Is rational thinking over rated?

[MrRoboto]

I really have been enjoying this website. There are alot of things here I have always believed but really didn't know how to put into words. I have never believed that science and the Bible contradicted one another like many atheists would like for everyone to believe. I am not a scientist but I have worked in a related field for nearly 30 years now. In my early 20's I had the opportunity to make and assemble parts for Space Shuttle missions as well as other high tech type projects. I have worked with NASA engineers, military engineers, and have made parts for a nuclear reactor. I more recently made part of the Spitzer Space Telescope. For the last 7 years I have worked with state of the art robotics in the auto industry. Throughout my career I have worked with some highly intelligent people and got to see science in action. Recently I have noticed the New Atheists movement and the push for "rational thinking". The reason I am posting this is that I feel the need to say something about rational thinking. What I want to say is: Rational thinking is over rated.

Working with robots I see it everyday. Robot movements depend on how many axis it has and the positions it can achieve using the motors for each axis. So a robot makes decisions based on the "logic" written in it's software. This is the robot's reality, it's universe. Of course there are movements and positions impossible for the robot to achieve and in this case there is a situation referred to as singularity. This is when a command is made for a position that the robot can't calculate or logically achieve based on it's written parameters. When this happens I have seen the robot behave erratically or just come to a complete stop. To the robot all rationality has broken down.

For robots rational thinking works, well, most of the time but this is one reason I think rational thinking is over rated: Humans aren't robots. Consider a robot's reality to a human's reality. A robot makes decisions based on what it "knows" to be true inside it's own realm. Outside of that it's reality breaks down and it's rationality is useless. It is in a state of singularity. In a human's reality, the universe, all the things we know scientifically and philosophically normally make sense but there is a point where all human knowledge breaks down and rational thinking is useless. It is a state of singularity for humans.

Like robots, many humans act erratic or completely stop when in singularity. I don't think human beings were meant to be in this state. "Rational thinking" as defined by atheists doesn't resolve singularity. Christianity does resolve it.

Anyone here have any thoughts on this? This is just the way I look at it anyway.

[wrain62]

I think the rational thinker would think that a singularity point is just an illusion and it does not exist. Therefore there is always something to learn for the goal of advancement of the our singularity point; and the only reason we would perceive it is because our brains cannot think any further, but the goal is always progress. Then he would talk about how religion stops at a point prematurely and stunts truth and progress. Of course there is no backing on why progress is inherantly good over anything else, it is just a subjective consensual assumption some "superior" peoples have.

[MrRoboto]

I think the rational thinker would think that a singularity point is just an illusion and it does not exist. Therefore there is always something to learn for the goal of advancement of the our singularity point; and the only reason we would perceive it is because our brains cannot think any further, but the goal is always progress. Then he would talk about how religion stops at a point prematurely and stunts truth and progress. Of course there is no backing on why progress is inherantly good over anything else, it is just a subjective consensual assumption some "superior" peoples have.

I agree with you. I have had this very same conversation with people who believe rational thinking is the only way to go but I question just how practical it is. I can see where someone could think progress could be slowed or halted by the belief in God but how many people are there studying the origins of the universe? These are pretty much the only people that would be affected by it. I really don't think that would be the case anyway.

Rational thinking and science are great but how useful is science in the average person's daily life? Do I need a watch that tells Planck time? No. Rational thinking is useful on a daily basis but I find it lacking when it comes to that part of being human defined as the spirit or soul. The Bible is far more useful and practical on a daily basis and it answers many questions for me. Besides didn't science predict we would be living like the Jetsons by now? Where is my flying car?...

[RickD]

Welcome to the site, and domo arigato, Mr. Roboto.

I'm afraid I'm probably one of those you are talking about, when you talk about rational thinkers. I'm pretty pragmatic, and like things simple. I think we as humans always have a longing for spiritual things. As someone said before, we have a "God" shaped void inside us, that we can keep trying to fill with stuff. But, that void is never really filled until the God of Christianity, and the bible, indwells us.

