[mike777]

Catholics and logic.

http://www.newadvent...then/09324a.htm

Logic
Logic is the science and art which so directs the mind in the process of reasoning and subsidiary processes as to enable it to attain clearness, consistency, and validity in those processes. The aim of logic is to secure clearness in the definition and arrangement of our ideas and other mental images, consistency in our judgments, and validity in our processes of inference.


-------------



It is a curious fact that, although logic is the science which treats of definition, logicians are not agreed as to how logic itself should be defined. There are, in all, about two hundred different definitions of logic. It would, of course, be impossible to enumerate even the principal definitions here. It will be sufficient to mention and discuss a few typical ones.

[mike777]

Catholics and the existence of God:

"It will be observed that neither the Scriptural texts we have quoted nor the conciliar decrees say that God's existence can be proved or demonstrated; they merely affirm that it can be known with certainty."

http://www.newadvent...then/06608b.htm

The Existence of God
The topic will be treated as follows:

I. As Known Through Natural Reason
A. The Problem Stated
1. Formal Anti-Theism
2. Types of Theism
B. Theistic Proofs
1. A Posteriori Argument
(a) The general causality argument
( The argument from design
© The argument from conscience
(d) The argument from universal consent
2. A Priori, or Ontological, Argument
II. As Known Through Faith
A. Sacred Scriptures
B. Church Councils
C. The Knowability of God

[mikeh]

luke warm, on Jan 3 2008, 06:32 PM, said:

Quote

~~So in these rapidly shrinking areas of human ignorance, there remains the possiblity that the final answer will involve a god. So, from my perspective, it is not irrational to argue that maybe a god exists, but the bulk of the evidence, it seems to me, suggests that a god, in the sense of the entities worshipped by religious believers, is a low-probability answer, and, as such it is irrational to believe that such a god does in fact exist.

i don't understand this part... how is it rational to argue that ("maybe") a god exists but irrational to argue that a *particular* god exists?
[

Your difficulty, if indeed you have one and are not merely pretending to in order to distort the points I was trying to make, is that you are not reading my language with sufficient care.

I was stating that there remains sufficient ignorance about certain ultimate questions (leaving aside Douglas Adam's brilliant suggestion that the answer to the ultimate question is, in fact: 42) that it is not irrational to argue that there remains open the possibility that some god entity (which may not resemble the god of terrestial worship other than by being a power beyond our ability to comprehend and being omnipotent) exists or did exist at some 'time' before the universe was 'created' by it.

But merely stating that it is not irrational to make that argument is not the same as 'believing' that such a god entity is the answer.

One can argue various hypotheses. It is not at all uncommon, nor illogical nor irrational, for there to be different possible answers to questions on which we lack essential evidence.

There may be partial evidence that supports or is at least consistent with differing, contradictory theories. It would be rational to argue for one or the other but irrational to opt for any of them to the exclusion of the others UNTIL the evidence allows one to do so. Opting to BELIEVE one explanation which is acknowledged to be untestable, while other possibilities exist, is irrational.

So with god. Millennia ago, belief in a god or gods was both rational and, in the circumstances, probably the most plausible of ways of explaining the world to ourselves, as well as offering an opportunity for 'leaders' to assert and maintain control of others.

Nowadays, many of the phenomena that were formerly rationally explained by reference to divine activity are understood to have more mundane proximate causes, thus eliminating the god explanation as rational. My personal opinion is that future generations, if we don't effectively destroy our species ability to learn by trashing the environment to the point of destroying civilization, will continue to fill in the gaps in knowledge and, as they do so, further limit the areas of explanatory ideas in which we can write 'Here be Monsters'.... aka gods.

But, as with the existence of sentient aliens elsewhere in the universe, I may be proven wrong in my expectation....

In both cases, it is a question of rational evaluation of the evidence. The ability to make a rational or logical argument in support of a proposition is NOT equivalent to forming or holding a belief unsupported by evidence.

[mike777]

"I was stating that there remains sufficient ignorance about certain ultimate questions (leaving aside Douglas Adam's brilliant suggestion that the answer to the ultimate question is, in fact: 42)"



Great I was just going to read his books, thanks alot..........for telling me the end!

