Logic vs Religion

[gnomon]

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.)

Actually, the atheist has just as much evidence as the theist in regards to personal experience.

You cannot discount the personal experience of an individuals daily life no matter if they ascribe their experiences to a god, the universe, superior alien life forms or nothing at all.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Actually, the atheist has just as much evidence as the theist in regards to personal experience.

I thought the subject of this thread was "Logic vs. Religion." This sure ain't logical. Do dogs hear the way we hear? Do bees see colors the same way we do? Does a one-eyed colorblind man see the world the same way as someone fully sighted?

 

[yossarian22]

I thought the subject of this thread was "Logic vs. Religion." This sure ain't logical. Do dogs hear the way we hear? Do bees see colors the same way we do? Does a one-eyed colorblind man see the world the same way as someone fully sighted?

The idiocy of your analogy is not quite as amusing as the irony and hypocrisy they possess.
Which one of us, if I may inquire, is the one eyed color-blind man?

 

[Dunemeister]

Actually, the atheist has just as much evidence as the theist in regards to personal experience.

You cannot discount the personal experience of an individuals daily life no matter if they ascribe their experiences to a god, the universe, superior alien life forms or nothing at all.

Good point. If someone experiences an alien abduction, that provides evidence that they were indeed abducted by aliens. This may or may not provide evidence for third parties. It'll depend on their biases and understandings of the world.

But, as has been said a lot in this thread and others, one may wonder why God reveals himself to some people but not others, but a lack of God-experience is not evidence that God doesn't exist.

 

[gnomon]

I thought the subject of this thread was "Logic vs. Religion." This sure ain't logical. Do dogs hear the way we hear? Do bees see colors the same way we do? Does a one-eyed colorblind man see the world the same way as someone fully sighted?

Think more like blind men describing an elephant type analogy.

Or better yet....a tornado rips through a neighborhood. Several people walk out unscathed with their homes intact as well. Some individuals will count up their experience as affirmation of their faith in God. Others will state their will lucky. Still some may chalk up their experience due to the dilithium crystals they made from a mail order Star Trek catalog from Sirius. Regardless, there was one event with different personal experiences of the event.

I don't know how the dogs or goldfish experienced the event.

 

[Storm]

andys, you have implied that personal experience does not justify belief. I invite you to explain why here.

 

[andys]

Orantes,
What follows is a (rather sarcastic) response to a post in which you call into question my view of "Atheism". I have not had time to respond until now, only to find that this thread has blossomed into a general consensus of incorrect assertions (that personal experiences count as sound evidence, that atheists are the ones making the assertions about god's existence, that these "assertions" lack evidence, and so on). I know our views may be opposed on matters of faith, but as evidenced in your articulate posts on matters of logic, I feel we may be, dare I say, unlikely comrades. I would certainly be interested in hearing your response to some of these recent posts (page 27). However, you may prefer to hire a hit man after reading the post I just finished writing.

Orantes, you question my understanding of Atheism contending that it does not appear to be "the standard explanation of atheism." I am painfully aware of definitions of our position that split us into various factions (weak/strong, blonde/brunette, etc.). Definitions from within the atheist camp provide a less compartmentalized description. I am reassured that it is my viewpoint of atheism you take issue with, and not my atheist position.

In the spirit of reciprocation, let me see if I understand your position, as a member of the "Latter Day Saints".

Your founder, an opportunist named Joseph Smith, was convicted of being a "disorderly person and an impostor" in March of 1826, in a court in Bainsbridge, New York. During the court proceedings he admitted to defrauding citizens by gold-digging expeditions and to claiming he had dark "necromatic" powers. Only four years later he declared finding "the Book of Mormon" and two magic stones that would allow him to translate it. Mr. Smith refused to show this book to any person, claiming they would die instantly if they looked upon it. (How convenient.)

As for the teachings of these inspired golden tablets—the "Book of Mormon", they include the following:

- By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families and provide the necessities of life and protection. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. (I won't get into how many mothers the father can provide for.)

- God allows Satan to cause misery to mankind as an opportunity to strengthen character and faith.
(As an atheist, this would strengthen only my contempt for and rejection of God.)

-Abortion is wrong. (Period.)

-Homosexuality is wrong, and homosexual rights are vehemently opposed. (Stone them all I say!)

While these are only random snapshots of the LDS articles of faith, I have to wince at your concern that my representation of "atheism" may not conform to some "standard" definition. For, as I see it, any representation of the Latter-day Saints defies any "standard" definition of common sense.