[MrRoboto]

Thanks for the welcome RickD. I'm not saying that rational thinking doesn't have a place because I think it does. I just believe that many are trying to fill the "God shaped hole" you are talking about with rational thought. We humans are finite creatures similiar to the robots I mentioned. While we have made progress with robotics it isn't without limits so I believe singularity will always have to be dealt with. Recently we gave our robots eyes. We installed a vision system with cameras. When a car body enters the robot cell these cameras take pictures of certain body features. Doing this allows the vision software to calculate a precise position of the car body. This information is relayed to the robots which in turn makes program adjustments to be able to do more accurate work. That was progress but problems come along with it. The biggest problem? Well, now we have created more opportunity for a singularity situation. That means ALOT more testing of programs and program changes. So you see even with an improvement singularity becomes an even bigger problem.

The same thing can happen with science as well. It seems the more we learn the more we see how little we know about God's creation. There is nothing wrong with rational thinking. For me it only goes so far before becoming impractical. The Bible doesn't seem to have those kinds of limitations.

[Tina]

Welcome to the site, and domo arigato, Mr. Roboto.

I'm afraid I'm probably one of those you are talking about, when you talk about rational thinkers. I'm pretty pragmatic, and like things simple. I think we as humans always have a longing for spiritual things. As someone said before, we have a "God" shaped void inside us, that we can keep trying to fill with stuff. But, that void is never really filled until the God of Christianity, and the bible, indwells us.

Amen. That seems so true. =>

[Kurieuo]

I really have been enjoying this website. There are alot of things here I have always believed but really didn't know how to put into words. I have never believed that science and the Bible contradicted one another like many atheists would like for everyone to believe. I am not a scientist but I have worked in a related field for nearly 30 years now. In my early 20's I had the opportunity to make and assemble parts for Space Shuttle missions as well as other high tech type projects. I have worked with NASA engineers, military engineers, and have made parts for a nuclear reactor. I more recently made part of the Spitzer Space Telescope. For the last 7 years I have worked with state of the art robotics in the auto industry. Throughout my career I have worked with some highly intelligent people and got to see science in action. Recently I have noticed the New Atheists movement and the push for "rational thinking". The reason I am posting this is that I feel the need to say something about rational thinking. What I want to say is: Rational thinking is over rated.

I think rational thinking is necessary. Just because Atheists attempt to hijack it to make out their belief is the only rational one, does not make it so. More wishful thinking on the Atheist side than rational thinking methinks.

Working with robots I see it everyday. Robot movements depend on how many axis it has and the positions it can achieve using the motors for each axis. So a robot makes decisions based on the "logic" written in it's software. This is the robot's reality, it's universe. Of course there are movements and positions impossible for the robot to achieve and in this case there is a situation referred to as singularity. This is when a command is made for a position that the robot can't calculate or logically achieve based on it's written parameters. When this happens I have seen the robot behave erratically or just come to a complete stop. To the robot all rationality has broken down.

Firstly, a robot does not really make a decision. It follows the procedural functions that are programmed into it perhaps based on certain stimulus (inputs). A bunch of if/then/else conditions, loops and randomisations, but the robot does not "choose" what it does. It is by no means free to do other than what it has been programmed to follow.

For robots rational thinking works, well, most of the time but this is one reason I think rational thinking is over rated: Humans aren't robots. Consider a robot's reality to a human's reality. A robot makes decisions based on what it "knows" to be true inside it's own realm. Outside of that it's reality breaks down and it's rationality is useless. It is in a state of singularity. In a human's reality, the universe, all the things we know scientifically and philosophically normally make sense but there is a point where all human knowledge breaks down and rational thinking is useless. It is a state of singularity for humans.

Again, I disagree with your analogy, but not necessarily your conclusion.

Robots don't really have a reality, since a robot's reality presupposes that a robot is conscious. Artificial intelligence perhaps to try and make people believe they are really sentient, but not true sentience or intelligence. In Astroboy terms, robots don't have the "omega factor". As such, a robot does not really make decisions. A robot does not really "know" anything. Such requires something more than a program. Robots are just programs running on machinery which take in certain inputs they've been designed to take in, to produce an certain output.

