Religion and Logics

[Prodromos]

And this is the perfect example. Axiom: omnipotent god. Yet there is a binary proposal where both answers result in contradiction. That is paradox. And basic feature of logic system is that you cannot successfully build logical system with contradictory axioms, as you'd be able to derive anything. It wouldn't serve any purpose.

I hope this isn't your perfect example, because this "Omnipotence Paradox" was discussed and refuted long before you and I were born. You fundamentally misunderstand omnipotence. God is not able to do everything. He is only able to do that which is logically possible. He is unable to create a rock he can't lift, just as he is unable to drive the color green, or draw a square circle, and so on. There is no contradiction.

[basics]

Sar1n,

Why would God want to create a stone that He couldn't lift? For a start since He is the Creator it is not logical to think that He would want to even try that and illogical that if He did and couldn't lift it then He couldn't be God with all the attributes attached to Him. It's a silly example.

[PointOfViewGun]

Well isn't all that very convenient for the dude who literally believes in a magical friend in the sky.
But also, yes.
There is something apparently insane (illogical) in the passions of another. I had a conversation with a castrated man recently and how he is so confused by pornography, it just seems so absurd, all the actions of sex, lust, these desires are all alien to him. To atheists, we're kinda like spiritually castrated or whatever (generally): the things you guys do in mosques, temples and churches are utterly alien, silly, confusing, even infuriatingly confusing, due to the seriousness and solemnity you guys demand in the treatment of things that seem soo patently and utterly absurd.
Kierkegaard wrote similar things to describe his individualistic fundamental Christianity: as an anhedonic person, he was confused and baffled by the courtship rituals of 19th century Denmark, but understood that it was probably the engagement in them that made them valuable. So too with love, faith and marriage, they are kinds of blind, irrational commitments, which involves overlooking short comings, reconciling expectations with the situation you're in and so on.

This doesn't really add much or anything to the discussion.

And which ones would that be? It's pretty straightforward...you've shown it yourself.

The ones in the post of yours I responded to. It was not a long post...

Here. You make it pretty obvious. Why Islam forbids pork? Deus vult. No explanation required.

And opposed to it, science. What is logic behind weak force? The actual answer at this moment is...we do not know. But we strive to know. You cannot perform scientific experiments to figure out why Allah doesn't like pork (assuming you believe in Allah, and not take the atheistic perspective that it was banned for practical purposes). In religion, the god(s, or any other metaphysical phenomena) is center and ultimate authority, and any argument against can be simply brushed off by simple "Deus Vult" (yeah, I like that phrase). There's no logical argumentation possible within religious system when you can play the Deus Vult card when push comes to shove, which is why religion inherently fragments as it spreads.

You can die and ask Allah why he doesn't like pork as well. However, in all likelihood, you will never know why the most basic laws of physics work the way they do. In principle, its same as not knowing why Allah forbade pork. Many aspects of religion, just like science, is grounded on logic. You may not agree with the rationale on why those rationales are valid but in either case they are what they are.

[Sar1n]

The ones in the post of yours I responded to. It was not a long post...

You can die and ask Allah why he doesn't like pork as well. However, in all likelihood, you will never know why the most basic laws of physics work the way they do. In principle, its same as not knowing why Allah forbade pork. Many aspects of religion, just like science, is grounded on logic. You may not agree with the rationale on why those rationales are valid but in either case they are what they are.

And I see no such leaps. Maybe I rushed things a bit in one or two posts, since some concepts are quite universally known. But I had to explain them later anyway.

Difference between science and religion can be summed up this way:
Science: We don't know what causes this, so let's poke around and figure it. THis approach brought us many things, including the computer you're using.
Religion: We don't know what causes this, so Deus Vult. This brought us quite hefty bodycount.
So yeah, the principle is totally different.

While some elements of religion can have logical relationship between them, it is not a logical system as a whole, and you can always, within religious system, find a negation to it. That is a consequence of contradictory axiom. That's why arguing with logic within a religious system is useless, which was my opener, and it was proven in original discussion, where your argumentation got slapped with Deus Vult.

I hope this isn't your perfect example, because this "Omnipotence Paradox" was discussed and refuted long before you and I were born. You fundamentally misunderstand omnipotence. God is not able to do everything. He is only able to do that which is logically possible. He is unable to create a rock he can't lift, just as he is unable to drive the color green, or draw a square circle, and so on. There is no contradiction.

Now here's the thing. If god would be able to do only things logically possible, it wouldn't be god. It wouldn't be able to create universe and life on a whim, wouldn't be able to perform miracles, wouldn't be able to create heaven and hell. It would be causal, deterministic element, and therefore within scope of science, not religion.

