Ensign Steve

Ack! I have been stumped in an argument, and I need help.

We have the laws of logic, and we use them to have rational arguments. I think they are roughly:

1: Things exist.
2: Things have characteristics.
3: Things can't have contradictory characteristics (or something like that).

How do we arrive at that? I can accept that I exist, using the old standby "I think therefore I am." But how do I KNOW those other three things? How do I know (for lack of a better example) that I am not stuck in The Matrix or some other lame simulation? I'm not a Solipsist, nor have I ever been, but I am having trouble justifying that position.

The best "argument" I have heard is: "If you can't accept those three laws of logic, than it is pointless to try to reason with you." That sounds to me as weak as "If you don't have faith, you can't know God," or some equivalent thing one might hear. I demand evidence beyond faith for the existence of God, so how can accept the laws of logic on faith, without evidence? I don't think they can be proved, as the entire point of them is that they are the building blocks upon which all other things are proved.

Help! I am in danger of losing this argument.

Thanks!

Jen

John Page

JenniD:

You might consider as follows:

1. It seems that rational arguments were made prior to the invention of formal logic.
2. Formal logic is used to determine the truth functionality of a statement or proposition. (Different than whether a statement is actually true or not, for which evidence is required).
3. Logic is not a replacement for god.
4. The systems of logic invented by mankind vary, however, all of them produce contradictions or apparent contradictions. The logicians are thinking about this, the linguists claim its all just a misunderstanding and the mathematicians say as long as its "internally consistent" a system is OK.

And debate the matter thus:

I think your strongest argument is to point to the evidence that religions and notions of god are also man-made systems. Deflect any rebuttal to theological historians.

If you get the divine revelation gambit, ask for the factual or circumstantial evidence and throw back brain research that has shown sensations of god are phenomenal. I like the one about the nun who had visions until they fixed her brain tumor. I think that was in NY.

Another key difference is that atheists are not required to worship logic. Atheism is not incompatible with use of formal logic because the latter is just a system whose axioms are merely assumptions - not held to be mandatory truths as are most religion's tenets.

Cheers, john

Wiploc

These aren't laws of logic. They are just observations.



This is a law of logic, and a darned useful one. Try getting by without it! Usefulness is the bottom line of logic. If we assume that logic works, then we can learn all these cool things. If we don't assume that logic works, then we don't know nothing.

Logical premises are admittedly premises; they are givens, but they are not a leap of faith. Logic is like a car. The car is useful, but it is not a leap of faith. You can get in the car if you want; and if you do, you can go really far and fast. If you don't, then you have to walk. Logic is just like that. You can accept logic and let it take you far and fast, or you can walk and know nothing.



The matrix changes nothing. You are still yourself, a person. The matrix may confuse you about your situation, but it is still you that is confused.



The problem with solopsism is that it is --- if I may be allowed to introduce a technical term --- boring. It is logically impecable --- can't be effectively attacked --- but it is a sterile, non-seminal, useless thing to believe in.

For instance: If the outside world is real, then when you are hungry, you'd better get on the outside of a hamburger. On the other hand, if solopsism is true, then when you think you are hungry, you'd better think you are getting on the outside of a hamburger. See the difference? Me neither.

Still, Bertrand Russel had a nice point that may persuade some people. It went something like, "If solipsism is true, then I not only wrote my own books but I also wrote the books of Newton and Nietzche. Why is it that my own books were so much harder to write than the others?"



They are not without evidence. If you try them on, you learn things, things you couldn't learn without them, things that you observe to be true.

If you want, you can do an experiment: Reject logic. Notice how stupid you got. Try finding your shoes in the morning without using logic. "Well, I put them in the closet last night, so that's where they should be this morning --- only that would be logical, so I'll look in the disposal."
crc

philechat

Logic is based on a linguistic description of phenomena. The reason "black is not white" can be accepted as axiomatic is because our (different) phenomenal experiences give rise to different words on the matter, and they are accurate description of the phenomena.

Note that logic says nothing of what one may call things-in-itself, or numena. Knowledge in based on the interaction of the mind (received from the senses or from other inferences) and the objects, and the mind actively shapes experience with what was stored as axiomatic through previous experiences and conceptions. Logic is a construct in the mind and an interpretation of phenomena as opposed to being characteristic of the objects themselves.

