I was listening to one of the old shows with a reverend arguing with the RRS about the origin of reason. The reverend argued that reason comes from God, and there can be no other origin. The debate was sparked by discussion about science, observation, and materialism.

So, RRS argued that materialism is true -- the idea that all that exists is in the material world. Thus, all that is truth should be capable of observation. Forgive me if I wrongly paraphrase this argument with some kind of straw man. Please correct me if wrong...

The reverend then proceded to discuss how reason was not something that could be observed, hence God was the source.

Kelly then countered with the idea that reason comes from the human mind -- and thus reason CAN be measured or observed through brain activity.

---

While I agree with Kelly on this point, and I think it was a very crafty argument, I think more can be added to the atheist position.

I've been discussing for quite some time on a philosophy forum with some PhD philosophers who specialize in "analytical philosophy." I am purely an amateur philosopher, and I don't pretend to have much authority when I am speaking about it. I know Kelly has a degree in philosophy.

What one of these philosophers told me is that things like MATH and LOGIC exist in a philosophical world as "abstract objects."

"Here is a post in which he explains Karl Popper's views on where math and logic are derived:

Hi, Jeremy!

No, you won't find any reference to those worlds in Kripke's "Naming and Necessity."

Worlds 1,2, and 3 are Popper's proposals (though Frege had also a "Third realm" before Popper). World 4 is mine!

In short:

World 1 = The realm of physical objects

World 2 = The realm of mental (private) images

World 3 = The realm of abstract entities.

My proposal:

World 3 = The realm of man-made abstract objects.

World 4 = The realm of non-man-made abstract objects.

As you see, there is some difference between Popper's and my understandings of world 3. For me, world 3 only includes man-made abstract objets, but perhaps Popper would not even agree that there is any non-man-made abstract object. For example, unlike Frege, Popper would not perhaps agree that objects such as numbers and sets of numbers are not man-made. But this intepretation of Popper may be controversial.

You will find about Worlds 1,2 and 3 in Poppers works. His "Objective knowledge" and perhaps elsewhere too. Rafe and Frank can give you more accurate references to the page numbers. There is no reference to world 4 anywhere. You can just ask me about world 4, if needed."

Further, my buddy responded to a post I had concerning philosophy of the mind and the problem of interaction between mind and matter:

(Anything with this > are my words, the rest are his.)

"Hi, Jeremy!

Good post!

You wrote:

> What would be interesting is how we might fit a "thought" into the mix. For instance, a proposition could exist as another subvenient property allowing at least some mental properties to exist.

> The mind requires BOTH a physical substrate to allow it to exist; AND it requires "SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT" from Popper world 3.

> Thus, Physicality + "things to think about"--> gives rise to mental property of "thoughts."

> I must distinguish that there are some mental properties and qualia that have no bearing on this, for some things like tasting food or feeling pain rely on physical objects, not abstract bjects.

Perhaps, it's also good if you know that the term "thought" has a special philosophical meaning after Frege. At least, it is worth asking someone who uses the term whether he is using it in a Fregian sense when we hear it.

If we use the term "thought" in the way Frege used it (which we usually do), then "thought" is the same as "proposition" (as you also mentioned in your post). Frege had also a "third realm" which was the realm of thoughts (as distinct from mental images). Thoughts are abstract objects. When I think about a physical object, say about a flower that it is beautiful. The thought is not private. Everyone else also can grasp it. The thought is the content of the sentence "this flower is beautiful".The images in my mind about that flower are not my thought. Thought is not private.

So, referring to your closing paragraph, even when I am thinking about a phyical object, the "thought" (the content) which can bear truth or falsehood is still an abstract object.

In short, it's always correct to say thought is abstract and it doesn't reside in world 2. Hence your other paragraph needs modification. You wrote:

> Surely, world 2 would suffice to describe what a thought is --
> because it happens "inside me." It is not -only- a physical thing
> that can be reduced to neurons firing. BUT; even if I did not have at least some thoughts, they would exist in world 3

The first section needs modification perhaps. World 2 doesn't suffice. Thoughts always reside in world 3. When thinking a thought I may have some private and mental states and images inside my mind which reside in world 2, but the thought itself is not in world 2, because other can grasp the same thought even though with different mental images of their own.

Of course, Frege didn't think of thoughts or propositions as ordered sets (as we do today) --the structural theory of propositions didn't exist on Frege's days--, but despite this fact, we still use the term "thought" as synonymous with the term "proposition", which means that for us, a "thought" is an ordered set of objects and properties of objects."

----

Thus, as far as a theist claiming that reason or math is derived from God, I say NO WAY!

I have several friends who are members of the Freemason organization. From what I can tell, they have supreme reverence for geometry and math in the same way that Pythagorus did. Phythagorus was so nutty that he punished members of his cult with death if they divulged his mathematical secrets. No Joke!

The argument against this nonsense is that math and reason exist in a different type of philosophical world than physical objects. These things would exist if humans existed OR NOT. That does NOT mean, however, that you need GOD for these things to exist. 2+2=4 will be true regardless of whether God or humanity exists. It is simply a concept we have figured out and learned, just like we can use a telescope to see stars and learn of their existence. That is, math is something to be discovered that simply exists by itself with NO creator.

---

Finally, I think the theists could be attacked yet another way when they make the argument that reason originates with God.

To me, this sounds like nothing more than the ad hoc, deus ex machina, cosmology argument. Almost ALL theists -not limited to Christians- find the Cosmology argument compelling. It basically says you need a first cause for anything to exist or else there is an infinite chain of causes. I think deriving God from that argument is fallacious, as I think it is fallacious to assume reason comes from God.

The simplest argument against this is... if the universe requires a first cause (God), then what created God? The theist cannot simply wave a magic wand and say, "Presto," a concept of God rescues us from this logical paradox! How does God escape the necessity of a cause? And why couldn't the universe simply have always existed just like God? If God exists OUTSIDE the universe and space and time, how could he create it?

Same thing with logic. If logic needs an origin, say God, then why doesn't God ALSO need an origin?

The theist "logic comes from God argument" is nothing more than the cosmology argument in disguise.

Thus, I like Kelly's refutation of the reverend's argument, but I think there are a few more points that may apply.