Logic vs Religion

[andys]

Sunshine
You asked for clarification when I stated, "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".
You replied, "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 understand your confusion. I plead guilty to not being very clear. Please have patience for my long-winded answer. But your question is excellent and deserves a fair response.

As you know, the word "meaning" has several meanings: Some examples,
"The dark clouds mean rain."
"That gift means a lot to me."
"I mean business!"
"What do you mean by entering without knocking!"
"What does that poem mean?"

You get the idea. Anyway, I'm a stodgy stickler when debating. If you are familiar with A. J. Ayer or the movement known as "Logical Positivism", you will recall the famous mouthful called "the Verifiability Criterion of Cognitive Meaningfulness". This was a sort of Occham's Razor used for distinguishing statements that are meaningful from those which are not.

This verifiability criterion boils down to confirmability. Confirmability requires that an assertion be capable of being verifiable or falsifiable in practice, or simply in principle, by the specification of empirical evidence that would count for or against its truth or falsity. Consider this statement: "There is another Earth just like ours in the universe." This actually IS a meaningful statement because it admits of confirmation, at least in principle; future space travel could possibly confirm it. However, statements like "My God is on a deeper level than cold Logic" are not verifiable, even in principle. There is no empirical test in principle for establishing either the existence of this god, never mind his attitude toward Logic, cold or otherwise.

All statements about a god or any of his imagined attributes, thoughts, predispositions, or his favourite colour are meaningless in the context of rational discourse. They do, however offer considerable diagnostic insight into the psychological status of the mind of the person making such wildly unfounded claims.

 

[Storm]

I am most passionate about my contempt for religion and whole-heartedly invite any debate related to it.

What's the point? You've obviously made up your mind.

But you still haven't provided any support for your assertion that "evidence is the downfall of religion."

 

[Sunstone]

it takes faith to believe facts

So, is that why when I slam your toe with a sledge hammer you will understandably need to pause and gather your faith before you in fact feel any pain?

 

[andys]

Storm
You are perplexed that a person who knows something would want to discuss it with others in a debate; In your words: "What' the point? You've obviously made up your mind."

I most certainly have made up my mind about religion and the all its goofy, contradictory dogmas, scriptures, talk of angles, life after death, blah blah...whew. Making up one's mind is an inescapable result of reaching the only intelligent conclusion that is possible. Regarding religion, it should only require an average amount of intelligence and about four minutes of (rational) though to reveal the absurdity of such lunacy. I'm sure you have experience this sometime in your life. Tell me, how much intelligence and rational thought did it require on your part, to make up your mind about the existence of the Easter Bunny?

I see you're still after me to provide support for my assertion that "evidence is the downfall of religion."
I'm running out of new ways to explain this simple confusion. (I ask you to read my recent post (directly above?) in which I explain to Sunshine what I understand constitutes a meaningful statement).

Let me answer you in simple point form:
- No evidence can prove a negative proposition (even in principle) e.g., no evidence can prove the non-existence of something (from Easter Bunnies to god).
-The person claiming the existence of something (from Easter Bunnies to god) is the one who has the burden of proof (evidence). Not the innocent bystander (me).
-Religious people assert the existence of a god.
-Therefore the burden of proof is theirs, not mine.
-The claim that there are gods has persisted since before recorded history, yet they can produce NO EVIDENCE. That to me, is one of religion's most obvious downfalls.

The believer's wild claim that there is a god floating around upstairs is no different than your mother's wild claim that a cute bunny is out there with chocolate eggs. Where is the evidence?! Hello? I'm still waiting for an answer. (Foot tapping...)

 

[Storm]

Storm
You are perplexed that a person who knows something would want to discuss it with others in a debate; In your words: "What' the point? You've obviously made up your mind."

Ah, no. Contempt is not something you know.

I most certainly have made up my mind about religion and the all its goofy, contradictory dogmas, scriptures, talk of angles, life after death, blah blah...whew.

That's not all religion. My religion has no dogma. As for contradictions, I've asked severeal atheists, as a favor, to try to find flaws in my thinking. Not one has been pointed out yet.

Making up one's mind is an inescapable result of reaching the only intelligent conclusion that is possible.

And your arrogant stance that yours is the only possible intelligent conclusion is exactly what leads me to think that debate with you is pointless. You have no interest in coming to understand my side. You've already dismissed me as stupid. Why would I want to talk to you?

Regarding religion, it should only require an average amount of intelligence and about four minutes of (rational) though to reveal the absurdity of such lunacy.

By all means, reveal the absurdity of my beliefs. Oh, wait - YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THEY ARE.

I'm sure you have experience this sometime in your life. Tell me, how much intelligence and rational thought did it require on your part, to make up your mind about the existence of the Easter Bunny?

The Easter Bunny is not a valid comparison to God.

I see you're still after me to provide support for my assertion that "evidence is the downfall of religion."
I'm running out of new ways to explain this simple confusion.

It's not confusion on my part, andys. I'm calling you out, plain and simple. Either back up your assertion or withdraw it.

- No evidence can prove a negative proposition (even in principle) e.g., no evidence can prove the non-existence of something (from Easter Bunnies to god).
-The person claiming the existence of something (from Easter Bunnies to god) is the one who has the burden of proof (evidence). Not the innocent bystander (me).
-Religious people assert the existence of a god.
-Therefore the burden of proof is theirs, not mine.
-The claim that there are gods has persisted since before recorded history, yet they can produce NO EVIDENCE. That to me, is one of religion's most obvious downfall.

No, the believer does not automatically make positive claim. Positive claim is a statement of fact. An assertion. "I believe in God" is a statement of belief/ opinion not subject to the burden of proof. "God does (not) exist" is a statement of fact, and therefore subject to the BoP. It can be taken up as easily by the atheist as the believer.

I thought you claimed to have studied logic.

The believer's wild claim that there is a god floating around upstairs is no different than your mother's wild claim that a cute bunny is out there with chocolate eggs.

Yes, it is.

Where is the evidence?! Hello? I'm still waiting for an answer. (Foot tapping...)

There is no compelling evidence, for either side. What (very weak) evidence there is points to God. What is it? Personal experience. Should that convince you? No, of course not, if it isn't yours. But it should give you pause before you go dismissing 90% of the species as irrational idiots.

 

[yossarian22]

No, of course not, if it isn't yours. But it should give you pause before you go dismissing 90% of the species as irrational idiots.

The sad thing is, 90% of our species probably are irrational idiots.

 

[Dunemeister]

You get the idea. Anyway, I'm a stodgy stickler when debating. If you are familiar with A. J. Ayer or the movement known as "Logical Positivism", you will recall the famous mouthful called "the Verifiability Criterion of Cognitive Meaningfulness". This was a sort of Occham's Razor used for distinguishing statements that are meaningful from those which are not.

According to verificationism, a statement is true only if its content is verifiable somehow. This principle leaves no room for anything other than verifiable empirical observations of the natural world (and maxims of logic). This has serious consequences for moral philosophy. Moral statements are not easily verifiable, so moral judgments are neither true nor false, but they are meaningless. But that seems just plain wrong. It is not meaningless to say "Rape is evil." Ayer and the gang have been forced to say that moral talk is merely the evincing of opinion or feeling. So "Rape is evil" means merely "Boo for rape," and "Love is good" means "Yay for love." Nothing more. But that seems counterintuitive to me. At the very least, it's highly controversial, and most philosophers, as I've said, have rejected it. Boo for verificationism!

A more significant problem is that verificationism is unverifiable. It certainly isn't so obvious as simple arithmetical or logical statements. And there are no ways we can go about determining its truth. So verificationism fails to meet its own standard. In other words, it's self-refuting. So I'd seek elsewhere for a criterion of truth (if such a beastie even exists).

 

[Dunemeister]

The sad thing is, 90% of our species probably are irrational idiots.

Ah, well thank goodness for those 10% of us who are enlightened. :bow:

 

[Dunemeister]

-The claim that there are gods has persisted since before recorded history, yet they can produce NO EVIDENCE. That to me, is one of religion's most obvious downfall.

Not true. Believers often adduce evidence. You just find it unconvincing. But that's not the same as saying there is no evidence.

 

[Reverend Rick]

The believer's wild claim that there is a god floating around upstairs is no different than your mother's wild claim that a cute bunny is out there with chocolate eggs. Where is the evidence?!

Ahhh, but there is a big difference. I realize that experiences that other people have and their testimonies carry very little weight until you open your eyes and see how many folks have had these experiences.

No churches are built in honor of the Easter bunny.

When you realise that intelligent people, leaders of countries, business owners, community leaders gather together every week to worship together in church, not only now but for generations.

This is not a fad, or a folly. Why would so many folks give 10% of their income and spend so much time worshiping generation after generation if no one ever felt anything?

The holy ghost is real and you can feel the spirit within you. Next time you drive down the road, check out all the churches. You know, the big buildings you see everywhere. Why would so many be built if no one ever felt anything?

Do Atheists spend time together in fellowship? Why not? Why not build Atheist churches? I will tell you why. Because you are not inspired to.

Religion is too large and too old, not to be all about something. This spans generations around the world.

There has to be something to it, unless you think the majority of the world is idiots and you are the only sane people on the planet. If Atheism was the obvious choice as you make it out to be, there would be more followers.

 

[GadFly]

Not true. Believers often adduce evidence. You just find it unconvincing. But that's not the same as saying there is no evidence.

Really a great statement. There is more truth in your statement than one realizes. Young philosophers make this mistake often and think there is evidence for their own beliefs because they can not find evidence for other people's beliefs. If other people are incorrect does not mean you are correct.

I guess we are talking to Andy. What you seem to base your theory of no God on Andy, is some form of logical positivism which attempts to leave all aspects of the noumena world out of the logical process. But the logical positivism fad did not last past the 1930's.

But Kant's theory of knowledge strongly lives on because logical positivism could not fill the gaps in logic that the noumena world of Emmanuel Kant and other rationalist did. Serious philosophers have abandon your argument. I leave it to you to read the criticism of your argument on Google.

Your argument of no pie in the sky God seems to be based on an emotional response and not logic or philosophy at all. I suggest, if you really believed what you indicate with your very emotional discussion with Storm, that there would be far less anger and hostility expressed towards religious people. If you want someone to challenge your beliefs, so you can show them their errors, you are going to have to demonstrate your logical positivism claims: take emotions out of the evidence factor.That is the only way you will be able to argue your point. Now, the rest of us will be permitted to shout out our revelations and universal knowledge of the eternal for we believe in the spiritual world. That is not to say we all mean the same thing when we say spiritual world but we have many more avenues to follow to demonstrate their is a God in the sky, who may or may not eat pie. One more thing, which may or may not relate, if everybody in the world was crazy (90%) but you, who do you think they would lock up?
the GadFly

 

[GadFly]

Andy's statement to Sunshine:
You asked for clarification when I stated, "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".
You replied, "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 understand your confusion. I plead guilty to not being very clear. Please have patience for my long-winded answer. But your question is excellent and deserves a fair response.

As you know, the word "meaning" has several meanings: Some examples,
"The dark clouds mean rain."
"That gift means a lot to me."
"I mean business!"
"What do you mean by entering without knocking!"
"What does that poem mean?"

You get the idea. Anyway, I'm a stodgy stickler when debating. If you are familiar with A. J. Ayer or the movement known as "Logical Positivism", you will recall the famous mouthful called "the Verifiability Criterion of Cognitive Meaningfulness". This was a sort of Occham's Razor used for distinguishing statements that are meaningful from those which are not.

This verifiability criterion boils down to confirmability. Confirmability requires that an assertion be capable of being verifiable or falsifiable in practice, or simply in principle, by the specification of empirical evidence that would count for or against its truth or falsity. Consider this statement: "There is another Earth just like ours in the universe." This actually IS a meaningful statement because it admits of confirmation, at least in principle; future space travel could possibly confirm it. However, statements like "My God is on a deeper level than cold Logic" are not verifiable, even in principle. There is no empirical test in principle for establishing either the existence of this god, never mind his attitude toward Logic, cold or otherwise.


All statements about a god or any of his imagined attributes, thoughts, predispositions, or his favourite colour are meaningless in the context of rational discourse. They do, however offer considerable diagnostic insight into the psychological status of the mind of the person making such wildly unfounded claims.

Andy, why does what you just wrote sounds so much like what I read out of pieces I just read on
Google? Are you just learning this argument or have you known of it for a long time?
Be sure to read the criticism of logical positivism. That way you will not get broadsided. There are reasons that logical positivism is not a popular theory today.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

So, the absence of evidence is the downfall of religion? I'm going to post here what I posted in another thread.

Properly speaking, "Ultimate Reality" is not a concept, for “concept” implies something that that can be known by discursive knowledge, a separation. Ultimate Reality which necessarily includes the observer and cannot be known through such a process any more than an eye can see itself. Just as the eye is "seen" by its seeing, Ultimate Reality is known only through the experiencing of its presence through contemplation.

