Kant and Hume emphasized the importance of scientific knowledge in many of their writings, specially the extraordinary achievements of Isaac Newton. And the same can be said about Bertrand Russell and the Science of his time. He even wrote an introductory book on the Theory of Relativity. Yet they didn't ignore the problem of induction, why? — Amalac

Is that a rhetorical question?

Because they thought the foundations of Science important. Kant even believed that he found a satisfactory solution to the problem (whether he actually solved the problem of induction or not is a controversial and difficult question). Because to ignore problems that are inconvenient or annoying for one's beliefs was for them an act of intellectual treachery. And I try to follow them in this respect. — Amalac

I do not doubt their piety - but rather suggest that they existed within a socio-economic and political context in which a massively powerful institutional body maintained, for a very long time, that science was dubious at best, and this established a direction of thought, and the philosophical endeavours of these great minds occur within the course of this narrative, to the exclusion of alternate narratives.

I see it everywhere I look; manifestations of the same thing, in the way technology is misapplied for profit; in literature, film and TV since Mary Shelley; mad scientists by the score, and God loving flag waving heroes - pushing the nerd aside to save the day. Its in climate change denial - and worse, green approaches that blame the consumer - and propose we eek out our existence somehow, rather than meet with and overcome the problem. They are all looking down the wrong end of the telescope.

If you start from a position that science is (in some significant sense) true, things make a lot more sense. For example, consider the fact that the discovery of penicillin has saved more lives than were lost in all the wars, ever! And you speak of intellectual treachery? For me the absolute foundations of scientific knowledge are an interesting diversion from the main event; which is, discovery of the means to systematically establish increasingly valid knowledge of reality/Creation; and to apply that knowledge to create technologies that function within a causal reality. I can be reasonably satisfied the principles upon which the technologies are based are true... insofar as the technology works. That's a reasonable definition of truth - whereas, I would argue it was required that Hume, Russel, Kant and many others, could not be satisfied with reasonable definitions, and there are vested interests in concluding the opposite.

What do you mean by “beyond the bounds of reason”? Asking for the justification of the principle of induction seems within the bounds of reason. Hume, Russell, Kant and many others seemed to think so, and I do too. — Amalac

Imagine Galileo, Hume, Russel, Kant and many others, with the blessing of the Church - had argued in course of the view that science is the means to decode the word of God made manifest in Creation; rather than follow in the view that science is a heresy. Could not Hume, Russel, Kant and many others have made a far more convincing argument that science is valid knowledge of reality/Creation, than they do of insisting I can't know - certainly, that if I drop a stone it will fall? And variations - many, thereupon!

Had the brilliance of these great minds been directed instead in the course of showing the degree to which science is true knowledge of reality/Creation, might that not have been more constructive with regard to human affairs? Would we now be stuck pointing nuclear weapons at each other while waiting for the sky to catch fire from climate change?

Probably not; because if science were imbued with the authority of God's word, pursued and integrated into politics and economics naturally; technology would have been developed and applied as directed by a scientific understanding of reality - and the philosophy would have justified all this - as apparently good and true, and therefore right with equal philosophical ingenuity.

That's not what happened. The Church declared science potentially heretical, and philosophy took heed, and has written around that edict; and what you put to me is the product of 400 years of philosophy that - knowingly or otherwise, follows in the course of that error. Despite my best efforts - I am quite overwhelmed by the brilliance, ingenuity, and sheer volume of their arguments; but they have proven an error, over and over for 400 years - because that's what was required of them, making brilliant sense in terms of that mistake. It is only from where you are you see science as amoral, arrogant and potentially as dangerous as beneficial. You have ample evidence, but evidence, similarly - produced in the course of science decried as heresy and abused for ideological, industrial and military power. It's the same with philosophy.

I'd really like to move on to what this implies; but I've written long enough. So suffice to say, this argument is intended to illustrate a philosophical point that, we then need to bring home - and act upon pragmatically rather than ideally.

