| fredonly |
| Posted 03/06/12 at 06:17 PM | Reply with quote #46 |
|
| hatsof & troyjs: Consider these four reasons for trusting logical reasoning: 1) our reasoning ability has contributed to the survival of our species: this confirms that sensory perceptions are reasonably accurate, and that the inferences we make from these perceptions are also reasonably accurate. 2) our reasoning has demonstrated success in inferring such things as scientific laws- whose correctness has been confirmed through our trusted sensory input. 3) pragmatism - it is a dead-end to attempt to seek knowledge if logical reasoning is invalid. 4) The converse is self-defeating – Any argument against the validity of logic defeats itself if it relies on logic |
| Loading... | |
| skeptic88 |
| Posted 03/06/12 at 06:52 PM | Reply with quote #47 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by lucidThis is a dishonest tactic designed to defeat every possible argument that a skeptic could make against christianity, but it wins only by destroying every argument imaginable in the process.
Christian: Christianity is true
Skeptic: Christianity is probably false because of reasons x, y and z.
Christian: Ah but how can you trust logic and reason when you have no reasonable, logical justification for them?
Skeptic: Hmm?
If the christian wants to take this idea seriously, then he must now admit that there is nothing we can reasonably conclude. Milk makes you fly and milk doesn't make you fly are both equally reasonable statements in this light.
But of course, the christian doesn't really believe this, because the argument against logic is not used in good faith, it is just a debate tactic designed to kick up enough dust with which to make an escape. Truth be told, the christian, being a hypocrite, will go back to using the principles of reason and logic as soon as the debate is over.
Excellent post.
I think in addition to what you said, troy wanted to make the case that an axiomatic assumption in the rules of logic is just as deserving as an axiomatic assumption in God's existence. I still don't see the equivalence between these two, as we must assume the rules of logic to even discuss this matter in a coherent (i.e. logical) fashion...
In any case, we don't even have to agree that the rules of logic are "true", whatever that might mean in this case. All we have to do is agree on them as a basis for rational discourse. So to say that my conviction that the rules of logic are "true" is just as valid as a Christian's conviction that god's existence is "true" is missing the point.
p.s. I do very much appreciate troy's rather elegant way of explaining himself. |
| Loading... | |
| troyjs |
| Posted 03/06/12 at 08:23 PM | Reply with quote #48 |
|
Quote: Our attachment to logical principles is much stronger than a Christian's attachment to Christianity. Frankly, I don't know what it even means to suggest that, say, ~~A is not equivalent to A. When you remind us that we cannot help but be convinced of such logical principles, you are not speaking loosely.
In contrast, Christians doubt Christianity all the time, and many actually leave the faith. They can help themselves, and they have natural and intuitive alternatives to the framework that they use---alternatives which are superior insofar as they are actually supported by experience.
Yes, I agree.
However, it does not logically follow from this seemingly necessary, psychological phenomenon, that logic is at all valid.
I responded to this justification for logic by providing the 2 objections:
1) The Verificationism/Idealism Objection, and
2) The Uniqueness of Conceptual Framework Objection.
kind regards
|
| Loading... | |
| skeptic88 |
| Posted 03/06/12 at 08:37 PM | Reply with quote #49 |
|
| But by valid, you mean "based soundly in logic." Of course logic itself cannot be based soundly in logic.
And despite this, we're using logic right now. The truth, or validity of logic isn't really an issue so long as people implicitly assume that the laws of logic are to be used in discourse, which we do.
Why should this imply that the "self-evidence" of god, to many Christians, should relate in any manner to the truth of gods existence?
|
| Loading... | |
| troyjs |
| Posted 03/06/12 at 08:42 PM | Reply with quote #50 |
|
Quote: hatsof & troyjs: Consider these four reasons for trusting logical reasoning: 1) our reasoning ability has contributed to the survival of our species: this confirms that sensory perceptions are reasonably accurate, and that the inferences we make from these perceptions are also reasonably accurate. 2) our reasoning has demonstrated success in inferring such things as scientific laws- whose correctness has been confirmed through our trusted sensory input. 3) pragmatism - it is a dead-end to attempt to seek knowledge if logical reasoning is invalid. 4) The converse is self-defeating – Any argument against the validity of logic defeats itself if it relies on logic Your 4 arguments fall prey to the 2 objections I had previously put forward. Nevertheles: From (1) and (2), it does not logically follow that logic is valid. If they are inductive reasons for affirming the validity of logic, your argument is self-defeating as induction is deductively invalid -- whether or not we want to also affirm the validity of induction, you happen to presuppose that what is deductively invalid, may be just as useful as what is deductively valid. If these 2 are inductive justifications for induction, you have the enormous hurdle of responding to Hume's Problem of Induction, and if you happen to have something which would be of seminal value to both science and philosophy, I would very much appreciate reading it. In regards to (3) and (4), I am sure you do not believe that pragmatism is a defensible epistemological position, in the strictly logical sense. The necessity of the use of logic, viz., the logical necessity of it, can not be used to justify it as that would be to beg the question -- unless ofcourse begging the question is allowed in which case one not need to be logical at all. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I believe skeptic88 has understood my position well, however we disagree that the necessity of the use of logic is an adequate justification. It could very well be as much a hindrance to truth, as it precludes our ability to determine whether it is in fact without presupposing it to be so. In an earlier post, I have gone to some length to address why I believe I am justified in being a Christian, and in using logic. My epistemology is descriptive rather than just prescriptive, and it is the fatal flaw of all prescriptive epistemologies which leaves one without a justification for believing in the intelligibility of human reason. It is not only Christian philosophers and theologians who happen to believe this, but work was done prior to the Dutch Calvinists who elaborated more on the subtleties of such. Perhaps the most well-respected atheist philosopher who has attempted to construct a descriptive epistemology, is Willard Van Orman Quine. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-naturalized/ From another forum: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/justification-for-logic-30545.html kind regards |
| Loading... | |
| skeptic88 |
| Posted 03/06/12 at 09:07 PM | Reply with quote #51 |
|
| I believe skeptic88 has understood my position well, however we disagree that the necessity of the use of logic is an adequate justification. It could very well be as much a hindrance to truth, as it precludes our ability to determine whether it is in fact without presupposing it to be so.
But without pre-supposing the rules of logic, how are we to justify anything at all?
I certainly do agree with you that there is no (at least logical) justification for us adopting the laws of logic, but we have to adopt some set of rules in order to proceed in any way whatsoever. I haven't claimed that the necessity of logic is a justification for it, in fact I have been quite clear that I do not think it is possible at all to justify it. |
| Loading... | |
| troyjs |
| Posted 03/06/12 at 09:18 PM | Reply with quote #52 |
|
Quote: But without pre-supposing the rules of logic, how are we to justify anything at all?
I place 'justification' posterior to 'belief'. What we believe is a phenomenon we ourselves do not determine. Our psychological act of 'justification' can only occur if we already believe that which we are justifying.
Some say that what we believe is determined by socio-evolutionary determinants, whereas others say it is God.
kind regards
|
| Loading... | |
| skeptic88 |
| Posted 03/06/12 at 09:50 PM | Reply with quote #53 |
|
So, you would agree that it isn't possible to justify the truth of a matter prior to adopting some set of first principles (i.e. the rules of logic)? Would it not follow that a belief in god in this manner cannot be justified, and that god can only be justified using logic? |
| Loading... | |
| fredonly |
| Posted 03/06/12 at 09:53 PM | Reply with quote #54 |
|
| Quote: Originally Posted by troyjsQuote: hatsof & troyjs: Consider these four reasons for trusting logical reasoning: 1) our reasoning ability has contributed to the survival of our species: this confirms that sensory perceptions are reasonably accurate, and that the inferences we make from these perceptions are also reasonably accurate. 2) our reasoning has demonstrated success in inferring such things as scientific laws- whose correctness has been confirmed through our trusted sensory input. 3) pragmatism - it is a dead-end to attempt to seek knowledge if logical reasoning is invalid. 4) The converse is self-defeating – Any argument against the validity of logic defeats itself if it relies on logic Your 4 arguments fall prey to the 2 objections I had previously put forward. Nevertheles: From (1) and (2), it does not logically follow that logic is valid.
