Is rationalism based on subjective bias?

wika definition of rationalism Rationalism purports to be objectively-based, relying on facts and human reason rather than subjective human experiences and spiritual revelation, but in doing so, rationalism asserts that human perception and reason are objective and rational, and human mystical experiences cannot be relied on to convey truth.The question arises though if the rationalist presupposition is correct, and whether human logic, reason, and perception, unaided by revelation or spiritual experience and intuition, is an accurate and reliable approach to truth and whether it is objective or subjective.Imo, it is not an accurate approach, and is inherently biased and illogical in some respects. First, let's consider the alternative and presuppose there is a God that has revealed Himself to man, say, in the Bible. The rationalist is likely to reason that this knowledge is inaccurate, even if true, because the rationalist says the Bible or people's experiences, etc,...are based on subjective experiences and cannot be relied on whereas human logic and analysis of facts can be relied on.But is this logical and consistent? If God is real, then it makes more sense to rely on His judgment, opinion and perception than man's. In fact, asserting that human reason is superiour to God's reason is merely asserting a subjective bias, and imo, this is at the root of what rationalism is, the assertion of subjective bias in asserting human reason to be superiour to human reason aided by revelation and the entirety of our scope of existence and experience. In other words, the rationalist makes a judgment call, and thus his logic at root is based in opinion and subjective prejudice.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.See Message 12 for a clarification of what is meant by "rationalism".This message has been edited by AdminNWR, 01-26-2006 01:24 AM

It has nothing to do with whether you are logical and consistent. It is a question of evidence.Logic starts after you have premises. Rationality is concerned with the use of evidence as a source of those premises. If you reject rationality, you still need a source of premises. Either you make them up as you go along, or you have some way of acquiring evidence. That's a bogus argument. Your choice is still to use perception as a source of evidence, or to make it up as you go along.

The premises of rationalists are based on subjective prejudice, imo. My point on asking the hypothetical question on God being real is to show that a system for verification that automatically excludes, which rationalism basically does, something that could be true, is not an objective system.This message has been edited by randman, 01-26-2006 01:09 AM

randman,I think you've basically got the right idea, but you're really mucking up the words. I think this is really poorly worded. I'll try to restate below. Science is an objective system. It just is an objective system that might exclude the possibility of certain truths. There's nothing that says that every objective system must allow for discovery of all objective truths.Let's put it this way. Math is an objective system. Logic is an objective system. But logic alone doesn't allow for the discovery of all mathematical truths.The problem is that the objective system chosen doesn't seem to allow for discovery of all truths. And the choice of the system, of course, is a subjective one.Nwr started a thread a month ago about the value of science. You should go respond on his thread. His point was that, even if your point here is conceded, what does it buy you? The value of science is still exactly the same as it was before.

You may say it better than I here. But as far as science, I don't mean this thread to be an attack on science, and in fact, think the basic idea here helps prevent the misuse and abuse of science. But the thread is not about science per se, and is just as much about the limitations and danger of relying on rationalism as a systematic approach in studying the Bible, theology, life, etc,...

Cool. But it's not clear to me that you oppose rationalism. Look at the wikipedia definition again: You seem to be equating "factual analysis" with "empiricism".To me, rationalism simply means using logic on accepted premises. How you come up with those premises doesn't really matter.But I don't know the general philosophical doctrine. The definition you gave didn't clear it up for me. "Facts" can be empirical or otherwise. Science rejects non-empirical methods for discovering facts. That is why I talked about science, and not rationalism. Because I don't see "facts" as being inherently empirical.It's a semantic issue.

what's the alternative? irrationalism? had we a consistent supernatural truth, from all angles and religions, not just biblically, this might be something good to rely on. but religion (dogma) lends itself to the assertion of truth, which generally contradicts other religions. rationalism lends itself to questioning and reasoning. contradictions and subjectivity pose a major problem for religions, but rationalism thrives on it. it generates discussion, questioning, and further reasoning.you are clearly arguing this view because you feel that you have the one true religion, and the one right set of dogma, and the correct faith. and that's ok, but the rationalists are going to want to know how you know it's correct. and you don't have an answer that will satisfy them -- because faith and religion and dogma are not within the realm of the rational. the rationalist would also point to other texts. for instance, the rig vedas, the upanishads, the qu'ran, gilgamesh, and maybe some native american legends just for fun. lets suppose that one is the true word of god. which one? how do you know? how do you know, based on the level of contradictions apparent in some of these texts, that if one is true, they're not all true? how do you if you even have the true one?keep in mind that these are purely rhetorical. you don't have the answers to these questions, even if you think you do. they will not satisfy a rationalist, because there is no rational way to reason the truth of any of these. rationalism simply cannot make a statement regard divinity other than "there's a lack of evidence, so i see no convincing need to believe." why? what if the true god is loki, and he's messing us up? what if he's satan, and leading us astray? what if he's xenu, and wants to blows us up in volcanoes? you're presupposing a god of a specific definition. it's a very precise if-and-only-if statement. that sort of thing wouldn't fly with a rationalist -- they'd need evidence for that specific set. if there is none at all, then there's convincing argument and it becomes a "what if" ad-hoc argument. and if pigs had wings, we'd look up more often. so humans are subjective but god is objective? that's a pretty, uh, subjective claim to make there. it's subjective to trust one subjective person's subjective take on a deity, and issue that in and of itself has a lot of subjectivity to it. yes. reasoning and rational processes are judgement calls. but the idea of rationalism is that it's not a prejudiced judgement call, it's one based on evidence: "Rationalism ... is a philosophical doctrine that asserts that the truth can best be discovered by reason and factual analysis." as your quoted part said. examine the facts, reason the conclusion.not all reasoning prejudiced, nor is neccessarily completely subjective. logic can be very straightforward and objective.

---

אָרַח

Well, really I was thinking the Saduccees (a thread that never got off the ground), and thinking of how certain "facts" are excluded if they don't appear normal or rational to one's experience, and specifically of the idea things revealed by revelation or even mysticism should be rejected.Imo, we possess an innate and even mystical revelation of right and wrong. By mystical here, I don't just refer to the sort of mystical experience that is visionary or religious in nature, but the idea some knowledge is revealed and known inwardly. Imo, I think people have the idea of right and wrong revealed to them, or inborn in their spirit, but of course, that revelation is shaped by life and culture.I don't think I am being as clear as I want...have too much work to do maybe, but my understanding of rationalism is that it rejects "revelation" a priori. To say that God communicated something and therefore it is valid is unacceptable to the rationalist because he rejects the idea that God's communications could be preserved in a religious tradition, and moreover, rejects reliance on any subjective experience as a means of attaining truth.What I believe is that human reason and perception is very limited in some ways and not so limited in others, but to work in a proper fashion, people need to be in relationship with the Spirit of truth (Holy Spirit), and then one's reasoning can be clearer and ironically more objective and reasoned than the rationalist.

In my experience, I have noticed that people tend to reason based on what they love the most, often themselves, or their ideas, or their family, etc,...but now and then someone will love truth more than their own life. In other words, the values of the heart and the subjective perspective of a person dominates their reasoning process, completely imo.The only way to approach a more objective reasoning process is to love the truth more than anything else, more than one's own life even. I wish I could say that most "rationalists" fit that bill, but that's not been the case, but then again, many religious people don't love the truth so much either.

...and the most important words in this paragraph are the abreviation: in your opinion. i do appreciate the irony in selling your point. anecdotal evidence, opinion. purely demonstrating your very point with your own language.but i'd like to point out again that that is not rationalism. that's opinion. is rationale subjective? sure. but rationalism, by definition, is based on evidence. not what they love the most or what they've been taught.you're basically trying to turn the argument rationalism makes on itself, accusing the idea itself of hypocricy. you might even have something of a point, but clearly the framework of the two ideas are incompatible. and also, you're contradicting yourself. if rationalism is wrong because it's subjective -- and personal opinion is valid -- rationalism is right in that the subjectivity is valid. reducto ad absurdum. not the greatest argument, even if it sounds good. quite.

---

אָרַח

There appears to be some confusion here between two different meanings of "rationalism". In the OP, randman is using "rationalism" to refer to a theological tradition, described here (wikipedia).There is a quite different philosophical/epistemological tradition, also known as "rationalism", and usually contrasted with empiricism, and referred to by wikipedia as continental rationalism. However, randman is not talking about continental rationalism.

---

Wssentially the OP presents a post-modernist position, treating all methods of deciding what to believe as "equal". I reject this on the grounds that the methods referred to as "rationalism" (which are distinct from Rationalism) are proven to be successful. Modern technology relies on them, and it is through that technology that this whole discussion is possible.The fact is that there are many competing claims to "revelation". So how do we decide which one to accept ad genuinely coming from God?Either we resort to the methods of what is called "rationalism" in the OP or we simply assume one is true. Yet on what basis could we make such an assumption other than a subjective bias ?Rationalism, then is less biased than the alternatives presented. Rationalism represents an honest attempt to finf the truth as best we can, using the best methods we can find. I suppose it is possible to argue that a preference for truth over dogma is itself a "bias", but if that is the case Randman is making he should say so explicitly.g

I like this post, and I think it fits with cognitive psychology. We aren't context-free rational computational machines; everything seems to be contextual, all mental operation seems to happen based on a context, goals, and a subject matter. But ay, there's the rub. To wish for such a thing is to wish for us to be... less human. When you study religion and psychology, it seems that anything is possible. That people are the way they are for no specific reason, and that they can be changed into anything.The great thing about cognitive neuroscience is that you can actually make observations that help you devise reasons why people are that way. To provide constraints on what minds can and cannot do. That is a utility behind neuroscience.There are limits as to how decontextualized you can make logic. And remember--when learning, if you want to remember better and learn better, you should recognize that our knowledge is very contextual. It helps when creating teaching methods and study methods.The result is useful. I agree. Way off topic, but what I'd wish from you is to hear you make the "two wrongs are a right" answer when it's pointed out that religious people do something wrong. If it's pointed out, you should acknowledge it. THen it is of course fair game to point out that others do it too.But I think it's important always to acknowledge a point before changing the subject. Otherwise it seems like an "it's OK because other people are doing it" answer that feels so... crappy to me. Just a personal side note.

Hate to run after several responses, but I need to get some sleep.Ben, I'll keep what you said in mind. Certainly, religion can be misused and religious people can do terrible things, and at times the worst enemy to true religion are other religious people.