When Reason Reaches Its Limit

[Bleid]

Will religion necessarily begin to sprout from it?

Once we get to the edge of reason, where we've exhausted all possibility of deductive, inductive and abductive reasoning, is religion a necessary societal consequence?

Considering the fact that science can never demonstrate anything at all towards the transcendent religious claims, and it also cannot demonstrate anything at all against them, we would only have one manner left toward analyzing the world, and that would be through reason.

But then reason has limits, too. Within each system of reason, there is only so much that can be demonstrated due to constraints of the Universe of Discourse.

Eventually, if we truly wanted to apply our thoughts of reality to an 'Ockham's Razor' sort of principle, we would have to take note of the fact that reason will not be able to address everything, just as science cannot.

Science can only go as far as the physical world (outside of that, experiments are not possible).

Reason can go slightly beyond science, in that we can still reason about metaphysics, but even that is still bounded.

Is what follows going to eventually be a form of religion; a faith-based conjecture on what the 'end-all' state of affairs of existence would be like?

Edit: This is meant to be a question to bring about discussion of the future of academics, but of course, due to the fact that I'm speaking of religion and science together, and it can be considered a controversial topic, I wouldn't consider any disagreement with the above statements to be 'off-topic'. Don't feel as though it would be off topic to dispute, or that you cannot argue against any of the claims that I made above. This is in the discussion sub-forum for a reason, after all.

[TheN3rdyOutcast]

I believe so, religion was most likely created back around the Agricultural Revolution to answer the questions that we as mortal, earthly beings could not. We as humans can only 100% factually answer questions who's answers are able to be perceived by our five perceptive senses. Such as, What happens when you drop something? However, before modern science, we had no idea WHY these things happened, "Why does it rain?, Why do the crops grow?...
So when the idea of a supernatural that controls everything came into play, our ancestors likely hopped on board, as there was no other valid explanation at the time.

[Miserabilia]

Is what follows going to eventually be a form of religion; a faith-based conjecture on what the 'end-all' state of affairs of existence would be like?


I understand your entire post besides this part which is kind of mentally blocking me. Could you put it in simpler terms? I don't really get it now :lol:

[Bleid]

I believe so, religion was most likely created back around the Agricultural Revolution to answer the questions that we as mortal, earthly beings could not. We as humans can only 100% factually answer questions who's answers are able to be perceived by our five perceptive senses. Such as, What happens when you drop something? However, before modern science, we had no idea WHY these things happened, "Why does it rain?, Why do the crops grow?...
So when the idea of a supernatural that controls everything came into play, our ancestors likely hopped on board, as there was no other valid explanation at the time.

Understandable. So we're reasoning here that because it happened before when we had no real answers, that it'll likely come again due to the same thing eventually happening in the future?

I understand your entire post besides this part which is kind of mentally blocking me. Could you put it in simpler terms? I don't really get it now :lol:

I can understand why that part might not have been so clear. What I mean is:

Is what follows going to eventually be a form of religion

Essentially, after we run out of ways to figure out the world through science and reason, do we end up with a sort of religion?

a faith-based conjecture on what the 'end-all' state of affairs of existence would be like?

I'm analogizing religion here in that, the claims that religion provides are very largely faith-based and have not been shown true through science or reason.

When I said " 'end all' state of affairs of existence " I refer to ideas such as "God" or "Supreme beings" or in metaphysics, "The ultimate nature of reality" - Essentially, the architecture behind reality (what the world is like beyond the physical world that we can experience or measure or think about).

Once we can no longer explain the physical, and we can no longer explain the metaphysical (through reason), then we'll be left no real way to explain the why of everything.

For example, we at the present time can go so far as to explain the form of the universe (due to the Big Bang). But we will eventually get to a point of, "Well why is that the way the universe must have ended up and why were the physical rules of reality in this particular arrangement?"

Science can only tell us that certain states of affairs are the case due to other physical ones. We can't go beyond that with science.

Reason is used by science, but then strictly it cannot go very far into non-physical phenomena either.