[Prodromos]

Now here's the thing. If god would be able to do only things logically possible, it wouldn't be god. It wouldn't be able to create universe and life on a whim, wouldn't be able to perform miracles, wouldn't be able to create heaven and hell. It would be causal, deterministic element, and therefore within scope of science, not religion.

WHy so? How would it be possible to do a logically-impossible task, such as drawing a square circle? And how are creation and miracles logically impossible?

[Sar1n]

WHy so? How would it be possible to do a logically-impossible task, such as drawing a square circle? And how are creation and miracles logically impossible?

Again. Prerequisite of logic is causality and determinism. Miracles and divine creation are, in principle, violation of those.

[Gaidin]

WHy so? How would it be possible to do a logically-impossible task, such as drawing a square circle? And how are creation and miracles logically impossible?

You're conveniently defining a God of the Gaps, which no true believer of a modern religion will accept as that drives them into the corner of accepting that their god is eventually scienced out of existence as we figure out more and more and more.

Forgive Sar1n....he's saying this totally wrong with his utter focus and drive on miracles.

[Prodromos]

causality and determinism.

Please define these terms so we're sure we're on the same page.

You're conveniently defining a God of the Gaps, which no true believer of a modern religion will accept as that drives them into the corner of accepting that their god is eventually scienced out of existence as we figure out more and more and more.

Forgive Sar1n....he's saying this totally wrong with his utter focus and drive on miracles.

I'm just trying to figure out what he means by "logic."

[Sar1n]

You're conveniently defining a God of the Gaps, which no true believer of a modern religion will accept as that drives them into the corner of accepting that their god is eventually scienced out of existence as we figure out more and more and more.

Forgive Sar1n....he's saying this totally wrong with his utter focus and drive on miracles.

What would god be without miracles? Just a god of the gaps, another thing to be poked and eventually explained by science. Without abilities that don't conform to the basic assumptions about reality that we all take, which is what miracles are all about, it wouldn't be god. But those assumptions are basis of logic, and the way we percieve the world. Without them, anything goes. There is no logic, no consistent reality. Which is why god is ultimately both impossible to include in a logic system.

I do not ask for forgiveness. I ask for you to read what I wrote and try to understand it.

[Gaidin]

I do not ask for forgiveness. I ask for you to read what I wrote and try to understand it.

You didn't ask. That's a statement between me and Legend and not really any of your business.

You were just saying what you were trying to say very poorly while Legend was defining a god very logically into a box. Frankly it's not about how you define the god in the system, it's more about why people won't accept the god. Gods are a personal thing and people are illogical emotional creatures. First thing both of you have to remember is that people have to be trained in logic to have a chance at understanding this argument. If they don't like the constraints you're trying to put on their god they're not going to accept it and to hell with you. Which is why the God of the Gaps idea never flies with actual believers. Which is why you are also able to find so many scientists strangely able to partition the way they think and be both a scientist in X field and still be strangely religious and not have it interfere with their work in any dishonest fashion.

We are illogical, emotional creatures.

[Sar1n]

Please define these terms so we're sure we're on the same page.

Let's start with this:
Determinism is the philosophical position that for every event there exist conditions that could cause no other event. "There are many determinisms, depending on what pre-conditions are considered to be determinative of an event or action."[1] Deterministic theories throughout the history of philosophy have sprung from diverse and sometimes overlapping motives and considerations. Some forms of determinism can be empirically tested with ideas from physics and the philosophy of physics. The opposite of determinism is some kind of indeterminism (otherwise called nondeterminism). Determinism is often contrasted with free will.[2]
Determinism often is taken to mean causal determinism, which in physics is known as cause-and-effect. It is the concept that eventswithin a given paradigm are bound by causality in such a way that any state (of an object or event) is completely determined by prior states. This meaning can be distinguished from other varieties of determinism mentioned below.

Copypaste from wikipedia, but pretty much says it. I often say causality and determinism, because those two concepts can, in some discussions, be separated, but most often it's just causal determinism.

Logic, in broadest sense as we've been using here, is a system of reasoning that is based on causal determinism and percieved reality.

@Gaidin: gods are part of our inner world, that is the metaphysical part of us that's not bound by our basic assumptions about reality, and therefore not governed by any rules but those we impose on it ourselves arbitrarily. I've covered this in more detail in another discussion. Some people are able to separate those two, and those scientists who are capable of not compromising either their science or their religion are such people. Some, however, mix them up...and they make up majority of believers, unfortunately.

[basics]

We'll just have to forgive Gaidin since his logic is based on something that arrived out of nothing calling that science. To him that is logical but it certainly isn't practical.

[Gaidin]

We'll just have to forgive Gaidin since his logic is based on something that arrived out of nothing calling that science. To him that is logical but it certainly isn't practical.