Ensign Steve

That is a fabulous analogy! I think the same could be said for god, though. Theists feel that by getting in the god-car they will go far, and "know" more (spiritually) than people who walk. I think a lot of people accept the idea of god on faith alone, because they feel that god's existence would be preferable to it's non-existence. How would that be different from my accepting logic because I feel a world with logic is preferable to one without it? If I won't hop into the god-car without good reason, why should I jump in the logic-car? If it is because I find a world without logic more unbearable than a world without god, then it seems pretty subjective. It seems people who prefer the idea of god to logic are as "right" as I am when they hop in the god-car. I'd like to say, "But logic is so obvious. It isn't even a thing that can or cannot exist, it is a concept, an idea, a system of thought." But I think a lot of theists feel that same way about god. It is so obvious to them they couldn't conceive of a world without it, just as I can't conceive of a world without logic.

[aside]I'm sorry, I feel like I am talking in circles, but I have a really hard time trying to argue the opposite position of what I believe. I'm not that talented of a debater, unfortunately. Also, I'm not trying to say that a world with god and a world with logic are mutually exclusive, or that I consider logic to be the god of atheism. I'm just trying to contrast my "faith" in logic from someone else's faith in god.[/aside]





That's brilliant. I know your reply to my post certainly didn't stem from my own mind. If I'd had that within me, I wouldn't have needed to post in the first place.



Is observation enough? I don't always trust my own perceptions. I'm not a solipsist, like I said, but I do know perceptions can play tricks on me. People spend a lot of time "observing" things that they feel makes their religious belief true. These observations can end up being tricks, brain tumors, false memories, all kinds of good explanations other than supernatural. Since I'm a skeptic, all of my observations and my interpretations of them can be explained within physical and logical laws. But does that make all of my observations perfect. I used to think I heard voices in my attic. I knew that there was nobody in my attic, so I dismissed that observation as being a mistake. But somebody who is not as skeptical as me (say, my mom) would be convinced that the house was haunted.
After a year we finally figured out what the "voices" were, and the explanation was very boring and non-supernatural. But for that year, our observations were contradictory to the truth. I was skeptical, because I use logic. It doesn't follow that if I go by what I observe, it will always point me to the truth.
"Notice how stupid you got" sent a spray of diet coke across my monitor, thanks! But you obviously don't know me. My shoes would be in the disposal, and the keys in the freezer, of course. LOL!

Thanks to all of you for your responses. I don't think I can convince my friend, yet, but at least I no longer fear that I am as blinded by faith as he is.

Jen

Frotiw

1. I do not accept you concept of logic. There philosophical concept of logic that is claimed to be protected by such argument as then one above is much more modest(but still VERY usefull). This definition will definitaly be flawed but it's the best a can do right now. The most fundamental part about logic is the claim that something cannot both true and not be true at the same time. Also there is an assumption that that a meaningfull judgmenent must be meaingfull. NOTE: Yes this is tautologi BUT it cannot help being just that, it is the only case where it is permitable though.
2. I don't think you have understood the argument proberly or had the argument told proberly. It is not at all a matter of faith. The point is and it is something special for logic that you cannot refute it. Image a person who says: "there are no logic".NOTE: He does not have to say exactly that you could as well insert e.g. an relativic stance here.
How can he say that? If there were no logic how could the person then asign his judgment meaning and value. "There are no logic" is a clam that something is false(or true) he cannot do that since there is no logic. He cannot even say that his judgement has any meaning at all. It is the complete equivallent to saying: "there are no true judgments". How can that be true
how are we even to understand that? Does that mean that ALL judgment(except this one) are false=refute it self, since it is not ALL then) OR does it mean that ALL (REALLY ALL ) judgment including it self are false=that there are some true judgment=also refuted.
I hope I make myself clear the point is the denial og logic is redicules and not possible. You can say that there are no logic but noone can take ANY note of it. IF anyone take note of it they must concider it a judgment thus accepting the logic. The resusal of logic gives as much meaning as: "JHFAKJG)#GFKJGKH" and if you consider it to have meaning well then you accept a law of logic.
The relativistic stances are also VERY problematic since they can't help depending on logic themselves. Usually the deniers of logic are non-philosophers who attack a different concept of logic than the philosophers and mathematicians. I have yet to meet someone who acually present a theori including: hermaneutics, existentialistic, phenomenological, structualistic, and all relativism who actually completly escapes logic. Even the most critical persons concering logic, still use logic just aswell as the matematicians and logicians.
Hegel attempted a new form of logic and it was and still is very interesting BUT he used the classical logic during his entire work.

