Fourteen rants about religious argumentation - Page 3

[mamabadger]

Originally Posted by Trillian

There is also more to the concept of "validity" when it comes to religion than just the question of whether it is "true" or not. For example, does it provide a measurable benefit to the people who practice it? To society as a whole?

That would suggest that it is good for a society to believe a lie if believing the lie offers more tangible benefits of some kind than believing the truth. I would take it as axiomatic that it is always better to know the truth than to be deceived. I suppose that is part of my world view: that truth is an absolute good; that finding the truth is the entire point of any religion, and without truth a religion has no value, no matter how many lesser benefits the false belief might provide.

[sunnmama]

Originally Posted by mamabadger

I suppose that is part of my world view: that truth is an absolute good; that finding the truth is the entire point of any religion, and without truth a religion has no value, no matter how many lesser benefits the false belief might provide.

I have a very different world view, or at least a very different view of religion. My religion does involve a search for truth, but not a belief that we (or any other religion) hold the truth.

I absolutely believe that a religion can have great value without truth. I put great value in community, tradition, comfort, and joy. I don't consider those "lesser benefits" of religion; I consider those the greatest parts of religion. That is why I can very honestly respect religions that are different from my own.

[sunnmama]

I've been thinking about logic as it applies to religion, and the apologetic approach. I find it very interesting (in the same way that I find general religious study very interesting), but I find it, for lack of a better word, [I]tricky[I]. It is a defense, after all, and it does, to me, come across as an aggressive defense attorney--it is just really unappealing. I wonder if that is why the op, and other apologetics, are often so frustrated? People's personal experience with and understanding of religion is usually positive and uplifting, while the apologetic approach feels (to me) cold and defensive in comparison.

Anyway, I am interested and have been doing some reading (online and got some library books). But, here is the thing: in the course of my reading online, I am finding that I would need to understand quantum mechanics to fully understand logic. And then I wonder....once we fully understand quantum mechanics, will there be some other unknown before we fully understand the logic of the universe? It feels arrogant (to me) for humans to be sure that we accurately understand Universal Law.

[holyhelianthus]

Originally Posted by Smokering

That's the commonly-accepted definition, yeah. (Actually, being (as previously mentioned) nasty and maladjusted, it kinda peeves me when people refer to events such as the birth of a baby or rainbows or pwetty fwowers as miracles, because technically they're not. Amazing, awe-inspiring, cool--sure; miracles--no).

Taking into account what happens in our bodies to conceive a child and how often it goes awry it is very much a miracle. Any given thing can jump in and intervene in the completion of such a fragile process. Sometimes with no explanation it just doesn't work- other times it does.

[lilyka]

I don't expect there to be a logical explination for everything I believe. However if one is going to argue using logic they need to argue logically.

and I have to be the ony person who thinks #6 was the best part. but then I think "respect" is such a vague term and people use it as an exscape hatch. I would rather someone tell me they think I am am a nut and completely wrong. Or they can tell me they disagree but don't really care what I believe. I don't need their "respect" whatever that means (although I do prefer they not throw rocks at my head). but i do appreciate when they are honest about disagreeing with me and that i need not bother to argue my point any more.

[Smokering]

I've been thinking about logic as it applies to religion, and the apologetic approach. I find it very interesting (in the same way that I find general religious study very interesting), but I find it, for lack of a better word, [i]tricky[i]. It is a defense, after all, and it does, to me, come across as an aggressive defense attorney--it is just really unappealing. I wonder if that is why the op, and other apologetics, are often so frustrated? People's personal experience with and understanding of religion is usually positive and uplifting, while the apologetic approach feels (to me) cold and defensive in comparison.

See points 9 and 10. Yes, apologetics can be harsh (although I suspect people consider them harsh just because they relate to the metaphysical; it wouldn't be considered 'cold' or 'aggressive' to state that someone's logic was wrong as it applied to mathematics or law, which is basically Point 11). But if it's right, what does it matter if it's harsh? From the perspective of the arguee, at least. I think it is the moral obligation of the arguer to not be deliberately obnoxious or rude; but it is the intellectual obligation of the arguee to consider the arguments as arguments, and not simply reject them on the grounds of disliking the presentation. One convicts a criminal based on evidence and law, after all, not because one thinks his lawyer is smarmy or that the criminal himself has shifty eyes.

Anyway, I am interested and have been doing some reading (online and got some library books). But, here is the thing: in the course of my reading online, I am finding that I would need to understand quantum mechanics to fully understand logic. And then I wonder....once we fully understand quantum mechanics, will there be some other unknown before we fully understand the logic of the universe? It feels arrogant (to me) for humans to be sure that we accurately understand Universal Law.

I'm not familiar with quantum mechanics (and that's the understatement of the year!), but why should one have to be familiar with them in order to understand at least basic logic? For example, by the law of definition it is possible to state, absolutely, 'all bachelors are unmarried men'. It would be nonsensical for this to be untrue--the definition of a bachelor is an unmarried man. Similarly, the truth of the law of non-contradiction can be shown by the impossibility of the contrary. So it seems that at least the basic logical laws can be understood fairly simply (indeed, they are so axiomatic to pretty much every worldview that they tend to go unquestioned--we don't look at the word 'cat' and wonder if it means 'cat' or 'not-cat', we just assume it means 'cat').

[sunnmama]

Well, I read this, which is supposed to demonstrate that the atheist is a fool....but, frankly, the apologist sounds foolish to me in that dialog. and also a bit like a tricky defense atty, lol

nak

that said, i explored some more, and other apologists knowlegable in qm believe it strengthens their argument.

regardless, qm seems to be a factor...but not one i understand.

[lolalola]

Originally Posted by sunnmama

Well, I read this, which is supposed to demonstrate that the atheist is a fool....but, frankly, the apologist sounds foolish to me in that dialog. and also a bit like a tricky defense atty, lol

nak

that said, i explored some more, and other apologists knowlegable in qm believe it strengthens their argument.

regardless, qm seems to be a factor...but not one i understand.

I agree. I read the the discussion, and got lost when the apologist settled for double think. It seems illogical to me, to deny an obvious truth.

[lolalola]

Originally Posted by Smokering

--we don't look at the word 'cat' and wonder if it means 'cat' or 'not-cat', we just assume it means 'cat').

Sure, but this is just language. If we look at a picture of a cat...is it really a cat? Or, is it a representation of a cat?

[zinemama]

Interesting discussion! I like your rant, Smokering.

Am I wrong, or are you saying that your religion can be proved true using logic?

[Smokering]

Grrr, MDC ate my post. Take 2:

Well, I read this, which is supposed to demonstrate that the atheist is a fool....but, frankly, the apologist sounds foolish to me in that dialog. and also a bit like a tricky defense atty, lol

Remember Point 9. Where do you think his logic was in error? It sounds to me like he was simply saying logic must be axiomatic in order to avoid absurdity; therefore, if any scientific data (quantum mechanics) appears to refute logic, we must be missing something. Which makes perfect sense to me. All data is interpreted according to presuppositions; if you start with the necessary presupposition to logic is absolute, any evidence will be interpreted according to that view (even if it means saying 'For now, we have no idea how this works!').

But as I say, this is not my area. If you give me a specific example of some Qm data which appears to refute a specific logical law, I could try to find someone to answer it for you; but no guarantees.

Am I wrong, or are you saying that your religion can be proved true using logic?

Kinda sorta maybe not really dunno. It's very, very hard to prove anything is true using logic (the obvious exception being logical laws themselves, which must be true in order to avoid absurdity). Christian philosophers often distinguish 'warrant', meaning 'logical and likely' from 'justification' in the technical sense.

What one can do is examine the first principles of any worldview (not necessarily religious--it could be Marxist or feminist or humanist) for internal consistency and the complexity required to derive a metaphysic and specifically, epistemology from that first principle.

For a Captain Dummy Talk example: Say the first principle of your worldview, Tomatoism, is 'Only tomatoes possess knowledge'. For internal consistency, one would check this worldview against itself. 'Am I a tomato? No. Then can I know that only tomatoes possess knowledge? No'. The worldview contradicts itself; it's rubbish.

