of the universe," and substitute a synonym.

1) Explanation is the controlling force of the universe, or, cause is the controlling force of the universe.

2) Thought is the controlling force of the universe.

Reason can also mean tollerance. Ex. It is within reason.

3) Tollerance is the controlling force of the universe.


Can you see how this statement doesn't really make sense when you look at it this way. You can try substituting other words that mean the same as reason, and they don't really work well either.

The statement that is the title of this thread is definitely not scientific. In fact, it's really a nonsensical statement.

[InfiniteNow]

Sorry, another picture. I'm just rude, right?

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Sorry, another picture. I'm just rude, right?

Rude, lewd, and misconstrued, Dude

[InfiniteNow]

Don't forget tattooed.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Don't forget tattooed.

Or in some cases Screwed

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Reason as the controlling force in the universe, may mean the laws of nature follow rational principles. If you can reason you can figure out how nature works, since nature follow rational principles. Without reason nature appeared to be controlled by the whims of the gods and goddesses. For example, before Newton, gravity would have been modeled with sort of a primitive version of random and chaos, only because humans could not yet reason it out. They projected their own limitations and forced fitted gravity into their own superstition. When Newton figured out how to do it with reason than reality of gravity followed rational principles.

If you look at the gods of mythology they were fickle and therefore not subject to cause and affect. To the non reasoning person of ancient times cause and affect could not exist because one of the gods could mess things up at any time. In reality, the universe is controlled by reason. Zeus, lady luck, chaos or any other god or goddess was considered superstition.

Why didn't I say that? That appears to be exactly that point I have been trying to make. This concept of reason, controlling the universe was lost to the west, when the ancient civilizations began falling, and then all that was left to unite the west was the church. The Cursades lead to the discovery of the old documents, and these Greek and Roman classics became part of education, provided by the church, and eventually lead to our sciences and our acceptence of the concept of democracy- people who govern themselves with reason. It was once again a radical idea that there are forces and laws of the universe, not just the whim of a God.

It is interesting how these ancient ideas were rejected by religion, accepted by religion, and rejected by religion, back and forth, for both Christians and Muslims. This means there is a bases for uniting the Christians and Muslims, and this same process becomes a strong scientific influence on religion. I think this is something you all want to achieve. It is kind of like changing the soup, by adding something until there is more of that something, than want was originally the bases of the soup. If this is done without resistance to "God" there is no fight and the desired change happens. However, if this whole process is stopped at a debate of if God exist, the desired change does not happen, and everyone is polarized and hostile. What is to be gained by causing polarization?

There is a huge international, political benefit. Religion supports traditional authority and this is the enemy of democratic authority. So if we drop the religious fight, and pick up the spread of science and technology, human beings have a chance of a future so radically different from the past, the people of the future will be unable to relate to the past, all the warring and inhumanity of our history will puzzle people of the future. They will not be able to understand why people behaved so irrationally.

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by REASON

nutronjon,

I'm affraid that you are misusing the term "reason" in this discussion and in your sentence structure which is what is causing the confusion. Let me explain:

There are two primary uses or definitions of the term "reason." Please see the definition linked.

1) noun - An explanation for or cause of some occurance. Example: When I let go of the ball, it fell to the ground. What is the reason for this? The reason it fell to the ground is that the force of gravity was acting on it.

2) verb - A thought process. Example: That was a great idea you had. You were able to reason that well. Also, reasoning or thinking.

These uses are not interchangeable.

So let's apply the term to your statement, "Reason is the controlling force of the universe," and substitute a synonym.

1) Explanation is the controlling force of the universe, or, cause is the controlling force of the universe.

2) Thought is the controlling force of the universe.

Reason can also mean tollerance. Ex. It is within reason.

3) Tollerance is the controlling force of the universe.


Can you see how this statement doesn't really make sense when you look at it this way. You can try substituting other words that mean the same as reason, and they don't really work well either.

The statement that is the title of this thread is definitely not scientific. In fact, it's really a nonsensical statement.

Thank you, I think you have taken a good step to clearing up the confusion. Let us use your word substitues in the sentence given in your definition and is if those substitues work?

1) noun - An explanation for or cause of some occurance. Example: When I let go of the ball, it fell to the ground. What is the reason for this? The reason it fell to the ground is that the force of gravity was acting on it.

