Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Do you know the term "analogy"?
Well, it depends on your definition of God, I guess. To some it could be a sort of unicorn. To you it's obviously something else. Why is there no room in infinity for an "other"?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Logic vs Religion
- Thread starter guilo
- Start date
Do you know the term "analogy"?
Well, it depends on your definition of God, I guess. To some it could be a sort of unicorn. To you it's obviously something else. Why is there no room in infinity for an "other"?
Orontes
Master of the Horse
Quite right. That is what I put forward in my first post in the thread. Post 108:
"This question turns on a false dichotomy. Logic is formal. This means it is concerned with the relation between premises and a conclusion. The operative is validity. Validity is the judgment when a conclusion cannot be otherwise given the premises. Logic is not concerned with truth claims proper: only validity.
Religion entails truth claims. This could be the Shahada: "There is no God, but God and Muhammad is His Prophet". It could be the Shema: "Hear O' Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord". It could be a verse: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life". The truth or falsity of such is not a concern of logic.
Now, a given truth claim alone is simply an assertion. As such, it may be a premise in an argument. It may also be the conclusion to an argument. Neither a premise or a conclusion need be a true. They may be any statement, true or no. The same applies to arguments. To illustrate:
1) Rudolf is a reindeer
2) Rudolf can fly
3) Therefore, Rudolf is a flying reindeer.
A) Jesus walked on water
B) To walk on water is miraculous
C) Therefore, Jesus walking on water is miraculous
Both of the above are valid and thereby logical. The truth value or the lack thereof is irrelevant to the logic. Therefore to suggest some inherent tension between logic and religion is the fail to understand the nature of one or the other or both."
Orontes
Master of the Horse
Hello,
This is separate from the actual thread question, but the above is not a standard explanation for atheism. Just as theism is the assertion of a metaphysical absolute, atheism is the denial of the same. Typically, atheism is broken down into two basic forms: Strong and Weak. Strong Atheism is the base assertion: there is no god(s). Weak Atheism is subject specific, as in "I believe there is no god(s)".
There is nothing in either theist or atheist positioning that speaks to evidence in and of itself. Evidence may attend a particular view, but is not inherent to the view, which is for a theist simply the assertion X and for an atheist -X.
If one takes atheism to mean:"theism is without evidence therefore it is false" that would be a hasty induction and thus a fallacy.
Orontes
Master of the Horse
As to logic the above is not correct. Logic is tautologous. It has no ontological commitment whatsoever. Logic is entirely formal. This is why:
1) Martians love disco
2) Berry is a Martin
3) Therefore, Berry loves disco
is a valid argument. Questions of prudence are separate from questions of validity.
Congratulations to Dunemeister.
The first theist with the guts to offer a defense for his belief in god, which he itemizes by number: (My responses follow each).
"1. Personal experience of God".
- Sorry, but this is a personal state of mind, of interest to the psychologist or psychiatrist, but not to the scientist or philosopher. One's personal experiences are precisely that, personal; they prohibit external testing and must be discounted.
"2. Historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. The gospel accounts of the event are the best explanation for it, and those accounts imply the existence of God".
- In fact, there is NO historical evidence whatsoever to support the belief that Jesus ever existed. Indeed I have more than enough historical evidence that "Jesus" is a variation of an age-old myth. In any case, asserting the historicity of Jesus based on the Bible is as circular as using "The Night Before Christmas" to prove the existence of St. Nick.
"3. There's something rather than nothing, and God is the best explanation of that".
- The Theory of Evolution accounts for all life on the planet without the need for a mysterious supernatural intervention. For those seriously engaged in the study of the origin of life, sufficient evidence has been found to confirm that the first cells originated by chemical processes involving non-biological components. The focus of science today is finding which path was followed to produce the first cells. The history of science shows that what may have appeared to be a metaphysical problem like this one, may yield the answers given the fortitude to discover new facts and increase our knowledge. To reject this rational approach in favour of postulating a Creator, for which there is no need nor proof, serves only to self-destruct the problem-solving process by trading it in for a host of forever unanswerable questions. Postulating a "god" only raises more questions than it answers and put us back in the Dark Ages. A physical explanation, William of Ockham would agree, is far superior to a metaphysical one.
"4. There are moral truths, and the existence of a God who created the universe with a moral purpose (including creating us with a capacity to be responsive to moral truths) is the best explanation for that".
- How are moral truths an explanation for God? Indeed, they are the best argument I can think of to negate him. I firmly believe in morality and its implied correlates of "right" and "wrong". But the existence of any kind of truths, mathematical, scientific or moral does not begin to suggest the existence of a fleck of dust, never mind a supernatural being. It certainly does not entail one with attributes such as benevolence, omniscience or a white beard. Further, moral truths, if that's what they are, make a god rather redundant as a moral teacher. Once you have the message, hang up the phone.