Or, one could try to determine a metaphysic (theory of how stuff is) and epistemology (subset of metaphysics: theory of knowledge) from the first principle. 'Only tomatoes possess knowledge'--hmm. That doesn't tell us much about the world. It doesn't explain anything about love, evil, time, chance, birth, death, wood, fettucine, photosynthesis, or even where tomatoes come from. It's not complete enough to be the basis for an entire worldview. Now, Tomatoists might protest that they have a code of ethics, a strong commitment to permaculture and a really good theory about where socks go in the wash--but those things were not derived from the Tomatoist first principle. They were borrowed from other worldviews. So a good first principle needs to be fairly complete. (F'rinstance, if a materialist says he is ethical, he must prove that his ethics can logically be derived from the materialist first principle, not borrowed from, say, Buddhism--otherwise he's not really a materialist, but a materialist-Buddhist, which is kinda contradictory).

So first principles can be compared--incidentally, you'd be surprised how many worldviews fail those very basic tests. Any surviving worldviews can be pitted against each other to see how they answer certain philosophical questions (for example, the problem of unity and plurality).

I believe Christianity to be the most logical and complete worldview there is, and many of its major contenders to be seriously flawed. Obviously I haven't debated indepth Christianity against every other real or putative worldview in the 'verse, but that's my findings so far. I will add to that that I believe any valid contender would have to have some specific, suspicious similarities to Christianity, and as I know no existing religion which has those, it would likely be a case of special pleading.

So, does that answer your question? I should add that I do not believe anyone can be converted through logic. The Bible is clear that the Holy Spirit is necessary for conversion, not mere intellectual assent to a set of propositions. My husband was converted to Christianity from diehard atheism largely due to presuppositional arguments, but he's very clear that God saved him, not the Argument from Reason or any of its relations.

Sure, but this is just language. If we look at a picture of a cat...is it really a cat? Or, is it a representation of a cat?

Um, it's a representation of a cat.

[zinemama]

Originally Posted by Smokering

I believe Christianity to be the most logical and complete worldview there is,

This is a very intriguing statement. (I've never considered there to be any need for a religion to be grounded in logic at all.) Would you mind doing a Logic of Christianity for Dummies explanation?

[sunnmama]

Originally Posted by Smokering

Remember Point 9. Where do you think his logic was in error? It sounds to me like he was simply saying logic must be axiomatic in order to avoid absurdity; therefore, if any scientific data (quantum mechanics) appears to refute logic, we must be missing something. Which makes perfect sense to me. All data is interpreted according to presuppositions; if you start with the necessary presupposition to logic is absolute, any evidence will be interpreted according to that view (even if it means saying 'For now, we have no idea how this works!').

Well, I think that saying "For now, we have no idea how this works!" is extremely significant. The apologist is using logic to prove what must be true about a god, but the atheist is bringing up examples that, at least on the surface, seem to contradict what the apologist deems must be true. Your conclusion is that we are missing something--which makes sense to me. I'm sure we are missing a whole lot. But, if "simple" qm (simple relative to the god issue) presents realities that, on the surface, appear to be logically impossible.....why couldn't theologies that appear to be logically impossible also be true? What if we just have no idea how it works? What if we are missing something very significant?

[sunnmama]

Originally Posted by Smokering

See points 9 and 10. Yes, apologetics can be harsh (although I suspect people consider them harsh just because they relate to the metaphysical; it wouldn't be considered 'cold' or 'aggressive' to state that someone's logic was wrong as it applied to mathematics or law, which is basically Point 11). But if it's right, what does it matter if it's harsh?

I wanted to come back to this point. I think the reality is that most people won't stick around to find out if it is right or wrong, because it is so unappealing. Also, ime, it is not very convincingly right or wrong with just a cursory examination....the first batch of answers just lead to a whole lot more questions, kwim? But, while the journey is intellectually stimulating, it isn't spiritually uplifting....so the conversation is appealing to all the wrong people (people interested in examining faith at arm's length, for academic interest), and unappealing to all the right people (people interested in deeping their own understanding of their faith, and applying it to their lives).

