The Argument Clinic

[lee_merrill]

@John_Harshman

If some immaterial thingie (a soul?) controls your thoughts, do you have any more reason to trust them?

Yes, because that’s me controlling my thoughts, a being who thinks independently of natural processes, which has a supernatural source of my reason, in God.

@Tim

Are you saying you likewise have no reason to trust any computer?

But reason produced it, much like I trust a reasoning being produces your posts. It is only when we see reason being claimed to come from non-reason that we cry halt! (as C.S. Lewis saId).

@Paul_King

Obviously you have to start with the assumption that your thoughts can be trusted (basically - you still need to guard against error). And if you don’t you certainly can’t assume your way out of the problem.

Yes, the validity of reason is a postulate, but we can see that reason coming from non-reason is invalid, just as a paragraph typed by monkeys would be a curiosity, but not to be taken seriously.

@faded_Glory

We have in fact little reason to assume that our beliefs are true, which is why we need to test them against objective reality as much as possible.

I’m not saying our reasoning is perfect, but it does need to come from a perfect Reason in order to be fundamentally trustworthy.

@Roy

… it neglects that the arrangements of those mindless atoms have been honed by billions of years of evolution in a world where valid decision-making and accurate assessment of reality tend to enhance survivability.

But a pathological fear of say, cats, might be a fitness benefit if cats became primary carriers of Covid. Evolution need not give true perceptions of reality.

@Roy

In contrast, if your brain was the creation of a tyrannical deity who demands his subjects worship him or he’ll torture them for all eternity, you definitely would have no reason to trust your thoughts.

This gets back to whether God is perfect Reason, and I believe he is. Whether God is perfectly loving (and I believe this also) is another topic.