|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/25/2008 4:54:08 AM
|
|
|
cognitivemagic
Posts: 208
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
About mathematics:
Kurt Godel has demonstrated that mathematics, as a "formal" system, has axioms/postulates that are not susceptible of "proof" within the system itself.
Yet, as these posts show, no one wants to say that mathematics is "illogical" or "irrational". But somehow the criterion of rational acceptability is not equitably given to theism. Why?
I think a better question to address is this:
Is belief in "logic" logical?
This question, which may seem pointless or trivial to some, actually points to a deep mystery in the knowing process; a mystery more perplexing than questions about the "rationality of belief in God". Why? Because the latter "mystery" of the "logic of belief in God" is dependent upon the more fundamental "mystery" of the former (i.e. the "logic" of logic). And also, because the question about the "logic" of logic faces the same conundrum as that of mathematics: that certain axioms/postulates are "unprovable".
But this entire approach is set within the epistemic and ontological framework of "coherentism".
So, what if we were to set about on the path of the "correspondence" theory of truth; namely, that propositional beliefs gain warrant or justification by virtue of their having some correspondence to some actual/factual states of affairs? Will this approach fair any better?
Contra the empiricist thesis (i.e. knowledge is derived solely by one or more of the 5 physical sense of the body), it doesn't seem to provide any correlation between highly abstract forms of mathematics (i.e. Discrete Math) and some observable condition of the material universe.
Also, how does a person begin to observe the material universe without already coming equipped with a cognitive apparatus by which he/she can make such observations? I found Locke and Hume's arguments unconvincing.
Suppose that we accept a Kantian approach: that there exists a formal structure of the mind by which empirical judgments are given meaning and context. In other words, while the mind has no "content" before empirical experience, yet the mind has a "form" by which empirical judgments can be had.
While I have entertained this notion, like a Stewart Hackett and a William Lane Craig, yet there is a crucial difficulty with this epistemic position (at least from the point of view of orthodox Kantianism); and that is, if the material universe did not furnish the "formal" structure of cognition, then what did? And why think that there is any rational correlation between the "formal" structure of thought and the empirical "content" of experience? And to believe or think that there is such a bridge between these two realities is itself a belief that is neither "formal" nor derived from "sensation". That would beg the entire question altogether!!
So we are left with a "pragmatic" justification of logic; namely, that logic is merely a conventional tool which we utilize for achieving some practical goal/end. This would be the approach of the anti-philosophical scientist/naturalist (embraced by those who accept "scientism", both methodologically and metaphysically).
The obvious problem with this approach is that questions of "usefulness" are irrelevant to questions about "truth". Even if something is "useful", questions about truth and falsity remain unaddressed. Lies, for instance, may be very useful; but the distinction between the "truth" and a "lie" is outside the category of pragmatics.
This is clear from the proposition itself: Lies may be very useful
The proposition is not a tautology. Lies are not identical with "useful". It's clear that the predicate is giving us more information than in contained in the subject. Surely, the statement "lies may be very useful" is unlike either of these propositions: "blue is blue", "all men and women are humans" and "all bachelors are unmarried males".
Plus, a "lie" would have to be identical with "truth", which would also have to be identical with "useful", in order to be a tautology. After all, why make a distinction between the "truth" and a "lie"? But then all statements/propositions would become meaningless, on this view.
Therefore, knowledge itself seems to lack the sort of "foundation" by which a claim of rationality can be made. So do we abandon logic altogether?
The answer would be "yes", if you accepted the sort of rigid parameters of rationality that atheists expect the theist to abide by. But, in that case, atheists are every bit as "irrational" as theists, as I hope my last several paragraphs have pointed out.
As I see it, I think the atheist is incapable of explaining how "consciousness" was jump-started from some primitive physical condition of the early earth. I refer those who are interested to read these:
Naturalism by Stewart Goetz and Charles Taliaferro (in print)
C.S. Lewis' Dangerous Idea by Victor Reppert (in print)
The Emergent Self by William Hasker (in print)
The Mind and the Brain by Jeffery Schwartz and Sharon Begley (in print)
The Evolution of the Soul (Rev. Ed.) by Richard Swinburne (in print)
Reason to Believe by Richard Purtill (out-of-print)
Miracles: A Preliminary Study by C.S. Lewis (in print)
The Elusive Self by H.D. Lewis (out-of-print)
Body and Soul by J.P. Moreland and Scott Rae (in print)
The Self and It's Brain by John Eccles and Karl Popper (reprinted, although I'm not sure if it's still available)
The Mysterious Matter of Mind by Arthur Custance (out-of-print)
Hopefully, some will get a chance to get a hold of some of these excellent books that I've found very useful in my thinking about the nature of "consciousness".