 

[texan1]

AndyS,

For what it's worth, I agree with Orontes' post (#243) with regard to your definition of atheism. I don't think he meant it as an attack. Also, in many of your posts on this forum you seem to speak for all atheists, but please remember there is no atheist rules/dogma/creeds. I think the comments you just posted are off topic and not very nice to say the least.

 

[andys]

Texan1
You advise me to "please remember there is no atheist rules/dogma/creeds". I don't need this reminder. That is all I have ever maintained. "WHAT assertions are we making?" I keep asking. Yet theists on this forum persist in maintaining that atheists are the ones making assertions or that we have beliefs. The more I deny this the louder they shout it. It's like talking to a brick wall.

Imagine how silly it would be for Martians to land on Earth and abruptly proclaim, "There is no Easter Bunny!" What would prompt such a denial? First they would first have to be aware of the concept of the Easter Bunny; second, that some humans believed it existed, and third, that there is NO evidence to support the assertion that it existed. Then, and only then, would this prompt the Martians' to announce, "There is (evidentially) no Easter Bunny!" This statement is NOT a hypothesis. It is NOT an assertion. It is NOT a conjecture that requires evidence to back it up—it is only the response to the previous assertion that this egg-bearing rabbit lives and breathes.

It bewilders me that people do not understand this. It is not my opinion. It is not a matter for debate. It is merely how science and rational debate operate—and could only operate. It is very challenging trying to argue with people who don't know HOW to argue.

I do feel bad for my reply to Orantes. He is a class act and my attack on his religion was an over reaction on my part.

 

[texan1]

Hi AndyS,

Sorry - I shouldn't have butted in. It just sounded like a personal attack.

So anyway.....back to the topic?

 

[Orontes]

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

I'll address a few comments on Kant and then note the issue of our discussion which is that logic itself has independent existence.

Kant is part of the philosophical triumvirate. Only Plato and Aristotle can rival him in importance. When I mentioned Kant's philosophical "copernican revolution" I meant it in the strongest possible terms. Western Philosophy changed after him. His thought has informed every philosopher that's come after.

There is no Kantian logic. Kant used the logic of his time which was the standard propositional and model logic that had existed for centuries, back to the reintroduction of Aristotle and Classical Thinkers to the West.

As to pre-Kantian ontological and epistemic models: what I think is your "Christian-Aristotelian" logic had been ravished long before Kant by the Probablists i.e. William of Ockham in the 14th Century. British Empiricism had imploded under the ferocity of Hume and Continental Rationalism i.e. Leibnitz, Spinoza etc. was a house of cards where each structure would collapse with one error.

As to terms: I'm sorry I assumed you were familiar with Kant given your language. If you have a particular term you would like me to speak to, please ask. Here are a few:

Phenomenon: this refers to the sensible realm or experience.

Noumenon: This is not original to Kant, but traces its roots back to Plato. The crux is such are not discernable by intuition or experience, but rather serve as that which allows for real objectivity (as in things existing independent of mind). To illustrate: one sees a flower. The color, small, feel etc all belong to the phenomenal arena. Yet, there must be something that brings or maintains the respective aspects of the flower (smell color etc.) into some kind of unity. In answering how any of these sensual aspects are not simply products of the subject's mind, one could appeal to the noumena whereby there is a necessary element that grounds the flower's existence separate and distinct from the subject. Thus, I can prick my finger on a thorn of the flower and know it is not simply masochistic solipsism run amuck.

Antinomy: a device by Kant to show the error or illegitimate use of reason beyond what can be justified as knowledge.

Empty Concepts: Here I am referencing Kant's famous statement: "intuitions (sensations) without concepts are blind and concepts without intuitions are empty". The rub of the later element is to assert a thing, say a unicorn or elf or the number 4 exists as some independent thing without any phenomenal corroboration simply lacks force or justification.

To the notion logic itself has being and exists independently: the real question is why should any accept this idea? What moves it beyond bald assertion? What would distinguish the claim from fantastic assertions? Given logic is conceptual, there isn't anything to point to beyond the idea, this is a problem.

Note: You've rooted the meaning of logic in "correct reference". I understand the idea, but I think I would shift things some, particularly regarding the adjective. The quality that makes an argument logical or no is validity. Validity is the necessity of the conclusion given the premises. Therefore, I would go with "necessary reference" to escape some of the vagaries or other connotations that may come with using "correct", just a thought.

 

[Orontes]

Orantes,
What follows is a (rather sarcastic) response to a post in which you call into question my view of "Atheism"....

My statements on the explanations for atheism are quite standard for the literature. These explanations are not condemnations, but rather measure the epistemic force of any atheist claim. If one says "there is no X" or "I believe there is no X", there is a clear distinction that can be made and that distinction is noteworthy if the assertion is a knowledge claim.

To the idea "theism is without evidence therefore it is false" it is a hasty induction fallacy.

As far as Mormon fair is concerned: some of what you put forward is confused, some wrong, some fine. More to the point, none of the charges or conclusion is relevant to the thread. If you are interested in the highs and lows of things Mormon we can look into such, but a different thread would be better.

 

[GadFly]

I'll address a few comments on Kant and then note the issue of our discussion which is that logic itself has independent existence.

Kant is part of the philosophical triumvirate. Only Plato and Aristotle can rival him in importance. When I mentioned Kant's philosophical "copernican revolution" I meant it in the strongest possible terms. Western Philosophy changed after him. His thought has informed every philosopher that's come after.

There is no Kantian logic. Kant used the logic of his time which was the standard propositional and model logic that had existed for centuries, back to the reintroduction of Aristotle and Classical Thinkers to the West.

As to pre-Kantian ontological and epistemic models: what I think is your "Christian-Aristotelian" logic had been ravished long before Kant by the Probablists i.e. William of Ockham in the 14th Century. British Empiricism had imploded under the ferocity of Hume and Continental Rationalism i.e. Leibnitz, Spinoza etc. was a house of cards where each structure would collapse with one error.

As to terms: I'm sorry I assumed you were familiar with Kant given your language. If you have a particular term you would like me to speak to, please ask. Here are a few:

Phenomenon: this refers to the sensible realm or experience.

Noumenon: This is not original to Kant, but traces its roots back to Plato. The crux is such are not discernable by intuition or experience, but rather serve as that which allows for real objectivity (as in things existing independent of mind). To illustrate: one sees a flower. The color, small, feel etc all belong to the phenomenal arena. Yet, there must be something that brings or maintains the respective aspects of the flower (smell color etc.) into some kind of unity. In answering how any of these sensual aspects are not simply products of the subject's mind, one could appeal to the noumena whereby there is a necessary element that grounds the flower's existence separate and distinct from the subject. Thus, I can prick my finger on a thorn of the flower and know it is not simply masochistic solipsism run amuck.

Antinomy: a device by Kant to show the error or illegitimate use of reason beyond what can be justified as knowledge.

Empty Concepts: Here I am referencing Kant's famous statement: "intuitions (sensations) without concepts are blind and concepts without intuitions are empty". The rub of the later element is to assert a thing, say a unicorn or elf or the number 4 exists as some independent thing without any phenomenal corroboration simply lacks force or justification.

To the notion logic itself has being and exists independently: the real question is why should any accept this idea? What moves it beyond bald assertion? What would distinguish the claim from fantastic assertions? Given logic is conceptual, there isn't anything to point to beyond the idea, this is a problem.

Note: You've rooted the meaning of logic in "correct reference". I understand the idea, but I think I would shift things some, particularly regarding the adjective. The quality that makes an argument logical or no is validity. Validity is the necessity of the conclusion given the premises. Therefore, I would go with "necessary reference" to escape some of the vagaries or other connotations that may come with using "correct", just a thought.

I like everything you have said, especially the point you make about Kant using standard logic, which everybody seems to do even when trying to describe what they think is a new logic. Don't read too much into the definition of logic being correct inferences. That is only the simplest and first definition any standard dictionary gives and the definition the common man recognizes. Necessary reference does not seem to improve on the definition since the word necessary implies a type of prejudgment but other than that, you have done an excellent job in your reply to Kant and I think to Plato too.
GadFly

 

[Orontes]

I like everything you have said, especially the point you make about Kant using standard logic, which everybody seems to do even when trying to describe what they think is a new logic. Don't read too much into the definition of logic being correct inferences. That is only the simplest and first definition any standard dictionary gives and the definition the common man recognizes. Necessary reference does not seem to improve on the definition since the word necessary implies a type of prejudgment but other than that, you have done an excellent job in your reply to Kant and I think to Plato too.
GadFly

Cheers!

 

[andys]

Now that Gadfly has received his private lesson in Kant (which, in case this is news, is pronounced "kaunt", as in "haunt" and not "can't"), let us return to the topic of this thread, which you will recall, raised the question, "Why do religion and logic not go hand-in-hand?"