"5. I'm rather old-fashioned, so I actually take the ontological argument to be stronger than its critics admit".
- Wow, "old-fashioned" isn't the appropriate characterization. This antiquainted rationale is SO dead in the water it makes the leftovers in my fridge smell inviting. The classic refutation of St. Anselm's smoke & mirrors argument is that the mere concept, that God exists, does not entail his actual existence. If this line of reasoning were permitted, practically anything you can imagine could be "proved" to exist.
Finally, one last piece of business. You didn't number this argument but it's no less erroneous than its numbered predecessors. You write,
"Of course, you have heard arguments supporting all these things and reject them. But that's different from saying you've never heard a believer give evidence. Rather, you've never heard a believer give evidence that was convincing to you. But in my opinion, that says more about you than about the quality of the evidence."
- Yes, I've heard every one of your arguments before. They are like old socks that couldn't be mended and were relegated to the trash bin. I have explained (all too briefly) why they belong there. Any amount of mouse-clicking will fill in the blanks if you're still not convinced. I do agree with your telling observation, that I "...never heard a believer give evidence that was convincing...." Nope, still waiting. But believe me, if you ever provide any evidence that is convincing I'll expect to see your proud face on the cover of Time.
The first theist with the guts to offer a defense for his belief in god, which he itemizes by number: (My responses follow each).
"1. Personal experience of God".
- Sorry, but this is a personal state of mind, of interest to the psychologist or psychiatrist, but not to the scientist or philosopher. One's personal experiences are precisely that, personal; they prohibit external testing and must be discounted.
"2. Historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. The gospel accounts of the event are the best explanation for it, and those accounts imply the existence of God".
- In fact, there is NO historical evidence whatsoever to support the belief that Jesus ever existed. Indeed I have more than enough historical evidence that "Jesus" is a variation of an age-old myth. In any case, asserting the historicity of Jesus based on the Bible is as circular as using "The Night Before Christmas" to prove the existence of St. Nick.
"3. There's something rather than nothing, and God is the best explanation of that".
- The Theory of Evolution accounts for all life on the planet without the need for a mysterious supernatural intervention. For those seriously engaged in the study of the origin of life, sufficient evidence has been found to confirm that the first cells originated by chemical processes involving non-biological components. The focus of science today is finding which path was followed to produce the first cells. The history of science shows that what may have appeared to be a metaphysical problem like this one, may yield the answers given the fortitude to discover new facts and increase our knowledge. To reject this rational approach in favour of postulating a Creator, for which there is no need nor proof, serves only to self-destruct the problem-solving process by trading it in for a host of forever unanswerable questions. Postulating a "god" only raises more questions than it answers and put us back in the Dark Ages. A physical explanation, William of Ockham would agree, is far superior to a metaphysical one.
"4. There are moral truths, and the existence of a God who created the universe with a moral purpose (including creating us with a capacity to be responsive to moral truths) is the best explanation for that".
- How are moral truths an explanation for God? Indeed, they are the best argument I can think of to negate him. I firmly believe in morality and its implied correlates of "right" and "wrong". But the existence of any kind of truths, mathematical, scientific or moral does not begin to suggest the existence of a fleck of dust, never mind a supernatural being. It certainly does not entail one with attributes such as benevolence, omniscience or a white beard. Further, moral truths, if that's what they are, make a god rather redundant as a moral teacher. Once you have the message, hang up the phone.
"5. I'm rather old-fashioned, so I actually take the ontological argument to be stronger than its critics admit".
- Wow, "old-fashioned" isn't the appropriate characterization. This antiquainted rationale is SO dead in the water it makes the leftovers in my fridge smell inviting. The classic refutation of St. Anselm's smoke & mirrors argument is that the mere concept, that God exists, does not entail his actual existence. If this line of reasoning were permitted, practically anything you can imagine could be "proved" to exist.
Finally, one last piece of business. You didn't number this argument but it's no less erroneous than its numbered predecessors. You write,
"Of course, you have heard arguments supporting all these things and reject them. But that's different from saying you've never heard a believer give evidence. Rather, you've never heard a believer give evidence that was convincing to you. But in my opinion, that says more about you than about the quality of the evidence."
- Yes, I've heard every one of your arguments before. They are like old socks that couldn't be mended and were relegated to the trash bin. I have explained (all too briefly) why they belong there. Any amount of mouse-clicking will fill in the blanks if you're still not convinced. I do agree with your telling observation, that I "...never heard a believer give evidence that was convincing...." Nope, still waiting. But believe me, if you ever provide any evidence that is convincing I'll expect to see your proud face on the cover of Time.
