[REASON]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

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?

I have not heard anyone arguing against the value of science. We are arguing against your distorted perception of it. I'm not convinced that you really know what science is. Your posts suggest that you don't.

What you are pushing in your posts are ideas that are not scientific. The topic of this thread is not scientific.

How can reason be the controlling force of the universe?

How does reason control the orbits of the planets?

In what way does reason cause a whirlpool galaxy to spin?

How does reason control the process of evolution in living organisms?

How does reason make the sun shine?

Do you see what I'm getting at? Stop making statements that you can't even define properly.

I understand that it is good to be reasonable. I understand that a good use of reasoning can lead to better decision making.

What does this have to do with controlling the universe?

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by REASON

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:



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?

I absolutely do not believe this.

First of all the idea is not mine, but comes from a Webster dictionary. The word reason comes

from the Latin ratio, rationis, reason, plan

1. an explanation or justification of an act, idea, etc.

2. cause or motive

Reason, is the controlling force of the universe- is reason as cause. It means there is a cause for things happening. The cause of things falling to earth is gravity. The cause of the Nile flooding yearly, is the melting of snow, not the Gods as the people once believed.

I am getting very annoyed with this argument. It is like people are going way out of their way to find fault with what I am saying. The sentence I use comes from the Webster dicitionary explanation of logos...

Logos n [L. logos; Gr. logos, a word, the word by which the inward thought is expressed, the inward thought itself, from legein, to speak]
1. [sometimes l-] in Greek philosophy, reason, thought of as constituting the controlling principle of the universe and as being manifest in speech.

This comes from the idea, a god could name something and it would come into being, as a human can think boat and create a boat. The thought of a thing, has to be there, before it can be created. However, as we become more scientific, we move away from deities, and towards scientific explanations. The cause of things staying on earth is gravity. Energy conservation is the cause of other things. Back up to the definition of reason, it can mean cause.

What is, is, because of cause and effect, and why in blazes would anyone want to argue against this? If the manifestation of the material universe is not cause and effect, then what is it, and how could science explain anything? Do you all get, you are arguing for the belief of gods and against the belief of things like gravity and energy conservation, when you insist reason (cause), is not the controlling force of the universe? Your arguments return us to chaos and the whims of forces that were called gods, and away from reason, the scientific explanation of why things are as they are. Why are you doing this? Back up to the definition of reason- it is an explanation. There is an explanation for why things happen, other than believing in gods. Why are you making a deliberate effort to argue against this? I really think the failure to understand resides somewhere, besides myself.

[nutronjon]

I want to bring HydrogenBond's explanation along with my arguement, so people who come to the last page, get a good explanation of what we are talking about.

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.

[modest]

I appreciate what Hydrogenbond is saying. It's not necessarily wrong as it is unnecessary.

Our universe defines what is logical (something following reason). If our universe were different there might be different rules of logic. Therefore saying the universe is governed by reason or follows logics is redundant. We would be saying the universe follows logic because logic is defined by the universe. Redundant.

If we add God into the equation then things get even more redundant. We would then be defining something on top of something on top of the properties of the universe. I don't see what we're getting out of all these definitions.

Sometimes gravity is just gravity.

-modest

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by modest

I appreciate what Hydrogenbond is saying. It's not necessarily wrong as it is unnecessary.

Our universe defines what is logical (something following reason). If our universe were different there might be different rules of logic. Therefore saying the universe is governed by reason or follows logics is redundant. We would be saying the universe follows logic because logic is defined by the universe. Redundant.

If we add God into the equation then things get even more redundant. We would then be defining something on top of something on top of the properties of the universe. I don't see what we're getting out of all these definitions.

Sometimes gravity is just gravity.

-modest

Hum, let us chew on this, if the universe were different, how would the rules of logic be different? Would 2=2 no longer equal 4? Perhaps a triangle on Mars is not a triangle?

The word God is, not necessarily other than the properties of the universe. We can chose to understand God as the properties of the universe, and that is what I am doing. Is there a reason why this can not be done? Is there a reason we can not use science to understand God which is the properties of the universe? Might this be a pretty good way to end superstitious notions and other faulty logic?