< Message edited by cognitivemagic -- 7/25/2008 5:12:16 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/25/2008 8:28:14 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
(wayward1) I think you grossly overestimate the significance of axioms, postulates and assumptions.
These aren't big assumptions that require huge leaps of faith. They are merely starting points because they cannot be derived by principles of deduction. Without a place to start, there would be no math. You're calling these very simple and obvious assumptions a reason to doubt math? A thing being "unprovable" in this sense is like saying there's no way to prove 1 equals 1, so maybe it doesn't.
What are you claiming Geometry developed that is "untrue".
If "1 equals 1" was the only thing under consideration, I would agree with your assessment. But that is not the case.
"FAILURE" is what is taught by Geometry, and if you start with "Failure" as the major premise, you will most likely get "failure" for a conclusion. It is perpetuated failure based completely on the "unproved assumption" of mathematics, that certain exercises cannot be done.
There are three straight-edge/compass constructions Geometry says cannot be done.
The first is a simple construction of a square, equal in area to the area of a given circle. It is called "squaring a circle." To say "It can't be done" violates one of its basic Postulates; #2.
"Postulate;" A statement admitted without proof, to be true."
Postulate #2: "A straight line may be produced to any required length."
The failure is based upon a contradiction, based upon an historical impossibility. It goes as follows. Approximately 440 B.C. Hippocrates of Chios articulated two of the "impossible" "straight-edge and compass" problems of Geometric construction; i.,e., squaring the circle, and doubling the volume of a cube.
In approximately 420 B.C. Hippias articulated the third "impossible" "straight-edge and compass construction" problem of ancient Geometry; i.,e., that of trisecting "any" angle.(What works for one angle should work for "any" angle.)
But, Approximately 300 B.C. Euclid published his famous "The Elements" which is the basis for the world of Geometry until this day. In his "elements" he articulates the impossibility of the three "straight-edge and compass" constructions, because "they must be done in a Euclidean plane." And Modern Geometry backs that claim.
Excuse me! EXCUSE ME? How does Euclid claim so much authority that he can effect problems articulated prior to his birth? He CANNOT. YET, modern geometry accords him that authority.
Back to the problems.
The circle cannot be squared using straight-edge and compass only, because of the unsolvable construction of the value of pi. The area of a circle equals pi X r X r or Pi.r-squared. If the radius equals 1" and Pi r-square equals 3.1415926538979323846264- to infinity, the construction is impossible because the value of pi is unresolvable.
This of course is a direct denial of Postulate #2 "A straight line may be produced to any required length."
Either it can, OR it cannot. If it can, then the problem is solved by definition. If it cannot then the problem eliminates Postulate #2 as an error.
Postulates cannot be "truth" for some and "false" for other applications.
I have completed all three "impossible" constructs, with copyright, and am told by EXPERT Geometricians, "You have done the work, but it cannot be done, because it is not done in a Eucidean plane." The "Euclidean plane" was not known when the problems were articulated, therefore were not a limiting parameter. It become an ex post facto application of standards unknown when the problems were articulated.
But the real problem is this. The problem can be done within the parameters of their articulation. But the violation of Postulate #2 remains unaddressed.
And if "Postulates and Axioms are the ASSUMPTIONS UPON WHICH THE WHOLE SCIENCE OF MATHEMATICS RESTS," and ONE Axiom or ONE Postulate is shown to be wrong, how can we continue to trust any of the assumptions that may well just be "accepted without proof" and not "true" at all?
There is a saying in the scientific world, apart from Geometry; i.e., "It is true within a mathematical certainty." There is no such thing as a "mathematical certainty."
Every time a piece of property gets sold, it has to be surveyed. The reason is the original survey is not certain. And all surveys are mathematical applications of measurements; both linear and angular; sometimes topographical too. But "certainty?" Not at all.
The survey is dependent upon the calibration of the instruments used, the ability of the surveyer to read his instruments, and the movement of the earth's surface, as well as the temperature of the day.
And there is no "certainty" to be found in ANY system of application, even the "carbon dating" system as applied to the age of ancient artifacts. That is why it is constantly "upgraded" to different and "better" systems. If there is a 'Better" developed and applied, then we must of necessity, have been using a "worser" system. And THAT gets scary when you consider some of the claims made by "science" for their "mathematical certainties."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/25/2008 8:47:21 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cognitivemagic
About mathematics:
Kurt Godel has demonstrated that mathematics, as a "formal" system, has axioms/postulates that are not susceptible of "proof" within the system itself.
Yet, as these posts show, no one wants to say that mathematics is "illogical" or "irrational". But somehow the criterion of rational acceptability is not equitably given to theism. Why?
