Logic vs Religion

[Magic Man]

There is no getting to the premise through logic. A premise is a statement preceding a conclusion. A premise alone is neither logical or illogical. It is a component of an argument. An argument is what constitutes the domain of logic. You have confused a part for the whole.

To charge a premise i.e. 'a person walking on water is illogical' is a non sequitur. One can challenge the truth value of the statement, but that is distinct from logic proper. As previously explained: logic is formal. The content is irrelevant to the force of logic. The second example's form is:

A is B
B is C
Therefore, A is C.

One's discomfort with A, B or C does not speak to the validity and thereby the logic of the argument. The content of an argument can be filled with any number of premises or truth claims, religious or no.

A claim can be logical or illogical. You make a claim in a context. Jesus walked on water. That claim is in the context of the physical world we all know and experience, where a person walking on water is illogical. It's not just an argument that can be illogical, a statement can be too. Although, if you want to look at it another way, you could say that the argument that leads you to that premise is illogical, which then means the premise is illogical.

"1.according to or agreeing with the principles of logic: a logical inference." This is the definition of "logical" from Dictionary.com.

Using this definition, "Jesus walking on water" is not a logical inference from our experiences in our daily life. Therefore it is an illogical premise.

 

[MoonWater]

A claim can be logical or illogical. You make a claim in a context. Jesus walked on water. That claim is in the context of the physical world we all know and experience, where a person walking on water is illogical. It's not just an argument that can be illogical, a statement can be too. Although, if you want to look at it another way, you could say that the argument that leads you to that premise is illogical, which then means the premise is illogical.

Your confusing illogical with with wrong or false. Logic has no place in the realm of right and wrong for you can have an argument that is perfectly logical but is still wrong due to false or faulty premises. You can also have an argument that is completely illogical but contains Premises that are completely true. The only requirement for an argument to be logical is that the conclusion follow the premises. And what's more, Logic applies only to deductive arguments. When it comes to inductive arguments(which is the bulk of what we use when concerning religion and God) it is no longer a question of whether or not the argument is "logical" but of whether or not the argument is "strong". Premises are either true or false not logical or illogical.

"1.according to or agreeing with the principles of logic: a logical inference." This is the definition of "logical" from Dictionary.com.

Using this definition, "Jesus walking on water" is not a logical inference from our experiences in our daily life. Therefore it is an illogical premise.

Your comparing apples and oranges.

Also from dictionary.com:
In the context of ordinary argumentation, the rational acceptability of a disputed conclusion depends on both the truth of the premises and the soundness of the reasoning from the premises to the conclusion.(the encyclopedia entry concerning Premise)

Inferences and premises are in separate categories. If the phrase "jesus walking on water" is not part of an argument then one is free to determine whether or not it is or is not a logical inference. But the instant that phrase is placed in an argument it is no longer an inference but a premise and thus is either true or false, not logical or illogical. the only way the phrase could be considered an inference and stil be part of an argument would be if the phrase were the conclusion of an argument for indeed an argument's conclusion is also known as an inference. and then one could determine if it is logical or illogical in whether or not it follows from the premises of the argument. However in this instance the phrase itself is no longer a premise but a conclusion. Even if "jesus walking on water" were a false statement it can still be placed in a logical argument:

P1: Jesus was a holy man
P2: All holy men walk on water
----
Therefore, Jesus walked on water

This is a logical argument because if the premises are true then the conclusion necessarily follows. However it is not a sound argument because P1 is debatable and P2 is false as we know of no holy men in this day and age who walk on water. Now to make the phrase a premise

P1: Only holy men walk on water
P2: Jesus walked on water
----
Therefore, Jesus is a holy man

Again this is a logical argument but it is not sound because P1: is false, not only do we not know of any holy men these days who walk on water but we do know of different insect species as well as at least one species of lizard who are capable of walking(or running) on water. Also P2 is at most debatable because it can neither be proven true or false.

Do you see the difference? At most an inference can be the conclusion to an argument but the instant a phrase becomes a premise it is no longer by definition an inference and thus trying to say it is or is not a logical inference is pointless because a faulty premise can still be used in a logical argument. The argument just won't be sound.

 

[andys]

Orontes
Wonders never cease! There is a person on this Forum who actually knows what Logic is. Congratulations Orontes! You're doing a splendid job trying to educate the others. Good luck!

 

[GadFly]

Moon Water. that was fantastic. I am going to read your comments on logic several more times before I leave this post. There are several people on these threads who need to study your comments as a review of what they were exposed to about logic while in college. I sure needed to hear what you said and appreciate you taking time to explain logic to us.

If you have time, please explain to us how science does not conflict with logic.
An appreciative GadFly.

 

[andys]

Colabomb
You write, "I know my God on a deeper level than cold Logic. It may sound superstitious to some.
I cannot prove God exists, but i don't feel i need to."

I can play the same game: I know that cold Logic is pink and smells funny. I can't prove it but I don't feel I have to.