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
Your analogy works ONLY for anthropomorphic concepts; i.e., a God independent of the whole and finite. Neither does it work to indicate an absence of evidence, as the evidence for color is ONLY in the experience and yet no one (to my knowledge) denies its existence.
As to why there is no room for an "other" in infinity, all you have to do is apply a little logic. If something is truly infinite, there is no room for an "other." Yet, the appearance and reality of diversity is not precluded so long as the deeper reality, The One, is the undergirding reality. In describing the cosmos, some, if not most scientists, will tell you that it appears that beneath the order we observe there is chaos and beneath that, a deeper order
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
You do realize that I already addressed your version of God, right?
You don't have the traditional defintion of God (at least from what I've seen you say), and I don't see your definition as "God", but something else entirely. I could believe in anything, if I stretch the definition of the word to mean something I already believe in.
Orontes may friend, you are badly mistaken. Logic has everything to do with ontology. Logic is one of those universal and eternal laws that are self evident and is just there. It is a thing in itself and it is what its most basic definition says it is, it is correct references. Whether it is used in a formal context as you use it or call it pragmatic logic,relevance logic, modal logic, foolish logic. or quantified modal logic, if correct reference is not its main feature, it is not logic at all; just babble without correct references.
The fact man recognizes logic at all is evidence of an ontological being that does not depend on man at all for its existence. There is no logic without God but if we are no more, logic goes on without us. Logic is not a creation of man and anything that differs with logic is nonsense. Faulty science without logic is babble and reasoning without logic is foolish babble.
GadFly
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
You did address my particular case, but it's a lot more common that you might think. "Traditional" concepts are those you see on TV. But once you get into theology, those concepts are superficial at best and its proponents dubious. All you're doing is stereotyping and perpetuating a false image to others and yourself.
Wouldn't you agree that understanding should take precedence over stereotypical images?
You are quite correct to imply that redefining God can make anything plausible. But the whole purpose of theology is to give expression to an experiential reality that is constant with the objective world, to be an intelligible pointing finger, as it were. If science can change its description of reality (space is curved, for example), why can't theology? The fact that some believers don't chose to go that route in no way invalidates the underlying experience.
And that is illogical.
GadFlys pay no attention to logic that is based on no known ontology. It is simply babble resulting from fly bites.
Orontes
Master of the Horse
Hello,
I think you may have misunderstood my post. The statement "logic has no ontological commitment whatsoever" means the content of any argument does not then necessitate existence. So, per my example:
1) Martians love disco.
2) Berry is a Martian
3) Therefore, Berry loves disco
The validity does not require that Martians, disco or Berry actually exist.
As to the thrust of your post: we disagree. If you believe that logic itself has being (as in "its just there" or a "thing in itself"), then you have committed the reification fallacy i.e. assuming an idea has independent existence. Given the 'thing-in-itself' reference, I'll assume you are familiar with Kant. Under a Kantian rubric to claim a concept has being is to err by making a noumenal assertion that lacks any phenomenal correspondence. In short, you are making a metaphysical claim that cannot move beyond the assertion.
One thing Emanuel Kant did do is to confuse the rationalist for several generations to come. I am not sure if I am one of the confused rationalist over Kantian philosophy or not. Although at one time I thought I had a pretty good understating of Kanting philosophy. I know Kant is very difficult to interpret even by professors who teach the philosophy daily. I did study Kantian philosophy while in college and at various times since college, I have used his terminology with which to reason. My chief interest in Kant's philosophical opinions was and still is, how well do my ontological beliefs stand up to the Kanting test.
In this forum I have used the noumena to argue a point on logic. What this term has to do with moving beyond a metaphysical claim, I am not sure. but I can tell you that Kant did not use all the vocabulary that he created when he discussed the existence of God. He used standard logic. It is a good thing for me because I am still confused about Kant. When it comes to Kant, as I am sure you know, he first wrote a book on how there was no God. Later, when it hurt his servant's feelings he wrote a book on how there was a God.
Logic to Kant was an item that stood alone although it was not a substance like matter that would fill a jar. Logic was an abstract thing like value by which you could determine the worth of other things.Actually what it comes down to is that Kant depended on standard logic, which we still do, to express this word's relationship with God. Another problem with this is that Kant's ideas sometimes changed but it was his beliefs that threatened the validity of the Cartesian Assertion that mball likes to use as do I. Unless we are geniuses, and I know I am not, I don't think we can fully discuss Kant on this tread and gain an advantage on opinions on logic.