I think a better question to address is this:
Is belief in "logic" logical?
This question, which may seem pointless or trivial to some, actually points to a deep mystery in the knowing process; a mystery more perplexing than questions about the "rationality of belief in God". Why? Because the latter "mystery" of the "logic of belief in God" is dependent upon the more fundamental "mystery" of the former (i.e. the "logic" of logic). And also, because the question about the "logic" of logic faces the same conundrum as that of mathematics: that certain axioms/postulates are "unprovable".
EXCELLENT presentation.
If one understands the "common use" definition of logic, one will wonder what you are talking aobut. But the "common use" definition ("If I understand something, it must be logical"), is not what "logic" is. Logic began, not as a mental comprehension tool, but as a debating discipline. It is mathematics, applied to a discipline, in the developement of how to properly address differences in a debate.
Major premise
Minor Premise
----------------
Therefore, (Conclusion)
The Major premise states the thing to be proved. The Minor Premise states some evidenciary support.
The conclusion is "Logically derived" by several methods all of which depend upon the properties of "logic" itself.
There is no "logical" proof for God." However, "logical" argument can be developed for demonstrating "God is."
It is a mathematical exercise, not a mental gymnastic. I appreciate very much, your post.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/25/2008 5:38:27 PM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
sounds like you folks have given it a great deal more thought than I have. I'll have to give it some more thought. Am I reading this right that someone here has done their own work, copyrighted it, and had it rejected by the geometry "community"? That's quite sincerely fascinating. I'd love to know more about it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/26/2008 8:53:45 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
sounds like you folks have given it a great deal more thought than I have. I'll have to give it some more thought. Am I reading this right that someone here has done their own work, copyrighted it, and had it rejected by the geometry "community"? That's quite sincerely fascinating. I'd love to know more about it.
One of the problems (Squaring the circle; ) is in "Euclidian Plane" and the Second (Doubling the Volume of the cube) and third (Tri-secting the angle) are three dimensional.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/26/2008 9:25:09 PM
|
|
|
cognitivemagic
Posts: 208
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Skepticism, even of science, is generally healthy.
What about being skeptical of skepticism? Or shall we be dogmatically skeptical?
quote:
If one understands the "common use" definition of logic, one will wonder what you are talking aobut. But the "common use" definition ("If I understand something, it must be logical"), is not what "logic" is. Logic began, not as a mental comprehension tool, but as a debating discipline. It is mathematics, applied to a discipline, in the developement of how to properly address differences in a debate.
Major premise
Minor Premise
----------------
Therefore, (Conclusion)
The Major premise states the thing to be proved. The Minor Premise states some evidenciary support.
The conclusion is "Logically derived" by several methods all of which depend upon the properties of "logic" itself.
There is no "logical" proof for God." However, "logical" argument can be developed for demonstrating "God is."
It is a mathematical exercise, not a mental gymnastic. I appreciate very much, your post.
Aristotle was the first thinker to formalize a "system" of logic, so perhaps it would be appropriate to take him as the exemplar of the purpose of "formal" logic.
Let me quote Frederick Copleston in this regard:
"The Aristotelian Logic is often termed "formal" logic. Inasmuch as the Logic of Aristotle is an analysis of the forms of thought (hence the term Analytic), this is an apt characterization; but it would be a very great mistake to suppose that for Aristotle logic concerns the forms of human thinking in such an exclusive way that it has no connection with external reality. He is chiefly concerned with the forms of proof, and he assumes that the conclusion of a scientific proof gives certain knowledge concerning reality. For example, in the syllogism "All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal," it is not merely that the conclusion is deduced correctly according to the formal laws of logic: Aristotle assumes that the conclusion is verified in reality. He presupposes, therefore, a realist theory of knowledge and for him, logic, though an analysis of the forms of thought, is an analysis of the thought that thinks reality, that reproduces it conceptually within itself, and, in the true judgment, makes statements about reality which are verified in the external world."
(History of Philosophy, Vol. 1: Greece and Rome)
This analysis fits much better with Aristotle's epistemic approach, which, in fact, leans more towards empiricism; although it would be unfair to classify him as a "strict" empiricist. In other words, Aristotle is not interested (as David Hume was) in making a synthetic/analytic distinction. Furthermore, Aristotle was not caught up in the web of Occam's nominalism and Enlightenment anti-metaphysics.
But my point was much deeper than "there is no logical proof for God's existence".
My point was that, given a restricted notion of "proof" of a W.K. Clifford-type, something much more puzzling emerges: namely, that you cannot "prove" anything at all.