This question is a complex question, since it already answers the presumed question, "DO religion and logic go hand-in-hand?" Also, what is meant by "hand-in-hand" is open to interpretation. What should be made clear is that a religion is, in itself, neither logical nor illogical; it is (almost without exception) merely an organization or institution that extols the virtues of a god or prophet whose teachings provide the foundation upon which it rests. It is, rather, the tenets of a given religion that are subject to the charge of "logical" or "illogical", not the bureaucratic edifice that exalts it. But what is meant by "logical"? Is the author, who poses the question, using the word in the strict sense, meaning "Logic" with a capital "L", or in layman usage to mean "common sense"? If the former is intended, the question is not very interesting. It can be settled quickly by professional Logicians who can expose the myriad of invalid syllogisms replete in any religious dogma. However, the question becomes meaningful and much more interesting if we assign the layman's connotation of the word "logic". This gives the the question real meat. We are now talking about what is "real" as opposed to what is ethereally "valid". We are looking at the question of veracity through the eyes of the scientist and not the logician. But what question are we now asking?

As I understand the it, the author is essentially asking, "Do the articles of faith and reason go hand-in-hand, i.e., are they compatible?"

My answer is that faith both constitutes and requires the abandonment of reason and rationality in order to proceed. It is an act of self gratification and self indulgence that requires the sacrifice of reason in order to produce desired conclusions (e.g., God exists, God loves me, there is a heaven, etc.)

In this respect faith has one thing in common with reason. Both are extremely efficacious and successful approaches to obtaining the answers being sought. However, faith does not propose hypotheses, or conduct tests, or demand empirical evidence. Faith is merely a process of wishful thinking in disguise that provides answers which are self delusional and irrational.

I think we're back where we started.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

All debates in the RF are from polar opposites: the concrete vs. the abstract. Something that is merely concrete has limited universality because it must exclude other realities in order to maintain itself as a concrete: it just another thing alongside another. Something that is merely abstract (mysticism and idealism) is restricted to the realities from which it is abstracted and therefore excludes the concrete.
Religion vs. logic presumes a bridge between the poles, but if there is no bridge, how can there be a debate or discussion?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Religion vs. logic presumes a bridge between the poles, but if there is no bridge, how can there be a debate or discussion?

No, it presumes poles.

 

[GadFly]

Andy, the Gadfly almost bit himself on your last post. I don't mean to be crude but that was difficult to follow. I am not going to respond to what you said because it is not clear to me what you said. You are discussing an atheist position with several Christians or theist. We do not use your terminology to describe our position to you. We use our own vocabulary. We do not accept your definition of logic with or without an L. Logic is correct inferences, period. Common sense is just plain old folk talk and has little to do with philosophy and religion.

To the Christian there is no such thing as blind faith. Blind faith is something that belongs completely to the atheist. To a Christian faith is a substance and things of hope. Faith is based on knowledge and has properties just like matter has properties. Illusions have nothing to do with faith, which is always based on a solid logic. To the Christian change is an illusion. Real things do no change. Now that is what we mean when we talk to you. You must explain these things of religion in our terms or we will never understand you. This is standard language that the Western Civilization uses. If we all use these words the same we will all understand each other. The Christian, theist, the reasoning man, scientist, historian, and faith all use the same logic. The only person that uses a different logic is the atheist. Now we are back where we started.
GadFly

 

[Dunemeister]

My answer is that faith both constitutes and requires the abandonment of reason and rationality in order to proceed. It is an act of self gratification and self indulgence that requires the sacrifice of reason in order to produce desired conclusions (e.g., God exists, God loves me, there is a heaven, etc.)

Wow, this notion is SOAKED with pretension. As a person of faith, I reject the notion that I've abandoned rationality. I'm a Christian. I've studied Kant, Hume, Dennet, Hitchens. More importantly, I've studied Freud, Marx, and Nietzche. I remain unconvinced of their arguments against my faith. In what way have I been irrational? How have I abandoned rationality? Is it just because I don't agree with andys, the final arbiter of truth?

 

[Sunstone]

To the Christian there is no such thing as blind faith. Blind faith is something that belongs completely to the atheist. ... The Christian, theist, the reasoning man, scientist, historian, and faith all use the same logic. The only person that uses a different logic is the atheist.

Since you are loathe to provide any support for your rhetoric, then surely, it requires blind faith to believe your words are true, Gadfly. Since you believe your words are true, you must have blind faith. And since only atheists have blind faith, you must therefore be an atheist.

The only question that remains is why have you not admitted your atheism before now?