Talk:Argument from reason

Bias?
I'm taking down the bias tag until we get an explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.240.46 (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia?!
"This argument further assumes that rationality cannot arise out of non-rationality, element eight. Why not? Why could not material elements at some point have arranged themselves in such a way that rationality would arise?"

What the heck is the second sentence above doing in an encyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.54.250 (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Overuse of quotes
This page has an overuse of quotes. It should be turned into prose. See WP:QUOTE. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarification?
I'm having some problems with this train of logic. To be specific, statement two is troubling me, because it seems to have been assumed without justification.

The explanation remarks "if rationality could spontaneously enter our experience, where would it come from?" and then says that spontaneously created rationality would be "existence springing forth from nonexistence", but this doesn't work. If non-rational matter became rational matter, this would merely be a change in properties rather than a creation of something from nothing. Given pieces of matter can be observed to change their properties quite frequently.

The references to Hume and changes to the imperative from the indicative also seem quite misplaced. It is not required to get an "'ought' from an 'is'", merely an "is" from an "is". That is to say, logic merely takes statements about the world and then creates other statements about it.

I think, if statement two cannot be demonstrated, then the whole argument is unsupported, since several of the steps assume the impossibility of rationality arising from the non-rational. Maybe I'm missing something here, but, if I'm not, the argument presented here is in dire need of reworking, if indeed anything useful can be shaped from it. --98.163.19.202 (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

To deny statement two one would have to say that mere matter (clumps of quarks and electrons or whatever) might get into such an arrangement that a mind would spring forth that could direct the matter on the basis of logical grounds. For mere matter moves because of, and only because of, physical causes. Imagine, arguendo, that a certain formulation of matter would be conscious. Because its consciousness is constituted by mere matter, it would "think" in a certain and not another the atoms constituting it happen for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives it, as a by-product, the sensation we call thought. That is to say, its consciousness would not be governed by reason unless something else sprung forth that governed the physical matter and had the capacity for reason. And this could not happen for merely physical causes. To be trustworthy it must emanate, ultimately, from something rationale. I think it is easier not to think of it as a proof for God, but instead as a proof of something that transcends the mindless flux of material particles. For example, Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel makes it in his book The Last Word. This is pretty much what Miracles is all about for the first 6 chapters and it is hard to summarize here, I admit.02:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)~


 * I think your suggestion is rather presumptuous, as is the entire article and argument. It's essentially saying that because we can't fully comprehend how purely physical consciousness works, it must not work. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 12:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not a valid defense of statement 2. Yes it is very presumptuous and furthermore it defies precursory and subsequent logic. If rationality existed before a living brain existed then why have a living brain? If non-physical rationality can effect physical matter in such way, then why would the brain be necessary? from the given logic its easy to conclude that rocks and sand are just as rational as the human brain, because both can be effected equally by non-physical rationality. Argument one does not address this quandary, because argument 2 specifically implies that the human brain is not a rational source because it is physical. Argument 4 does not address the purely physical nature of the human brain, it simply implies that the human mind is not a part of the human brain. None of these statements are backed up by evidence and most are refuted by the evidence. But despite the evidence this argument still fails logically to address the connection between the human brain and the non-physical world. it doesnt attmpt to explain the interaction or even propose possible conduits of that non-physical bridge. For instance does the non-physical rationality effect the nerve tissue or the transferring electrolytes between nerve tissue? At what point does the non physical process interrupt the physical process? We have mapped the Brain from input of physical stimuli to output of bodily reaction. At what point in this reaction does the the non-physical universe interrupt the reaction change the variables and start the reaction back up again?

this argument is clearly an attempt to take advantage of the general lack of public understanding of the physiology of the brain. Using inaccurate analogies to claim a gap in the knowledge then arbitrarily proposing that god is the only logical explanation that can fill that gap. The argument doesn't exist to appease the people who understand it. This argument exists to brainwash the people who cant understand it. to put it more clearly, The people who believe this argument are people who don't have the capacity to understand or logically critique it, but are willing to accept it and defend it as true because of pre-existing bias. So if you need clarification on this argument then the argument is not meant for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.23.98 (talk) 01:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticism
There ought to be a section for criticism of this. I'm sure there has to be plenty of it out there, since practically everything on this page is just rhetoric. I'll look now and see what I can come up with, but for such a flawed argument (especially since it's clearly circular reasoning and self-contradictory - that, and the premise is the conclusion), I'd be shocked if there's no refutation anywhere.