In fact, a British theologian named Richard Whatley (1787-1863) responded to David Hume's skepticism in much the same way in his "Historic Doubts Relative to Napolean Bonaparte". His point was this: given Hume's strict definition of miracles, and his even stricter criterion for believing that one had occurred, it would be fair to say that the existence of Napolean Bonaparte is extremely doubtful!!
I propose, therefore, to abandon the notion of "proofs" as a be-all and end-all for "rationality". As I said in my previous post: there is something deeply mysterious and incomprehensible about "consciousness" (i.e. the knowing process). This is especially true for thinker who believe that "natural laws" explain everything in the material universe. Of course, the scientists and naturalists "theories" are conveniently precluded from the category of natural causation, and instead, are placed in the categories of "enlightened", "rational", "logical", "factual", "evidential", etc.; categories that are not congruent with the idea of natural causation/physical determinism.
Theism, on the other hand, at least has a category that is analogous to that of human minds, and is able to give some plausible causal/source account of human consciousness: the Divine Mind.
Now, a skeptics point could be this: that we don't really know anything at all (i.e. agnosticism). But this claim undermines itself because it is making a claim to know something: that we don't know anything.
And this is clearly non-sensical and self-contradictory.
I believe that the issue of "rationality" (in general) has to be cleared up before sweeping assertions about the "rationality" or "irrationality" of religious belief can be pontificated upon by the atheist.
In other words, the atheist is going to have to give some sort of plausible account of "rationality" and "consciousness" before he/she can begin to deconstruct religious beliefs; because all such "deconstructions" will be rooted in groundless self-assertions.
< Message edited by cognitivemagic -- 7/26/2008 9:37:48 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/26/2008 9:33:24 PM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cognitivemagic
quote:
Skepticism, even of science, is generally healthy.
What about being skeptical of skepticism? Or shall we be dogmatically skeptical?
Given the inherent imperfections in our natural ability to perceive, I'd say a small degree of skepticism should go with us to the grave. That is far from dogmatic. A dogma is a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds.
If it is repeatedly observed that humans are imperfect observers then we would have adequate grounds to put forth a tenet of "skepticism", making permanent and unwaivering skepticism absolutely not dogmatic until humans demonstrate that they can perceive perfectly accurately.
quote:
Now, a skeptics point could be this: that we don't really know anything at all (i.e. agnosticism).
Agnostics claim we can't know, which is very different from claiming we "don't know anything at all". Perhaps you were thinking of nihilists.
quote:
I believe that the issue of "rationality" (in general) has to be cleared up before sweeping assertions about the "rationality" or "irrationality" of religious belief can be pontificated upon by the atheist.
In other words, the atheist is going to have to give some sort of plausible account of "rationality" and "consciousness" before he/she can begin to deconstruct religious beliefs; because all such "deconstructions" will be rooted in groundless self-assertions.
Everything we humans do revolves around determining whose opinions deserve more respect than others. We all do it every day without thinking about it. A friend who swears it's not going to rain on a dark and cloudy morning will be disregarded in favor of carrying an umbrella. The opinion that seat belt use is good has won out over the opinion that it is bad. Even if your reductionist line of reasoning were proven valuable, and I'm inclined to think perhaps it is valuable, it would simply mean that we have to make decisions based upon what we have "good reasons" to make decisions upon.
1. There is no "good reason" to believe that "space and matter began."
2. There is no evidence for anything that is "immaterial." There is vast amount of evidence for things that are material. Therefore, based simply on the evidence, a material cause for anything that IS will be a better explanation than an immaterial or "magic" cause.
3. There is no obvious connection between complexity and an intelligent cause.
The list could go on and on and on.
< Message edited by wayward1 -- 7/26/2008 10:19:39 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/26/2008 9:40:27 PM
|
|
|
cognitivemagic
Posts: 208
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
I'm glad you see my humor.
Don't forget to take into account my edited/revised post.
I had to tap into my inner OCD child to come up with it.
;-)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/26/2008 10:14:24 PM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cognitivemagic
I'm glad you see my humor.
Don't forget to take into account my edited/revised post.
I had to tap into my inner OCD child to come up with it.
;-)
I was hoping you wouldn't be offended by that comment. I think we all perform some cognitive magic to see things the way we want to some times. I'm not immune by any stretch of the imagination.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/27/2008 10:02:25 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cognitivemagic
quote:
Skepticism, even of science, is generally healthy.
What about being skeptical of skepticism? Or shall we be dogmatically skeptical?
quote:
If one understands the "common use" definition of logic, one will wonder what you are talking aobut. But the "common use" definition ("If I understand something, it must be logical"), is not what "logic" is. Logic began, not as a mental comprehension tool, but as a debating discipline. It is mathematics, applied to a discipline, in the developement of how to properly address differences in a debate.