What science are you talking about?

Even the scientific method is logically based on rules and one or two axiomatic assumptions.

[Sar1n]

We'll just have to forgive Gaidin since his logic is based on something that arrived out of nothing calling that science. To him that is logical but it certainly isn't practical.

Think it isn't practical? Then give it up, the computer, the meds keeping you alive, your car, your clothes, your house...those are all products of that"impractical" science.

[Prodromos]

Okay, I think I have enough information to make my point now. I think we simply disagree on what logic is. Your definition of logic seems to be "whatever is true to me." Since you are apparently a materialist/naturalist, anything that happens to contradict your interpretation what reality is, is automatically false and "illogical."

Logic however is not about truth, but consistency.

logic

NOUN

Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

If an argument's conclusion naturally follows from the premises, that argument is logical. It is unnecessary for the argument's premises to be true. As long as the conclusion follows from the premises, the argument is valid.

You seemingly understood this when you originally defined logic as "don't derive me." (Presumably, you meant deriving a logical conclusion from premises). However, you have not explained why this and religion are incompatible. Your only explanation was the omnipotence paradox, which I've already responded to.

[Sar1n]

I've been sticking to informal meaning of logic so far, as it seemed to be inderstood both by me and Seketh that we're both operating with it. I am more than willing to operate within formal logic if you want to. It makes things easier.

Anyway. I explained it sufficiently I think. Without causal determinism, there wouldn't be logic. Because there wouldn't be a static link between premises. There wouldn't be any reason why any form would be incorrect. God is an axiom that exhibits free will against causal determinism and therefore isn't consistent by itself, and thus cannot be part of a logical system.

In a way, I am empiric naturalist, but it needs a bit specifying. I've covered it in another thread, so in short. We all take certain same assumptions about reality. They provide framework for us to think, to interpret qualia. Logic is directly derived from them, and from it science. In a way, it's a separation, "inner" and "outer" world. The outer world is governed by these assumptions, and if you put in front of me a proposition that defies these assumptions, I won't accept it, because as long as science isn't complete, there is always a room for logical explanation. You might believe it, I don't really care, but only as long as your proposition is contained within your inner world. But once you try to propagate it...then you're violating these assumptions and asking others to do the same, which I see as you putting your inner world above anyone else, which I see as violation of my egalitarian beliefs.

Am I clear enough now?

[chriscase]

I've been sticking to informal meaning of logic so far, as it seemed to be inderstood both by me and Seketh that we're both operating with it. I am more than willing to operate within formal logic if you want to. It makes things easier.

Anyway. I explained it sufficiently I think. Without causal determinism, there wouldn't be logic. Because there wouldn't be a static link between premises. There wouldn't be any reason why any form would be incorrect. God is an axiom that exhibits free will against causal determinism and therefore isn't consistent by itself, and thus cannot be part of a logical system.

I think you are conflating standard logic with logic in general. The choice to use logical systems that assume the principles of identity and non-contradiction is not the only possible choice. There are other logical systems that violate these principles in part or in whole, and, though the utility of these systems may not always be apparent, that does not bear on whether such systems are themselves logical systems. They are merely logical systems with different sets of truth tables.

Strangely I agree with the Doctor: Unless we are willing to define our terms with sufficient rigor, the discussion goes nowhere interesting.

Rather than hanging our hats on the term "logic", I would start with the more general category of reason. I assert something on the basis that there are reasons to do so. I further assert that the reasons given are good. What comprises a good reason? It must entail more than that I simply think it's good - otherwise why engage in discourse.

In this setting I assert a bad reason is one that can be shown through some series of inferences to contradict either a known proposition about the world, or another necessary consequence of the assertion itself. (So yes, let's insist on the PNC). I also assert that the Identity principle is necessary - any object that is not itself undermines the search for reasonable assertions.

And finally we have to define the universe of inquiry. This entails another axiomatic property: existence. If our core inquiry is as to the existence of something, the contingent property of existence attaches itself to every object of our consideration, and given the PNC and Identity principles, existence must be propositional - it must be either true or false, not both.

What is religion? I leave that to others here to define. However, I would assert that, unless we are willing to nail down a specific definition, the two objects of discussion will not sit in sufficiently aligned categories for the comparison to be meaningful.

[Sar1n]

I think you are conflating standard logic with logic in general. The choice to use logical systems that assume the principles of identity and non-contradiction is not the only possible choice. There are other logical systems that violate these principles in part or in whole, and, though the utility of these systems may not always be apparent, that does not bear on whether such systems are themselves logical systems. They are merely logical systems with different sets of truth tables.

Strangely I agree with the Doctor: Unless we are willing to define our terms with sufficient rigor, the discussion goes nowhere interesting.