My point is that assertions that lack any substantiation, or the will on the part of their author to provide any, must be dismissed as meaningless. I have to wonder why one should bother in the first place.

 

[Sunstone]

There are several people on these threads who need to study your comments as a review of what they were exposed to about logic while in college.

It's hilarious how you are incapable of speaking for yourself without taking a dig at others -- real or imagined others. Tell me, Gadfly, have you ever made love to a woman without telling her, "There are men out there who are worse than me."?

 

[Storm]

My point is that assertions that lack any substantiation, or the will on the part of their author to provide any, must be dismissed as meaningless. I have to wonder why one should bother in the first place.

You mean, assertions like "Evidence is the nightmare/ downfall/ etc. of religion"? I agree.

 

[Sunstone]

My point is that assertions that lack any substantiation, or the will on the part of their author to provide any, must be dismissed as meaningless.

Meaningless, Andys? Don't you mean that assertions which lack any substantiation are not compelling on others? An assertion can be meaningful, yet lack substantiation, can't it?

I have to wonder why one should bother in the first place.

Well, some of us here on RF like it when others share their views with us.

 

[GadFly]

It's hilarious how you are incapable of speaking for yourself without taking a dig at others -- real or imagined others. Tell me, Gadfly, have you ever made love to a woman without telling her, "There are men out there who are worse than me."?

Actually I was thinking about you Sunstone, but I did not want to get personal with you as you have me. But, you being on the staff, you should know the rules of debate better than I, Is all you received from MoonWater's excellent post, is an opportunity to join your other atheist buddies in a trolling adventure to put the GadFly down? You comments are not appreciate and are against the rules of this forum which you are ethically obliged to supervise. Yes, I think this post definitely violates the ethics of you position here and you have exposed yourself before the members of the forum.
The GadFly bites back.

 

[MoonWater]

Moon Water. that was fantastic. I am going to read your comments on logic several more times before I leave this post. There are several people on these threads who need to study your comments as a review of what they were exposed to about logic while in college. I sure needed to hear what you said and appreciate you taking time to explain logic to us.

Thank you

If you have time, please explain to us how science does not conflict with logic.
An appreciative GadFly.

I didn't know people thought the two conflicted with each other. I personally don't see how they conflict. Especially since science uses logic in order to draw theories and hypothesis. For example in forensic science if you find a murder weapon with fingerprints on it and you have someone in custody who's fingerprints match those on the weapon a logical conclusion to draw would be that the person in custody is murderer. It may not be true, he could have touched the weapon either before or after it was used to murder. But then as has been stated before logic has nothing to do with right or wrong.

Hope that helps some.

 

[Sunstone]

Actually I was thinking about you Sunstone, but I did not want to get personal with you as you have me. But, you being on the staff, you should know the rules of debate better than I, Is all you received from MoonWater's excellent post, is an opportunity to join your other atheist buddies in a trolling adventure to put the GadFly down? You comments are not appreciate and are against the rules of this forum which you are ethically obliged to supervise. Yes, I think this post definitely violates the ethics of you position here and you have exposed yourself before the members of the forum.
The GadFly bites back.

Are you feeling a bit bitten, Gadfly?

In the first place, you are putting words in my mouth regarding Moonwater's excellent post. Please don't play that game with me.

In the second place, your allegation that I am in a conspiracy with others to troll is pure fantasy on your part. But I suspect you know that because you do nothing to support it. Again, please don't play that game with me.

In the third place, your allegation that I have violated the rules of the forum is again groundless rhetoric on your part. Not only have you failed to substantiate your claim, but I myself have taken care not to violate those rules -- and I have something of a working knowledge of them. Once again, please don't play silly games with me, Gadfly.

 

[Storm]

Gadfly accusing Sunstone of trolling? Now there's a laugh.

 

[yossarian22]

I have enjoyed your response to this thread and have gained insight to how an atheist thinks.

Don't clump me in with him.
I would like to think that andys is not representative of the majority of atheists, although he may be.

 

[andys]

Michel07
A longer quote from Einstein appears in Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941. In it he says:

"The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted [italics his], in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot."

In a letter Einstein wrote, dated 24 March 24, 1954 and appears in "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, and published by Princeton University Press, he writes:

"I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."

And, as I have already quoted and referenced, Einstein writes:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. "

If he's religious, he has a funny way of expressing it.

Your next objection is "And what do you mean Einstein [sic] was the first to blah blah... that is utter nonsense. "

Nonsense? Einstein is certainly was probably the first of the great geniuses in history to speak freely without fear of persecution from the Church. The Inquisition ended in the 19th century. This point is made by Christopher Hitchens in his fine book, "god is not great". On page 271 he writes:

"Only one member of the giant and genius category ever truly spoke his mind without any apparent fear or excess of caution. I therefore cite Albert Einstein, so much misrepresented..."