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

I absolutely do not believe this.

<...>

I am getting very annoyed with this argument. It is like people are going way out of their way to find fault with what I am saying.

Yep. Welcome to the magical world of science, where your beliefs are completely irrelevant and holes will be poked in everything you say until it is either discarded or shown to be valid.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

We can chose to understand God as the properties of the universe, and that is what I am doing. Is there a reason why this can not be done? Is there a reason we can use science to understand God which is the properties of the universe? Might this be a pretty good way to end superstitious notions and other faulty logic?

Yes, of course there is. You're trying to understand something which is not relevant... nothing more than your personal conjecture, with no basis in evidence or reality, and is not at all necessary to further the understanding for which you argue so passionately.

It's like saying that I must understand unicorns to undstand apples.


We use science to understand the universe. Where the hell does this idea of god become in ANY way necessary or useful?

[modest]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

Hum, let us chew on this, if the universe were different, how would the rules of logic be different? Would 2=2 no longer equal 4? Perhaps a triangle on Mars is not a triangle?

Spot on. Whatever we determine about reality comes from our universe. Does a triangle have 3 sides and angles that add up to 180? Yes - logically, yes. In another universe it may not. Our universe defines reason - defining the universe by reason is therefore redundant.

Originally Posted by nutronjon

The word God is, not necessarily other than the properties of the universe. We can chose to understand God as the properties of the universe, and that is what I am doing. Is there a reason why this can not be done? Is there a reason we can use science to understand God which is the properties of the universe? Might this be a pretty good way to end superstitious notions and other faulty logic?

Can we agree that this does not differentiate God from the universe? We can by your thinking say God = The Universe, yes?

-modest

[REASON]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

I am getting very annoyed with this argument. It is like people are going way out of their way to find fault with what I am saying. The sentence I use comes from the Webster dicitionary explanation of logos...

I'm sorry I'm having difficulty with the terminology and the usage here, but you have demonstrated my point above.

You say the sentence comes the definition of "logos" which is defined as inward thought itself. In this definition, the Greek philosophy example included, is referring to thought as the controlling principle (not force) of the universe manifest in speech, not cause or explanation.

I am driving at this because I believe defining terms and being in agreement about what terms mean and how they are being used is paramount in effective communication.

The use of the term reason in this thread is either stating that thought is the controlling force of the universe, which I think is sort of what the Greek philosophers were implying, or it is ment to suggest that causation is the controlling force. If the latter is what you intend to imply, nutron, then the proper usage for "reason" in the statement would be something like, "Reasons are the controlling forces of the universe."

But once the reasons are defined, such as gravity, we don't have to call it reason any more, it's just gravity. This is why I think modest is saying it becomes redundant, and why bringing god into it, becomes even more redundant.

I wonder what ancient Greek philosophy would be if they knew as much as we do about the universe.

So can we be in agreement that you are not saying that thought is the controlling force of the universe?

[modest]

The ancient Greeks were right on this nutronjon (as far as I believe). Everything in our universe must exist within the rules of logic or reason. Things have to make sense to the whole. It’s very scientific. The actions and materials of the universe must follow the rules of the universe. That’s what logos is. It is the underlying principle that gives substance. It’s the reason things happen. That thing "logos" is far better described by science than God, is it not?

Didn’t Socrates, as you like to say, die for expressing this very idea? He denied the gods. Didn’t Jefferson say we should question God's very existence? Everything you have been arguing and quoting has been against theism - in any form. You just refuse to say it that way. You’ve taken every property away from God and ended up saying: well, if there is a god - it’s the universe.

I’m going out on a limb for you here. I’m agreeing with Aristotle on this - and even Plato. I’m using your terminology and seeing this as best I can from your eyes. Now do the same for me:

Why call it God at all? If it is logos, then why call logos God? That’s what the Christian church did and look what happened. If you take something metaphysical like god and describe it with all physical attributes (like the universe) then it is no longer metaphysical. It is no longer any definition of God. Can you see that through my eyes?

So far we have:
Logos = God = Reason = Universe = Everything in the universe

Pretty soon we’re going to have 20 words that all say the same thing: “The laws of the natural world.”

-modest