So what of your conclusion that human knowledge breaks down and rational thinking is useless? Well, rational thinking requires faith in one's rational faculties and senses as being truth conducive devices. It is interesting that an atheistic worldview, wherein evolutionary theory reigns supreme, that there is no reason for us to trust what we perceive as true, even the foundational laws of logic on which our reasoning is based. One might say those whose faculties produce falsehoods will not be as fit to survive. However, that is not so, since I can clearly imagine false scenarios which would benefit one's survival. For example, someone who believes sharks will get them the moment they touch water will never be eaten by a shark due to their false belief. So what reason is there to believe our rational faculties are truth conducive in a worldview where everything was largely contingent upon chance? Yet, a philosophy which embraces we were designed by God (Theism), has reason to embrace our faculties were designed to be truth conducive.

In any case, rational thinking breaks down in the sense it cannot rationally justify itself. To justify embracing rationality or empiricism or whatever, we need to look to something outside of it. If one does not then they can only embrace an insane form of nihilism, being entirely skeptical of everything and not being able to embrace any truth in life. For all practical purposes, in order to function in life, one must accept some things as givens. As such, rational thinking isn't meant to be the be-all and end-all of epistemology (knowledge). As strange as it sounds, so is our intuition, emotions, desires, feelings or what some refer to as "the heart" completes "rationality" in epistemology. And just as reason can be refined to better attain truths, so too can our intuitions and heart through experience. For example, which is more logical to do. To accept the gut intuition of a novice detective just starting out over that of a distinguished veteran? Experience can hone our subjective feelings to the point some people cannot distinguish mediums from those who are just extremely perceptive.

I am not sure where all this sits with you, but I think in essense you will agree with most. Albeit its not in terms of the field of robotics. I just did not think your analogy was particularly accurate given robots do not really think, but nonetheless one needs more than rationality when it comes to embracing knowledge and accepting truths.

Like robots, many humans act erratic or completely stop when in singularity. I don't think human beings were meant to be in this state. "Rational thinking" as defined by atheists doesn't resolve singularity. Christianity does resolve it.

Yes, Christianity does resolve it. It provides the foundations that make rational thinking coherent and not suspect of falsehood. It provides the best of both worlds - reason and the heart.

[MrRoboto]

I think rational thinking is necessary. Just because Atheists attempt to hijack it to make out their belief is the only rational one, does not make it so. More wishful thinking on the Atheist side than rational thinking methinks.

I agree with you. It seems the atheist position is that rational thinking is the answer to everything. My point is that it isn't. Sure rational thinking is necessary but, IMHO, it is made out to be more important than needed.

Firstly, a robot does not really make a decision. It follows the procedural functions that are programmed into it perhaps based on certain stimulus (inputs). A bunch of if/then/else conditions, loops and randomisations, but the robot does not "choose" what it does. It is by no means free to do other than what it has been programmed to follow.

I disagree. The 7 axis robots I work on aren't really programmed. They are now "taught" positions. These positions are commands but the robot calculates the best possible way to achieve each position. To me this is a decision that is calculated (or made). This is not something programmed in by a human when the robot is being "taught".

Again, I disagree with your analogy, but not necessarily your conclusion.

Robots don't really have a reality, since a robot's reality presupposes that a robot is conscious. Artificial intelligence perhaps to try and make people believe they are really sentient, but not true sentience or intelligence. In Astroboy terms, robots don't have the "omega factor". As such, a robot does not really make decisions. A robot does not really "know" anything. Such requires something more than a program. Robots are just programs running on machinery which take in certain inputs they've been designed to take in, to produce an certain output.

I agree that robots aren't self aware as humans are but there is more involved than a program. Each axis has it's own servo motor/ encoder setup that is connected to a drive(a controller). Each drive is connected to one another and communicates with each one. So, each axis is "aware" of the position of the other. Without this setup programming each individual axis would take forever. Before I get too far off into robotics I have a question for you: If robots/computers don't make decisions then how was IBM's chess playing computer(Deep Blue) able to beat a world champion chess player? If every move it made was programmed by a human then the human won the game. And yes, I know a human had to have written the original program but it was written to make chess move decisions. This, to me, is the reality Deep Blue had.

