Reason as controlling force of the universe

[InfiniteNow]

Don't forget tattooed. :hihi:

[Moontanman]

Don't forget tattooed. :hihi:

 

Or in some cases Screwed:shrug:

[nutronjon]

Reason as the controlling force in the universe, may mean the laws of nature follow rational principles. If you can reason you can figure out how nature works, since nature follow rational principles. Without reason nature appeared to be controlled by the whims of the gods and goddesses. For example, before Newton, gravity would have been modeled with sort of a primitive version of random and chaos, only because humans could not yet reason it out. They projected their own limitations and forced fitted gravity into their own superstition. When Newton figured out how to do it with reason than reality of gravity followed rational principles.

 

If you look at the gods of mythology they were fickle and therefore not subject to cause and affect. To the non reasoning person of ancient times cause and affect could not exist because one of the gods could mess things up at any time. In reality, the universe is controlled by reason. Zeus, lady luck, chaos or any other god or goddess was considered superstition.

 

Why didn't I say that? That appears to be exactly that point I have been trying to make. This concept of reason, controlling the universe was lost to the west, when the ancient civilizations began falling, and then all that was left to unite the west was the church. The Cursades lead to the discovery of the old documents, and these Greek and Roman classics became part of education, provided by the church, and eventually lead to our sciences and our acceptence of the concept of democracy- people who govern themselves with reason. It was once again a radical idea that there are forces and laws of the universe, not just the whim of a God.

 

It is interesting how these ancient ideas were rejected by religion, accepted by religion, and rejected by religion, back and forth, for both Christians and Muslims. This means there is a bases for uniting the Christians and Muslims, and this same process becomes a strong scientific influence on religion. I think this is something you all want to achieve. It is kind of like changing the soup, by adding something until there is more of that something, than want was originally the bases of the soup. If this is done without resistance to "God" there is no fight and the desired change happens. However, if this whole process is stopped at a debate of if God exist, the desired change does not happen, and everyone is polarized and hostile. What is to be gained by causing polarization?

 

There is a huge international, political benefit. Religion supports traditional authority and this is the enemy of democratic authority. So if we drop the religious fight, and pick up the spread of science and technology, human beings have a chance of a future so radically different from the past, the people of the future will be unable to relate to the past, all the warring and inhumanity of our history will puzzle people of the future. They will not be able to understand why people behaved so irrationally.

[nutronjon]

nutronjon,

 

I'm affraid that you are misusing the term "reason" in this discussion and in your sentence structure which is what is causing the confusion. Let me explain:

 

There are two primary uses or definitions of the term "reason." Please see the definition linked.

 

1) noun - An explanation for or cause of some occurance. Example: When I let go of the ball, it fell to the ground. What is the reason for this? The reason it fell to the ground is that the force of gravity was acting on it.

 

2) verb - A thought process. Example: That was a great idea you had. You were able to reason that well. Also, reasoning or thinking.

 

These uses are not interchangeable.

 

So let's apply the term to your statement, "Reason is the controlling force of the universe," and substitute a synonym.

 

1) Explanation is the controlling force of the universe, or, cause is the controlling force of the universe.

 

2) Thought is the controlling force of the universe.

 

Reason can also mean tollerance. Ex. It is within reason.

 

3) Tollerance is the controlling force of the universe.

 

 

Can you see how this statement doesn't really make sense when you look at it this way. You can try substituting other words that mean the same as reason, and they don't really work well either.

 

The statement that is the title of this thread is definitely not scientific. In fact, it's really a nonsensical statement.

 

 

Thank you, I think you have taken a good step to clearing up the confusion. Let us use your word substitues in the sentence given in your definition and is if those substitues work?

 

1) noun - An explanation for or cause of some occurance. Example: When I let go of the ball, it fell to the ground. What is the reason for this? The reason it fell to the ground is that the force of gravity was acting on it.

 

"When I let go of the ball, it fell to the ground. What is the explanation it fell to the ground is that the force of gravity was acting on it. "

 

What is the thought it fell to the ground is that the force of gravity was acting on it.