I mean, just reading this, it's apparent that it's a rather self-defeating argument. It's quite clear that saying irrational matter can not results in a rational being is just rhetoric without an empirical basis, and it doesn't state why a deity is considered to be a rational source for rationality. Of course, the basis of it is more or less saying that because we don't fully understand how a brain in a universe without supernatural forces would give rise to consciousness/rationality, it must be guided by a diety for rationality. It's fallacy is that it's based entirely on assumption.

That, and not to mention that all of the quotes from scientists and philosophers make it appear as though there's a consensus on agreement, which is hardly the case. Regardless, the only part that attempts to be critical of it is the section addressing the limits, which is not particularly NPOV. An encyclopedia containing the sentence "This may or may not be true, but there is no sense in arguing about it" is just laughable. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 12:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I have put up a criticism section for this page multiple times, and every time it gets completely deleted. there are people who troll Wikipedia arbitrarily censuring material that they don't like. The reality is that this argument is likely a core belief of those people, so this article is probably regularly visited, and any criticism is going to be censored on a regular basis. Its the Wikipedia equivalent of burning books but much easier because the people doing it probably have a lot of accidents when they are around fire.

luckily these people are also very lazy and cant tell the difference between there own argument and the criticism. So i have been adding the criticisms to the end of each explanation paragraph, making sure not censure the supporting arguments but simply fallowing the supporting arguments with a quick rebuttal. The last guy to censor the material also deleted 3/4 of the supporting arguments. If you don't see criticisms then the best thing to do is to go into history and undo the last major reduction in the article length. The tag on these mass deletions is usually something like (crap) or (Lies) but with no real explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.23.98 (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * All that you have written is not really encyclopedia material. And please cite your source in proper Wiki format if you expect it to stay. Otherwise, it's just your ill-placed rambling. And as valid or invalid as the counterarguments might be - they don't belong on wikipedia. Please do some actual research on what wikipedia actually is before making assumptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.136.8.242 (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * All that you deleted was not written by me. In fact the vast majority of what you deleted where the supporting explanations of this argument that you apparently had no problem with until valid criticism where presented. As it stands you have reduced this article from a collection of supporting explanations and their common criticisms, to a simple statement of the argument and other arguments that are similar to it. It appears you have confused Encyclopedia with Dictionary. So far your only contribution to this article is deleting the vast majority of its contents. AND YOU DIDN'T EVEN CITE YOUR SOURCES. 76.120.23.98 (talk) 04:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

So as it turns out this argument was torn apart so vigorously by a philosophy student 60 years ago that Lewis rewrote the argument to reflect his subsequent uncertainty of it, and vowed never to present logical arguments again. I added the criticism section with the relevant information. I actually found this little gem on a C.S. Lewis fan site, and quotes from his official biographer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.23.98 (talk) 06:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "official biographer" you mean, but generally Walter Hooper Or R.L. Green is considered to hold that title, in which case that is not what he says. What he DOES say is that Eliabeth Anscombe gave a very rigorous argument against chapter 3 of Miracles, in which Lewis sets forth his argument for the self-contradiction of Naturalism. He therefore returned to re-write the argument in question, taking her argument into account and accommodating her points. He does not express an "uncertainty in it"--you may reference chapter 3 of the 1960 of Miracles to verify this for yourself. His personal letters--reprinted in 3 volumes entitled C.S. Lewis: Collected Letters--demonstrate that he held to this argument throughout his life. Anscombe commented that his genuine acceptance of her points showed his honesty as a philosopher. It is quite true that he did not write more philosophy after this--this was because he was not a professional philosopher, nor did he intend to present himself as one. He put the bulk of his academic efforts into Literary Criticism and English studies, and it is only posterity that has made him into first and foremost a theologian/philosopher. That is not how he saw himself. If you would like to check this, see Walter Hooper, C.S. Lewis: A Companion and Guide (London: Harper Collins, 1996). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.43.173 (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The section on criticism is poorly written, contains grating spelling errors, is very lax in its argumentation, and ascribes formal logical fallacies without showing where and how said fallacies are instantiated. This leads me to think that the criticism section was written by someone with no philosophical training or analytical skills - i.e. the section is original research, and therefore below Wiki standards. A section for criticism should be constructed from published arguments, preferably from professional philosophers. If these are unavailable, then at the very least there should be a website citation.