[mikeh]

mike777, on Jan 3 2008, 07:51 PM, said:

"I was stating that there remains sufficient ignorance about certain ultimate questions (leaving aside Douglas Adam's brilliant suggestion that the answer to the ultimate question is, in fact: 42)"



Great I was just going to read his books, thanks alot..........for telling me the end!

It isn't even close to the end: the answer is 42, but what is the question?

BTW, the BBC radio show is far better, in my view, to the book.... and the movie was dreack.... don't judge the work by the movie Enjoy... it's a hoot

[mike777]

mikeh, on Jan 3 2008, 08:05 PM, said:

mike777, on Jan 3 2008, 07:51 PM, said:

"I was stating that there remains sufficient ignorance about certain ultimate questions (leaving aside Douglas Adam's brilliant suggestion that the answer to the ultimate question is, in fact: 42)"



Great I was just going to read his books, thanks alot..........for telling me the end!

It isn't even close to the end: the answer is 42, but what is the question?

BTW, the BBC radio show is far better, in my view, to the book.... and the movie was dreack.... don't judge the work by the movie Enjoy... it's a hoot

Thanks for all the fish.

[Winstonm]

Jimmy,

I am going to attempt to put your statements into logic format - sorry if I get your meanings wrong.

I am a logical person
I believe in God
Therefore, it cannot be illogical to believe in God

This argument is a logic error.

From Wikpedia:

Quote

Fallacy of the Consequent--draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion (e.g., If I have the flu, then I have a sore throat. I have a sore throat. Therefore, I have the flu. Other illnesses may cause sore throat.)

Likewise, influences other than "logic" can cause your belief if God; hence, the argument is invalid.

[DrTodd13]

All this line of reasoning states is that it is not impossible for someone who claims to be logical to believe in God. I don't think this is a fallacy of the consequent though although it is a poorly reasoned argument. To make it leak proof, you'd have to also claim that a person who claims to be logical is always logical in every circumstance and never makes a mistake.

[luke warm]

[quote name='Hannie' date='Jan 3 2008, 06:48 PM'][quote name='luke warm' date='Jan 2 2008, 03:32 PM'] that's fine, han, but do you think either believing or not believing that sentient life exists in other parts of the universe is inherently illogical? i don't, fwiw [/quote]
As others, I don't understand what you mean by this. I'm also not sure that arguing with you about semantics is interesting.[/quote]
i'm not arguing semantics... the "scientific method" depends, among other things, on something being falsifiable... i just asked whether or not a belief in something (anything) not falsifiable is inherently illogical, it's a simple question
[quote]I don't think that it is possible to come to a conclusion about other sentient life by mere logic.[/quote]
i never said nor implied it was... but if you're right, and i believe you are, then neither can such a belief be called illogical
[quote]I find it hard to understand how someone can completely believe something for which they have very little evidence.[/quote]
we (not only you and i but jdonn and i) don't seem to be communicating... it doesn't matter how hard it is to understand or even whether or not a person's belief is true (not in this context) ... i'm not remotely arguing about that
[quote name='Hannie' date='Jan 3 2008, 06:57 PM'][quote name='luke warm' date='Jan 3 2008, 06:32 PM'] [quote]~~So in these rapidly shrinking areas of human ignorance, there remains the possiblity that the final answer will involve a god. So, from my perspective, it is not irrational to argue that maybe a god exists, but the bulk of the evidence, it seems to me, suggests that a god, in the sense of the entities worshipped by religious believers, is a low-probability answer, and, as such it is irrational to believe that such a god does in fact exist.[/quote]
i don't understand this part... how is it rational to argue that ("maybe") a god exists but irrational to argue that a *particular* god exists? [/quote]
I think the word "maybe" was relevant in Mike's sentence. By taking away the word the meaning of the sentence changes.