 

What is the Tollerance it fell to the ground is that the force of gravity was acting on it.

[nutronjon]

Democracy is about learning the reason for things? Can you clarify this?

 

 

 

I love science too! :)

There's lots of science to be found here. After reading a couple hundred threads here, it became obvious to me that reason is the controlling force of...Hypography! :)

 

I think I can clarify why science is to democracy, what religion is to autocracy- the enemy of democracy.

 

It begins with the philosophers arguing about how the gods resolve their differences. The philosophers concluded, reason, is the controlling force of the universe, and even the gods are subject to reason. Up to this time, it was believed the gods did as they pleased, pretty much as humans do, only they are immortal and were thought to be completely free to do as they please. People assumed the natural order of humans was determined by humans competing with brute force and doing whatever they could get away with, just as the gods.

 

Now it wasn't reason that lead to democracy, but the invasion of Persians. Only the rich could afford warriors and that wasn't enough to stop the Persians from coming in and destroying everything, including the temple of Athena, Athens patron goddess, who was the grain goddess at the time. If she was not appeased, she would be so angry she would cause the crops to fail and people to starve. This is helpful in gathering willing warriors but not enough to get all the men needed to row the war ships and arm them too. With the developing philosophy, that had people believing they are like the gods because they can reason, and that reasoning is the way of the gods, they decided to imitate this new understanding of the gods. It was agreed, if everyone helped defend Athens, everyone would have a say in government. So what began as a philosophical idea, became a political one as well.

 

Now this change was not perfect for sure! Socrates was order to drink the hemlock for questioning the gods. But men like Pythagoras and Aristotle were busy trying to figure out the reason for why things are as they are, scientifically. Aristotle says, "Number proceeds for unity." Gerasa says, "The Triad is the form of the completion of all things." The gods begin shifting from stories to archetypes, and they are pretty amazing pscyhological observations of humanity. Hades, is a place where no one should go, without the help of the gods (concepts that lead to good thinking ability), because we get lost in Hades, that is, we become depressed or even psychotic when we have poor thinking and coping skills. These folks are reasoing through everything, and especially Socrates is known for reasoning through morality. What makes something good is, it manifest good, and what makes something bad is, it is harmful. Democracy is applying all this reasoning to the making of laws, which Cicero tells us, must be based on the laws of nature. Laws that are not based on the laws of nature, according to Cicero, are not truly laws, but tyranny. This is what makes autocracies, or dictatorships, tyrannies- rule by the whims of humans, or their power plays, is tyranny. Rule by reason is the goal of democracy. I began expecting people of science already knew this reasoning, at least enough for me to say what I say, without setting off nasty arguments. It has been confusing to me, that people of science seem to be arguing against the value of science?

[REASON]

Thank you, I think you have taken a good step to clearing up the confusion. Let us use your word substitues in the sentence given in your definition and is if those substitues work?

 

"When I let go of the ball, it fell to the ground. What is the explanation it fell to the ground is that the force of gravity was acting on it. "

 

What is the thought it fell to the ground is that the force of gravity was acting on it.

 

What is the Tollerance it fell to the ground is that the force of gravity was acting on it.

 

You obviously didn't understand what I was saying so I'm going to try again.

 

First, do you understand that there are different uses for the word reason?

 

Do you understand that in some instances it is a noun, and in other instances it is a verb?

 

Do you understand that the word "reason" can be defined as an explanation or cause and that it can also be a thought process?

 

Do you understand that a thought process or expanation for something cannot be the controlling force of the universe?

 

Do you recall this post where I pointed out that your use of the term "reason" didn't make sense? Here was the sequence in our discussion:

 

Originally Posted by nutronjon:

reason, is the controlling force of the universe

 

Originally Posted by REASON:

In what way does reason control the force of gravity?

 

Originally Posted by nutronjon:

Gravity is the reason things fall to earth.

 

I will ask again. Do you understand the logical fallacy in the sequesnce above?

 

Well I'll go ahead and point it out for you anyway.