Of further note, any reference to 'legitimate philosophers and logicians' should include citations of reputable websites or published books or journals which identify these 'philosophers and logicians' and list their rebuttals to the argument. A piped link to the Wiki pages of said 'philosophers and logicians' would be nice, too.

Until then, I'm deleting the original research in the criticism section. If anyone can find a rebuttal of the argument from a credible philosopher and actually take the trouble to cite their source, it would be greatly appreciated.

71.65.104.44 (talk) 07:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Terminology
I have never seen "rational" and related terms used in this way before and no definition is given. Being a "rational source" seems to be equated with something involving the causal nature of an agent. (1) does not seem to follow any widespread epistemic system. The truth of a statement normally has nothing to do with the agent delivering it. The statement "Object X has a mass of 20 grams" normally would not change its truth value based on the source. Assuming (1) and (2), a scale cannot output truths about the object being measured. That seem to obvious a flaw, so I assume it is a terminology problem.

I can barely figure out how the terms are being used, so can't begin to understand the argument. If someone who really knows the argument (I don't) could re-write it in terms that are more universally used it would greatly improve the information.

This may just be the terminology again, but the contents of the article do not seem to match the C S Lewis's quotation. The quotation does seem to be a real problem with rationality and philosophy of science, but the rest of the article does not appear to explain the argument made in the quotation.

I think the article really needs the help of an expert on this. Ezra DR (talk) 07:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

C.S. Lewis is attempting to prove the human soul, by purposely ignoring the nature of truth and substituting unnatural explanations. He is literally Claiming that truth can only exist if humans have souls. His terminology reflects this fundamental flaw in his argument. He is taking care to confuse the difference between natural facts, and abstracted constructs of truth in human thought. He assumes that scientific facts are dependent entirely upon the people who discover them. For those of you who are still confused about the terminology, here is a basic paraphrasing of the argument... "Gravity would not be true if Newton never thought of it. But because he did think of it, it is now true. But the only reason anybody knows its true is because god is tickling our brains. Because that's the only reasonable explanation for how the human brain works, god is constantly tickling the particles in our brain. Therefore scientists who think of other explanations are wrong because they are asking me to reject my preconceived notion about god tickling the human brain to make it work. And it confuses me that these scientists could come up with a different explanation for the brain, even while god is obviously tickling there brain. Therefore we should not listen to scientists because there brains aren't very ticklish." --- That's about the most perfect paraphrasing i could come up with. The argument claims that scientific explanations for everything must be wrong because they don't include god as the primary motivator for everything ever. And the only evidence given for the argument is the baseless supposition that "it is obviously not possible for the human brain to work unless god were constantly shoving rationality into it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.23.98 (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Argument Guy
I'm sorry for deleting your stuff. I know how much it sucks, but there are some problems with it
 * Helium is 4 hydrogens, not 2
 * Helium is not irreducible. That's not what irreducible means
 * Argument from ignorance - Read it. Know it.  Love it.
 * Your essay is just not good enough. That's ok, it's a complicated philosophical argument, designed to be very hard to refute.  I don't know of any good examples to crib from, but I'm sure there are a few.  But you have to be logically rigorous and not make bad arguments.  Your essay looks like a teenager's rant.  I'm sorry, but you want harsh truth, right?  There it is.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by The minibus (talk • contribs) 04:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

So you delete the entire article, because you cant tell the difference between the supporting arguments and their criticisms? Impressive, way to be "Logically Rigorous". What i added to this article is not an essay, it is in fact the ramblings of a nobody. added on a spontaneous whim. Then you look at the discussion section and find that most the people who are introduced to this argument have the exact same criticisms. I have seen more logically sound arguments drawn in crayon. Anybody with basic presence of mind to actually analyze this argument could tear it to shreds. Then people like you come along and espouse pure Ultra-Biased opinion as if your infirmity of mind and undue reverence for anything that mentions god should be considered the authoritative status quo and default stance of all humanity and collected knowledge. This argument in and of itself is a bad argument, if you had any grasp of basic logic and critical thinking you would not need Wikipedia to reflect your unfounded reverence for it.

