Arguing against the validity of reason - D'Souza - Kant

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Me

What the article fails to accept or credit, however, is that the multitude of changes occurring in the sum total of reality just at the moment the ball leaves the pitcher's hand are simply "unperceivable" to anyone through those same senses that let us track the reality of the ball in order to strike it.

Originally Posted by you

As these realities are imperceptible they bear no relevance to the stated 'reality', surely?

They are imperceptible to the guy holding the bat. They are not impercebtible to the race of beings who's star just went supernova as the batter swings. Both are part of the reality of the universe.

Originally Posted by Me

The enlightenment's faith in the believe that the universe could be "solved" through the use of our limited means to perceive it was, at best, naive.

Originally Posted by you

That was then, this is now. We have so many advances that allow us to measure the previously immmesurable that I think they can be considered correct-ish.

And that's what they thought during the Enlightenment, "We're so much smarter than those backwards Dark Age peons." With all our advances come many new and more difficult questions. In truth, the smarter we get the dumber we realize we are.

We are limited beings, the universe is infinite - to me those are two immutable truths. Bounded by those truths, the extent of our ability to perceive and understand the true "reality" of the universe - it's meaning and workings - is and will always be limited. We may expand incrementally our understanding, but in doing so, only highlight further our own minuteness in the vastness of reality. Game, set, match universe. When we achieve omniscience, I would agree, we should then grasp the infinite. Until then, all our reason and discoveries are but a drop in an infinite bucket.


Rereading the article, I truly missed the basic theme of both D'Souza and the critique. D'Souza is, essentially, attempting to prove the existence of God through reason (or, perhaps, use reason to attack reasons' attack on the existence of God). To me that is as foolish as those who try to use science ot prove that the miracles in the Bible could have happened. "For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength." As the author said, and as highlighted by saden1, using reason to attempt to undercut reason is simply sophistry.

Ultimately, reason and science only takes us so far. Those who see a pattern in the reason often chose, as I do, to believe that this pattern is not accidental. Many others either don't see a pattern or, if they see one, believe it to be either accidental or something that can ultimately be fully explainaed through science and reason. Generally, for those who care, it usually comes down to a leap of faith in some manner.