How can you think of yourself as being a logical man when you are this careless with language. You can't understand logical arguments without a language to work in.[/quote]
i didn't take the word away, i made sure i included it... but you seem to be saying that it's rational to argue that *maybe* a god exists but irrational to argue that a particular god exists... how can that be so?
[quote name='jdonn' date='Jan 3 2008, 07:22 PM'] When you say[quote name='you']i believe Christ was crucified and arose... this is not testable, but how is my belief illogical?[/quote] then you seem to strongly imply that you think your belief IS logical. [/quote]
ok fine, for the sake of argument let's say i do "stongly imply" that.. so what? barmar didn't imply anything, he asserted something... i know you can see the difference and you know the burden is on him...
[quote]You are trying very hard to avoid saying that directly, but it's clearly what you think (isn't it??) So I am asking a simple question (not trying to answer your original question, which I never was.) My question is: Why is your belief logical? As I said before, you of course can refuse to answer but that only leads me to even further believe what I already do, which is that you have no good reason at all.[/quote]
i didn't refuse to answer, i tried to by using analogies, which is an accepted way to make a point...
[quote]I'll put this another way. My position is that your belief is not logical. Yours, I am assuming, is that it is logical. Obviously someone has to say why they hold their position or it's not a very useful discussion. I have sort of done so, by saying that there is no strong evidence supporting logic in your position.[/quote]
now we're getting somewhere (i think)... you have stated a thing ("My position is that your belief is not logical.") and (according to you - "i am assuming") i have "strongly implied" a thing... i refuse to believe that you mean it when you say my position is illogical because you can see "... no strong evidence ..."

1) strong evidence of a position must be seen for that position to be logical
2) there is no strong evidence seen to deny the existence of a god
therefore denying the existence of a god is illogical
[quote]You can either dispute that by presenting strong evidence, offer another reason you think it's logical, or....well say anything else you want, but only the prior two options would continue the discussion in any meaningful way.[/quote]
what is it exactly that you want me to dispute? you now insist that the one who you 'assume' has 'strongly implied' a thing has the burden over the one who actually asserted a thing... you have several times constructed straw men to knock over when i never said that which you accuse me of saying
[quote name='Winstonm' date='Jan 3 2008, 08:09 PM']Jimmy,

I am going to attempt to put your statements into logic format - sorry if I get your meanings wrong.

I am a logical person
I believe in God
Therefore, it cannot be illogical to believe in God

This argument is a logic error. 

From Wikpedia:

[quote]Fallacy of the Consequent--draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion (e.g., If I have the flu, then I have a sore throat. I have a sore throat. Therefore, I have the flu. Other illnesses may cause sore throat.) [/quote]

Likewise, influences other than "logic" can cause your belief if God; hence, the argument is invalid.[/quote]
sorry winston but that isn't what i said (or, as jdonn might say, that isn't what i strongly implied) ... this started (as i said in a post a couple of pages past) when barmar made the statement that a thing not subject to the scientific method is illogical... i simply asked him how that can be so... that's all i did, and it's led to all of this... i'm being asked to defend, out of order, a position that i was "assumed" to "strongly imply" ...

i tried to tell jdonn that it is possible i am wrong and barmar is right regarding his (barmar's) assertion, but how am i to know this if he (barmar) is unable or unwilling to answer my question?
[quote name='DrTodd13' date='Jan 3 2008, 08:49 PM']All this line of reasoning states is that it is not impossible for someone who claims to be logical to believe in God.  I don't think this is a fallacy of the consequent though although it is a poorly reasoned argument.  To make it leak proof, you'd have to also claim that a person who claims to be logical is always logical in every circumstance and never makes a mistake.[/quote]
that pretty much sums it up except i haven't made any argument - yet.. i first need to know if that is in fact what was being asserted... if so, *that* needs to be argued, not the converse

[Winstonm]

Dr. Todd,

I defer to your education and better understanding.

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Jan 3 2008, 08:54 PM, said:

what is it exactly that you want me to dispute? you now insist that the one who you 'assume' has 'strongly implied' a thing has the burden over the one who actually asserted a thing... you have several times constructed straw men to knock over when i never said that which you accuse me of saying

Burden shmurden, I'm simply asking you to answer a question. You won't, ok. We all know what that means, which is that you have no answer (for something you obviously believe is true! Who cares if I'm "assuming" that you "implied" it. If I'm wrong about what you believe, say so! Silence can be deafening.)

[barmar]

There have been too many posts since I last visited this topic for me to try to address each of them directly.