"When I let go of the ball, it fell to the ground. What is the explanation it fell to the ground is that the force of gravity was acting on it. "

What is the thought it fell to the ground is that the force of gravity was acting on it.

What is the Tollerance it fell to the ground is that the force of gravity was acting on it.

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Democracy is about learning the reason for things? Can you clarify this?



I love science too!
There's lots of science to be found here. After reading a couple hundred threads here, it became obvious to me that reason is the controlling force of...Hypography!

I think I can clarify why science is to democracy, what religion is to autocracy- the enemy of democracy.

It begins with the philosophers arguing about how the gods resolve their differences. The philosophers concluded, reason, is the controlling force of the universe, and even the gods are subject to reason. Up to this time, it was believed the gods did as they pleased, pretty much as humans do, only they are immortal and were thought to be completely free to do as they please. People assumed the natural order of humans was determined by humans competing with brute force and doing whatever they could get away with, just as the gods.

Now it wasn't reason that lead to democracy, but the invasion of Persians. Only the rich could afford warriors and that wasn't enough to stop the Persians from coming in and destroying everything, including the temple of Athena, Athens patron goddess, who was the grain goddess at the time. If she was not appeased, she would be so angry she would cause the crops to fail and people to starve. This is helpful in gathering willing warriors but not enough to get all the men needed to row the war ships and arm them too. With the developing philosophy, that had people believing they are like the gods because they can reason, and that reasoning is the way of the gods, they decided to imitate this new understanding of the gods. It was agreed, if everyone helped defend Athens, everyone would have a say in government. So what began as a philosophical idea, became a political one as well.

Now this change was not perfect for sure! Socrates was order to drink the hemlock for questioning the gods. But men like Pythagoras and Aristotle were busy trying to figure out the reason for why things are as they are, scientifically. Aristotle says, "Number proceeds for unity." Gerasa says, "The Triad is the form of the completion of all things." The gods begin shifting from stories to archetypes, and they are pretty amazing pscyhological observations of humanity. Hades, is a place where no one should go, without the help of the gods (concepts that lead to good thinking ability), because we get lost in Hades, that is, we become depressed or even psychotic when we have poor thinking and coping skills. These folks are reasoing through everything, and especially Socrates is known for reasoning through morality. What makes something good is, it manifest good, and what makes something bad is, it is harmful. Democracy is applying all this reasoning to the making of laws, which Cicero tells us, must be based on the laws of nature. Laws that are not based on the laws of nature, according to Cicero, are not truly laws, but tyranny. This is what makes autocracies, or dictatorships, tyrannies- rule by the whims of humans, or their power plays, is tyranny. Rule by reason is the goal of democracy. I began expecting people of science already knew this reasoning, at least enough for me to say what I say, without setting off nasty arguments. It has been confusing to me, that people of science seem to be arguing against the value of science?

[REASON]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

Thank you, I think you have taken a good step to clearing up the confusion. Let us use your word substitues in the sentence given in your definition and is if those substitues work?

"When I let go of the ball, it fell to the ground. What is the explanation it fell to the ground is that the force of gravity was acting on it. "

What is the thought it fell to the ground is that the force of gravity was acting on it.

What is the Tollerance it fell to the ground is that the force of gravity was acting on it.

You obviously didn't understand what I was saying so I'm going to try again.

First, do you understand that there are different uses for the word reason?

Do you understand that in some instances it is a noun, and in other instances it is a verb?

Do you understand that the word "reason" can be defined as an explanation or cause and that it can also be a thought process?

Do you understand that a thought process or expanation for something cannot be the controlling force of the universe?

Do you recall this post where I pointed out that your use of the term "reason" didn't make sense? Here was the sequence in our discussion:

Originally Posted by nutronjon:
reason, is the controlling force of the universe

Originally Posted by REASON:
In what way does reason control the force of gravity?

Originally Posted by nutronjon:
Gravity is the reason things fall to earth.

I will ask again. Do you understand the logical fallacy in the sequesnce above?

Well I'll go ahead and point it out for you anyway.

Your fisrt statement, "reason is the controlling force of the universe" is using the term "reason" to mean reasoning or thinking. Look at my avatar. It is a picture of The Thinking Man. It is a statue of a man who is reasoning or thinking. That is why I chose it for my avatar. What he is doing, as a man of reason, has nothing to do with the force of gravity.

"Gravity is the reason things fall to Earth." Here you used "reason" to mean "explanation." You are not describing a thought process.

Do you see the difference?