This is just my armchair psych theory about why argumentation with the faithful frustrates you so much (as per your op).

[Faliciagayle]

Is anyone else reminded of:

Vezzini: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine it from what I know of you. Are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you...But you must have known I was not a great fool; you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

Man in black: You've made your decision then?

Vezzini: [happily] Not remotely! Because Iocaine comes from Australia. As everyone knows, Australia is entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me. So, I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.

Man in black: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Vezzini: Wait 'till I get going!! ...where was I?

Man in black: Australia.

[Tuesday]

[QUOTE=sunnmama;11520406]I have a very different world view, or at least a very different view of religion. My religion does involve a search for truth, but not a belief that we (or any other religion) hold the truth.

I absolutely believe that a religion can have great value without truth. I put great value in community, tradition, comfort, and joy. I don't consider those "lesser benefits" of religion; I consider those the greatest parts of religion. That is why I can very honestly respect religions that are different from my own.[/QUOTE]

That's exactly how I feel.

I think people approach the world in various ways. I'm reminded of the MyersBriggs 8 personality types.

In any case, although I complete respect and appreciate the desire to engage in intellectual debate about religion, truth, etc, for me, my thoughts are like Sunnmama's. In the end, nothing is completely verifiable. In fact that is, to me, the essence of faith.

[Thao]

Originally Posted by sunnmama

Well, I think that saying "For now, we have no idea how this works!" is extremely significant. The apologist is using logic to prove what must be true about a god, but the atheist is bringing up examples that, at least on the surface, seem to contradict what the apologist deems must be true. Your conclusion is that we are missing something--which makes sense to me. I'm sure we are missing a whole lot. But, if "simple" qm (simple relative to the god issue) presents realities that, on the surface, appear to be logically impossible.....why couldn't theologies that appear to be logically impossible also be true? What if we just have no idea how it works? What if we are missing something very significant?

I pretty much agree with everything sunmama has said, especially this. I do know something about quantum mechanics, just from reading books. An example of how qm appears to contradict logic is the well-proven fact that light sometimes acts like a particle and sometimes like a wave, depending on the experiment. Logically it cannot be both a particle and a wave, because those are two mutually exclusive entities, like saying you are both a human and a tomato. But scientists can't figure out what it is because in one experiment it is a particle and in another it's a wave.

Before these experiments, scientists would have said that light HAS to be either a particle or a wave, just as the apologist in sunmama's link says that if there are only two options and one is not true then the other must be true. But the empirical evidence disproves this. Either there has to be a third option, something that is neither a particle nor a wave but has qualities of both, or it is possible for one thing to be both particle and wave.

I don't believe that any religion can be proved by logic. Even first principles are based on unprovable presuppositions and must be taken on faith. For example, the statement "only tomatos have knowledge" presupposes that a tomato is a red, juicy fruit. However if you look at it from a qm perspective, a tomato is a collection of particles whizzing around in vast space (or maybe strings vibrating and interacting in a vast space) that have certain properties which at our level of perception make it appear to be a red, juicy fruit. If we were smaller than atoms and someone told us a tomato was a red juicy fruit we would look around us at the whizzing particle or vibrating strings and say they're crazy.

I think -- although I'm not sure about this as I know much less about logic than I do qm -- that ultimately logic is probably as grounded in our perceptions as everything else is. It makes perfect sense to us that a person cannot be a tomato because we look around us and see that people and tomatos are distinct entities. Thus we derive a logical rule that says that a thing cannot be another thing at the same time. At the qm level, the rules are totally different. Categories like people and tomatoes can't even be perceived at that level.

For me, I don't have a problem with a religion having a set of axioms that appear illogical. I do have a problem with it being internally inconsistent. Any religion that is consistent with it's first principles and the principles logically derived from that, I can respect. I cannot respect a religion that is not consistent with its own first principles.

So I agree with Smokering that illogical inconsistencies within a religion drive me crazy. But I do not think that we can prove or disprove the first principles with logic. Because there is always the possibility that the first principle simply sounds illogical but there is more to the story than you know.