 

Your fisrt statement, "reason is the controlling force of the universe" is using the term "reason" to mean reasoning or thinking. Look at my avatar. It is a picture of The Thinking Man. It is a statue of a man who is reasoning or thinking. That is why I chose it for my avatar. What he is doing, as a man of reason, has nothing to do with the force of gravity.

 

"Gravity is the reason things fall to Earth." Here you used "reason" to mean "explanation." You are not describing a thought process.

 

Do you see the difference?

[REASON]

I began expecting people of science already knew this reasoning, at least enough for me to say what I say, without setting off nasty arguments. It has been confusing to me, that people of science seem to be arguing against the value of science?:)

 

I have not heard anyone arguing against the value of science. We are arguing against your distorted perception of it. I'm not convinced that you really know what science is. Your posts suggest that you don't.

 

What you are pushing in your posts are ideas that are not scientific. The topic of this thread is not scientific.

 

How can reason be the controlling force of the universe?

 

How does reason control the orbits of the planets?

 

In what way does reason cause a whirlpool galaxy to spin?

 

How does reason control the process of evolution in living organisms?

 

How does reason make the sun shine?

 

Do you see what I'm getting at? Stop making statements that you can't even define properly.

 

I understand that it is good to be reasonable. I understand that a good use of reasoning can lead to better decision making.

 

What does this have to do with controlling the universe?

[nutronjon]

You obviously didn't understand what I was saying so I'm going to try again.

 

First, do you understand that there are different uses for the word reason?

 

Do you understand that in some instances it is a noun, and in other instances it is a verb?

 

Do you understand that the word "reason" can be defined as an explanation or cause and that it can also be a thought process?

 

Do you understand that a thought process or expanation for something cannot be the controlling force of the universe?

 

Do you recall this post where I pointed out that your use of the term "reason" didn't make sense? Here was the sequence in our discussion:

 

 

 

I will ask again. Do you understand the logical fallacy in the sequesnce above?

 

Well I'll go ahead and point it out for you anyway.

 

Your fisrt statement, "reason is the controlling force of the universe" is using the term "reason" to mean reasoning or thinking. Look at my avatar. It is a picture of The Thinking Man. It is a statue of a man who is reasoning or thinking. That is why I chose it for my avatar. What he is doing, as a man of reason, has nothing to do with the force of gravity.

 

"Gravity is the reason things fall to Earth." Here you used "reason" to mean "explanation." You are not describing a thought process.

 

Do you see the difference?

 

I absolutely do not believe this. :eek:;)

 

First of all the idea is not mine, but comes from a Webster dictionary. The word reason comes

from the Latin ratio, rationis, reason, plan

 

1. an explanation or justification of an act, idea, etc.

 

2. cause or motive

 

Reason, is the controlling force of the universe- is reason as cause. It means there is a cause for things happening. The cause of things falling to earth is gravity. The cause of the Nile flooding yearly, is the melting of snow, not the Gods as the people once believed.

 

I am getting very annoyed with this argument. It is like people are going way out of their way to find fault with what I am saying. The sentence I use comes from the Webster dicitionary explanation of logos...

 

Logos n [L. logos; Gr. logos, a word, the word by which the inward thought is expressed, the inward thought itself, from legein, to speak]

1. [sometimes l-] in Greek philosophy, reason, thought of as constituting the controlling principle of the universe and as being manifest in speech.

 

This comes from the idea, a god could name something and it would come into being, as a human can think boat and create a boat. The thought of a thing, has to be there, before it can be created. However, as we become more scientific, we move away from deities, and towards scientific explanations. The cause of things staying on earth is gravity. Energy conservation is the cause of other things. Back up to the definition of reason, it can mean cause.