Major premise
Minor Premise
----------------
Therefore, (Conclusion)
The Major premise states the thing to be proved. The Minor Premise states some evidenciary support.
The conclusion is "Logically derived" by several methods all of which depend upon the properties of "logic" itself.
There is no "logical" proof for God." However, "logical" argument can be developed for demonstrating "God is."
It is a mathematical exercise, not a mental gymnastic. I appreciate very much, your post.
Aristotle was the first thinker to formalize a "system" of logic, so perhaps it would be appropriate to take him as the exemplar of the purpose of "formal" logic.
Let me quote Frederick Copleston in this regard:
"The Aristotelian Logic is often termed "formal" logic. Inasmuch as the Logic of Aristotle is an analysis of the forms of thought (hence the term Analytic), this is an apt characterization; but it would be a very great mistake to suppose that for Aristotle logic concerns the forms of human thinking in such an exclusive way that it has no connection with external reality. He is chiefly concerned with the forms of proof, and he assumes that the conclusion of a scientific proof gives certain knowledge concerning reality. For example, in the syllogism "All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal," it is not merely that the conclusion is deduced correctly according to the formal laws of logic: Aristotle assumes that the conclusion is verified in reality. He presupposes, therefore, a realist theory of knowledge and for him, logic, though an analysis of the forms of thought, is an analysis of the thought that thinks reality, that reproduces it conceptually within itself, and, in the true judgment, makes statements about reality which are verified in the external world."
(History of Philosophy, Vol. 1: Greece and Rome)
This analysis fits much better with Aristotle's epistemic approach, which, in fact, leans more towards empiricism; although it would be unfair to classify him as a "strict" empiricist. In other words, Aristotle is not interested (as David Hume was) in making a synthetic/analytic distinction. Furthermore, Aristotle was not caught up in the web of Occam's nominalism and Enlightenment anti-metaphysics.
But my point was much deeper than "there is no logical proof for God's existence".
My point was that, given a restricted notion of "proof" of a W.K. Clifford-type, something much more puzzling emerges: namely, that you cannot "prove" anything at all.
In fact, a British theologian named Richard Whatley (1787-1863) responded to David Hume's skepticism in much the same way in his "Historic Doubts Relative to Napolean Bonaparte". His point was this: given Hume's strict definition of miracles, and his even stricter criterion for believing that one had occurred, it would be fair to say that the existence of Napolean Bonaparte is extremely doubtful!!
I propose, therefore, to abandon the notion of "proofs" as a be-all and end-all for "rationality". As I said in my previous post: there is something deeply mysterious and incomprehensible about "consciousness" (i.e. the knowing process). This is especially true for thinker who believe that "natural laws" explain everything in the material universe. Of course, the scientists and naturalists "theories" are conveniently precluded from the category of natural causation, and instead, are placed in the categories of "enlightened", "rational", "logical", "factual", "evidential", etc.; categories that are not congruent with the idea of natural causation/physical determinism.
Theism, on the other hand, at least has a category that is analogous to that of human minds, and is able to give some plausible causal/source account of human consciousness: the Divine Mind.
Now, a skeptics point could be this: that we don't really know anything at all (i.e. agnosticism). But this claim undermines itself because it is making a claim to know something: that we don't know anything.
And this is clearly non-sensical and self-contradictory.
I believe that the issue of "rationality" (in general) has to be cleared up before sweeping assertions about the "rationality" or "irrationality" of religious belief can be pontificated upon by the atheist.
In other words, the atheist is going to have to give some sort of plausible account of "rationality" and "consciousness" before he/she can begin to deconstruct religious beliefs; because all such "deconstructions" will be rooted in groundless self-assertions.
I appreciate your post very much. I had not even considered the Aristotilean origins of the "logic" argument, because I had at one time been so wrapped up in the Mathematical development of "logic."
It serves as a reawakening. Thank you.
As for your examples.
If one could examine in a mirror, all that is to be seen, one could possibly define "God" from the description. But too much is "hidden" within this "image of God" to be very objective.
I like very much your "agnostic" presentaton "We know nothing at all" is an assertion that we know something; i.,e., nothing at all. VERY GOOD!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/27/2008 10:07:00 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
[QUOTE](WAYWARD1) Even if your reductionist line of reasoning were proven valuable, and I'm inclined to think perhaps it is valuable, it would simply mean that we have to make decisions based upon what we have "good reasons" to make decisions upon.
1. There is no "good reason" to believe that "space and matter began."
2. There is no evidence for anything that is "immaterial." There is vast amount of evidence for things that are material. Therefore, based simply on the evidence, a material cause for anything that IS will be a better explanation than an immaterial or "magic" cause.
