Religion and Logics

[Sogdog]

Sogdog,

But still true.

At least you admit the bible is illogical. Case closed.
As for true? hahahahahaha my 8 yr old dissects the bible better than christians, and he realises its myth. Case closed

[DaVinci]

So what do our bible-believers or other theists think about Anthropology, DNA-researchment, Evolutionsgenetic, Molecularbiology and Humangenetic?

Ie. is it true, what the researchment and its application brings up?

Hint: Genetic code editing will be the case, we are in a next step of the evolution.

What tells you your god about those things?

[Iskar]

I see no reason to doubt the well-tested results of science. Neither do I see a reason to assume that an omnipotent creator would have settled for a boring simplistic world instead of one with countless fascinating mechanics and natural "laws" to discover. The only point where my (Catholic) faith would lead me to a caution is with regards to some methods applied in reproductive medicine and genetic research, in particular the usage of frozen "excess" embryos - humans nonetheless from our point of view that are being treated like disposable things.

The question of editing genetic codes and "engineered" humans is interesting. What the church would have to say about this is as follows, I guess:
Whether or not someone's genome has been edited does not make them more or less human. From the point of view of faith our humanity is rooted in being created (not literally in the 6 days, nota bene) by God in his image and the church would be bound to defend anyone's humanity, whether they are Christians or not. (Another interesting question w.r.t. this is a philosophical one about identity: Does changing genes change the individual into a different one or is it our choices and actions that constitute our individuality/identity? I tend towards the latter, but must admit I have so far not had a thorough discussion about this.)
The other side of this coin is that the church would defend the worth of non-optimised individuals, disabled and otherwise challenged people against a growing pressure to self-optimise and "not be a burden on society". Human life is, according to our faith, sacred and its worth is not quantifiable by usefulness or personal abilities. As such the church would have to be a bulwark against the trend to quantify and monetise every aspect of human conduct.

[DaVinci]

Ok, Iskar has spoken, in name of the (catholic) church (how modern, its new or current approach).
I take this with me, as advisable think-model

Neither do I see a reason to assume that an omnipotent creator would have settled for a boring simplistic world instead of one with countless fascinating mechanics and natural "laws" to discover.

Again ... also to the other theists

What tells you your god about those things?

[Iskar]

Ok, Iskar has spoken, in name of the (catholic) church.

Heh, I guess I am a tad presumptive in "speaking for the church", but I seem to be the resident Catholic here and I think what I write in this capacity is more or less representative of (the more liberal branch of) Catholicism. I might add that as a mathematician my approach is most likely skewed towards the analytical, rational and structural, and there are certainly other, more emotional, mystic and emphatic approaches to our faith. The underlying doctrine would still be the same, though.

To answer your question in short and in keeping with your wording: My god does not tell me anything about these scientific endeavours/results in particular, just to respect the sanctitiy of human life in general in whatever we do, including these branches of science.

[DaVinci]

Heh, I guess I am a tad presumptive in "speaking for the church", but I seem to be the resident Catholic here and I think what I write in this capacity is more or less representative of (the more liberal branch of) Catholicism. I might add that as a mathematician my approach is most likely skewed towards the analytical, rational and structural, and there are certainly other, more emotional, mystic and emphatic approaches to our faith. The underlying doctrine would still be the same, though.

To answer your question in short and in keeping with your wording: My god does not tell me anything about these scientific endeavours/results in particular, just to respect the sanctitiy of human life in general in whatever we do, including these branches of science.

Re 1st paragraph: I know. Nonetheless, i guess you are aware of big parts of people, especially theists, which have a contrary approach to your expressed one, and dispute and even reject science in whole?
So my question remains.

Re 2nd paragraph: Is this approach, in your personal view or of the church, a condition or sole thinking of religious people?

[Cyclops]

Heh, I guess I am a tad presumptive in "speaking for the church", ...

...your holiness? Is that you?

My dear chap you speak so well and so persuasively in matters of religion: Catholicism is a broad church and includes a wide range of opinions, including the beautiful model of Erasmus and the gimlet mind of Copernicus.

To my mind Christ is about the heart. Inclusion and love is the message, and even if (as I believe) it was meant for a small nation only, the strength of the message has overflowed half the world.