But the problem of induction also raises the following question: How do we know that the laws of physics, chemistry and biology won't change or cease to function in the future? Once again, we face the problem of how to justify that that is probably the case without begging the question. — Amalac

Okay, but we cannot ignore the unreasonableness of the argument! If you insist that, upon picking up a stone - and dropping it, I cannot know; which is to say know with absolute unshakeable and certain knowledge, that it will fall to the floor, then you're correct - but you have constructed your epistemic obstacle beyond the bounds of reason, and consequently, I see no obligation to clear that obstacle to claim I know the stone will fall to the floor.

What interests me is that, for the past 400 years philosophy is characterised by the endless regurgitation of such arguments against science; ever since the trial of Galileo for the heresy of proving the earth orbits the sun. This had a subtle, but dramatic effect on the subsequent development of philosophy - beginning with Descartes, the combination of which effectively stripped science of any moral authority as truth, and allowed science be used - without regard to the understanding of reality science describes.

In terms of a scientific understanding of reality, it is not necessary that we are threatened with extinction. We have the knowledge and technology to overcome the existential crisis we face. Starting with limitless clean energy from magma, for massive base load clean electricity, we could produce hydrogen fuel, desalinate and irrigate, recycle - so we could not only survive, but prosper into the long term future - if we accepted that science is true and applied technology accordingly.

Is not the fact that we approach needlessly upon catastrophe instead, sufficient proof we are mistaken in our relationship to science; and that it's the endlessly repeated, unreasonable objections of philosophy over the past 400 years that are to blame? I feel I'm entitled to understand your motives. Why are you so desperate that science is not true? The onus is not on science to satisfy your impossible demands for absolute proof. The onus is on you to explain why, with the reasonable truth staring you in the face - you construct such an insane obstacle course?

For example: even if we admit that we know that the claims that the sun will not rise tomorrow had always been false in the past, that gives no reason to expect that it will rise in the future, nor even that it is more likely that it will rise. — Amalac

You make the same argument here: but it only pertains if we have no other knowledge. We understand the mechanisms that cause the sun to "rise." In fact, the earth turns to face the sun - and it's just as beautiful to watch the sunrise with that in mind. More maybe!

If that happened, it would perhaps prove that E=MC^2 when that happened, but it wouldn't prove that E≠MC^2 must be false in the future (not even in the next second after which that happened). — Amalac

Do you mean - "might be false"? Because science has ample evidence to support the view that there is a long term consistency to nature; such that allows for laws of physics, chemistry and biology, that have pertained for all of history and that, will continue to pertain, universally, into the indefinite future. And science can, and does make predictions of future states of affairs, based on this knowledge. That is the very nature of scientific experiment.

I understand entirely your high principled philosophical objection; right through from Descartes cogito ergo sum. 'I can know certainly that I exist, but all else could be an illusion. So all knowledge of an objective reality is an assumption.' But that's a sceptical argument. It plies its trade from beyond reason; the embodied reason that requires everyday, we accept the existence of an objective reality. If I pick up a stone and drop it, it will fall to the floor. I can claim to know this.

You're right, humankind may very well be destroyed in a big ball of nuclear fire; but take consolation in that, it proves certainly that E=MC2!

Münchhausen Trilemma — Amalac

Or it could be that science doesn't require absolute and repeated proof of that which is proven to the satisfaction of reason - within the allocated budget. If this is less than satisfactory to philosophy; if science fails to clear the greatest epistemological hurdles philosophy can construct, that's too bad. But science in general can rest easily on the laurels of the technological miracles it surrounds us with, that QED; it has proven its truth value beyond reasonable doubt; beyond the imaginings of man but a few generations ago, that to deny science the title of truth now, is what I suggest, requires an explanation ... other than an interesting collision of ideas in the freewheeling course of a philosophical conversation with mi amigo over a bottle of sun warmed shiraz!

Nice computer Georgios! Science is true because it works. My question would be how do you not recognise science as truth? And why do you want so desperately that science is not true? I consider science "true"- even accepting endless epistemic philosophical complications, it's an increasingly valid and coherent understanding of reality that's really come into focus in the computer age; knowledge it behoves us to pay attention to - and in my opinion, is our best bet for any kind of sustainable future.

Yes, it is possible to imagine.