My point was that it is a justified belief, and the converse cannot be justified. I never suggested this was a proof.
Quote: If they are inductive reasons for affirming the validity of logic, your argument is self-defeating as induction is deductively invalid -- whether or not we want to also affirm the validity of induction, you happen to presuppose that what is deductively invalid, may be just as useful as what is deductively valid. Points 1 and 2 are inductive. Your correctly showing that my inductive argument may be false. No argument. Of course it may be false. #3 is not inductive, it's a simple assertion of pragmatics. If we're fooling ourselves and logic is invalid, we're wasting our time. Perhaps we are, but I'm still having fun with this (possibly) invalid game. Finally, #4 shows that your argument fails. If logic is invalid, then your argument against logic is invalid. Quote: If these 2 are inductive justifications for induction, you have the enormous hurdle of responding to Hume's Problem of Induction, and if you happen to have something which would be of seminal value to both science and philosophy, I would very much appreciate reading it. Isn't this where Hume argues that inductive reasoning isn't sound – that it can lead to false conclusions? I completely agree with this. My 4 points were not a proof, they were justifications for believing logic is valid vs the alternative. In regards to (3) and (4), I am sure you do not believe that pragmatism is a defensible epistemological position, in the strictly logical sense. The necessity of the use of logic, viz., the logical necessity of it, can not be used to justify it as that would be to beg the question -- unless ofcourse begging the question is allowed in which case one not need to be logical at all. Agreed – in the strictly logical sense I have proven nothing. But again, trust in logic is more justifiable than the alternative. I believe skeptic88 has understood my position well, however we disagree that the necessity of the use of logic is an adequate justification. It could very well be as much a hindrance to truth, as it precludes our ability to determine whether it is in fact without presupposing it to be so. Consider these 2 propositions: A) Logic is useful for determining truths from other truths B) Logic is useless at determining truths from other truths
I provided you my justification for believing A to be true. Do you have a better justification for believing B to be true? Quote: In an earlier post, I have gone to some length to address why I believe I am justified in being a Christian, and in using logic. My epistemology is descriptive rather than just prescriptive, and it is the fatal flaw of all prescriptive epistemologies which leaves one without a justification for believing in the intelligibility of human reason.
Then apparently you put implicit trust in logic after all.
I see nothing in either the article or that thread in the philosophy forum that suggests my belief about logic is unjustified. I think you mistook "justification" for "proof."
Most of the beliefs we hold are not based on logical proof, but are merely justifiable beliefs. That being said, since it is justifiable to trust logic, this provides us a tool for assimilating new beliefs.
|
| Loading... | |
| troyjs |
| Posted 03/06/12 at 10:24 PM | Reply with quote #55 |
|
Skeptic88,
Quote: So, you would agree that it isn't possible to justify the truth of a matter prior to adopting some set of first principles (i.e. the rules of logic)? Would it not follow that a belief in god in this manner cannot be justified, and that god can only be justified using logic?
Yes. However I must stress that belief is prior to justification. A person may happen to believe a proposition without justification, and without the capacity to justify it.
fredonly,
Quote: My point was that it is a justified belief, and the converse cannot be justified. I never suggested this was a proof.
Do you mean logically justified, or non-logically justified?
If logically, you beg the question, If non-logically, then you allow for justified non-logical reasoning.
