-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can reason be every bit as harmful as lack of reason because of human failings? And logic also?
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
No.
Reason is one of the best tools we have.
It's a reason that I'm not running around with an AK47 yelling "Death to the infidels!".
It's also the reason I get vaccinated against tetanus & other nasty things.
Gotta get one for shingles too now.
Reason is one of the best tools we have.
It's a reason that I'm not running around with an AK47 yelling "Death to the infidels!".
It's also the reason I get vaccinated against tetanus & other nasty things.
Gotta get one for shingles too now.
Reason can be harmful because of closed thinking, arrogance and pride but it will always be better than lack of reason.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Reason that becomes unreasonable ceases to be reason at all.
I am not sure what else we got without 'reason'. Unreasoned beliefs??
Something being "reasonable" is independent from it being assessed as "beneficial" or "harmful."
It seems to me that logic alone (or logic backed by insufficient empirical evidence) can -- and often enough does -- lead people to absurd conclusions, such as America did not land men on the moon, vaccines cause autism, global climate change is a hoax, or the theory of evolution is largely or purely speculative. For that reason, logic must be checked against a sufficient weight of empirical evidence. And when it is, I call that combination of logical thinking and empirical evidence "reason".
Having said that, reason is not infallible. But many people who point out that reason is fallible are simplistic black and white thinkers. That is, they apparently think in terms of all or nothing. A more just and sophisticated view of reason would acknowledge that, while fallible, it is the most reliable guide that we have to the truth of things.
Now, does that mean that reason never produces or results in something harmful? Of course not. Reason has, for instance, resulted in thermonuclear devices that, in the long term, are almost certain to be used with catastrophic consequences. (But it is not reason that will dictate their use; reason only makes possible their use.) So reason can and sometimes does result in harm. But the more relevant question is what are the odds that it does, compared to the odds that it doesn't? Put differently, what are the benefits of reason weighed against the disadvantages?
I personally believe that, on the whole, humans are better off when we employ reason than when we don't. But I also recognize that we are essentially a tragic species. On the simplest level possible, that translates into our all too often being reasonable enough to get ourselves in a mess that we are not reasonable enough to get ourselves out of.
To sum up, you cannot logically blame reason for things, such as the Iraq War, Global Climate Change, etc. that reason itself, had it been employed more fully, could have cleared up. But you can blame the essential tragedy of human nature for those things.
Augustus
…
Yes, and very clearly so. It would be totally irrational and unreasonable to think anything different. Anyone who doesn't realise this has the potential to be dangerous as, like a religious fundamentalist, they underestimate their potential to be wrong.
There was a thread on 'What happened to scepticism?' recently. People who aren't sceptical of 'reason' are certainly not sceptics, but credulists.
History runs forwards, not backwards, so you can't say 'with hindsight that wasn't actually reasonable after all'. It was reasonable to prescribe thalidomide to pregnant women. It was reasonable to nuke Japan. Scientific racialism was reasonable. It was reasonable for the Soviet government to divert rivers towards irrigation and away from the Aral Sea, which led to this:
Look at how dietary advice and medical treatment have changed over the years, despite being based on 'reason'. 'Best practice' today is often the exact opposite of best practice in the past (even from a few years ago).
Humans are much less intelligent than they think they are and are prone to hubris, especially when they believe 'the facts' support their actions. Decisions based on reason will always be constrained by our cognitive abilities and lack of information, even when taken with the best intentions (which are not necessarily required for something to be reasonable anyway).
This doesn't mean reason is 'bad', that we shouldn't value reason or that it isn't usually better than lack of reason, just that it isn't intrinsically benevolent.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and 'irrational' religions often have a far better understanding that humans are flawed and hubristic than do modern 'philosophies' based on 'reason'.
Deathbydefault
Apistevist Asexual Atheist
Sure, depending on the situation.
While I am of the view that logic and reason are entirely separate from subjective things, they still can affect life.
Logic and reason are tools to be used, and if they are not used properly... the possibilities are many.
No, quite the opposite really. Reason makes the short list of worthy tools for overcoming human failings, while lack of reason is usually very destructive indeed.
No. Although I am not sure how you are distinguishing reason from logic exactly.