3. There is no obvious connection between complexity and an intelligent cause.
The list could go on and on and on.
[/quote]
I assume, therefore I am. Sounds reasonable to me, therefore, I am more than I was.
I always did like progress.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/30/2008 5:03:40 AM
|
|
|
cognitivemagic
Posts: 208
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Given the inherent imperfections in our natural ability to perceive, I'd say a small degree of skepticism should go with us to the grave. That is far from dogmatic. A dogma is a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds.
But that's just my point: what "grounds" could a person have for skepticism?
Answer: none
And the reason for this is very obvious: skepticism is the principle by which all other beliefs must be filtered through. If you accept that a principle, other than skepticism, grounds "skepticism" itself, then how could you be said to be "skeptical" at all?
In other words, if you aren't skeptical with the beliefs that go towards "justifying" skepticism (and how could you be?), then you aren't a skeptic at all!! At the very least, you have no sustainable "groundless belief" objection to "faith".
That's what my initial rhetorical question, in this regard, was drawing attention to:
quote:
What about being skeptical of skepticism? Or shall we be dogmatically skeptical?
But observe what you said here:
quote:
Everything we humans do revolves around determining whose opinions deserve more respect than others. We all do it every day without thinking about it. A friend who swears it's not going to rain on a dark and cloudy morning will be disregarded in favor of carrying an umbrella. The opinion that seat belt use is good has won out over the opinion that it is bad. Even if your reductionist line of reasoning were proven valuable, and I'm inclined to think perhaps it is valuable, it would simply mean that we have to make decisions based upon what we have "good reasons" to make decisions upon.
Do you believe that the statement, "everything we humans do revolves around determining whose opinions deserve more respect than others", is just an opinion itself? Or did you state this as a "matter of fact"?
It looks to me like a self-contradiction, much like this: "I did not type this sentence in English" or "Everything I write is a lie".
Of course, self-contradictory statements are untrue because they are non-sense.
quote:
2. There is no evidence for anything that is "immaterial." There is vast amount of evidence for things that are material. Therefore, based simply on the evidence, a material cause for anything that IS will be a better explanation than an immaterial or "magic" cause.
Sure there is: skepticism
But you can't see it. You can't smell it. You can't hear it. You can't taste it. You can't feel it. Right?
Or is "skepticism" an object you can pour in a test tube and make observations about? Is skepticism light or heavy? Is it hot or cold to the touch? Can it escape earths gravitational force? Does it sound pleasant or shrill? Is it soft or hard? Does it taste sweet or bitter?
Answer: it's not even remotely quantifiable.
Yet, you still accept it. Why is that?
And if everything we humans do, rationally speaking, is imprisoned in a matrix of mere "opinion", then what possible point could you be making about "evidence" for the non-material? Wouldn't my argument be merely an "opinion"; an opinion that is attempting to gain the most respect? Wouldn't yours be, also?
On the one hand, you insulate yourself from criticism with the "opinion" argument. Then you go on the attack with the "evidential" argument. But you can't have it both ways.
Either everything you espouse is just an opinion; and therefore without "evidence".
or
You eschew the universality of mere opinion, in favor of some objective knowledge; knowledge grounded in some type of "evidence".
Which is it?
When I say, for instance, that the Christian God exists, I mean to say something that's true, independent of my own thoughts and feelings; much in the same way as when I say "earth exists". I'm certainly not trying to let my inner emoticon come out, just to get fresh air. I mean to make a claim that holds substance; even if, ultimately, I'm not very successful at it.
Although I disagree with many of her parenthetical points about "religion", Susan Jacoby's "The Age of American Unreason" (Pantheon 2008) has some substantial insights about post-modern intellectual erosion in America and the impact it has had on these very types of discussions. Also, Allan Bloom's "The Closing of the American Mind"....too good for words.
< Message edited by cognitivemagic -- 7/30/2008 5:41:08 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/30/2008 10:59:58 AM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cognitivemagic
But that's just my point: what "grounds" could a person have for skepticism?
Answer: none
And the reason for this is very obvious: skepticism is the principle by which all other beliefs must be filtered through. If you accept that a principle, other than skepticism, grounds "skepticism" itself, then how could you be said to be "skeptical" at all?
So you're suggesting that we can't compare ideas to reality and determine which ideas are good and which ideas are bad because no matter what we will always have the potential for flawed perception or a flawed basis for our initial doubt?
I hope you never get a doctor who ignores our ability to "compare ideas to reality" to determine whether to give you cyanide or morphine for pain. Our observed reality is that cyanide will kill you and morphine will make you feel less pain. Shall we select this opinion as a good one or a bad one? There was undoubtedly some level of skepticism that went into determining which ancient elixirs were having their intended effect and which ones were not. I'd say that is some skepticism we can all be thankful for. If someone is ever skeptical of a current treatment method they will have to provide justification for the skepticism because this opinion has been grounded in repeated observation and positive results.
quote:
In other words, if you aren't skeptical with the beliefs that go towards "justifying" skepticism (and how could you be?), then you aren't a skeptic at all!! At the very least, you have no sustainable "groundless belief" objection to "faith".
That's what my initial rhetorical question, in this regard, was drawing attention to:
Do you believe that the statement, "everything we humans do revolves around determining whose opinions deserve more respect than others", is just an opinion itself? Or did you state this as a "matter of fact"?
Well, I'm afraid that's simply silly.
It was a matter of opinion and now you are in the process of determining if my opinion deserves more respect or less respect than yours, therefore you are the embodiment of my "opinion" on this matter and a direct representation of why my opinion on this matter is correct, that we all make value judgments of each other's opinions constantly.
quote:
It looks to me like a self-contradiction, much like this: "I did not type this sentence in English" or "Everything I write is a lie".
Of course, self-contradictory statements are untrue because they are non-sense.
You have offered no grounds for considering anything I've written to be contradictory. You think you've found a slick little way to twist skepticism back on the skeptic and it is a useless and shortsighted endeavor. Skepticism being an abstract concept does not make all abstract concepts equally believable or unbelievable. No one is insisting that skepticism created the heavens and the earth.
quote:
Sure there is: skepticism
But you can't see it. You can't smell it. You can't hear it. You can't taste it. You can't feel it. Right?
Or is "skepticism" an object you can pour in a test tube and make observations about? Is skepticism light or heavy? Is it hot or cold to the touch? Can it escape earths gravitational force? Does it sound pleasant or shrill? Is it soft or hard? Does it taste sweet or bitter?
Answer: it's not even remotely quantifiable.
Yet, you still accept it. Why is that?
And if everything we humans do, rationally speaking, is imprisoned in a matrix of mere "opinion", then what possible point could you be making about "evidence" for the non-material? Wouldn't my argument be merely an "opinion"; an opinion that is attempting to gain the most respect? Wouldn't yours be, also?
Lol, yes your argument would be merely an "opinion" and so would mine. I'd be making an effort to have my opinion valued more highly than others.
quote:
On the one hand, you insulate yourself from criticism with the "opinion" argument. Then you go on the attack with the "evidential" argument. But you can't have it both ways.
Either everything you espouse is just an opinion; and therefore without "evidence".
or
You eschew the universality of mere opinion, in favor of some objective knowledge; knowledge grounded in some type of "evidence".
Which is it?
Where do you come up with this stuff? I can have it both ways. We can offer evidence to substantiate our opinions. I can require evidence of someone else to substantiate their opinion before I take it as "better than all the other opinions". I will offer evidence to substantiate my opinion just as soon as I start making claims that go against everything everyone has ever observed. Until I make that kind of claim, a supernatural thing that can be claimed without evidence can be rejected without evidence as well.
quote:
When I say, for instance, that the Christian God exists, I mean to say something that's true
I'm sure that is what you "mean" to do. You fail though. What you say is something that you believe or have faith in.
quote:
independent of my own thoughts and feelings; much in the same way as when I say "earth exists". I'm certainly not trying to let my inner emoticon come out, just to get fresh air. I mean to make a claim that holds substance; even if, ultimately, I'm not very successful at it.
You know, I absolutely love this whole thing you've just done here. In one breath you compare God to the Earth and say you mean to make a claim that has substance like "earth exists" but before that you compared God to an idea, and you placed Him on equal footing with skepticism. You are asserting that because skepticism is not a physical thing, I can't believe in that but then question someone's belief in God. But like I said, no one is making fantastic claims about the capabilities and importance of the Almighty lord skepticism. By comparing them you are openly admitting that God, too, is just an idea. Your feeling on the matter is that we can't argue against each other's opinions without embracing our own "questionable" opinions.
That's an interesting stance on the matter, but you don't really use it. No one can. You use my stance or you would be a social outcast. You make value judgments on other people's opinions on a regular basis. You are deeply engrossed in the business of "determining whose opinions are more valuable than others" right now, and you'll be doing it for the rest of the day and for the rest of your life. We do it about sports, movies, cars, religions, doctor visits (second opinions). It's just how we operate and you know it but you don't want to drop this silly "skepticism isn't real" thing because you thought you were on to something when it first occurred to you.