Religions which are "logical" seem creepy AF to me, like those weird Pythagoreans with their elitist anti-democratic claptrap. Reason is weak and tenuous, it flutters and dies as raggedly as emotion, but does not warm the heart like faith.

[Iskar]

1) Sure there are, "theist" is such an extremely wide label that I would personally not associate with a lot of people flying under it (followers of Huitzilipochtli and Quetzalcoatl for example).

2) I don't think it is exclusive to religious people in its effects, though maybe in its wording, as "sanctity" is a genuinely religious notion and refers to things/concepts whose worth derives from a transcendent source. However, the view that human life needs to be protected in all its forms can even be put on a purely philosophical, a-religious basis, and a specific secular example for this might be Art. 1 GG.

[DaVinci]

1) Sure there are, "theist" is such an extremely wide label that I would personally not associate with a lot of people flying under it (followers of Huitzilipochtli and Quetzalcoatl for example).

2) I don't think it is exclusive to religious people in its effects, though maybe in its wording, as "sanctity" is a genuinely religious notion and refers to things/concepts whose worth derives from a transcendent source. However, the view that human life needs to be protected in all its forms can even be put on a purely philosophical, a-religious basis, and a specific secular example for this might be Art. 1 GG.

We are pretty much en par there.

Added (edit): Sidenote, you are hopefully aware, that the church as such, historically didn't follow that approach, and that mainly certain people of the Enlightment epoche caused something like the Human Rights idea. One can of course argue (some the church might do that), that without Jesus' occurance, there wouldn't be something like that, and what we think (latest) todays about human ethic approaches, while i would dispute that.

I asked the 2nd point, because also there, you might be aware, that many religious people are of the conviction, that only the true believers can think and live properly, so to speak. You know, god's tribunal, etc.

So, let me know, when you, Iskar, applicate for the Pope's job, and i might convert to the catholic church

Let me summarise, that my questions above, post 2 on this page, were meant merely for people like basics.

Edit2

Can we call them, without disrespect*, religious fundamentalists to better/quicker know from which branch of believers we speak?

* just as in all societal things, some people like to opress/hurt other people, some do not. While i think, fundamental (merely radical/fanatic) religion application, is and will remain a cause for amassing people for violence and war; it belongs to ideology and its tooling potential.

There was a saying in the end 60s (derived from a song of CSNY), teach your children well ... as well as ... teach your parents well.

[Iskar]

...your holiness? Is that you?

My dear chap you speak so well and so persuasively in matters of religion: Catholicism is a broad church and includes a wide range of opinions, including the beautiful model of Erasmus and the gimlet mind of Copernicus.

To my mind Christ is about the heart. Inclusion and love is the message, and even if (as I believe) it was meant for a small nation only, the strength of the message has overflowed half the world.

Religions which are "logical" seem creepy AF to me, like those weird Pythagoreans with their elitist anti-democratic claptrap. Reason is weak and tenuous, it flutters and dies as raggedly as emotion, but does not warm the heart like faith.

The person of Christ is certainly about the aspect of love and inclusion, but remember there are two more persons to the trinity and in particular the Holy Spirit is thought to inspire (or, literally, in-spire) endeavours of the mind, including logical and rational approaches to the religious sphere (or really, any subject).

The pythagoreans were certainly strange (I mean, they hated beans for no good reason.) and illustrate what happens when you base religious convictions on (seemingly) logical thoughts alone, but as humans have both rational and irrational aspects any religion hoping to appeal to the whole of human existence must necessarily contain both aspects in its approach to the transcendent.

[basics]

The thing is about Christianity is that it was never meant to be an all-consuming, all-covering religion to take over all the world. Jesus said that few get in because the pathway is so narrow therefore those that are to get in relying on God finding them by word of the mouth or Gospel is the reason He commanded His disciples to go out into all the world to preach it knowing that most will reject Him outrightly or replace Him with their own interpretations of Him.