Atheism denies such a presence; secularism ignores it or presumes to take its place. Both are victims of the ancient Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times"; both demand objective or empirical evidence before considering the Divine worthy of their attention. Neither understand that faith is the remembrance of a knowledge—a knowingness—deeply imbedded in our being drawing its reason from life rather than from abstractions and physical sensation.

You can't find the evidence if you don't look, and even then, you need tools adequate to the task. You need practice. You can't run a marathon after sitting on a couch for ten years eating chips and drinking beer.

 

[texan1]

I'm impressed by a lot of these postings! I had no idea that defining "logic" was such a complicated affair. I think I'm learning something here....might have to print this thread out

 

[andys]

Storm
You raise an excellent question: "And your arrogant stance that yours is the only possible intelligent conclusion is exactly what leads me to think that debate with you is pointless. You have no interest in coming to understand my side. You've already dismissed me as stupid. Why would I want to talk to you?"


Debate with me is far from pointless (providing you're not stupid, and I did not assert you were); it can only be fruitful. Most atheists have little inclination or patience to debate Religion. Others, like the scientist who puts aside his microscope to debate with Creationists, feels obliged to expose the erroneous objections they construe. I used to only shake my head as I observed the flock entering their church in defiance of the Sermon on the Mount in which their Jesus clearly admonishes public prayer; or the evangelist bellowing his propaganda only to convert the beguiled viewers' donations into cash.

With each day that passes, I observe the poison of religion at work. You call me arrogant. I am very arrogant. But I pale by comparison next to the Grand Inquisitor or suicide bomber whose disregard for human life exceeds petty arrogance. Religious atrocities are nothing new. As long as there is religion there will be large scale slaughter and butchery conducted proudly in its name. But now the advance of terrorism is upon our doorstep, and with it the possibility of nuclear war. More insidious is the covert infiltration of Creationism into our public education system, and the right-wing agenda to abolish the Separation of Church and State.

So I no longer shake my head. Now I want to shake yours. (Figuratively, of course!)

Let's begin with your most recent comment: "Positive claim is a statement of fact. An assertion. 'I believe in God' is a statement of belief/opinion not subject to the burden of proof....I thought you claimed to have studied logic".

Yes, I have studied Logic. You may want to study it also, starting with the fallacy of the "Straw Man". This fallacy occurs when one misconstrues the opponent's argument then proceeds to 'refute' it. You (deliberately?) misconstrued my assertion, which I shall cut and paste:
"-The person claiming the existence of something (from Easter Bunnies to god) is the one who has the burden of proof (evidence)."

Your statement "I believe in God" is (I agree) not (strictly speaking) an assertion tantamount to "God does exist". What I am clearly referring to is a person claiming outright "the existence of something" not someone telling us about his personal beliefs, which has no place in a debate. The assertion "God does exist" is indeed a positive assertion and is not at all the same as your whittled down statement "I believe in God", which at best only asserts the existence of an internal state of mind rather than an external being. Nice try.

As for your incoherent remark,
"God does (not) exist" is a statement of fact, and therefore subject to the BoP. It can be taken up as easily by the atheist as the believer"
I simply have no idea what this means.

I suppose that a response from you will indicate that you no longer feel that debate with me is pointless. I thank you in advance for your reply.

 

[Storm]

andys,

First off, the only reason I'm wasting time on you is because I am incredibly bored. You still haven't given me any reason to think a debate with you would be constructive.

Secondly, if you think I'm constructing a strawman, you obviously don't understand what that is, either. I am not changing your argument, I am rejecting it.

Belief in God is not positive claim, any more than disbelief is (nor any less). Positive claim is a statement of fact. "God is imaginary" is positive claim. "The Bible is God's Word" is positive claim. "I believe in God" is not positive cliam, and all your protestations to the contrary cannot change that.

 

[andys]

Dunemeister
I understand your points regarding A. J. Ayer's strict application of verifiability. Much debate resulted after publication of his book "Language, Truth, and Logic" (written in his twenties. I still have my copy). As you correctly observe, Ayer faced the objection that his verifiability criterion could not confirm the meaningfulness of itself. However, there is a very dangerous problem with this type of objection. Once we allow that a system can be used on itself to confirm or refute itself, we stand to lose everything, and are forced into a spiraling solipsism, from which even Descartes could not escape. Can Logic confirm Logic? Can Mathematics confirm Mathematics? Can Science confirm Science? Can I confirm my own existence?