Rather than hanging our hats on the term "logic", I would start with the more general category of reason. I assert something on the basis that there are reasons to do so. I further assert that the reasons given are good. What comprises a good reason? It must entail more than that I simply think it's good - otherwise why engage in discourse.

In this setting I assert a bad reason is one that can be shown through some series of inferences to contradict either a known proposition about the world, or another necessary consequence of the assertion itself. (So yes, let's insist on the PNC). I also assert that the Identity principle is necessary - any object that is not itself undermines the search for reasonable assertions.

And finally we have to define the universe of inquiry. This entails another axiomatic property: existence. If our core inquiry is as to the existence of something, the contingent property of existence attaches itself to every object of our consideration, and given the PNC and Identity principles, existence must be propositional - it must be either true or false, not both.

What is religion? I leave that to others here to define. However, I would assert that, unless we are willing to nail down a specific definition, the two objects of discussion will not sit in sufficiently aligned categories for the comparison to be meaningful.

I amaware of various fuzzy and probability logics. Those systems still hinge on a stable relations between their elements, and therefore some kind of causal determinism.


Trying to define religion...yeah, it's a tough one. Let's start with god, there are interesting features there. I don't think anyone objects to saying that god is a conscious entity. But the other property, which seems to be shared by every idea of god, is that god has free will and is able to excersise it to some degree in violation of the basic assumption.

[chriscase]

I amaware of various fuzzy and probability logics. Those systems still hinge on a stable relations between their elements, and therefore some kind of causal determinism.

As a counterexample, I propose a trivial logic: For every proposition P, P is true. It's a logic, though it adheres neither to the Identity or Non-Contradiction principles.

Now, how does that entail causal determinism? (Did you define this term carefully?)

Trying to define religion...yeah, it's a tough one. Let's start with god, there are interesting features there. I don't think anyone objects to saying that god is a conscious entity. But the other property, which seems to be shared by every idea of god, is that god has free will and is able to excersise it to some degree in violation of the basic assumption.

Ah but I am afraid it's not for us to define that which we endeavor to reduce to absurdity. That's stacking the deck. Let's leave the definition of religion to those who claim it is compatible with what we are calling logic. Otherwise, it's just us atheists proving to ourselves we are right, which is... umm... kind of beside the point.

[sumskilz]

I don't think anyone objects to saying that god is a conscious entity. But the other property, which seems to be shared by every idea of god, is that god has free will and is able to excersise it to some degree in violation of the basic assumption.

The majority of religious Jews would probably object.

"God's knowledge is different from that of the creature, since in the case of the latter knowledge and the thing known are distinct, thus leading to subjects which are again separate from him. This is described by the three expressions—cogitation, the cogitator, and the subject of cogitation. Now, the Creator is Himself Knowledge, the Knower, and the object known. His knowledge does not consist in the fact that He directs His thoughts to things without Him, since in comprehending and knowing Himself He comprehends and knows everything that exists. There is nothing which is not united to Him, and which He does not find in His own substance. He is the archetype of all existing things, and all things are in Him in their purest and most perfect form; so that the perfection of the creatures consists in the support whereby they are united to the primary source of His existence, and they sink down and fall from that perfect and lofty position in proportion to their separation from Him". ~Moses ben Jacob Cordovero (1522–1570)

In Cordevero's God concept, you can see the roots of Spinoza's perspective.

"Here, an objection will probably be raised: if God were to denote no more than the law and prototype of morality, religion would by implication, simply dissolve in ethics; yet the two are not supposed to be identical. But what can religion offer that goes beyond ethics? Ethics would be demeaned and religion obscured if God’s significance were to be found beyond the realm of morality. The Ethics intrinsic to God’s nature, and that alone, constitutes religion in Judaism. God’s essence is comprised of His attributes. And the so-called thirteen attributes refer exclusively to God’s love and justice which make him the prototype of human morality. All mystic speculations about any other aspects of His nature are rejected as potential violations of the fundamental principle of His unity and His unique Oneness" ~Hermann Cohen (1842-1918)

"In our thinking about God we must avoid all those mental habits which issue in logical fallacies. The most common of these is hypostasis, or assuming the separate identifiable existence of anything for which language has a name. There is a considerable difference, for example, between the way a scientist thinks of gravity and the way most layman think of it. A scientist regards it as property or quality of matter, a descriptive term for the way masses of matter behave in relation to one another. The average layman, however, thinks of it as a force, an invisible something that acts upon masses of matter pulling them together. According to both conceptions, gravity is real and must undeniably be reckoned with, but the layman finds it difficult to regard gravity as real without at the same time thinking of it as a thing, an object, a self-existent being or entity." ~Mordecai Kaplan (1881-1983)