I think a herd immunity approach was considered and rejected as a non-viable strategy - and the lockdown measures put into place, and immunization of the most vulnerable first then emerged as - what I think is, actually - a fairly well balanced approach considering all the competing interests, the very, very least of which is freedoms and happiness of teens!

Use of the word "systems" makes the instruction, to imagine two systems - non specific enough to allow you to race past with your conclusion while the reader is thinking - "what on earth does he mean by two systems"? It leaves a bad taste. Perhaps "people" would be a better term.

I can imagine many things; possible and impossible. I can imagine things that are possible in one sense; say, scientifically and technologically, but not in others, for example, politically and economically.

As possible-ness is no limit upon imagination; while the argument works to force the conclusion, the reader is left looking over their shoulder wondering what on earth did I just agree to?

I stop, go back, and look again - and find I do not agree that two physically identical people may exhibit the singular difference that one is conscious and the other is not. They must either both be conscious or not, despite what I am able to imagine. Indeed, reason dictates that if they are identical down to the firing of neurons, they are both conscious and both thinking the same thing!

I'd like to start to believe that's true but efforts so far look almost deliberately feeble. To my mind, if we want to keep using fossil fuels, and we do - or rather, don't want compound the costs of sustainability with having to scrap all that technological infrastructure, then we need the energy to extract carbon from the atmosphere. That energy is available from the almost limitless heat energy of the earth; massive base load clean power, two three times current demand soon. The technology to extract carbon by the megatonne exists. As does the technology to desalinate and irrigate, recycle. It's just all very energy intensive.

So too, is mining energy intensive - and it follows logically that greater concentrations of minerals are mined first, and that over time, it requires a greater amount of energy to process larger amounts of ore to produce the same, or more quantities of refined metals. It's inevitable, and it's an inevitability we can and must off-set by producing and using clean "magma" energy - such that would imply a sectoral approach to switching over consistent with a scientifically rational view of how to proceed to apply this energy! It need not be in direct competition with fossil fuels - much good could be done quite besides, and even to clean up the pollution of technologies we continue to use regardless! Freedom!

This is a supply side problem being treated as a consumption issue. Resources are in fact, a consequence of the energy available to create them. Vastly more clean energy would give us vastly more choice and more time. It is technologically conceivable. It would work, and is the minimal necessary disruption to the way things are that is consistent with a sustainable future. It is, in terms of a scientific understanding of reality the single most fundamental thing we could do to do most good. It's right there in the physics. Energy and entropy. Page 1.

I believe that a prosperous and sustainable future is possible, from where we are, by accepting science is true as common ground, and further I believe that acting on that basis would work to promote a better future. That's not an unreasonable belief. The first implication; I would suggest follows from a scientific understanding of reality is that we need to exploit the vast heat energy of the earth on a massive scale to continue to grow into the future. We need to meet our energy needs, and can exceed them drawing from that virtually limitless source of concentrated clean power - and we can use that power to balance human welfare and environmental sustainability very much in our favour. Canada is mistaken, carbon tax this stop that, have less pay more is the wrong approach. Windmills will never meet our needs. We need the energy to spend to support continued growth; and given that energy the sky is not the limit!

Is there anybody there? Is this thing on? Is it just me? :(

Piece of cake...

Do you really believe that in 50, 100, 1000 years from now that our conception of any of the sciences will still be the same? If you have studied science in the least, you would have to know that scientific knowledge is exploding, a process that will leave all current concepts completely vacuous much sooner than we believe possible. — synthesis

Yes, I do believe that in 50, 100, 1000 years from now the second law of thermodynamics, evolution, the bacterial theory of disease, h2O, will be h20 - because that is the nature of the truths uncovered by science, and that's why they matter. They were true 50, 100, 1000 years ago whether we knew it or not because that is the nature of the reality we inhabit. It is real, causal - and we need to observe, and act responsibly with regard to, true knowledge of reality/Creation. Personally, I'm agnostic.