This problem has been compared to the child who keeps asking "Why?" until there are no more answers. It is an amusing philosophical issue and one that I was preoccupied with at one time.

Ah, morality. Many years ago I was proud to be an Emotivist—the result of my embracing all that Ayer, C.L. Stevenson, and the Vienna Circle espoused. Fortunately, the audacity of youth prompted me to challenge the opposing views of a senior Harvard Professor, the late Peter Glassen, by taking his "Moral Theory" class. One year later I was cleansed of all my naive notions!
I will not even attempt to articulate all that I learned, but I can assure you that Ayer's Emotivism is dead wrong and that there truly is a "right" and a "wrong"; there are indeed "human rights", and these three concepts logically entail "justice". Moral statements are most certainly verifiable and preclude the irrelevance of a supernatural court of appeal. Indeed, as I have argued elsewhere on this Forum, the concepts of "right" and "wrong" are inconsistent with the concept of "sin" which is based solely on the fleeting demands of a troubled god, rather than on implacable rules and principles that are impartial and reasonable.

 

[Orontes]

Context and inference are distinct from a premise or a single statement. A premise is simply its verbiage/symbology and nothing more. To assign some larger context or inference is to err by interjecting the sentiment of the subject. To illustrate:

"A then B" contains no context or inference. It is simply the assertion. The same applies to "Jesus walked on water" or "Martians like disco". These statements may or may not be true, but logic is not concerned with truth. Logic is concerned with the validity of arguments. Validity has been explained. Argument entails premises and a conclusion, not simply a part thereof. Therefore, were one to object that the statement "Martians like disco" is illogical because Martians are actually mad for Wagner and have nothing to do with 20th Century musical norms or that the statement is illogical because Martians don't exist, the fellow has misunderstood the meaning of logic.

Regarding definitions: dictionaries are rarely the best tool for understanding concepts as they sacrifice rigor for brevity and succinctness. This definition: "1.according to or agreeing with the principles of logic: a logical inference" has little value as the meaning turns on understanding the principles of logic. The principles of logic are not reducible to single statements.

Note: logical inference refers to induction (a type of logic concerned with probability). This again is dependent on argument, not single statements or premises.

What is your opinion that rules of logic are discovered rather than learned? Your explanation of logic was very learned. I might have a few more question for you that I think can be explained logically, which I may have some learning gaps in these topics.One's logic needs to be checked out by persons who do not have a stake in the process of what is appropriate logic.

Hello,

There are a couple ways I could understand 'learned'. I think you mean learned as a techne and thereby a construct. If I've misunderstood, let me know.

Short answer: logic is a construct.

Longer answer: 'Discovered' I take as similar to when Columbus bumped into San Salvador and 'learned' I take as made, as in building the Great Wall of China. If we consider the discovered option the following comes to the fore. To discover a thing suggests that thing preexisting the discoverer.* Logic, different from San Salvador, is a concept: an idea. Therefore, if one opts for logic preexisting its discoverer, the questions is how does a concept preexist its conception? The issue quickly moves into a apparent fallacy of reification (whereby one errs in assuming an idea has ontic standing). This brings up a host of metaphysical and epistemic problems.

The alternative is to understand logic as something made. If one looks at the history of logic a clear intellectual pedigree is evident. From modern logicians, to Turing, to Frege, to Leibniz, to Aristotle's formalizations, back to Parmenides who made the critical break with Pythagorean mystical and numerological understanding. From this approach one can see the development of an idea, how it changed, who made the change(s) and the product of the same. This approach also allows one to compare/contrast (and thus understand) the development of logic with other intellectual systems that moved in other directions. It seems understanding logic as a construct is the clearer and less problematic coarse.

*Of course, one can discover a thing made as in Marco Polo coming to the Great Wall, but if we keep things in their ultimate sense, then a construct, by definition, must have been made by someone.

 

[andys]

Storm
Nice to hear from you again.
Now, you and I are in perfect agreement, yet you don't realize it. What part of my reply don't you understand?
I clearly, very clearly, agreed with you that statements like "I believe in god" ARE NOT epistemological assertions proclaiming the existence of a god. They are "confessions of the soul", if you will. So we are both in agreement here.

Next, we both agree that statements like "God exists" ARE epistemological assertions that do proclaim the existence of a god.

We are "on the same page". Right?

 

[Storm]

Then you acknowledge that I do not bear the BoP regarding my belief in God?