Smokering, I am another person who would be interested in some discussion about why you think Christianity offers the most logical worldview. Just so you know my bias, since I approach it from more a scientific perspective, I gravitate towards Buddhism. They understood the essence of quantum mechanics 4,000 years ago when Buddha said that everything is a collection of constantly changing "conditions" rather than being objectively real as we perceive them.

[sunnmama]

Originally Posted by Smokering

2. If you agree with the premises and there is no flaw in the reasoning, you have to agree with the conclusion. You cannot say 'I agree that all men are mortal, and that Socrates was a man, but I just can't bring myself to agree that he was mortal'. .

Can you tell I've been thinking about this a lot

What about it you believe that God, "personally", revealed to you otherwise. Are allowances made, within the apologetic approach, for person communication with, and revelation from, God? What if it is illogical?

I was raised with a bible-studying Christian background, and my mother modeled praying for clarity. She would read the Bible, with her Concordance at her elbow, and she would attend Bible studies and listen to tapes of sermons-past in our home. But in the end, she looked to God, personally, for the meaning of the words in the Bible. I think she would be another person who would frustrate you greatly with her theology, but that at least explains her reasoning.

Oh, and your example above is actually interesting because, of course, Jesus was a man, and Jesus was not exactly mortal. What am I missing there?

[Smokering]

Oh, and your example above is actually interesting because, of course, Jesus was a man, and Jesus was not exactly mortal. What am I missing there?

That's simply a case of disagreeing with Premise 1, 'All men are mortal'. Remember, I said if you agree with the premises...

What about it you believe that God, "personally", revealed to you otherwise. Are allowances made, within the apologetic approach, for person communication with, and revelation from, God? What if it is illogical?

That would depend on the theological system. Within (some) Christian circles, personal revelation which reveals additional information about God is said to have ceased (cf the warning about 'adding to this book' in Revelation). So God could tell someone something which was new to them, or which caused them to understand something in the Bible in a different way; but He could not reveal anything that would contradict the Bible (say, that God was really a tomato), or anything that was illogical, as God cannot be illogical. Logic stems from His nature, and He can no more deny it than He could deny His own holiness or love or wrath.

So I have absolutely no problem with your mother praying for clarity, as long as she examined her conclusions in the light of Scripture and logic. Which it sounds like she did, given that she kept a concordance on hand and listened to sermons and so on. Bible study with prayer is a very different thing from saying 'The Lord came to me this morning as I was shaving and told me that from now on, we should eat nothing but tomatoes'. Does that make sense?

An example of how qm appears to contradict logic is the well-proven fact that light sometimes acts like a particle and sometimes like a wave, depending on the experiment.

That doesn't necessarily violate the law of non-contradiction, which only says a thing cannot be A and not-A at the same time and in the same sense. Again I stress that I'm not familiar with Qm, but the way you phrased this doesn't seem to indicate a logical contradiction. (I just did a quick Google and it seems at least like many scientists don't think it violates the law of non-contradiction, incidentally).

Ultimately the logic vs empiricism debate comes down to the fact that empiricism rests on logic. If you state that logic is not applicable to the quantum level, ie. that the quantum level has the potential to be absurd, why bother studying it? You cannot make rules about it or infer principles from it; light could be a wave one moment, a particle the next and a turkey sandwich 10 seconds later. (I got sick of the tomato metaphor). Scientists ultimately are trying to make sense of Qm, because they recognise that the system must fit together. A scientist who believed that the whole thing was illogical would give up in despair. It makes no more sense for something to be actually absurd on the quantum level than any other. Furthermore, if you believe logic is not universal, how do you decide where to draw the line?

I think -- although I'm not sure about this as I know much less about logic than I do qm -- that ultimately logic is probably as grounded in our perceptions as everything else is. It makes perfect sense to us that a person cannot be a tomato because we look around us and see that people and tomatos are distinct entities. Thus we derive a logical rule that says that a thing cannot be another thing at the same time.