[chriscase]

Ok, this just got too interesting to not jump in. Before I say anything in particular, let me state in the general direction of all involved, though, that I
a) reject a simplistic literalist approach to scripture,
b) hold that any attempt at producing evidence for the existence of God runs counter to the principle of faith and is ultimately harmful to it,
c) in particular reject any corruption of faith by naive magical thinking and post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc fallacies, and
d) hold that properly understood faith as an individually chosen and collectively shared conviction about the transcendent is well compatible with logics and science.

...

The definition given by the source is indeed mostly useless, notionally because it remains incredibly vague, does not really define the words it uses and commits a couple of fallacies, and practically because it contradicts the most widespread Abrahamitic approach to God as being fundamentally personally constituted (which is really the core point for believers to be able to personally, albeit transcendently, relate to God.)

...

The main point of applying logics to God is probably the following: Logics is a human construct. In treating God as a valid object of logical reasoning we already make a premise that is, from the position of faith, mostly untenable (namely that a human system of thought can grasp or put any kind of restrictions on the nature of God). By the Christian doctrine God certainly has a worldly/material aspect, at the very least in the person of Christ, and thus worldly logics should be usable by humans as a way to approach him, but it cannot be used to determine/delimit/qualify him. This of course extends to any attempt at concisely describing God by language - as exemplified by the "definition" in Dr. Legend's source.

I had a sneaking suspicion my last post would pose an irresistible temptation

I need to split my responses to you into a few groups, because I think there is a general level of discussion to be had here and an examination of the specifics as well.

In the first place, I would not characterize my argument as "proof" that God does not exist. The proof - such as it is - rests on some very particular premises. I would not ordinarily trot out an argument like this without those premises having been fairly well established and agreed upon before hand. The key premises:

1) We are dealing with at least an informally rigorous use of standard logic.
2) The subject (in this case, the God of organized religion, e.g., Christianity) sits entirely within the universe of our consideration, that is, the domain of objects upon which we have agreed to exercise the logical rigor stipulated in (1).

and finally:
3) We are working with definition of God that is sufficiently specific to yield an interesting discussion. In this case, the "transcendent" definition that God is the aggregation (and more!) of all that exists.

In your final paragraph above, you make the point that these three premises - particularly (2) - would not find agreement among many believers, and I think that's clear. Many religious folk would immediately balk at the idea that any rigorous logical "definition" of God is possible, at least to the human mind. In the context of this discussion, at that point we'd pretty much throw in the towel and say that here religion and logic part ways - God is simply not in the domain. However, you may note that was not the route Dr. Legend chose to take.

This is also my overall position on this topic - certain aspects of religious belief simply must be shielded from examination by logic; otherwise we end up with a doubly bad combination of logical inconsistencies and a puncturing of the religious experience. So really, the answer is the two are compatible only up to a certain point - on the whole and in their entirety, they are not.

On the second point - the vagueness of Dr. Legend's source - I think it's worded carelessly, but the concept here is certainly not novel, nor is it radically bad. Precursors of the notion of a transcendent divinity can certainly be found in Plato (the mini-narrative of Diotima from The Symposium comes to mind), and some of the high points of the Confessions clearly appropriate that Platonic notion of transcendence and reorganize it in a scriptural context (the man was a rhetorical genius). If anything, the good doctor's source is undermined by his resentment at the plebeian interpretation of his religion and fails to convey the sublime beauty of his vision. Who would have thought that the grace of humility and shedding of ego would become elusive in the presence of overweening pride and pretensions of superiority? Oh right, that same guy would.

So those are my opening remarks. I do still owe you a detailed answer as to my appropriation of Russell's paradox, how I use the notion of existence, the zero analogy, and particulars regarding logical entailment.

_____

So here is how I have been thinking about concept of existence in propositional logic:

In my own simple-minded apprehension of mathematics (as it was taught to me), the notion of existence is really the atomic primitive descriptor. For instance KP or ZF axioms for the most part consist of rules that govern how one can construct or derive new sets from existing sets, and then include at least one axiom that asserts the existence of a set (I like KP because it's clear how one assumes the existence of the empty set and then builds everything up from that). From these foundations the entirety of standard mathematics is then constructed.

However, none of the axioms explicitly define what this existence descriptor really means. It's not even formally defined, much less given any interpretive meaning. One might speculate that the intent is to form a representational analog to objective existence, but the approach is entirely formal, and proceeds from such abstract rudiments that it's just as clearly intended to stand on its own as the basis of a representational construct - e.g., mathematics.

It could be argued that some meaning is inherited via the semantics of predicate logic, but in this case I'm not using predicates, I'm just dealing in propositions. And even in predicate logic, existence as a descriptor is still not assigned meaning. Much as in set theory, it's a primitive state that is assumed to have propositional requirements. Much care is taken to ensure the universal and existential quantifiers operate to conform to the principle of non-contradiction, and to transfer existence safely (by inference) from one collection of objects to another, but existence itself is not assigned any meaning beyond its formal position in the semantics of predicate logic.

So in practice what we see is that existence is a primitive, undefined property that our entire axiomatic system is expressly designed to transfer safely from a small (defined or axiomatically stipulated) collection of primitives to other derived objects. As such it has no intrinsic meaning - it only serves to transfer a status from one collection of objects to others, to enable the construction of a contingent model. (If A exists, then so must B, and so on.) The governing rule is that existence must be propositional and non-contradictory: if we derive a state of affairs where an object both exists and does not exist, we have a paradox and have fallen into error. I am inclined to think every object of consideration must also have an existential status, but I'm not sure about that.

Now I know that in some philosophical contexts, there is an assumption of existence that accompanies an assertion. So, for instance, if I say consider all X, there may be an implicit assumption that there exists at least one X. In mathematical logic this is generally not the case, which gives rise to vacuously true implications.

We could clarify things by explicitly stating what the universe of consideration is. But even if we explicitly state that we want to consider a universe only of things that can be said to exist, it's clear we don't restrict ourselves only to contemplation of objects that exist in the practice of mathematical reasoning. Even though existence appears to be one of our central characteristics, the one characteristic of objects we most care - almost obsessively - about, some of our most cherished proofs spend a considerable amount of effort contemplating, defining, manipulating, and triumphantly discarding objects that we joyously conclude do not exist. Cantor's diagonal proof and the proof that the diagonal length of the unit square is not rational are two proofs that come easily to mind. And these are not obscure proofs, but rather some of the most celebrated, canonical proofs in the foundations of set theory and analysis.

So the "domain of contemplation" must quite prominently feature objects our contemplation itself informs us cannot exist, unless we want to toss proof by contradiction out the window. Sometimes it may even be the case that the proof would be impossible without contemplation of the non-existent. Now that would put us in a truly absurd situation: I could prove to you that this thing does not exist if only I were allowed to contemplate it.

From a philosophical perspective, I think the existence property forms a nice bridge between the conceptual realm and contexts of application. In the most stupidly obvious way I can, I pay tribute to Descartes in as much as, whatever idea pops into my head, can certainly be said to exist as an idea I just had. Whether that existence can be properly transferred to another context is the more relevant question, and this is where the semantics of representational logic come into play.

In the context of the current discussion, if I have a working, purportedly well-formed definition of God that states God contains "all that exists" and on top of that claims to be consistent with propositional logic, then the notion of "all that exists" must be well defined, as must be the notion of containment. Even if, as in the examples above, I intend to show that "all that exists" cannot itself exist, I should be allowed to contemplate it, and even formulate it as a logical proposition. Despite the possibility there might be some philosophical objection to doing so, given that the body of working mathematicians appear to be comfortable with the contemplation of objects they intend to show do not exist, I think that's a high enough bar.

[basics]

chriscase,

You'll forgive my flippancy here but I would love to be a fly on the wall the day you try to explain all that to your children if they ever ask you if you believe God exists?

[chriscase]

Hi basics,
I tell my children I don't know. It's all about the journey, man.

[Prodromos]

So is this the definition of God you are working from?

That's a lot of words. But I'm gonna cut most of it because, 1) as I previously said, my interest isn't to discuss the evidence for God in this thread, and 2) Iskar has already responded to much of it, though I disagree with him a little.


My article is not necessarily a thorough explanation of my personal beliefs. It's simply to explain to Conon the difference between "God", and gods. There's a huge difference. The conflict between monotheism and most of the world's religions, is much more (or, depending on how you look at it, less), than a question of which of countless fundamentally equal and similar gods to worship.


Polytheists actually understand this difference quite well. It's a popular misconception that "pagans" don't believe in God, and have their own, different gods. Polytheists actually do believe in God, they just don't worship him directly or give much thought to him. He is often nameless or referred to as the great or ancient Spirit that created everything, including whatever personal gods they believe in, and set up the laws of the universe and the nature of things, and so on. His existence is taken for granted.


So when you ask, "should I worship your personal god or Perun or Hades?", it really misses the point. There may be many different "gods" but there is, by definition, only one "God." Different religions may have different names for him, and disagree on his ways of interacting with the world, but most or all clearly understand that he is on a different level than their gods.


Monotheists' question then is, "why worship these fallible, created, and generally finite beings, rather than the infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, uncreated being, the source of all things?"

[chriscase]

That's a lot of words. But I'm gonna cut most of it because, 1) as I previously said, my interest isn't to discuss the evidence for God in this thread, and 2) Iskar has already responded to much of it, though I disagree with him a little.
...
Monotheists' question then is, "why worship these fallible, created, and generally finite beings, rather than the infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, uncreated being, the source of all things?"

Well if you are going to abdicate your part in the discussion you can do worse than to abdicate to Iskar.

Still I have to ask, do you really think your God, an "infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, uncreated being, the source of all things," is entirely compatible with standard logic? In other words, can we make logical propositions out of your description and find no contradictions? Or, like many, would you object to the notion that God can be comprehended sufficiently to subject a definition to logical examination? If you agree with this objection, then there is a point at which you do not have confidence in the compatibility of this God and logic. Perhaps, like many, you will mark it down to the deficiencies of logic, but in either case the question is settled then.

[Prodromos]

Well if you are going to abdicate your part in the discussion you can do worse than to abdicate to Iskar.

Still I have to ask, do you really think your God, an "infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, uncreated being, the source of all things," is entirely compatible with standard logic? In other words, can we make logical propositions out of your description and find no contradictions? Or, like many, would you object to the notion that God can be comprehended sufficiently to subject a definition to logical examination? If you agree with this objection, then there is a point at which you do not have confidence in the compatibility of this God and logic. Perhaps, like many, you will mark it down to the deficiencies of logic, but in either case the question is settled then.

I've made a few posts about what logic is and its compatibility with spiritual beliefs. I think I ve stated a few times that I have no interest in discussing it, so I'm not sure how that's abdication. I just wanted to clarify what the theistic and atheistic arguments are. "We just believe in one god less than you", for instance, is a classic misunderstanding of what atheism and God actually are. There are numerous other misunderstandings and falsehoods, like, "there is no evidence for God", "religion is responsible for most wars", "logic/science is in conflict with or has disproved spirituality", etc. I just lack the time and the inclination to discuss that. You clearly are convinced that God doesn't exist, or should be denied as a way of hurting him. So what's the point? It's a waste of time.

[basics]

You know it's a strange thing up here in the north of Scotland in and around fishing ports that men of the sea have such a strength of faith in God and I wondered why here especially until I listened to some phenominal stories from some of these fishermen. I recommend that if anyone gets the chance they should indulge the opportunity to hear some of the stories these guys can tell and I have not of yet heard anyone deny there to be a God overseeing their lives. Amazingly it is not something confined to the older men but something deep in the hearts of all ages that make a living from the sea. One in particular was of a crew crashing on its journey to its boat and the skipper when in hospital came round to the sound of " Amazing grace," being whistled by a man earlier in the week whilst standing in the doorway of his shop. That man was me. Another was of another being washed overboard and then being washed back on board, this man being an elder in the little church in which I was saved. Then there was the young guy who told me of a storm where the deckhouse was smashed by a wave literally yet those inside including himself were unharmed. It is not strange to find such faith in these towns and villages where on any Sunday the churches are packed sometimes with standing room only.

[chriscase]

I've made a few posts about what logic is and its compatibility with spiritual beliefs. I think I ve stated a few times that I have no interest in discussing it, so I'm not sure how that's abdication.

You did supply a certain description of God that might admit to a logical interpretation, and you have also implied in a few ways that you don't find any incompatibilities between them. I do see some incompatibilities if we want to subject the entirety of the God concept as you seem to conceive it to rigorous logical examination.

On the other hand, one might say that there are perfectly acceptable subjects of thought that simply ought not to be examined logically. To me that means we are not holding out for a God definition or belief that is fully conformant to logical principles but rather subordinating logic to the greater principle that God makes everything possible and right. So to the extent logic agrees with my religious sensibilities that's fine, but if it does not agree, it's overstepped its proper role.

I'm just trying to figure out where you stand, but you're being kind of cagey. If we treat God as an aggregation that contains all that exists, I argue that we may generate a paradox. All you have to do to get out of this is to say - as Iskar does - that it's not possible for the human mind to grasp the definition of God sufficiently to even start such a project - this is a foolish exercise to try to make logical proofs about God. If you agree with this then that's fine, and we have concluded that logic and religion are not entirely compatible.

[Prodromos]

You know it's a strange thing up here in the north of Scotland in and around fishing ports that men of the sea have such a strength of faith in God and I wondered why here especially until I listened to some phenominal stories from some of these fishermen. I recommend that if anyone gets the chance they should indulge the opportunity to hear some of the stories these guys can tell and I have not of yet heard anyone deny there to be a God overseeing their lives. Amazingly it is not something confined to the older men but something deep in the hearts of all ages that make a living from the sea. One in particular was of a crew crashing on its journey to its boat and the skipper when in hospital came round to the sound of " Amazing grace," being whistled by a man earlier in the week whilst standing in the doorway of his shop. That man was me. Another was of another being washed overboard and then being washed back on board, this man being an elder in the little church in which I was saved. Then there was the young guy who told me of a storm where the deckhouse was smashed by a wave literally yet those inside including himself were unharmed. It is not strange to find such faith in these towns and villages where on any Sunday the churches are packed sometimes with standing room only.

I have also noticed the connection between sea voyagers and firm spirituality. Many would describe it as superstition, or a coping mechanism, for urviving the trauma of being at the mercy of the sea. But I'd argue the opposite. When you're in that situation, or any similar situation, there is no room for faux "intellectual" mumbo jumbo, there's only an instinctual and actually very rational reversion to the most basic truths of life.

You did supply a certain description of God that might admit to a logical interpretation, and you have also implied in a few ways that you don't find any incompatibilities between them. I do see some incompatibilities if we want to subject the entirety of the God concept as you seem to conceive it to rigorous logical examination.

On the other hand, one might say that there are perfectly acceptable subjects of thought that simply ought not to be examined logically. To me that means we are not holding out for a God definition or belief that is fully conformant to logical principles but rather subordinating logic to the greater principle that God makes everything possible and right. So to the extent logic agrees with my religious sensibilities that's fine, but if it does not agree, it's overstepped its proper role.

I'm just trying to figure out where you stand, but you're being kind of cagey. If we treat God as an aggregation that contains all that exists, I argue that we may generate a paradox. All you have to do to get out of this is to say - as Iskar does - that it's not possible for the human mind to grasp the definition of God sufficiently to even start such a project - this is a foolish exercise to try to make logical proofs about God. If you agree with this then that's fine, and we have concluded that logic and religion are not entirely compatible.

I supplied that article so that you may know the difference, in type/category, between God and gods. No we haven't concluded that religion and logic are incompatible. You seem highly interested in making a straw man of my argument and rebutting it.

Psychologists who study political belief and persuasion think it’s adorable how obsessed argumentative people are with those cute little things called facts. When it comes to winning arguments, truthfulness and details simply don’t matter as much as we think they do.

“People think emotionally, and they very often will have these gut moral intuitions that certain things are right or wrong,” said Matthew Feinberg, a psychologist at Stanford. The process of belief formation runs in the opposite direction than we’d hope: People “come to the conclusion first, and then the reasons they kind of pull out just to support their beliefs.”

This runs counter to a lot of what we learn when we’re writing term papers in school or reading our favorite authors, of course — in these contexts, logical precision is key. But when you’re engaging in a live argument with someone who views the world very differently than you do, it’s important not to get too hung up on factual accuracy.

How to Win Your Next Political Argument

I have no interest in sharing my beliefs on TWC, and I doubt text would change the beliefs your worldview is based on.