= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
kpreid comments on Maybe Theism Is OK - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (33)
and I induce that the probability that "rationality" is a meaningful (self-consistent, compete) theory is tiny.
A theory of what?
You seem to be expecting "rationality" to replace "God" in some slot; perhaps "theory of everything". But this seems to me a category error, rationality being an activity, not an explanation.
Perhaps "God" is not the missing element required to make "rationality" consistent and complete -- however, anything that I can think of adding that might fix the theory could be eliminated by exactly the same arguments that you use to eliminate belief in God. (For example: Truth. Love. Quality. etc.)
Truth, love, and quality are directly observable. Though I don't see what you hope to do with them. I suspect that the missing element you see is actually an unnecessary element.
Could you explain what this missing element is missing from, and what it should supply?
At that time, I was keenly experiencing the lack of an objective morality in the materialist worldview.
This is exactly correct. I thought 'rationality' was a paradigm to replace a religious worldview. I probably meant 'materialism' everywhere I used the word 'rationality'.