Augustus
…
Overall your post is very reasonable
and I broadly agree with what you said, but I disagree with this.Reason cannot be judged based on normative standards 'well we should have been more reasonable'. It must be accepted that decision making is always flawed and we cannot predict the effects of our actions. 'It's tough making predictions, especially about the future'.
The ideological justification for the Iraq War (not the public one) was promoted by very intelligent people, with good intentions based on sophisticated logic. It was also massively stupid and based on a fundamental misunderstanding of just about everything, but it was still based on 'reason'. But we often never find out which of the 2+ reasonable arguments is correct until after the fact.
Orwell said something like "Some things are so stupid that only an intelligent person could actually believe them". A surfeit of 'reason' can sometimes be the problem, just as a lack of it can. We've all done something stupid before after overthinking and over-rationalising it when the gut instinct we overruled was actually pretty spot on.
Empirical evidence does not totally cure this problem, thalidomide was prescribed based on empirical evidence after all. We always have to interpret evidence, and we are bound to keep getting it wrong.
The essentially tragedy of human nature is that we are not fully reasonable due to cognitive limitations and we never collectively learn this from our mistakes.
Reason isn't so formal, rigorous, or dependent upon premises.
Example:
I don't believe in gods for the simple reason that I see no evidence for'm.
This isn't logic....just reason.
Thank you for an especially intelligent response! I should point out, however, that I was not making a normative argument. Instead, I was attempting to make a logical argument that we cannot fault reason itself if reason could have been the solution. But that does not mean that I see no limits to reason. In fact, I pretty much agree with you about some of the limits you mention, including:
[highly annoying quibbling edits mine]
I think the main difference here is that I was speaking of reason more or less abstractly, as reason in and of itself, while you have been speaking of it in its practical context as "human reason". Considered in its practical context, I think you're very largely correct.
This is a total digression, but I almost admire your faith in the intelligence and good intentions of the people in that particular administration. I might sleep better at nights if I did.
Another digression, but perhaps not as complete: I agree with you in so far as I think that's one tragic aspect -- and perhaps the most significant one at that -- of human nature. It might be fun to discuss tragedy with you someday.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
My guess is that @paarsurrey is actually talking about faulty reasoning. Sound reasoning, based on critical thinking, cannot really lead to harmful effects - unless that is the intent, of course. Sound reasoning is still at the mercy of unpredictable events however.
Sound reasoning is still at the mercy of unpredictable events however.
Augustus
…
Fair enough, that's what I was doing.
In light of the previous difference in usage, it's probably prudent to point out that I consider intelligence to be very different from smarts, and that smarts often beat intelligence. I do separate smarts from reason though, as smarts can often simply be what you know, not what you could reasonably justify on demand.
Unfortunately, I personally find it far more troubling that intelligence can sometimes be the cause rather than lack of intelligence so I rest no more easily.
As for good intentions, the war was pretty popular on the humanist left as they saw it as emancipatory (Christopher Hitchens, Tony Blair, etc). The neo-cons were not in any way conservative as their founders were ex-Trotskyists which is why they had support from the liberal interventionists. The ideologues were really utopian rather than cynical (of course there were lots of cynical opportunists who jumped onto the bandwagon, but I really meant the small number of political theorists rather than the overall pro-war movement)
This is a digression though so I'll stop.
Always interesting.
The pre-moderns had a much better grasp of this. Probably because they understood hubris and didn't get carried away with the myth of human reason.
[Probably not very] interestingly, tragedy comes from 'goat' + 'ode' so according to certain RF logic you are 'literally' espousing the desirability of discussing ruminant poetry.
I'll definitely stop now. And get my coat.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
But reason also suggest that one bring along a flashlight.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
But when we get there it is the only light we've got.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Yes, when done incorrectly, either through ignorance or malice.
Shad
Veteran Member
Reason does not exist in a vacuum. It is dependent on number of external influences such as the information one has about a topic. If the information is limited, flawed, false, etc. there can issues with the conclusions and acts based on one's reasoning. Look at Trumps views of Syrian refugees. According to his information the dangers of covert terrorists mixing with genuine refugees is a problem. So based on this information he concludes that it is reasonable to deny them entry. One could claim this is beneficial for the citizens of the States as it protects them from refugee infiltration and future attacks. On the other hand it does not benefit genuine refugees as they are denied access based on a few individuals no one has caught nor identified but treated as a blanket statement that is acceptable to Trump
Last edited: