Saturday, March 17, 2012

The current state of human reason

As an Atheist, I have to say that the zealot atheism I see in so many fine thinkers today, in my own humble opinion is doing society harm because the emotional consequences of such behaviour is not considered.

To value mathematical reason above all else is folly and part of what brings about the key destructive idea of "It's not personal, it's business".

Emotion and reason are equal at the very minimum and to value either above the other leads to an unbalanced society, like the one we currently call "The world"

Emotional rationale and mathematical rationale both need equal measure before any decision is made.

Currently this is not the way in the major decision making circles of human civilization, hence the continued cycle of violence and destruction through emotional consequences that are never considered or given any real value.

Emotional individuals (Irrespective of mathematical intellect) are often considered weak within the status quo of general human civilization. As if we are unable to be make difficult decisions or some such nonsense. As if emotional beings are not "hard" enough.

The truth is that to make decisions dispassionate of emotional rationale is easy and intellectually lazy. It is only when considering emotional consequence whilst using mathematical rationale that finding the right course of action becomes a real challenge.

To value mathematical rationale above emotional rationale, or vice versa, is lazy and history will look back and acknowledge it as the dominant form of ignorance rampant in our era (Especially in the 1st world).

Both emotional and mathematical intellect are equal and deserve equal consideration. Both form the sum total of the human intellect.

Ignoring one in favour of the other, and to think that the process of evolution would imbue us with such ability so we would or should not use it is itself highly irrational, emotionally as well as mathematically.


  1. Nice article, the assumption is made though that theism is mathematically incorrect when in the form of intelligent design it is as equally logically valid if not more so than the atheist approach. Atheism cannot explain the initial conditions that led to spontaneous symmetry breaking, the different particles and the electromagnetic, weak, strong and gravitational forces that are so finely tuned as to lead to complex ordered information in the form of life and intelligence from a state of high entropy in a universe that promotes degradation into high entropy states. There is the infinite dimensions/universes theory but that also requires explanation for how they occurred , there is the 'nothing split into positive and negative and we view mainly the 'positive' but where did the energy come from to split 'nothing'. The universe being God or consciousness itself would explain the tendency toward consciousness/life whereas atheist dogma does not. God having created time and space exits outside of it and requires no cause. The bottom line is there are different degrees and types of Theism from the logical to the ridiculous and bottom line is that neither camp can prove heir case or has all the answers so one attacking the other is idiotic. Although only science should be taught in schools and religion should be a personal/family matter. I know the real reason for the huge attack on religion in recent years although many as Jack Nicholson put it in 'A few good men' "Can't handle the truth!" The reason is that the Globalists implementing the world government (no longer a conspiracy theory but out in the open) in order to control the masses through the turmoil need to remove any institution that promotes allegiance to something other than the State. Religion and the family structure are under attack. As Constantine did in ancient times when confronted by disparate warring religions he made Christianity the state religion. They're replacing the religions with a global one world state-based Eco-fascist green Gaia environment religion that enables them to control world resources and populations.

  2. Cyclical space time as defined in M theory does a good job of theorizing about all of it IMHO. I personally believe that what our instinct tries to define as "god" could very well just be the sum total of absolutely everything that occurs within the linear narrative of cyclical space time, but viewed from outside of space time, as a whole. If that makes any sense?

    Most self proclaimed Atheists though tend to discount any idea that mentions the word god, so theoretical physicists will use different terms that essentially come to explain the same thing.

    It is worth noting that the top physicists in the world, themselves, will actually clearly state that M theory or any theory does not disprove the theory of "god", except for maybe within the very limited definition that most forms of organized religion give the term.

    Wether Theism is mathematically incorrect or not is not an assumption I made though. But do I believe the limited scope of organized religion as we know it is mathematically incorrect? Definitely.

    God, is another matter entirely. All of the universe has to form /something/, in the same way our individual atoms form our individual bodies to act as vehicles for the bacteria we carry, etc.

    Whether we form some larger being or not, that I can't know, but what I do know, is according to the laws of biology and the universe, things that are not needed for /some/ biological or natural reason, tend to not exist.