So do you believe that the law of, say, non-contradiction did not exist until it was thought of, or that if nobody in the world believed it any more it would cease to exist? That a turkey sandwich could be both a turkey sandwich and a not-turkey sandwich at the same time and in the same sense? Humans formulating or expressing an idea is not the same thing as humans creating a concept. If the human race had never existed, logic would still be logic (just as, I suppose, maths would still be maths).

However, you are correct in that the existence of mental laws implies a mind--that's part of the theological argument from reason.

But, if "simple" qm (simple relative to the god issue) presents realities that, on the surface, appear to be logically impossible.....why couldn't theologies that appear to be logically impossible also be true? What if we just have no idea how it works? What if we are missing something very significant?

Qm is a very young and uncertain field compared to linguistics. Theologies are based not on science but on words, and there are well-understood, generally-accepted meanings of nearly all words. So if a proposition appears illogical, all we have to do is examine the words (definition) and their relationships to each other (meaning) in order to determine whether or not they make sense.

Ultimately unless you have good cause to believe we are missing something, the question is simply special pleading. It is, quite literally, nonsensical to believe that something we are missing could turn logic into absurdity, unless you believe there is some mental principle (not scientific, as that's based on mental principles) more fundamental than logic, which can overturn it and at the same time be communicable, replicable and well... logical. Don't you see? Logic has to be axiomatic. If it were not, communication would be impossible--I could read your words on the page and think 'I'm missing something, maybe what she really typed was 'tomato tomato tomato'. Maybe she IS a tomato! Maybe we're the same tomato! Maybe nothing exists except a single tomato seed floating in the void! Maybe logic is a tomato!'... and that wouldn't be very productive, now would it? (For the record, no, I've never done drugs). You utilize logic even to consider whether logic or not is valid; if you tried to convince someone logic didn't exist, you would have to use logic and therefore invalidate your claim. (Unless of course you could convince someone by saying 'Logic doesn't exist because tomato tomato tomato', which would be more consistent but not terribly compelling).

I wanted to come back to this point. I think the reality is that most people won't stick around to find out if it is right or wrong, because it is so unappealing. Also, ime, it is not very convincingly right or wrong with just a cursory examination....the first batch of answers just lead to a whole lot more questions, kwim? But, while the journey is intellectually stimulating, it isn't spiritually uplifting....so the conversation is appealing to all the wrong people (people interested in examining faith at arm's length, for academic interest), and unappealing to all the right people (people interested in deeping their own understanding of their faith, and applying it to their lives).

Can I hazard a guess you're neurotypical? DH and I are Aspie and in fact find the intellectual rigor of Christian apologetics very 'spiritually uplifting', if you will. But I take your point--Christian apologetics should, in the real world, be combined with songs of praise to God, applications of Christian love and charity and fellowship, and all the nice fuzzy-wuzzy stuff. But religious forums online aren't the real world--they're kinda necessarily divorced from it, and I don't think focussing on one aspect of Christianity is necessarily a bad thing. It doesn't appeal to everyone, but there are a surprising number of people who find it interesting. My husband was the type you mentioned--interested in examining the arguments of Christianity simply to trash it. He's now a Christian. So it depends on the person.

This is a very intriguing statement. (I've never considered there to be any need for a religion to be grounded in logic at all.) Would you mind doing a Logic of Christianity for Dummies explanation?

Okay, that's a little like saying 'Can you teach me Greek for Dummies?'. It's a wide topic. But sure, I can have a stab at it. Are you familiar with any of the Christian apologetic arguments--for instance, the cosmological, teleological or transcendental arguments, or the argument from reason? The latter is the one I know best. Can I cheat and point you to books/websites, or do you want to keep this in-thread?

[zinemama]

Originally Posted by Smokering

Okay, that's a little like saying 'Can you teach me Greek for Dummies?'. It's a wide topic. But sure, I can have a stab at it. Are you familiar with any of the Christian apologetic arguments--for instance, the cosmological, teleological or transcendental arguments, or the argument from reason? The latter is the one I know best. Can I cheat and point you to books/websites, or do you want to keep this in-thread?

I guess I'm out of my depth. I was thinking that if Christianity is a logical worldview, as you say, it would be simple for you to explain. I gather that's not the case! Maybe that's why I've never heard anyone make this argument before?