The notion that human beings have no access to reality (primarily owing to the fact that all things intellectual are in constant flux) might just suggest that what you believe is real can easily be deconstructed (as can all things knowable) and vanish into thin air. — synthesis

Okay, deconstruct my knowledge claim that water is two parts hydrogen to one part oxygen! Deconstruct the bacterial theory of disease - such that it is relative to the claim that evil spirits cause disease! Deconstruct the second law of thermodynamics; the simplest implication of which is that heat energy is transferred from the hotter body to the cooler body. Should be easy right?

If you reject absolutes, this might suggest that you (and everybody else) find sustenance in the relative. — synthesis

Lots of suggestions; none of them good ones.

You know what I think? You don't even know what you think! — synthesis

Perhaps I am not as articulate as I think I am, because I don't know how you constantly miss my meaning. I try to speak plainly. I deliberately try not to use philosophical jargon - in part because such terms come loaded with baggage, but also because I try to express ideas in the simplest possible terms.

The poison is moral relativism, not intellectual relativism, in general. — synthesis

In terms of wrong - that's brilliant.

All knowledge constantly changes due to the constantly changing factors which give rise to it. Since even the simplest of things is given birth by an infinite number of factors/events preceding, you are telling me that you understand not only simple things but highly complex ones, as well? This is the arrogance of man. — synthesis

No. That's not what I'm saying at all. For example, I claim it is true that life evolved; but I recognise that doesn't explain how life came to exist in the first place. It's an intriguing question, but not one I claim to answer, because I don't claim to have access to absolute truth. Does that mean life did not evolve? The evidence that life evolved is overwhelming. I can reasonably claim to know that it is true; not least because any alternate explanation, like the skeptical doubt that we may all be brains in jars being fed sensory data we mistake for reality - poses far bigger questions than accepting evolution as an apparent fact.

If I might chip in to say - great thread, and I wholly agree - that both moral and epistemic relativism are toxic, and it's great to see that view being expressed so articulately. I immediately stole your C S Lewis quote for another thread. So, thanks for that.

My question for Nietzsche would be: Why should we embrace his view? — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Indeed! Having fallen into nihilism at one time - I used much the same rationale to escape the gaping maw of valuelessness; by realising, at last that nihilism upholds no value that requires one accept nihilism.

I think Nietzsche's mistake however, was his assumption that man in a state of nature was an amoral brute - a self serving superman - fooled by the weak. Nietzsche knew very little of human evolutionary history. Man lived in hunter gatherer tribal groups that could not have survived if, morally - the individual were Nietzschean.

THAT attitude. — synthesis

Oh, right - you mean my determination to attempt always, to speak the truth, rather than blow smoke up your arse? That's why the friendliness, or otherwise - of this conversation is undetermined. It's irrelevant to me whether we are friends - but apparently, you will seek to accommodate other's views, like you did when - failing to understand the concept of freedom as a political ideal, assumed I'm dealing in ultra subjectivist - nothing is true, everything is an ideal, baloney!

What did they teach me at school? Are you really asking me what they taught me at school? You've got to be kidding. — synthesis

Clearly, they didn't teach you about rhetorical questions. Or freedom. Or science!

cp, you seem like a pretty bright guy (as do most here), but you have no clue what's beyond your attempts to intellectualize whatever truths you seems to hold. Do you really believe that what you put forth is in any sense real? — synthesis

That could be a rhetorical question; but it isn't. So yes, I do believe that what I put forth is grounded in the real. The absolute truth? No! I specifically reject approaches that imply absolutes.

That must be it. — synthesis

Well, it isn't - and therein lies the problem. I know what you think...

"But how little it is now understood can be gauged from the procedure of the moral reformer who, after saying that “good” means “what we are conditioned to like” goes on cheerfully to consider whether it might be “better” that we should be conditioned to like something else. What in Heaven’s name does he mean by “better”?"

CS Lewis "Poison of Subjectivism"

He is suggesting that the attraction to truth is natural but this need for power and all the negativity that has become associated with it has made it appear unnatural. But with a little effort it can be remembered because it is the natural state of the soul to experience truth. This remembering is the source of the human aim to experience the truth of the human condition evenat the risk of avoiding the pleasures that mask this need. — Nikolas

Jacob Needleman you say? I'll have to look out for him. Because that seems broadly correct to me - although I say that, cautious of where he's going with it.