So after we exhaust the physical and the little bits of the metaphysical that we can grasp, will we form faith-based opinions on what holds all of reality together, similar to religion?

(Even if these opinions have nothing to do with a God, they could be highly educated guesses using our scientific and logical understandings, but still in the end they would resort to faith)

Does that make it clearer?

[Miserabilia]

Does that make it clearer?

Oh okay yes it does.

I think we would have to if our human nature were the same; our current "programming" so to say is to ask as many why's as we can; we all know that annoying toddler "why" fase right?
The thing is that besides the slow evolution of our species our applications to the real world evolve faster than us.
From the invention of printing to data to internet information becomes more and more easily available.

- more than half of countries with data have youth literacy rates of 95% or higher - http://www.uis.unesco.org/literacy/Pages/data-release-map-2013.aspx (*)

- almost 40% of world population is internet connected/internet user- http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm (8)

These perentages grow higher every year and most people lack to notice how amazing this really is.

Compared to how short a human being lives, we have been around on this planet incredibly long. Yet an incredibly short period of that has been in civilizations, inventing more communication and tools. Groundbreaking technological breakthroughs are growing exponantialy, not linear.

Given this fast speed of human development we could either have some sort of a collapsing system because technology develops faster than we do, or we could evolve.

Most medium wealth western people with information available take it for granted. In fact a lot of modern school systems, and especialy america is notorious for this, teach "this is this".
A simple "why?" will not be answered; and it's being asked less frequently too.

Simple laws of the universe and mechanics and workings of our daily lives, the inventions of technology we all use on a daily basis; all invented by humans, yet most people who use them the most have no idea how or why they work.
They don't try to get to know it either.

Essentialy, I think the human urge to question will decrease over time. Since theres a balance between knowledge and religion, which added together sooth an urge to know things, there will also be less need for religion.

If on the other hand we don't change and adapt to be less questioning in nature, we will have to have faith in things beyond realities and science's reach. Most of us already do even if we don't beleive in a god or hold a religion;
even I do, because it's impossible not to do so; you'd go absolutely insane.
You have to give some sort of answer to yourself or your mind would go in a loop.

So, in short, finaly;
- we could adapt to be less questioning of information
- we could stay the same and by our nature have to form a new faith

[Bleid]

[...]

So, in short, finaly;
- we could adapt to be less questioning of information
- we could stay the same and by our nature have to form a new faith

Certainly would agree that it's possible to adapt to be less questioning and even reluctant to continue our knowledge. There are plenty of places (especially regarding the environment of Earth) where seeking knowledge and trying to manipulate the knowledge we achieve has spelled poorly for us, so perhaps a natural selection process would occur in time that keeps us from straying too far.

But yes, as it seems to be a consensus among the few people who took the time to respond to this topic, eventually things would land in the lap of faith, assuming nothing interesting like natural adaptation comes in to interfere.

Very educated and well-reasoned answers from the participating few. Glad to hear some opinions. This is what I expected - few people to answer, but detailed and well-written ones. Quality over quantity is always more than acceptable.

[Miserabilia]

Certainly would agree that it's possible to adapt to be less questioning and even reluctant to continue our knowledge. There are plenty of places (especially regarding the environment of Earth) where seeking knowledge and trying to manipulate the knowledge we achieve has spelled poorly for us, so perhaps a natural selection process would occur in time that keeps us from straying too far.

But yes, as it seems to be a consensus among the few people who took the time to respond to this topic, eventually things would land in the lap of faith, assuming nothing interesting like natural adaptation comes in to interfere.

Very educated and well-reasoned answers from the participating few. Glad to hear some opinions. This is what I expected - few people to answer, but detailed and well-written ones. Quality over quantity is always more than acceptable.

Completely aggree! Interesting topic aswell

[Capto]

I question that reason has an intrinsic limit.

That being said, I have not read any of this thread excepting the title, but when I do, I shall respond in a more holistic fashion.

[Bleid]

I question that reason has an intrinsic limit.

An interesting topic in and of itself. I'd be happy to hear your thoughts about that.

What makes you question it?