Quote: Points 1 and 2 are inductive. Your correctly showing that my inductive argument may be false. No argument. Of course it may be false. #3 is not inductive, it's a simple assertion of pragmatics. If we're fooling ourselves and logic is invalid, we're wasting our time. Perhaps we are, but I'm still having fun with this (possibly) invalid game. Finally, #4 shows that your argument fails. If logic is invalid, then your argument against logic is invalid. If logic is invalid, then my argument is invalid -- I agree. But if both logic and my argument are invalid, why should I seek to be logical and reject my argument? If both logic and my argument are invalid, why is it better to reject my argument, rather to accept it? Quote: Agreed – in the strictly logical sense I have proven nothing. But again, trust in logic is more justifiable than the alternative. Again, logically justifiable, or non-logically justifiable? Quote: Consider these 2 propositions: A) Logic is useful for determining truths from other truths B) Logic is useless at determining truths from other truths
I provided you my justification for believing A to be true. Do you have a better justification for believing B to be true? Why is something being 'useful' a justification for it? Quote: Then apparently you put implicit trust in logic after all. I explicitly put trust in my use of logic, although a posterior to my trust in God. Analagously, I trust that I will not float up into the ceiling, because I have the logically prior trust that the law of gravity will hold. Quote: I see nothing in either the article or that thread in the philosophy forum that suggests my belief about logic is unjustified. I think you mistook "justification" for "proof."
Most of the beliefs we hold are not based on logical proof, but are merely justifiable beliefs. That being said, since it is justifiable to trust logic, this provides us a tool for assimilating new beliefs.
Your justification for logic is pragmatic, however why should we believe that a 'useful belief', is a 'true belief'? If the belief in the existence of God was pragmatically valuable, why should it be rejected according to your schema? kind regards |
| Loading... | |
| rsmartin |
| Posted 03/07/12 at 12:29 AM | Reply with quote #56 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by lionofjudahRsmartin that was a great answer but I have a few problems with what you said. You believe that you cannot be convinced of God through argumentation? Thats what it appeared to me that you were saying. And that to me, seems silly for example. Since God has revealed himself to us, The kalam or teleological or moral or resserection ALL of these arguments would be God revealing himself in nature! And if you can be convinced that God has revealed himself in nature than God exists. Furthermore, perhaps he has clearly revealed himself but because of sin our sense of God has been injured or evern because of sin our cognitive faculties of discerning God have been impaired.
You failed to answer the question that I asked directly of you in my Post 33.
|
| Loading... | |
| rsmartin |
| Posted 03/07/12 at 12:46 AM | Reply with quote #57 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by lucid
This is a dishonest tactic designed to defeat every possible argument that a skeptic could make against christianity, but it wins only by destroying every argument imaginable in the process.
It didn't take you long on these forums to figure that out. The Christians on these forums have but one motive to debate atheists and that is to sharpen their own debating skills. Deceit and manipulation are preached and practiced by their mentors and even taught in their foundational philosophy text. I'm reading it and it's shocking.
|
| Loading... | |
| troyjs |
| Posted 03/07/12 at 12:59 AM | Reply with quote #58 |
|
You have no idea whether I or any other Christian is trying to be dishonest, or what our motives are. You have made a judgement upon our characters and for that you have lost my respect.
I appreciate the level of courtesy shown by other atheists/skeptics, and I hope that I may never assume that one would either try to dissuade one from the truth by means of dishonesty, or to selfishly 'sharpen one's debating skills'.
Whether you appreciate it or not, I have a particular love for atheists and I especially desire to engage them in order for them to believe what I hold to be of most importance. I have invested my time and money into this, and I only ask that in future you do not accuse anyone, whether theist or atheist, of being disingenuous.
|
| Loading... | |
| SueDoeNimm |
| Posted 03/07/12 at 01:00 AM | Reply with quote #59 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by lucidThis is a dishonest tactic designed to defeat every possible argument that a skeptic could make against christianity, but it wins only by destroying every argument imaginable in the process.
AKA "Going Nuclear". It prevents the opponent from winning by destroying everybody. It's a logical suicide bomb.
|
| Loading... | |
| troyjs |
| Posted 03/07/12 at 01:23 AM | Reply with quote #60 |
|
Quote: AKA "Going Nuclear". It prevents the opponent from winning by destroying everybody. It's a logical suicide bomb.
Only if both agree that logical justification is a necesary requirement for belief. If theChristian believes Christianity prior to logical justification, he is not affected by hearing that his belief is not logically justified. If the skeptic requires logical justification for all beliefs, the Christian can provide a reductio argument to show that the skeptic's position is self-referentially incoherent.
Skeptic88 understands that there are certain axioms which are the grounds of justification -- not the result of it.
kind regards
|
| Loading... | |
