-
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
F = ma
That's an interesting question. Thanks.
... perhaps order is the inverse of entropy.
Why not first explain, either,Wow, color me surprised! Feel free to disregard my last post, then.Would you mind elaborating on this definition? I'd like to know exactly what you mean.
- how F = ma is a value-laden definition, or
- how my response referencing that definition was nonresponsive.
But you don't need correct premises in order to have logic and vice versa. One is not dependent on the other. And your equation only holds true when used in terms of direct argumentation. When you have in indirect argument the most you can hope for is plausible or most likely.
How can it defy logic when logic is not dependent on truth. Since it's not dependent on truth it doesn't matter whether you have evidence or not. Here's an example that I think I used earlier.
P1: All Holy men have the ability to walk on water
P2: Jesus was a holy man
--------------
Therefore, Jesus must have had the ability to walk on water
This is a logical argument because the conclusion would necessarily follow if the premises were true. Now there is no evidence to support that jesus walked on water and there is plenty of evidence to show that holy men these days are lacking in this ability. But this would only lead to the conclusion that the argument is not "sound" NOT that it is "illogical". So both regardless and in spite of evidence you can have a logical argument. I think perhaps the word you are looking for is "unreasonable" rather than illogical. Now is it unreasonable to believe in something when you have no evidence or there is evidence against it? On this matter I would agree with you and say yes that is "unreasonable". So why am I not Atheist like you. Because of my personal experiences and how I have interpreted them. This provides me with personal evidence for my position though I certainly do not expect it to convince you or anyone else nor would I try to use it TO convince anyone. Now could my interpretations be flawed, could my experiences be delusions? They very well could be. Which is why I would classify myself as an agnostic theist rather than a theist. Now what if I came across evidence that proved I was wrong? Well if I did then I would change my views. I'm not the type of person to continue pulling on the rope when I've already fallen in the mud.
Adam?.... You mean that guy in the beginning of the bible... with Eve? I don't even believe in the creation story of the bible, or any of the stories in the bible for that matter, so if you expected bringing him up to illicit some sort of response or something it failed. I don't expect my assurances to satisfy you... I was simply relating that my own personal experience on the matter has taught me differently.
F = ma: Force = mass x acceleration.
Frankly, I fail to see how that is a value laden definition of force.
That does not seem to be the case to me. To use Jay's example, F = ma, how does that definition of force impose a set of values?
pray4me
Active Member
Sorry to butt in like this but I feel like I must point out that "I don't know you from Adam" is a phrase used to mean "I've never met you and don't know who you are." I've heard it several times and in no case was it referencing the Adam of the bible although the origin of the phrase may have started there I'm not sure.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
OK, I'll buy that. Thanks for the info. I'm not much of a science buff, although I suppose that's not very comlex science.
I didn't necessarily agree that all definitions are value-laden, but I also didn't know what this definition was.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Yes of course. However using logic with unture premises does not yield useful valuable results and is only useful for demonstration purposes. To actually figure something out, you need both pieces: true premises and valid logic. I have not encountered religious apologetics that does this.
Yes, I agree totally. Obviously, religion (in the usual sense) fails the test of empiricism even more soundly, and usually (not always) rejects even trying. When religionists do try, they're wrong, e.g. "Prayer works." When subject to empirical testing, it fails resoundingly.
I often encounter both and combinations thereof. The usual logical failing is sheer inconsistency. Religionists will assert reasoning regarding their religion that they would not accept in any other area of their lives, and their inconsistency can easily be pointed out to them. For example, I have often encountered religionists (usually Christian) try to persuade me that I should accept their religion because the other alternative is so unpleasant. They ask me how I can life without an expectation of eternal life and God's love and so forth. Well, is it really necessary to point out that wishing things to be so doesn't make them so? They know that
1. I want A to be true.
does not imply that
2. A is true.
Yet they assert it. Illogical. Note that the premise is true, at least for them, they want A to be true.
Or they apply a different standard to themselves and others. They have no more evidence for a divine Jesus than a Hindu has for Shiva or whatever, but they accept one and not the other. Then they try to insist that I should apply the same lax standards they do to Jesus, but not to Shiva. Inconsistent.
But the most common fallacy employed is circular reasoning. They find it very difficult to argue without assuming the truth of what they're trying to prove. At a naive level, they will accuse atheists of denying, rejecting, or hating God. Obviously and humorously assumes that there is a God to deny, reject or hate. But the most "sophisticated" presuppositionalism is nothing but circular argument, which when pressed they will admit, but persist in it nonetheless, saying either:
(1) By accusing them of using circular reasoning I'm using logic, which would not be possible without God, therefore I'm assuming that God exists. What crap.
(2) All arguments are circular. Uh, no, they're not. Where do they get this stuff?
(As you can tell, I find presuppositionalism particularly wearying.)
It's figure of speech. Are you a native speaker of English, or am I getting old. You didn't simply relate your personal experience, you assured me it was true. Sorry, assurance isn't sufficient; you need to support, support, support. Otherwise you're wasting our time.
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
Just the very fact that we're interested in expressing the physical world in mathematical terms implies certain values. For instance, we think that the universe is comprehensible and that we have the right to comprehend it and manipulate it. The definition serves and expresses values like these and others.
Societies as old (or older) than Western ones, by the 19th century hadn't even begun to think of the world in such terms. Why? Because they had different values. They didn't see the world as something humans ought to "calculate" and "manipulate."
What a disingenuous little dance that was.
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
You can say how F=ma is a value laden definition.