Someone asked whether I consider religious belief to be illogical. I tried to be conciliatory yesterday, but I've changed my mind. I think it IS illogical. Logic is basically drawing conclusions by going from known facts and using well-accepted rules of deduction. E.g. "when it rains, the ground gets wet" + "it's raining" => "the ground is wet". Faith assumes a particular conclusion, without any evidence or accepted line of reasoning. You believe something simply because you want or hope it's true.

Someone else posted a long message about how the bible is not necessarily intended to be read literally, or treated as history, but it's still a good teaching tool. But the bible includes many messages which we no longer consider to be moral: keeping slaves, abusing women, cruel and unusual punishment, etc. How do you decide which parts to use, and which to skip? Obviously we must use our inherent sense of morality -- but if we have that, then why do we need the bible or religion to define morality?

Someone else asked about belief in alien life. I don't KNOW that there's life elsewhere, and I don't expect us to prove it any time soon. What I believe is that it's LIKELY that there's life elsewhere in the universe. My reasoning is that if something can happen once, it can happen more than once, given enough chances. We know that life arose once (we're here), the universe is incredibly old and huge, and there doesn't seem to be anything particularly unusual about the Earth, so rules of probability suggest that it has probably happened in other places.

[han]

[didn't like my post so removed it]

[Codo]

sceptic, on Jan 4 2008, 02:02 PM, said:

I do not think that, that is any way to base my values on life trying to do what I think they would want us to do. Being brainwashed as a child into my parents religious beliefs is basically wrong (imho) What makes me laugh out loud, is the arrogance of most religious people I have met in the fact they actually think they have got it right.

So the religious education I give my kids to make them good and understanding people is brainwashing and wrong. I really believe that this is the right way, else I had choosen another one. This makes you laugh out loud?

If you try to educate your kids to good and understanding people in your atheists way, this is great and wonderful, they can make their own descissions, find their own good way. And of course your way is the right way?

Sorry this is illogical and narrowminded.

We all believe that our way to treat our children is the right way. And if we compare it to other possible ways, we may even think (believe?) that our way is superior to some of the other ways. But to laugh out loud about other ways of education shows simply a missing understanding or respect for different views of right and wrong.

[luke warm]

jdonn, on Jan 3 2008, 09:15 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jan 3 2008, 08:54 PM, said:

what is it exactly that you want me to dispute? you now insist that the one who you 'assume' has 'strongly implied' a thing has the burden over the one who actually asserted a thing... you have several times constructed straw men to knock over when i never said that which you accuse me of saying

Burden shmurden, I'm simply asking you to answer a question. You won't, ok. We all know what that means, which is that you have no answer (for something you obviously believe is true! Who cares if I'm "assuming" that you "implied" it. If I'm wrong about what you believe, say so! Silence can be deafening.)

as i've simply asked you to answer questions... you won't, ok, we all know what that means...silence can be deafening... but if you believe the burden of proof in this type argument is meaningless, that explains a lot

i have defended what i 'strongly implied' by offering analogies and syllogisms, using your own words as starting points... so far you haven't disputed any of them

barmar, on Jan 3 2008, 10:01 PM, said:

Someone asked whether I consider religious belief to be illogical.  I tried to be conciliatory yesterday, but I've changed my mind.  I think it IS illogical.  Logic is basically drawing conclusions by going from known facts and using well-accepted rules of deduction.  E.g. "when it rains, the ground gets wet" + "it's raining" => "the ground is wet".  Faith assumes a particular conclusion, without any evidence or accepted line of reasoning.  You believe something simply because you want or hope it's true.

you keep making statements like this but everyone who has read even a little on the subject knows that some of the finest minds throughout history have and do offer logical and philosophically sound "accepted line(s) of reasoning" ... have you read any of those arguments? how are they illogical?

Quote

Obviously we must use our inherent sense of morality -- but if we have that, then why do we need the bible or religion to define morality?

you might not need the bible, but you do need something... if you have an 'inherent sense of morality', what is it a product of? is it totally subjective or are there things you believe all "moral" people hold in common?