So what of your conclusion that human knowledge breaks down and rational thinking is useless? Well, rational thinking requires faith in one's rational faculties and senses as being truth conducive devices. It is interesting that an atheistic worldview, wherein evolutionary theory reigns supreme, that there is no reason for us to trust what we perceive as true, even the foundational laws of logic on which our reasoning is based. One might say those whose faculties produce falsehoods will not be as fit to survive. However, that is not so, since I can clearly imagine false scenarios which would benefit one's survival. For example, someone who believes sharks will get them the moment they touch water will never be eaten by a shark due to their false belief. So what reason is there to believe our rational faculties are truth conducive in a worldview where everything was largely contingent upon chance? Yet, a philosophy which embraces we were designed by God (Theism), has reason to embrace our faculties were designed to be truth conducive.

Well put and I agree completely. Sometimes we humans can be fooled by observational evidence. Just look at how early astronomers thought the earth was the center of the universe because of how everything appeared.

In any case, rational thinking breaks down in the sense it cannot rationally justify itself. To justify embracing rationality or empiricism or whatever, we need to look to something outside of it. If one does not then they can only embrace an insane form of nihilism, being entirely skeptical of everything and not being able to embrace any truth in life. For all practical purposes, in order to function in life, one must accept some things as givens. As such, rational thinking isn't meant to be the be-all and end-all of epistemology (knowledge). As strange as it sounds, so is our intuition, emotions, desires, feelings or what some refer to as "the heart" completes "rationality" in epistemology. And just as reason can be refined to better attain truths, so too can our intuitions and heart through experience. For example, which is more logical to do. To accept the gut intuition of a novice detective just starting out over that of a distinguished veteran? Experience can hone our subjective feelings to the point some people cannot distinguish mediums from those who are just extremely perceptive.

I am not sure where all this sits with you, but I think in essense you will agree with most. Albeit its not in terms of the field of robotics. I just did not think your analogy was particularly accurate given robots do not really think, but nonetheless one needs more than rationality when it comes to embracing knowledge and accepting truths.


Yes, Christianity does resolve it. It provides the foundations that make rational thinking coherent and not suspect of falsehood. It provides the best of both worlds - reason and the heart.

I think reason and the heart are necessary for humans. It seems atheists want to see everything through the eyes of Mr Spock. I have had discussions with some atheists and I really think they are out of touch with reality. Many refuse to debate anything and just continue to repeat the same thing over and over. I don't see myself ever seeing things the way they do. It isn't based on truth.

[Ivellious]

Robots can't think rationally at this point in time. They respond to a program. The program in and of itself determines how the robot acts. Until robots can write their own programs (like Data from Star Trek or something) then they are inherently limited by thee scope of the program.

Deep Blue is not a good example of "rational thinking" for several reasons. First of all, computers can be made to be excellent chess players because they can be programmed to "see" every possible move for thousands of moves in the future faster than any human could. It's more or less a game of calculated risks at that point. Computers still lose far more often than they win because humans can think "outside the box" and play irrationally sometimes. Computer programs can fail or have holes in them as well that can be exploited. The other reason that this example fails is because per competitive chess rules, computers are allowed to be re-programmed in between games. In essence, the humans that programmed the computer were making adjustments for the computer between games, so any kind of "rational" playing adjustments that the computer made were a direct result of a human telling the computer to do so.

[MrRoboto]

I disagree. While program changes can be made to Deep Blue the moves it makes while playing are determined by it's options defined. Sure it is a function of it's program but it still calculates and produces an output or move. This is what I call a decision.

It is the same with 6 and 7 axis robots. While positions are defined by a program how to achieve these positions is determined by the robot. Otherwise a human would be programming this also, but they don't.

[Kurieuo]

I disagree. While program changes can be made to Deep Blue the moves it makes while playing are determined by it's options defined. Sure it is a function of it's program but it still calculates and produces an output or move. This is what I call a decision.

It is the same with 6 and 7 axis robots. While positions are defined by a program how to achieve these positions is determined by the robot. Otherwise a human would be programming this also, but they don't.

Ok, I think it comes down to a difference in understanding about what is involved for decision making.

It might be helpful to compare to a determinism that Atheistic philosophers generally believe in. That is, our choices and actions are determined by external and physical factors. While we may feel we are making the decisions, such a consciousness is just a phenomena arising from our evolutionary design. Kind of like how smoke is a phenomena that arises from fire. Yet, "we" really aren't making the decisions. For it is our "self" who needs to make the calls -- not the randomness and necessity that comes from chemicals and environmental conditions having their effect on what our bodies do.