 

What is, is, because of cause and effect, and why in blazes would anyone want to argue against this? If the manifestation of the material universe is not cause and effect, then what is it, and how could science explain anything? Do you all get, you are arguing for the belief of gods and against the belief of things like gravity and energy conservation, when you insist reason (cause), is not the controlling force of the universe? Your arguments return us to chaos and the whims of forces that were called gods, and away from reason, the scientific explanation of why things are as they are. Why are you doing this? Back up to the definition of reason- it is an explanation. There is an explanation for why things happen, other than believing in gods. Why are you making a deliberate effort to argue against this? I really think the failure to understand resides somewhere, besides myself.

[nutronjon]

I want to bring HydrogenBond's explanation along with my arguement, so people who come to the last page, get a good explanation of what we are talking about.

 

Reason as the controlling force in the universe, may mean the laws of nature follow rational principles. If you can reason you can figure out how nature works, since nature follow rational principles. Without reason nature appeared to be controlled by the whims of the gods and goddesses. For example, before Newton, gravity would have been modeled with sort of a primitive version of random and chaos, only because humans could not yet reason it out. They projected their own limitations and forced fitted gravity into their own superstition. When Newton figured out how to do it with reason than reality of gravity followed rational principles.

 

If you look at the gods of mythology they were fickle and therefore not subject to cause and affect. To the non reasoning person of ancient times cause and affect could not exist because one of the gods could mess things up at any time. In reality, the universe is controlled by reason. Zeus, lady luck, chaos or any other god or goddess was considered superstition.

[modest]

I appreciate what Hydrogenbond is saying. It's not necessarily wrong as it is unnecessary.

 

Our universe defines what is logical (something following reason). If our universe were different there might be different rules of logic. Therefore saying the universe is governed by reason or follows logics is redundant. We would be saying the universe follows logic because logic is defined by the universe. Redundant.

 

If we add God into the equation then things get even more redundant. We would then be defining something on top of something on top of the properties of the universe. I don't see what we're getting out of all these definitions.

 

Sometimes gravity is just gravity.

 

-modest

[nutronjon]

I appreciate what Hydrogenbond is saying. It's not necessarily wrong as it is unnecessary.

 

Our universe defines what is logical (something following reason). If our universe were different there might be different rules of logic. Therefore saying the universe is governed by reason or follows logics is redundant. We would be saying the universe follows logic because logic is defined by the universe. Redundant.

 

If we add God into the equation then things get even more redundant. We would then be defining something on top of something on top of the properties of the universe. I don't see what we're getting out of all these definitions.

 

Sometimes gravity is just gravity.

 

-modest

 

Hum, let us chew on this, if the universe were different, how would the rules of logic be different? Would 2=2 no longer equal 4? Perhaps a triangle on Mars is not a triangle?

 

The word God is, not necessarily other than the properties of the universe. We can chose to understand God as the properties of the universe, and that is what I am doing. Is there a reason why this can not be done? Is there a reason we can not use science to understand God which is the properties of the universe? Might this be a pretty good way to end superstitious notions and other faulty logic?

[InfiniteNow]

I absolutely do not believe this. :eek:;)

 

<...>

 

I am getting very annoyed with this argument. It is like people are going way out of their way to find fault with what I am saying.

 

Yep. Welcome to the magical world of science, where your beliefs are completely irrelevant and holes will be poked in everything you say until it is either discarded or shown to be valid.

[InfiniteNow]

We can chose to understand God as the properties of the universe, and that is what I am doing. Is there a reason why this can not be done? Is there a reason we can use science to understand God which is the properties of the universe? Might this be a pretty good way to end superstitious notions and other faulty logic?

 

Yes, of course there is. You're trying to understand something which is not relevant... nothing more than your personal conjecture, with no basis in evidence or reality, and is not at all necessary to further the understanding for which you argue so passionately.

 

It's like saying that I must understand unicorns to undstand apples.

 

 

We use science to understand the universe. Where the hell does this idea of god become in ANY way necessary or useful?

[modest]

Hum, let us chew on this, if the universe were different, how would the rules of logic be different? Would 2=2 no longer equal 4? Perhaps a triangle on Mars is not a triangle?

 

Spot on. Whatever we determine about reality comes from our universe. Does a triangle have 3 sides and angles that add up to 180? Yes - logically, yes. In another universe it may not. Our universe defines reason - defining the universe by reason is therefore redundant.