Quote

Someone else asked about belief in alien life.  I don't KNOW that there's life elsewhere, and I don't expect us to prove it any time soon.  What I believe is that it's LIKELY that there's life elsewhere in the universe.  My reasoning is that if something can happen once, it can happen more than once, given enough chances.  We know that life arose once (we're here), the universe is incredibly old and huge, and there doesn't seem to be anything particularly unusual about the Earth, so rules of probability suggest that it has probably happened in other places.

ok, is your belief in the likelihood of sentient life elsewhere irrational or illogical? i'd say no, even though your reasoning might not be perfect in the matter (the fact that something happened once doesn't mean it can happen more than once, given enough time - necessarily)

sceptic, on Jan 4 2008, 12:02 AM, said:

many misguided people have beliefs, it would appear that, the one thing belief does for you is, it closes your mind

I do not believe in God, but I do think there is probaly a great being (what ever that may prove to be) out there in a different world in a different dimension, something we can not yet comprehand or just plain cleverer than us.

if belief closes ones mind does disbelief open it? and fwiw i don't personally think your belief in the possibility of a 'great being' is irrational or illogical

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jan 4 2008, 02:31 PM, said:

you keep making statements like this but everyone who has read even a little on the subject knows that some of the finest minds throughout history have and do offer logical and philosophically sound "accepted line(s) of reasoning" ... have you read any of those arguments? how are they illogical?

This is a ridiculous comment

Yes... Many of the finest minds throughout history have offered logical proofs for the existence of God. However, there is good reason that this same territory continuously gets revisited: None of these worthies has every sucessfully offered any kind of conclusive proof. (If any of them had, the nature of philosophy would look a hell of a lot different)

Case in point: The Roman Catholic Church maintains that it is possible to logically prove the existence of God and offers Aquinas' Quinquae viae as "proof". [There is a decent summary at http://en.wikipedia....i/Quinquae_viae]. However, various Protestant churches have very different opinions about the validity of these proofs.

[helene_t]

Barmar offered an explanation of why (s)he thinks faith is illogical. What more do you want, Jimmy? Nobody asks you to agree.

As for this burden schurmden thing - I think it's perfectly ok to make blanket statements without references or reasoning. Let alone "proof" (the concepts discussed in this thread are way to vague for "proofs" to apply anyway). Those who don't like blanket statements can just ignore them. Those who want references can find them with google.

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Jan 4 2008, 06:31 AM, said:

you might not need the bible, but you do need something... if you have an 'inherent sense of morality', what is it a product of? is it totally subjective or are there things you believe all "moral" people hold in common?

In my opinion, asking what morality is "a product of" is like asking what language is "a product of."

We evolved as social creatures. Both language and morality provided our ancestors significant advantages in coordinating activities and in maintaining group cohesion. Now our brains possess an increased ability to understand both linguistic and moral concepts.

Surely all basic moral concepts originally passed from generation to generation in the form of interesting tales repeated -- and embellished upon -- by the wiser elders in the successful groups. Claiming that god was responsible for those concepts and stories gave them more weight and gave the elders more authority.

[helene_t]

PassedOut, on Jan 4 2008, 04:31 PM, said:

Both language and morality provided our ancestors significant advantages in coordinating activities and in maintaining group cohesion.

This obviously answers what causes morality, but it occurs to me that some people (probably including Jimmy but I should let him speak for himself) seeks the answer to what justifies morality in religion. As I understand it, it is Todd's agenda in the "Axioms" thread as well.

Personally I'm not interested in that question (not even sure if I would consider it meaningful) but if I were to study ethics I would probably have to ask the question how particular philosophers come to their ethical axioms. For example, in one of my favorite philosophy books, "The Blank Slate" by Steven Pinker, the author frequently refers to "moral imperatives", such as the idea that men and women should be treated equally. I wondered if those "imperatives" were just a hotpot of the author's humble opinions, or whether they fitted into some kind of ethical "system", whatever that might mean.

[PassedOut]

helene_t, on Jan 4 2008, 09:52 AM, said:

This obviously answers what causes morality, but it occurs to me that some people (probably including Jimmy but I should let him speak for himself) seeks the answer to what justifies morality in religion.

Yes, that's a much tougher subject. It's one of the many things I'm not qualified even to discuss. But I do find it (very) interesting to read what others have to say.

I, too, wonder about phrases such as "moral imperatives" (but not enough to spend the time to dig deeper into the matter). So much to learn, and so few years to live...