Now to address your points.
 * Every piece of physical matter in our universe is reducible. There is not a single thing inside our universe yet found that cannot be reduced into lesser things. Therefore there is not a single thing in our universe that is not made up of lesser things combined with themselves. There is no such condition as irreducible. Especially not the human brain, which is undoubtedly the most complicated structure ever discovered, made entirely out of protons, electrons and neutrons simply added to themselves.
 * the CS Lewis' "argument from reason" in and of itself IS an argument from ignorance. It very specifically states that "because not enough evidence has been found to adequately explain the workings of the human brain, then God must be what is making the brain work." At this point i would normally suggest that YOU go back and reacquaint yourself with the argument from ignorance, but your problem is not a lack of understanding. You have a specific mental block preventing you from objectively applying rules of logic to all situations, and the more you entertain that distortion of reality the worse it will get. So instead i suggest you read your bible, cover to cover, multiple times to confront your own insanity. Hopefully such introspection will allow you to see your own shortcomings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.23.98 (talk) 03:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 0/10
 * I didn't delete the entire article, just the insane rantings of a little kid —Preceding unsigned comment added by The minibus (talk • contribs) 16:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow. You got me. I am impressed. Your logic is supreme. You bested me, 4000 years of logical tradition, and the oxford Socratic club all with a little quip about my size and age, even though your completely wrong about me being both little and a kid, it is still enough to thoroughly debunk my 1000+ word entry about the logical inconsistencies of an argument proven logically inconsistent for many decades. I am amazed that I met somebody with the intellectual authority to declare 40 years of recorded history to be insane ramblings... it’s almost like you’re from Texas or something. And the score you gave me 0/10, how embarrassing receiving such low accolades from someone who’s demonstrated ability to delete words far exceeds my ability to write them. I now see the folly of my ways, I will trouble the world no longer with what history perceives to be the truth about this article and instead allow your arbitrary uneducated deletions and baseless reasoning to strike from Wikipedia that which is uncomfortable to you. Don’t bother yourself with checking the article again. I promise you that I will make sure it doesn’t say all the things you don’t want it to say. You have my word.

Prposed move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved.  Ron h jones (Talk) 19:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Argument from Reason → — Proper title format.Greg Bard 22:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

God? or a god?
AFAICT, all references to a god are God, which I am assuming is referencing the Judeo-Christian God. This is no way gives credit to God's existence, but only "a god's". Is this a bias or are the references to the Judeo-Christian God required for the argument itself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.219.164.86 (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Objectors, please go actually read the books, then come back.
I think it is evident that people who have been editing the "Criticisms" section haven't actually read the relevant books on the subject - either that or they're just plain deluded about the meaning of what they read. For example, take this paragraph:
 * The most glaring inconsistency is the self defeating conclusion. This argument relies on the idea that "reason is Absolute" and that the human mind is beyond the inconsistencies of mere matter. Then concludes that the reasoning of scientists is flawed and inconsistent with the aforementioned absolute. The argument attempts to prove a group of humans wrong by assuming that its not possible for humans to be wrong.

Actually, the argument doesn't rely on the idea that the human mind is beyond mere matter. Reason as an absolute is part of the premise, while the human mind being beyond mere matter is the conclusion of the argument against materialism. An argument doesn't "rely" on it's conclusion but only it's premise. This reveals only that the objector can't tell the premise from the conclusion and therefore hasn't really grasped / comprehended the argument against materialism.

This next statement is a little fairer, in that it would be a sensible criticism if it could be sourced.
 * C.S. Lewis argues that because not enough is known about the human brains functionality we must automatically declare that parts of the human brain are metaphysical. Argument from ignorance. 

Where does Lewis claim that not enough is known about the brain? That kind of statement requires a source. Also, what is meant by metaphysical? The sentence, "Parts of the human brain are metaphysical" could easily mean, "Parts of our minds think about metaphysics" or "Humans use part of their brains to think about the ultimate nature of being, the world or reality." I think what the objector meant wasn't "metaphysical" but "supernatural" which would be more in keeping with the subject of the book, which I gather that this objector hasn't actually read.

The further criticism that the Argument from Reason makes a huge jump from "nonphysical" to "supernatural" to "God" without support is a reasonable criticism, though very clumsily stated and not sourced.


 * When Haldane says "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of [physical materials] in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of [physical materials]." J. B. S. Haldane Possible Worlds, page 209. He is also Begging the Question. Haldane and Lewis hold a common assumption that Physical matter is random and chaotic, and therefor nothing that it does can be construed as rational. They use this assumption to conclude that because they ARE rational then their brains aren't made of physical materials. And they use this subsequent conclusion to refute physical evidence that runs counter to there original assumption. This is literally claiming that the scientific evidence must be wrong, because they had already assumed something else.