That being said, I have not read any of this thread excepting the title, but when I do, I shall respond in a more holistic fashion.

Fair enough.

[darthearth]

Yes. Simply I would mention the old question "Why is there anything?" Neither science nor reason can ever hope to answer this. Therefore, religion.

[Bleid]

Yes. Simply I would mention the old question "Why is there anything?" Neither science nor reason can ever hope to answer this. Therefore, religion.

Certainly. Such questions will consistently elude reason and science. :)

[Vlerchan]

I can't understand how people can view the "answers" offered by religion as "answers".

Or at least once you start accepting what religion proposed as an "answer" you've set the bar very low in my opinion.

[Bleid]

I can't understand how people can view the "answers" offered by religion as "answers".

Or at least once you start accepting what religion proposed as an "answer" you've set the bar very low in my opinion.

In the case described in the OP it'd be exactly the same way we view mathematical probability theory.

In terms of each individual religious case, it would depend on what exactly the answer has to do with before we'd be able to see how and if they're answers.

What would be a specific example of an answer you considered when you wrote your post?

[Vlerchan]

What would be a specific example of an answer you considered when you wrote your post?
All religious propositions that have no foundation in reason or empirical evidence - esp. the latter.

Eg. God created the universe.

I also have no idea how you intend to measure the probability of something not grounded in reason or empirical evidence - if I understand the first statement correctly.

[Bleid]

All religious propositions that have no foundation in reason or empirical evidence - esp. the latter.

Eg. God created the universe.

Given the nature of religious claims, scientific reasoning with empirical evidence would be erroneous. We always need to default to reason, specifically. Then once within reason, we can justify probability theory.

I'll explain further in a moment.

I also have no idea how you intend to measure the probability of something not grounded in reason or empirical evidence - if I understand the first statement correctly.

Probability theory is a mathematical model of ignorance. The same way we justify things like:

P(A ∧ B) ≤ P(A) ∨ P(B)

Without any knowledge whatsoever of what "A" and "B" represent.

[Vlerchan]

Given the nature of religious claims, scientific reasoning with empirical evidence would be erroneous.
I have a bias towards empiricism that makes it difficult for me to accept claims as "answers" that don't have evidence to back them up.

How do you define "answer"?

We always need to default to reason, specifically.
This just allows us to demonstrate that something is a possibility.

I don't equate something being a possibility with something being an answer.

Probability theory is a mathematical model of ignorance. The same way we justify things like:

P(A ∧ B) ≤ P(A) ∨ P(B)

Without any knowledge whatsoever of what "A" and "B" represent.
I don't understand this at all. Would you mind outlining what probability theory (etc.) is? Thanks.

I also presume that this is the crux of your argument. If understanding this would allow me to understand why I'm incorrect above then feel free to leave out refutations for the above two responses.

[Bleid]

I have a bias towards empiricism that makes it difficult for me to accept claims as "answers" that don't have evidence to back them up.

How do you define "answer"?

I'd define "answer" to mean an explanation that is both sufficient & necessary for the conclusion.

However, the original question was that when we exhaust all the ways we can possibly have a sufficient & necessary explanation for a conclusion, what comes next?

I don't understand this at all. Would you mind outlining what probability theory (etc.) is? Thanks.

I also presume that this is the crux of your argument. If understanding this would allow me to understand why I'm incorrect above then feel free to leave out refutations for the above two responses.

When we use probability theory, one of the primary principles is as stated above,

P(A ∧ B) ≤ P(A) ∨ P(B)

This statement means particularly (regardless of A and B) that:

The probability of (A & B being true at once) is less than or equal to (the probability of A being true on its own) or (the probability of B being true on its own)

Effectively, a formal description of Ockham's Razor.

There's a very cute example that goes like such:

Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in anti-nuclear demonstrations.

Which is more probable?

1. Linda is a bank teller.
2. Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement.

(#1 is the more probable answer.)

But anyway, this relates to our discussion in that, when we have nothing other than probability to work with, and even the limits of that are completely exhausted (reason) would we be left with a religious explanation?