Sorry, but it is just more cognitive magic, but not real magic, they kind where you make something appear to be there that isn't there.
quote:
"The Closing of the American Mind"....too good for words.
the irony is tremendous
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/30/2008 12:42:13 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7212
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
I'm sure that is what you "mean" to do. You fail though. What you say is something that you believe or have faith in.
What would having faith in something have to do with whether or not it is 'true'? To have faith in something doesn't diminish the capacity for it to be true.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/30/2008 4:01:28 PM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
I'm sure that is what you "mean" to do. You fail though. What you say is something that you believe or have faith in.
What would having faith in something have to do with whether or not it is 'true'? To have faith in something doesn't diminish the capacity for it to be true.
I didn't mean to suggest that having faith in something diminished its capacity to be true, and I don't think I said any such thing. I said a believer might "mean to say something that's true" when he or she says "the Christian God exists", but all they can ever actually do is say they believe it.
It's worth noting that just like having faith in a thing doesn't make it less likely to be true, it also doesn't make it more likely to be true.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/30/2008 4:34:18 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7212
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
I didn't mean to suggest that having faith in something diminished its capacity to be true, and I don't think I said any such thing. I said a believer might "mean to say something that's true" when he or she says "the Christian God exists", but all they can ever actually do is say they believe it.
It's worth noting that just like having faith in a thing doesn't make it less likely to be true, it also doesn't make it more likely to be true.
Well, perhaps I wasn't clear here - a person can say both they believe something by faith, and that it is true.
One doesn't need to say that they can prove something is true in order to say it is true. For example, I think it is true that, "aspects of the universe can be accurately understood by applying the scientific method". Now that is a statement of faith, when which I believe to be true (as do many scientists) - it is not however provable.
Now you might rightly say that you do not believe anything to be true that is not empirically proven to your satisfaction, but that would be based on your belief that only those things which can be empirically proven can be said to be true, which is a personal standard (not to mention a somewhat contradictory one).
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/30/2008 4:49:50 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
(wayward1) There is no evidence for anything that is "immaterial." There is vast amount of evidence for things that are material.
Does that mean the wind is "material?"
_____________________________
The most profound thing I learned in scripture is -
That God, who knows me best -
Loves me anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/30/2008 5:25:15 PM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
(wayward1) There is no evidence for anything that is "immaterial." There is vast amount of evidence for things that are material.
Does that mean the wind is "material?"
Theo, my friend, please take that back. There are molecules of particular gases that make up the air. Things like Oxygen, Nitrogen, Hydrogen, etc comprise what we call "air" on a day to day basis. It is air that is moving when the wind blows and yes it is a material thing, albeit at the molecular level. There are plenty of other molecular things that exist but cannot be seen without a little technological assistance. According to wikipedia hydrogen for example is the most abundant element in the universe, making up 75% of normal matter by mass and over 90% by number of atoms.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/30/2008 5:30:31 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
(wayward1) There is no evidence for anything that is "immaterial." There is vast amount of evidence for things that are material.
Does that mean the wind is "material?"
Theo, my friend, please take that back. There are molecules of particular gases that make up the air. Things like Oxygen, Nitrogen, Hydrogen, etc comprise what we call "air" on a day to day basis. It is air that is moving when the wind blows and yes it is a material thing, albeit at the molecular level. There are plenty of other molecular things that exist but cannot be seen without a little technological assistance. According to wikipedia hydrogen for example is the most abundant element in the universe, making up 75% of normal matter by mass and over 90% by number of atoms.
I knew that. Just wondered how you describe the parameters of "material." AAAAANNnnndddd!!! kinda wondered if you considered wind as evidence. 
_____________________________
The most profound thing I learned in scripture is -
That God, who knows me best -
Loves me anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/31/2008 7:36:02 AM
|
|
|
abraxas
Posts: 198
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
What about being skeptical of skepticism? Or shall we be dogmatically skeptical?
There are all sorts of claims about all sorts of things, from God to UFOs to ghosts. No one believes all of them. Often there are conflicting claims which cannot both be true, this is observable fact. So unless a person is willing to accept any and every claim, they would probably concede that skepticism is not only healthy but necessary.
Now skepticism of skepticism, I think that would be a healthy part of skepticism, but more so in some cases than others -- however the above fact gives a lot more weight to the principle of skepticism than there is for the principle of skepticism of skepticism. Take the psychic hotline, for example. Is it a good idea to be skeptical of that kind of claim? Is it equally important, or less so, to be skeptical of one's skepticism regarding the psychic hotline?
Another claim: the repair shop calls and tells me my vacuum cleaner is ready to pick up. Should I be skeptical of their claim? In this case I would say a "dogmatic skepticism" could use a healthy dose of skepticism.
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