In my own philosophical search for truth - I've gone down a lot of dead ends; and then had to retrace my steps to find out where I went wrong. That's a painful process - but necessary. I love my country, and while I'm agnostic, I respect religion - for its role as the central coordinating mechanism of civilisation through thousands of years.

I take no joy in the suggestion the Church particularly, and Western civilisation in general made a similar mistake in relation to science - 400 years ago, and we haven't recognised the error, and retraced our steps, even as we approach upon extinction, we continue - as if science were naught but a tool to be used and cast aside on a whim. Science is also an increasingly valid and coherent understanding of reality we need to observe, and act in relation to - particularly with regard to the application of technology, or we are doomed.

cp, what's with the attitude? — synthesis

What attitude? I'm thinking that's projection on your part.

This is just a friendly conversation. — synthesis

We'll see!

Freedom is all kinds of things to all kinds of people. Personally, it is something within, but that wasn't the point of this thread. The freedom I was referencing was generic. And suggesting that freedom doesn't really exist seems quite subjective to my eye. Of course absolute freedom does not exist but then again, absolute anything does not exist either, unless you wish to consider, The Absolute, where everything "exists" in the void. — synthesis

Freedom is not all kinds of things in political theory; and it's in those terms I'm seeking to educate you. You need it. Your subjectivist, relativist, politically correct approach to things - I can only assume is what seeps in to fill the void of ignorance, because it doesn't make sense in political theory terms. How do you not understand freedom as a political ideal? What did they teach you at school? We're you brought up in a cult or something?

But, if I recall, you're not into that sort of thing. If it were your thing (and if you understand how thinking works), you could trash every thought ever made on this site. It's not very difficult. Cognition and language is a system that obeys rules like any other system, so once you figure it out... — synthesis

Why do you imagine I would want to do that? My manner may be abrasive, but my intent is to educate people, that they are able to understand my philosophically and politically justified plan to save Western civilisation from a crisis of unsustainability. You don't even seem to understand why freedom is a good thing!

I agree with you as far as the attraction to power and the prestige and its effect on human higher values. But IYO what is the source of higher values like justice? Does Man create them by trial and error or are they remembered as Plato suggests? Remembrance is called anamnesis and the purpose of philosophy is to help Man remember through the ability to experience objective conscience. So does man create objective values or are they remembered as universal perennial knowledge? — Nikolas

Plato is closer. Concepts like justice are expressions of an innate moral sense that developed within hunter gatherer tribes that we homo sapiens lived in for the vast majority of our evolutionary history. It can be shown that Chimpanzees have a proto-morality, so it's difficult to imagine humans were much different.

Chimps share food, and groom each other - and remember who reciprocates, and withhold such favours accordingly in future. This is where the moral sense begins - but of course, we became intellectually intelligent - and increasingly able to express ideas in words.

The idea of objective values came about only when hunter gatherer tribes joined together, and needed explicit social rules with an objective source of authority i.e. God, to prevent any small dispute splitting the multitribal social group into its original tribal components. This is the origin of religion, and political power.

When science was discovered, religious political power supressed it - and so it is power that is opposed to truth, not pleasure. Pleasure is effectively a bribe - to not oppose power with truth; like Descartes - who withdrew his thesis 'The World' from publication while Galileo was on trial, wrote to flatter the Church, and landed a cushy job in the Royal Court of Queen Christina of Sweden. It didn't go well - and he died soon after, but that's beside the point.

cp, what's the point of responding if you don't think it's a valid question? My response to you was basically suggesting that when it comes down to it, is anything valid? It is easy to disprove anything when dealing with an intellectual framework where all things are relative and constantly changing. — synthesis

Well, so far - there has been no point to responding. As an attempt to educate you, it has so far proven an entirely fruitless endeavour. But I could not have known that going in. I couldn't have known that you are unable to grasp the concept of freedom as a political ideal - without immediately devolving to some sort of ultra left wing subjectivism.