So, I still think the argument that logic is evidence of an eternal being and that logic is a process of correct inferences. I do believe an idea has independence existence like Plato did. I do run past that reification fallacy as to me it is nonsense and nonsense is illogical. Now mball you stay out of this discussion because it is way out of your league.(Just a choke)
GadFly.
Orontes
Master of the Horse
Kant ushered in the philosophical "copernican revolution" that informed Modernity thereafter. The revolution was contra rationalism (qua Descartes, Spinoza etc. and included any natural theology) and had to deal with the force of Hume's skepticism. The upshot of this is found in his own words: "I had to deny knowledge in order to make room of faith". The knowledge denied is the knowledge claims concerning metaphysical objects and can also be seen in his antinomies. Your assertions on logic having its own being fit into this very rejected arena.
Regarding noumena: such is never used distinct from phenomena: meaning the one corresponds to the other. The precise role of the noumenal is to ground empirical knowledge i.e. avoid the pitfalls of any solipsism creeping into his framework and thus allow real knowledge to exist. It is not used to justify simple metaphysical objects nor could it.
If you embrace reification then you need to demonstrate why such isn't simply bald assertion or what Kant referred to as "empty concept".
If you have a textbook in front of you about Emmanuel Kant's philosophy please define some of the terms you are using. It has been 50 years since I studied Kant. The best thing I remember about Kant is that it was difficult for the rationalist to understand him. Although rationalist became unpopular it was not all due to Kantian philosophy, some yes. The popularity of Christian philosophy has always out shinned the lesser philosophies and the alleged fact that another philosophy may have rejected parts of Christian-Platonic-Aristotelian philosophy is no surprise.
The fact that Kantian philosophy is interesting did not make Kant the expert on "empty concepts" but he did try to explain it. The Western Civilization already had a very adequate ontology and epistemology and that concept has survived the test of time and the stresses brought about by industrialization of the scientific age and the atomic age or whatever this computer age is called. All of this progress has been based on good old fashioned Christian-Aristotelian logic. This truth holds true for religion also. Sure, we might have done well under Kantian philosophy but if the scientist of today spent their time to figure out Kant before making a decision,we would have never gone to the moon.
The standard logic we use today just can't be beaten by any of the past fads in philosophy. There is simply not a better definition than "correct reference" and man, be he atheist or believer, has not and can not come up with a better logic than the one put here by the eternal God! Atheist do not object to Aristotelian logic because it is false. In fact, atheist use Aristotelian logic as much as Christians do. They reject Aristotelian logic (standard logic) because it represents evidence that there is a God.
What I like about standard logic is that it is ken to man's nature and understanding. It is easily understood and does not require super phraseology to be explained. Even small children understand it. Just think what a small child would do with Kantian logic. By the time he passed "empty concepts" and tripped over the "noumena" and collapsed on the phenomenal obstructions of reifications or defecations of the Hume's skeptical world, it would be time to give up the ghost. Give me that logic where simply 2+2 is 4.
GadFly
andys, I still don't see why I have to give enough evidence to support the existence of God where all you have to do is say, no, that isn't evidence
I grew up in a world where God has always existed just as water has existed. In my world you are making the assertion, that contrary to the way it seems to me God does not exist, you should provide evidence for your assertion. Or perhaps maybe we should both provide evidence for our assertions. There is no reason to listen to someone who won't even consider other perspectives.
I grew up in a world where God has always existed just as water has existed. In my world you are making the assertion, that contrary to the way it seems to me God does not exist, you should provide evidence for your assertion. Or perhaps maybe we should both provide evidence for our assertions. There is no reason to listen to someone who won't even consider other perspectives.
PureX
Veteran Member
Neither of you has any evidence.
The atheist claims that the lack of evidence for the existence of God is evidence against the existence of God. But lack of evidence is simply lack of evidence. It's not evidence supporting any contrary proposal. And the theist can't produce any evidence for the existence of God because the definition of God and the limits of human perception are such that God can't be evidenced by us. It's like trying to measure a sunset with a yardstick.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
That's what I've been trying to say.
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
That may be a bit strong. The Christian (at least) has evidence of varying types ranging from personal experience to history to cosmology to morality (that last one being the most difficult and controversial, of course). The atheist has evidence in a sense when they point to the problem of evil; but at best that can only disprove a philosophical theism rather than a fully developed Christian theology. When it encounters Christian theology, the argument loses much of its force, and in fact (surprisingly) the Christian and atheist wind up agreeing that evil's a mystery but doesn't disprove the Christian claim.
The atheist can only have positive evidence for her position if she's omniscient (thereby disproving her position). She has to look everywhere and correctly consider every aspect of everything. That done, she's in a similar position to the person who has been searching all over the house for his wallet and couldn't find it. The wallet isn't there. (And, to keep the analogy fair, the house is all there is.)