Actually no. Neither Lewis nor Haldane claimed that their brains weren't made of physical materials. I actually think the fact that the brain is physical is something Lewis, Haldane, Hume and Dawkins could all agree on. What Lewis and Haldane argue for is a distinction between the brain and the mind where the brain is purely physical but the mind is not. (See the Mind-body problem) They are pointing out that the concept of human macro-evolution fails to provide grounds for the idea that human reason can recognize objective truth - evolutionary processes could only discourage thought processes that did not contribute to survival - it could not discourage thought processes on the basis that they are false, which would be necessary grounds for human reason to hold any objective validity if human macro-evolution is true. And if human reason doesn't hold any objective validity, there is no way for us to tell whether human macro-evolution (or anything else) is really true.

In summary, yes there needs to be criticism but it should be informed criticism and objectors should know better than to think Mr. Lewis and company to be irrational idiots. Please read the relevant books, then come back with sources in hand. --Nerd42 (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Although the section on the article's limits has some good points, it is not in a style befitting an encyclopedia. Some parts of the section read as if the author is talking to someone who just referenced the Argument from Reason rather than simply explaining the argument's flaws in proper encyclopedic style. Also I get the impression that the author of this section is presenting one interpretation of the argument as fact, and it comes off as very subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.210.84 (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Revision of the Criticism Section is Necessary
The only actual instance of "criticism" mentioned in the article is an anecdote which suggests Lewis's emotional state upon receiving criticism, which is then deflated. There are a number of critiques of the argument, on the grounds of logic, which can and should be incorporated. For instance, John Beversluis has written an extended book specifically upon Lewis's argument, and a quick perusal of sources provides Richard C. Carrier's rebuttal (here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/reppert.html#naturalism). The article as it stands is unfortunately biased to reflect nothing but support of the argument.

Faulty reasoning
Both "The Argument" and "Criticisms" sections are not up to standards.

The issue with "The Argument" section: it is very unclear. (I personally find it incomprehensible and/or flawed as it stands in the article.) Lewis is a remarkably clear argumentor, which is the reason why his philosophical books are so widely read, so why is this section so incomprehensible? In any case, I got a copy of the book and read some parts to see if it is as unclear as this section, and I find the book to be quite easily understood, quite methodical, and up to Lewis's usual standards. Unfortunately I don't have time to read the full book and improve the section, but thought I'd bring it to the attention of other editors.

The issue with "Criticisms" section: there is not a single argument in this section! It is all about whether so-and-so thought there was a flaw, and what Lewis thought and what others thought, and whether Lewis felt humiliated or whether this was just projection. The flaw itself is never mentionned! And yet it would probably be fascinating!

Michaelmke (talk) 09:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I've edited to clarify/buttress both the argument and its criticism on the basis of the above Michaelmke (talk) 10:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, brothers, this article needs some work. I'm a Lewis scholar and will be proposing a pretty thorough rewrite in the next few days. I've written the edit and am vetting it with fellow Lewis scholars now. There are all kinds of issues with this article in addition to the poor writing and incomplete citations. Here's a few major issues:

1. It is false that Lewis "originally posited" the argument in "Is Theology Poetry?" There are earlier (and more extensive) presentations. 2. The second part of Lewis's argument (which extends the argument from a critique of naturalism to an argument for God) is a complete mess. So too is the whole section titled "Limitations and Explanations of the Argument" (which speaks of premises as "elements" and generally reads like it was composed by a 14-year-old). 3. The "Criticisms" section includes only Anscombe's criticisms (which, not to worry, Lewis all adequately dealt with in the revised edition of Miracles). No post-Anscombe criticisms are noted. It also includes a lengthy discussion of whether Lewis felt humiliated/defeated by Anscombe's arguments. This has nothing to do with Criticisms. 4. The "Similar Views" sections begins by discussing Lewis's argument again, not similar views. And it is very spotty. Most of it concerns Chesterton. No mention of Balfour, Joad, or Richard Taylor. Quotes from Nagel and Schopenhauer are thrown in, though they do not express versions of the argument from reason. 5. The "Further readings" section is very skimpy.

So look for my proposed re-edit in the next few days. Salud! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kproff (talk • contribs) 02:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)