Rationalism

[twobitsmedia]

Strong rationalism assumes that "reason" exists in human beings as a faculty that is neutral (i.e., independent, impartial) as regards to conflicting world views, and thus can be used to prove things to everyone (prejudice aside) regardless of what world-views people are initially inclined to accept. But is reason really neutral in this way? It seems clear in everyday life that peoples belief systems--their world-views--do have a considerable impact on which sorts of arguments they find convincing and believable. A large number of contemporary philosophers seem convinced that the thing can't be done--that there is no pure, assumption free standpoint on which our knowlegde can be based in a way that is independent of "where we are coming from." If the goal of totally eliminating prior convictions and "prejudices" from our belief system is unnattainable==then the approach of strong rationalism cannot be made to work. Yes....No?

[sledheavy]

Strong rationalism assumes that "reason" exists in human beings as a faculty that is neutral (i.e., independent, impartial) as regards to conflicting world views, and thus can be used to prove things to everyone (prejudice aside) regardless of what world-views people are initially inclined to accept. But is reason really neutral in this way? It seems clear in everyday life that peoples belief systems--their world-views--do have a considerable impact on which sorts of arguments they find convincing and believable. A large number of contemporary philosophers seem convinced that the thing can't be done--that there is no pure, assumption free standpoint on which our knowlegde can be based in a way that is independent of "where we are coming from." If the goal of totally eliminating prior convictions and "prejudices" from our belief system is unnattainable==then the approach of strong rationalism cannot be made to work. Yes....No?

Probably not. Rationalism only seems to be used but never accepted to the fullest extent. Is it necessarilly neutral? It's universally sound I guess, but rationalizing seems to be neutral in a way that settles arguments, at least to me. Rationalism isn't ultimately used because people are instinctively pigheaded about their beliefs.

Maybe it's too much to expect out of people these days.

If two people are arguing and someone hears both sides, the majority of the time the newb will explain a major point not being issued, or that based on experience the situation being argued is different. Thus the people arguing will just become frustrated, because they haven't been told what they want to hear. They won't side with rational thought, they'll just claim their beliefs as truth.

[twobitsmedia]

Strong rationalism assumes that "reason" exists in human beings as a faculty that is neutral (i.e., independent, impartial) as regards to conflicting world views, and thus can be used to prove things to everyone (prejudice aside) regardless of what world-views people are initially inclined to accept. But is reason really neutral in this way? It seems clear in everyday life that peoples belief systems--their world-views--do have a considerable impact on which sorts of arguments they find convincing and believable. A large number of contemporary philosophers seem convinced that the thing can't be done--that there is no pure, assumption free standpoint on which our knowlegde can be based in a way that is independent of "where we are coming from." If the goal of totally eliminating prior convictions and "prejudices" from our belief system is unnattainable==then the approach of strong rationalism cannot be made to work. Yes....No?

Probably not. Rationalism only seems to be used but never accepted to the fullest extent. Is it necessarilly neutral? It's universally sound I guess, but rationalizing seems to be neutral in a way that settles arguments,

I guess the problem I see is that I don't really see it settle many arguments. Both sides can produce what they call "evidence," but then the "evidence" is usually considered bias. For example, an athiest would throw out a reference by Richard Dawkins, and a theist would throw out a reference by James Dobson. Both would seem credible to their representative, but both would clearly be considered bias. Those two names may not be the best example, but you know what I mean, I think. Is there really evidence that is neural?

[McCulloch]

Moved to Philosophy.

[sledheavy]

Strong rationalism assumes that "reason" exists in human beings as a faculty that is neutral (i.e., independent, impartial) as regards to conflicting world views, and thus can be used to prove things to everyone (prejudice aside) regardless of what world-views people are initially inclined to accept. But is reason really neutral in this way? It seems clear in everyday life that peoples belief systems--their world-views--do have a considerable impact on which sorts of arguments they find convincing and believable. A large number of contemporary philosophers seem convinced that the thing can't be done--that there is no pure, assumption free standpoint on which our knowlegde can be based in a way that is independent of "where we are coming from." If the goal of totally eliminating prior convictions and "prejudices" from our belief system is unnattainable==then the approach of strong rationalism cannot be made to work. Yes....No?

Probably not. Rationalism only seems to be used but never accepted to the fullest extent. Is it necessarily neutral? It's universally sound I guess, but rationalizing seems to be neutral in a way that settles arguments,

I guess the problem I see is that I don't really see it settle many arguments. Both sides can produce what they call "evidence," but then the "evidence" is usually considered bias. For example, an atheist would throw out a reference by Richard Dawkins, and a theist would throw out a reference by James Dobson. Both would seem credible to their representative, but both would clearly be considered bias. Those two names may not be the best example, but you know what I mean, I think. Is there really evidence that is neural?

Most of the time quotation or evidence comes off as a first hand account of a second hand interpretation. Thats a big problem, because normally most people will avoid evidence if it doesn't relate to them.

The biggest underlying problem with this forum is that debate turns to rants and arguing real quick, and before we all know, 2 people are throwing evidence back at each other till they reach the same inevitable end which could have been predicted.

If people here ACTUALLY wanted to make a point, or persuade the other person, they wouldn't make it completely with evidence, personal account or faith or belief.

Check this out. Discussions tend to revolve around:

"I don't understand why so many people deny the lord". (ranting)

"Jesus IS truth." (one sided belief)

"The bible clearly states." (one sided evidence)

"misc. bible quote." (one sided explanation)

"I know in my heart that God exists" (no proof, just belief)

(and visa versa. Atheists tend to do the same thing.)


What should be said is something to this effect:

"Have you really gone through life feeling no spiritual connection? Have you ultimately come to the conclusion that the things you can't explain don't exist at all? Is it just that because of your limitations that the world is limited? To deny that something greater than yourself might exist, or might interact and effect you everyday, you may ultimately deny your being here."

That would be a step in the right direction of persuading an atheist. Not evidence or banter; in any argument a person should be persuaded into looking at the others evidence for themselves. It should in no way be forced upon them. That's a key point of rationalism.