Now there are arguments for and against determinism. I won't veer into this because I am just highlighting a difference in philosophies that might be relevant here. In a secular philosophy which entirely saturates our time and culture, one would probably aliken "decisions" made by an determined entity, as being nonetheless decisions made by that entity. Since a determined decision is the highest level of "decision making" we have. So if such can be replicated in say robots, then ok, robots are making decisions in the most real sense we can experience.

On the otherhand, if a secular philosophy is wrong on who we are, and the "self" infact does influence and make what I call true decisions... then we aren't entirely physically determined, but there is something more to us which also has a say. This is why we can hold people accountable and responsible for their actions, and many of us (especially those of us who have been wronged by another) believe justice can be served by punishing the wrongdoer. So lets now take your Deep Blue chess example. "Decisions" are not being made necessarily based on what Deep Blue is aware to (and you have admitted there is no consciousness), but rather calculations on the best possible move based on any one of its opponent's next move. The chess program has been programmed with certain algorithms (installed by its creator), to acheive the goal the winning a game of chess. As such, you will not see Deep Blue decide to resign because it gets bored of winning, or purposely make a wrong move. It has no control over its purpose or what it does. It has no real decision to do other than what it is determined to do as designed by its creator.

Yes, Deep Blue might fulfill what secular philosophy believes to be the pinnacle in a "decision making" ability, but I argue that this is not really decision making at all. If the decisions I make are determined not by a "self" then there is no "I" making the decision. Rather something else is determining the actions my body does without any real decision being made. Everything is determined by something other.

[Ivellious]

You are right, Robato. A decision is technically speaking being made. However, that decision is still not the computer's own decision, it is the decision that the human creators have designed the computer to make. They could just as easily have made the same program, but with a slight difference telling the computers to make the wrong move. The computer's "judgments" are defined by the human. If I program a computer to make all the wrong moves, is it still being "rational?" In the sense of free will, the program has none, because every outcome is based on what humans think should be the outcome. Even if a computer picks the best way to do it, the fact is humans gave the computer the ability to make that decision AND gave it the programming to determine what the best way is.

[MrRoboto]

I see where you guys are coming from now and I am more in agreement. But I am not saying robots are on the same level with humans when it comes to making decisions. On the contrary I am saying that robots are programmed to make decisions on a basic level. Hopefully the programmer set the program up to yeild rational outcomes and most of the time this is the case. At least I think this is the desired outcome, even one type of programming is called Ladder Logic.

My point is that humans aren't robots or computers but it seems the secular folks want to act as though we are.

[Kurieuo]

I see where you guys are coming from now and I am more in agreement. But I am not saying robots are on the same level with humans when it comes to making decisions. On the contrary I am saying that robots are programmed to make decisions on a basic level. Hopefully the programmer set the program up to yeild rational outcomes and most of the time this is the case. At least I think this is the desired outcome, even one type of programming is called Ladder Logic.

My point is that humans aren't robots or computers but it seems the secular folks want to act as though we are.

Yeah, sorry to have focussed so much on your robot analogy. But I believe analogy aside we do agree conclusion-wise.

Rationalism is over rated and on its own can't justify itself. This "singularity" as I believe you called it therefore breaks down. It can't be the be-all and end-all but requires something more to firstly be accepted, and secondly to properly function with those who use it. Interestingly those who would call themselves rationalists, are often the ones to neglect understanding their own prejudices and experiences. So their reasoning and conclusions are often clouded by more subjectiveness than otherwise would be the case. And as much as we think we can, we can never be a clean slate. But we can be aware to our existing beliefs and inclinations. This doesn't necessarily impinge truth, but I'd argue a properly aligned heart is necessary, at least when it comes to seeing the obvious evidences of God in our world.

If one does not clearly see God in our world, then there is likely something amiss with that person that needs fixing. This is one reason why I gave up debating Atheists, especially those who demand "show me evidence of God" or "prove God exists." Because such people will never see just how clear and obvious God is until their heart, or whatever it is that clouds their rational vision, becomes re-aligned and fixed. And based on what I see with new Christians, it can take someone time to see what is so obvious. And then they're at a loss to understand why they had been missing God for so long. As John Newton sang in Amazing Grace, "Was blind, but now I see."