 

The word God is, not necessarily other than the properties of the universe. We can chose to understand God as the properties of the universe, and that is what I am doing. Is there a reason why this can not be done? Is there a reason we can use science to understand God which is the properties of the universe? Might this be a pretty good way to end superstitious notions and other faulty logic?

 

Can we agree that this does not differentiate God from the universe? We can by your thinking say God = The Universe, yes?

 

-modest

[REASON]

I am getting very annoyed with this argument. It is like people are going way out of their way to find fault with what I am saying. The sentence I use comes from the Webster dicitionary explanation of logos...

 

Logos n [L. logos; Gr. logos, a word, the word by which the inward thought is expressed, the inward thought itself, from legein, to speak]

1. [sometimes l-] in Greek philosophy, reason, thought of as constituting the controlling principle of the universe and as being manifest in speech.

 

I'm sorry I'm having difficulty with the terminology and the usage here, but you have demonstrated my point above.

 

You say the sentence comes the definition of "logos" which is defined as inward thought itself. In this definition, the Greek philosophy example included, is referring to thought as the controlling principle (not force) of the universe manifest in speech, not cause or explanation.

 

I am driving at this because I believe defining terms and being in agreement about what terms mean and how they are being used is paramount in effective communication.

 

The use of the term reason in this thread is either stating that thought is the controlling force of the universe, which I think is sort of what the Greek philosophers were implying, or it is ment to suggest that causation is the controlling force. If the latter is what you intend to imply, nutron, then the proper usage for "reason" in the statement would be something like, "Reasons are the controlling forces of the universe."

 

But once the reasons are defined, such as gravity, we don't have to call it reason any more, it's just gravity. This is why I think modest is saying it becomes redundant, and why bringing god into it, becomes even more redundant.

 

I wonder what ancient Greek philosophy would be if they knew as much as we do about the universe.

 

So can we be in agreement that you are not saying that thought is the controlling force of the universe?

[modest]

The ancient Greeks were right on this nutronjon (as far as I believe). Everything in our universe must exist within the rules of logic or reason. Things have to make sense to the whole. It’s very scientific. The actions and materials of the universe must follow the rules of the universe. That’s what logos is. It is the underlying principle that gives substance. It’s the reason things happen. That thing "logos" is far better described by science than God, is it not?

 

Didn’t Socrates, as you like to say, die for expressing this very idea? He denied the gods. Didn’t Jefferson say we should question God's very existence? Everything you have been arguing and quoting has been against theism - in any form. You just refuse to say it that way. You’ve taken every property away from God and ended up saying: well, if there is a god - it’s the universe.

 

I’m going out on a limb for you here. I’m agreeing with Aristotle on this - and even Plato. I’m using your terminology and seeing this as best I can from your eyes. Now do the same for me:

 

Why call it God at all? If it is logos, then why call logos God? That’s what the Christian church did and look what happened. If you take something metaphysical like god and describe it with all physical attributes (like the universe) then it is no longer metaphysical. It is no longer any definition of God. Can you see that through my eyes?

 

So far we have:

Logos = God = Reason = Universe = Everything in the universe

 

Pretty soon we’re going to have 20 words that all say the same thing: “The laws of the natural world.”

 

-modest

[Boerseun]

I think you've got the cat by the tail here, Nutronjon.

 

The "Reason" you talk of, as used by the old Greek philosophers you bandy around, is a metaphor for figuring out how stuff works. By reason, you can deduce certain things. Mathematics is a good example of pure reasoning.

Mathematics does not rule the universe. Mathematics, however, is a process of describing the universe.

 

As is Science.

 

Science is, like the "Reason" philosphers have in mind, a process to deduce the laws operating in the universe.

 

Science does not rule the universe, either.

 

Science merely describes it.

 

"Reason", or "Reasoning", is not a "force" at all.

 

The way the philosophers intended the saying, was merely as metaphor.

 

And you're not seeing that.

 

And that's about it.