As for the others, Newton, Copernicus, and Mendel, their religious beliefs, are a matter of public record, however, as I have cautioned readers of history, it is not surprising that men of science would wish to appear closely affiliated with the Church during the murderous reign of terror that dealt with "heretics" in ways that are unimaginable and unspeakable.

Next you speak of "notions of atheism". What possible "notions" might these be, pray tell?

Finally, I wondered how long it would take before you or someone else would raise this classic objection: "You may have faith in your 'logig' [sic] but I certainly haven't and don't need to."

Such a confused statement, requires a mini-lecture. Therefore, I will post the above and turn to this issue in the next post. Don't go away!

 

[angellous_evangellous]

***MOD ADVISORY***

Please stay on topic and refrain from personal comments. Comments concerning staff should be dealt with by reporting posts or posting a thread in site feedback. Further personal insults will not be tolerated.

Thanks,
A_E

 

[GadFly]

What you are observing on this thread is a real acting out of the thread. Atheist who have no belief in God or other premises for logical thinking are going bananas, name calling, miss interpreting history on the forums, and identifying what they call bad boys. Bad boys are anybody that insist on using logical arguments. Is there a conflict between logic and religion? I don't think so but if logic leads you to religion, the resident atheist are offended. Even though the atheist has not worked out an epistemology, he still attacks the believer in God as though the believer is a fool.

The atheist wants to blame religious beliefs as something cooked up and illogical, yet you rarely find an atheist who basis his actions and behavior on stable premises. Atheist are free to change rules to match their behavior and call what they do as righteousness while holding everybody else to a strict code of law. We have seen this acted out on this thread. The rules of kindness applies to everybody except the law givers themselves. Well that's atheist reasoning and that type of logic does conflict with religion. Now, there is a lot of discussion in what I have said, but I see no need for rudeness, which I am sure that will be twisted and thrown back in my face vey quickly and sarcastically. But this statement carries truth and the bite of the GadFly.

 

[kellid]

Because many things in religion are not logical. If they were, you wouldn't need faith nearly as much.

But don't we all practice a kind of faith everyday? do you have faith that when you get home from work (just an example) your wife or kids or whoever will be there? or if you go to MacDonalds that they will have those fabulous fries?

 

[Father Heathen]

A hope or an expectation is not quite the same as faith in the religious sense.

 

[andys]

MoonWater!
My goodness. Another student of Logic?! Hey, I'm feeling less lonely. Now I'm wondering what we were arguing about! Sigh, I'm still replying to posts that go back two or three pages, but I just had to express my delight in your previous post which indicates you understand exactly what "Logic" is all about.

You addressed some of the most common misunderstandings held by people who are not students of Logic. Let's make a little Logic 101 list for quick reference, for anyone who may still be a bit unclear:

1) The purpose of Logic is to establish the truth of an argument by employing well established rules of Logic.

2) An "argument" consist of two or more premises and a conclusion.

3) Premises are not "logical" or "illogical" in and of themselves. They are either "true" or "false".

4) If the one or more of the premises is false, but the argument is "logical" (i.e., follows the rules of Logic), then the argument is VALID. However...

5) If all the premises are true, and the argument is "logical" (i.e., follows the rules of Logic), then the argument is TRUE.

6) Deductive vs inductive:
-A deduction is often called a "trivial truth". That is because the conclusion is deduced from the premises. For example, a basic "rule" of logic is Modus Ponens, which is expressed in the form of an argument:
Premise #1: "If P then Q"; Premise #2: "P is the case"; Conclusion: "Therefore Q."
The conclusion "Q" is not something new, it is already in the conclusion. (Descartes's "I doubt, therefore I exist" is not valid because there is only one premise and it is also forms the conclusion "I x, therefore, I y".)

-An induction is what the layman often mistakes for "logical". Inductions are the realm of science not formal logic. Sherlock Homes induced his "elementary" conclusions; he did not deduce them. For example Watson, the killer was a woman! The hole in the victim's head is from a high heel!" Notice that the conclusion is new, and is not contained within any premise.

A confusion: Formal Logic is a highly complex discipline, very similar to mathematics. It utilizes various abstract symbols (which my computer keyboard does not provide) such as the horseshoe, the wedge, the Existential Quantifier, and more. As I will attempt to make clear in a subsequent post, Logic is not subjective or personal, as has so often been suggested on this Forum (e.g., "My Logic is different than your logic").

Logic is the foundation for Critical Thinking, Rationality, Reason, which is the only objective, validated way we can way resolve issues and establish a reasonable level of certainty. Those who insist "Logic isn't for me" are throwing out the baby with the bath water.

 

[Magic Man]

But don't we all practice a kind of faith everyday? do you have faith that when you get home from work (just an example) your wife or kids or whoever will be there? or if you go to MacDonalds that they will have those fabulous fries?

That's why I threw in the "nearly as much". It's logical to assume my wife will be there when I get home, because I've experienced that thousands of times. When something is illogical, it takes a bit more faith.