I don't subscribe to subjectivist philosophies myself, for I see very little virtue and much danger in doing so. Objective reality exists and we are able to establish valid knowledge of reality by scientific method. So no, everything is not an ideal.

Freedom is a political ideal; a principle - and starting point for thought about how to build a successful and humane civilisation. That supposed freedom is traded for social goods, like like law and order, the enforcement of contracts, and national defence - provided for by taxation. Hence, it's an ideal in that freedom is never fully realised, yet is still valued.

That so, your question is not valid. Freedom has never existed. In reality - absolute freedom is anarchy, and anarchy soon devolves into slavery, for slavery - not freedom, is the natural condition of man.

Science can establish the objective truth of facts in the world. However it can't reveal the objective truth of values. The human condition prevents it. — Nikolas

Right, but...

Since it cannot, society values pleasure over the pursuit of truth. — Nikolas

...I don't see how this follows.

That is the problem: can facts and values become reconciled as a quality of truth normal for balanced Man? It can IMO — Nikolas

I think so too. Human reason naturally bridges the "is" and the "ought"

but it requires a quality of consciousness rejected by the world as a whole which glorifies its imbalance described by Plato as cave life. — Nikolas

I don't know what that means, but the reason I think truth is not valued, is not about pleasure seeking as such. It's about power - particularly religious power that lacks the modesty to set aside dogma in favour of reason. Think of the trail of Galileo - where he proved the earth orbits the sun and was put on trial for heresy. It undermined the truth value of science; such that science was used, but not observed. We developed and applied technology for power and profit - and live, as pleasure seekers in that false technocracy.

I believe that our intellect has no real access to the truth of anything, — synthesis

What does that have to do with the question - does anyone in the West still want to be free? There's zero implication to subjectivism in the question; and the term ideal, in the response - denotes a political ideal. I'd have to wonder if you are mentally ill - that you answer in such a manner. "Everything is ideal" - other than your answer. That's a real steaming turd!

I don't think it's truth versus pleasure. I think its power versus truth. I think there is an innate attraction to truth as a consequence of evolution. The organism has to be correct to reality; physiologically, behaviourally, and with us, intellectually - or it dies out.

We built power structures based on supposed truths i.e. God, and then discovered science - and power prevented science being recognised as (the means to establish) truth. We all now live in the shadow of that mistake, and are doomed unless we correct it.

Not only is freedom an ideal, but so is everything else. — synthesis

I have no idea what you might possibly mean by this; even from context, relating it to limitations - what on earth do you mean? Do you imagine I was invoking Plato's allegory of the cave - when I said freedom is an ideal? Surely not. So in what way is everything an ideal?

I'm agnostic on epistemic grounds. I don't know - and furthermore, nor does anyone else. I'm content with that arrangement, and for whatever reason, apparently, so is God! So why bother forming an opinion one way or another. I can think of two reasons:

1. Childhood indoctrination with religion, and
2. Disenchantment from childhood indoctrination with religion.

Having passed through both of those phases; first, theism, secondly, atheism, I've arrived at last at the rational position. Epistemic agnosticism. I find it helps to focus on what I can, reasonably know.

We are not free; so I don't think it a valid question. Freedom is an ideal; a starting point for thought that is then traded for social goods like law and order, the enforcement of contracts, and national defence.

If you were to ask whether I think social impositions on individual freedom have gone too far, I'd say so - but it's not as if freedom were much more than hypothetical in the first place.

Oddly, in the picture of the Galton box, I see the exact opposite of your conclusion:

The notion that the universe is determined fails. — Banno

The experiment itself relies on the fact that steel balls, poured into the apparatus, will fall through into the bins at the bottom - rather than float away, or turn into a vase of petunias, or something. Further, every trial produces much the same result. Note, the distribution is mirrored left to right - consistent with gravitation toward the centre of the earth, and factors conspiring to push a few balls to the far left and far right. Inability to determine the path of any particular ball - is in my view, the wrong question from which to draw a conclusion. I wholly accept that, with regard to any one ball, determining its path and end point, is irreducibly complex. But the results show several consistencies; such that irreducible complexity is occurring within an overall deterministic framework.