BTW this also points out(I'd say) that logic is not merely a tool it's an inescapable transcendental quali of the constitution of the world. It is the one underlaying layer that cannot be different.


----------
ADDITION:
This is only a defence for logic. Logic and solipcism are completly different and need comletly different arguments. There are strong reasons and arguments for rejecting solipcism but these arguments are not among them. This is also noteworthy if one didn't understood the strength in argument defencing logic. That is that while solipcisme can be accepted or rejected logic cannot be rejected. There is simple a completly fundamental different between logic and everything else. Solipcism might be considered a therory while Logic is NOT a theory, it is something that all theories depend upon. It is a condition for a theory.

Cheers

Wiploc

The difference is that you can test-drive logic. You can get in and out as often as you want. Requiring you to actually believe in god before you see if it works is like requiring you to buy a car and lock yourself in before you get to see if it runs. Then you can't get out because you already believe.






That's why it's good to salt your religious discussions with references to how ugly religion is. Share what hellfire looks like thru your eyes. Point out the unfairness of the Fall, the miserable logic of the redemption, the wickedness of the whole design.




We can't get by without logic. Even Christians try to be logical when they aren't being religious. Otherwise, not to change the subject, they couldn't find their shoes in the morning.




[frontwards] You have raised useful points.[/frontwards]




Observation and logic are all we've got. If you abandoned either of them, well, you'd be up an unsanitary tributary without a proper means of motivation.




[joke] I don't imagine you are. [/joke]



True, logic and observation can sometimes lead you astray. But with them there is at least the distinction between "astray," and, "on the high road." Without them, there is only muddle.

crc







Way cool.
crc

tk

Even when a fundamentalist makes the claim that "God is great", he is unconsciously using tools of logic. For one thing, the statement "God is great" is itself a proposition. For another, when he says "God is great", there's also the implicit `understanding' that God cannot also be lowly -- the Law of Non-contradiction in action.

Indeed the correctness logic cannot be proven. By Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, we cannot even tell conclusively whether any formal system is consistent. Therefore, the best we can do is to argue lamely in favour of logic.

jpbrooks

My reading causes me to miss threads like this one.

While I do place some value on entertaining the implications and speculations of the Solipsistic worldview, I would be tempted to ask, in this case, how one would come to be convinced of one's own existence.
To assume ones's own existence is already to assume a number of other things, including (as you point out) the basic laws of logic. The (Cartesian?) question that then could be asked would be, why doubt the reliability of the source of information that seems to confirm facts about the world, when it is (assumed to be) the same source of information that leads one to affirm one's own existence?

You are correctly categorizing the statements that you listed above as assumptions. However, as it has been pointed out in another post above, the first two assumptions, unlike the third, do not refer explicitly to a logical relationship among the characteristics of actually existing things.

It is true that some Theists may view the statement "God exists" as "undeniable" (and thus true) in the same sense that the basic laws of logic have been shown to be. But the difference between the two cases of "undeniability" seems to be that logic's "undeniability" is confirmed essentially as a matter of relationships between statements, whereas the statement "God exists", being a statement about something existing in the real world, is not supposed to be confirmed as such.

I'll be back (home) later.

John Page

JenniD:

jp brings up the issue of a solipsist worldview. Entertainingly, instead of the usual line of "Well, a solipsist thinks everything is in the mind", you can respond by whipping out your Oxford Companion to Philosophy and stating a more accurate "Actually, a solipsist thinks everything is part of the self".

You might then proceed to observe that the notion of god entails the existence of the biggest solipsist imaginable! Omniscient and omnipresent, can't get away from the fact that he/she/it would be bound to believe that everything is part of he/she/itself.

Good Luck! John