Mediancat

In a discussion I was having with someone on my college's mailing list, he brought up the old "we all got faith" argument. I.E., I have faith in god, you can't prove the rules of logic logically therefore you must be accepting them on faith, so you're just as illogical as I am and have no basis to criticize my faith that god exists.

I pointed out that I didn't accept the rules of logic by faith but by necessity, because if we both didn't accept them then we literally have nothing to do except sit around and stare at each other. That I abide by the rule of noncontradiction is a necessity, not a matter of faith.

He said, "you say necessity, I say faith," and the discussion broke down there.

So my question is, how do you handle these "we all got faith" types on the matter of God's existence? Or do you simply throw up your hands and not bother?

Rob aka Mediancat

Answerer

Well, I think that I can come out with my own 'we all have logic' argument. Certainly, they have to be logical in their thinking before starting an argument with us or even during the period of finding a 'correct' religion where they can put their faith on for themselves. Oh, wait a minute, maybe they were too lazy to use their logical mindset when searching for the right religion to join in after all.

sotzo

Mediancat:

...abide by the rule of noncontradiction is a necessity, not a matter of faith.

It's worse than that - for the materialist, there is no ground for saying that an immaterial law exists to which I must conform my thinking. (ie, Where does a law of logic even come from in a materialist universe? From material?)

Seems like a lot of faith to me!

Regards

jkb

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: sotzo ]</p>

Philosoft

Well, they don't "come from" anything. They are descriptive rather than proscriptive.

It's not.

{added}
For what it's worth Rob, it seems like the theist in question has abandoned accepted definitions in order to promote his ideas. Maybe you could get him to agree to certain definitions of "faith," "logic," "law" etc. and go from there.

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: Philosoft ]</p>

sotzo

Well, they don't "come from" anything. They are descriptive rather than proscriptive.

Do you mean prescriptive rather than proscriptive? Just trying to make sure I understand you.

I'm not concerned with what a law of logic does (describing versus prescribing). I'm asking how a materialist, on materialist's terms, expects a person to conform her thinking to an immaterial law which, as the initial poster point out, is a necessary pre-condition of any thinking at all.

It's not.

An immaterial, necessary precondition of intelligible thought coming from a material universe not only requires faith...it requires giving up the very law of non-contradiciton you're wanting to uphold!

cheers,
jkb

Philosoft

Yes, I believe I do. I make that mistake all the time.

It is incorrect to describe a law of logic as an independently existing 'thing.' They are descriptions of relationships between things. We call them "laws" because it is not possible to conceive of a universe in which they do not hold.

Do you have a proof of this "necessary precondition"?

sotzo

Yes, I believe I do. I make that mistake all the time.

No problem. You should be happy with that mistake compared to some of mine!

One time, while writing about Leibniz monads in a paper for class, I wrote "Leibniz's gonads"!

It is incorrect to describe a law of logic as an independently existing 'thing.' They are descriptions of relationships between things.

I agree that it is not a 'thing' in the sense that my computer or a rock is a 'thing'. But it exists nonetheless in an even more important sense in that without it, things like computers and rocks could not be distinguished.

We call them "laws" because it is not possible to conceive of a universe in which they do not hold.

Yes precisely, because in order to conceive of a universe where the law of non-contradiction would not hold would be to assume the law of non-contradiction.

So it defines the material world and it cannot be rejected without assuming it. So, again, how does the materialist account for the existence of such a law?

Do you have a proof of this "necessary precondition"?

The proof is that without it there is no such thing as proof. Without it, there is no answer to your question since all answers would be equal.


cheers,

jkb

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: sotzo ]</p>

Philosoft

Inasmuch as it doesn't make sense to speak of a universe without a law of non-contradiction, neither does it make sense to talk about its "existence." It is a heuristic for describing relationships. Nothing more.

I'm not following. Can you elaborate?

I am still unclear how one is said to "assume" something when it is not possible to assume it's opposite.

I was referring to this statement:
"An immaterial, necessary precondition of intelligible thought coming from a material universe not only requires faith...it requires giving up the very law of non-contradiciton you're wanting to uphold!"

It is not at all clear to me how faith is an "immaterial, necessary precondition."

sandlewood

Mediancat: I don’t think there is anything more you can do that what you did. Accepting the basic laws of logic is like accepting that our five physical senses actually do tell us the truth about the real world. You can certainly choose not to believe them. But them what happens? How do you live your life if the senses do not give us a true representation of the world? You and I could not even communicate because I could not know that what my ears are hearing is really what you are saying. We just couldn’t function at all.

I think it’s a similar case with logic. Certainly you can reject the basic laws of logic and not just accept them on faith. But then how do you live and function without the law of contradiction? What if a thing can be both A and not A at the same time and in the same respect? Then my rejection of that law of logic could just as well be an acceptance of that law. A rejection can now also be an acceptance if there is no law of contradiction. The very attempt to say anything at all presupposes the laws. Actually, this exact topic is covered by George H. Smith in Atheism: The Case Against God.

However, the same reasoning that convinces one person will not convince another. Some people will not be convinced of something no matter what. So I don’t think there is anything you can do.

RogerLeeCooke

Not for me. I don't make any grandiose claim that the laws of logic are absolutely correct. In the first place, I don't think analysis of human language and the meaning of human knowledge have yet progressed to the point at which we can be absolutely precise about the "meaning of meaning." As far as I can see, logic is a human habit of thought, that's all, just like other behavioral habits that human beings have, such as a tendency to avoid situations that have been associated with pain in the past. Logic and science have shown themselves in the past to be the most reliable ways of understanding the universe. If they should prove unreliable in the future, I would modify my confidence in them.

Theists so often seem to think that we can't get anywhere unless we start with a grand assertion of some luminous, absolutely certain foundation. Knowledge doesn't grow that way. It's more like a tree, where the branches and the roots grow simultaneously.