I am not resorting to anything. It is my opinion - seemingly shared by others. My reasons for describing the LHC as a giant white elephant are slightly different, but have something in common with what was said.

I think the entire field of quantum mechanics is misconceived - and the comments made support my view. I do not believe there is anything "fundamental" to find. I think the fundamental seat of reality is causal - and that quantum mechanics is the science of the frayed edge of reality, were something bleeds into nothing.

See third comment on page one of this thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/495006

I haven't overlooked anything. After the "discovery" of the Big Hose On - the greatest achievement of this trillion dollar scientific instrument is cooking weasel!

That money would have been better spent on something practical - like drilling for magma, to provide the world with limitless amounts of clean energy. Instead, they're fiddling the data while the world burns! For shame, science!

I see. So your faith is not an expression of wanting God to exist? — counterpunch

I wouldn’t say so in the slightest. Of course, I am glad God exists, but that came after my realisation. Perhaps none of us are free from the confirmation bias, but I believe I came to my belief logically — Georgios Bakalis

Very well, but that only raises another question about your question; particularly given that in general, children are indoctrinated with the idea of God from infancy, before they have the ability to make rational judgements. Why do you claim rational conviction for yourself - yet suggest atheists act from a desire for a Godless universe?

No. Not at all. My question is simply inquiring into some of the motives for atheism. — Georgios Bakalis

I see. So your faith is not an expression of wanting God to exist?

Hi, I am a theist and I have a question for atheists. I hope this does not cause too much turmoil. Do atheists actively not want God to exist? I am aware that many atheists come to their conclusion because they believe God is impossible and other reasons. However, is there ever an element of not wanting God to exists? I hope this makes sense. — Georgios Bakalis

I have a question about your question; are you implying that wanting God to exist makes it somehow more likely that God exists?

The announcement today from CERN about the discovery of a new, previously undetected, force in nature, exerting a mysterious influence of unknown origin - could be the... — Gary Enfield

...latest data error from the giant white elephant!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z-jU8k4wA8

Can I? Not a chance, no!

I can use math to count my toes!

That sounds a lot like intellectual cowardice. By all means, prove me wrong!

I don't say or suggest that the mind is the brain. Rather, the mind is the content and consequence of the functioning of the brain. That's why, when we drink alcohol - it effects the mind. Because it effects the brain. So either, what you are saying, when you say:

I do not believe there is a single good argument for the proposition that our minds are our brains. — Bartricks

...is trivial, because you only seem to be saying something that you're not actually saying. Or, you're wrong. If you accept that the mind is the content, and consequence of the functioning of the brain, then what you're saying is trivial. But if you're saying that the mind exists independently of the brain - as you seem to be saying, then you're wrong, because of the effects of alcohol on the mind.

I do not believe there is a single good argument for the proposition that our minds are our brains. By all means prove me wrong... — Bartricks

If the mind is not the brain, then why would consuming alcohol change the way the mind works - and change it more, the more one drinks? Why would one experience lowered inhibitions, increased clumsiness, impaired judgement and loss of memory if the mind were not a consequence of bodily functions? Does alcohol contain some sort of spiritual intoxicant - that effects the immaterial mind?

There's a question, as to what degree words "carve nature at the joints" to quote Plato - from Phaedrus, but I think the inadequacy of language to reality would become obvious very quickly, and that language - either the signifier or signified, adapt by usage - to the reality - insofar as the reality is understood.

Words don't have one time definitive meanings. Take the prefix "meta" - the original Greek meaning was 'after.' In English it came to refer to something self-referential, but modern day usage is adapting the term further - to refer now to a higher level of abstraction.

Consequently, I'm inclined to the view that language, like water, shapes itself to the vessel it is in.

What I want to say, despite it could sound quite totalitarian, is that some parents do not deserve have kids because these will have a bad life. — javi2541997

True, but trying to prevent humans breeding is a very bad idea.
Freedom is the answer - not oppression.

You don't name any particular text, so - impossible to say, but what the authors you mention mean by 'right reason' is almost certainly explained in the text. They mean, their own manner of reasoning - because, everyone thinks they are right.