![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Religious Logic, Part 2
We Hold These Truths to Be Self-Evident
It’s not uncommon for detractors of religion (particularly of the rationalist persuasion) to assert that religions are inherently illogical. This essay series considers the question of whether or not religions operate according to a kind of logic and if so, what that logic is. You may want to read through part one in this series (along with the accompanying arguments which followed) for background before moving forward.
In part 1, I explored the beginnings of conditional logic, in which we have a premise and a conclusion. If P, then Q. This is a major type of logic used in computer programming. What it says simply, is that if the condition is met successfully, then the conclusion will also be true.
In philosophy, deductive reasoning works acording to this principle with one main difference. Instead of one premise, two are required. And both premises ought to have a value of “true” in order for the conclusion to also be true. This is called a syllogism, and the classic example you’ll see everywhere (or variations thereof) is:
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.
Wikipedia’s deductive reasoning entry also offers a more everyday example:
The picture is above the desk.
The desk is above the floor.
Therefore the picture is above the floor.
My question for people who believe that religion is inherently irrational is this: How does the logical method of the preceding statements differ from that used below:
1) Jesus died to save people from sin
2) Belief in Jesus is required for salvation
–> If you believe in Jesus, you will be saved from sin
Now, before you answer, remember I’m asking specifically about the logical method of the statement, and not the possible truth value of the statement. The argument you’re likely to give is that in the previous examples, it’s an established fact that men are mortals and that Socrates is a man, or that the picture is above the desk and the desk is above the floor. Since these things are provable by experience and repeatable, then they differ from the premises about Jesus, belief, sin and salvation - because these things are not provable or repeatable.
But if we were to get into epistemology, or the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature and origins of knowledge, we could conceivably ask: how can we be sure that all men are mortals or that the picture is above the desk? How do we even know what a “man,” “desk,” “picture” or “mortality” is? Perhaps these premises aren’t as firm as we believe them to be.
In fact, in order to prove the statement that “all men are mortal” we would realistically have to gather together every instance of “man” that has ever or currently exists in the world, and then prove that they could be alive at one moment and dead at another. So this would mean that we’d have to first resurrect every man who had already died, and then kill all of them (past and present) in order to guarantee that they are indeed mortal. Where I’m going with this is that though it may meet provisional requirements based on our personal experiences and commonly accepted definitions of “man” and “mortality,” there’s realistically no way to prove that our underlying premise is in fact completely true in all instances.
What we’re left with then is an axiom or ” A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument.” So does that mean that logic and reason themselves are based on axiomatic truths which cannot, in all cases, actually be proven? Does reason then ultimately rely on something quite similar to faith, which is typically defined as believing things without evidence, or against prevailing evidence? If that’s true, then what separates a philosophy constructuted logically on a set of axioms from a religion constructed logically on a set of axioms? Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems like there essentially is no difference, so long as it can be proven that they both do use logical methods, regardless of the different starting axioms.
If you’d like to explore the notion of axiomatic truths and logical systems built using them, a good place to start would be the United States Declaration of Independence, which early on proposes:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident” essentially means that we can’t prove them, but that we take them as a ground-zero, a starting point, as faith-based axioms. The entire document then uses logic to show that if these needs are not met by a government, then that government must be replaced with one which does. But the document in no place makes any kind of justification of philosophical explanation as to why these rights are “unalienable.”
For other examples, you could look at things like the Nicene or Apostle’s Creed. Each of these functions as a list of axiomatic truths. And however irrational you may see the axioms themselves as being, a very strong argument could be made that the religion built on top of them is constructed in a highly logical and self-consistent manner.
However, the reason why people usually consider Christian or other religious beliefs illogical is because they are ignoring or rejecting the underlying axioms, or they are trying to replace the axioms with those of another system - usually a rational/materialist one. Meanwhile, they fail to recognize that the rational/materialist worldview itself is built just as much on unprovable axioms, and instead believe that they are functioning exclusively according to “pure” logic and reason, and nothing else.
Homework: Figure out what the underlying premises or axioms are to your own worldview. Uncover the core items which your belief-systems are built upon, but which themselves are more or less unprovable. If you like, write a short creed of your own which highlights these axioms.
- Beliefs & “Logic”
- “Irrational” Behavior
- Decimate her with logic
- Religious Logic, Part 1
- Is Logic Logical?
- Prev: Alternate Universe Dreams
- Next: God is a Heretic
December 6th, 2005 at 5:02 pm
Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant!
I feel as if the same idea was poking around in my head for a long time, but couldn’t quite express it - like a word on the “tip of the tounge.” This is a concept that was… on the tip of my mind? But very clearly expressed.
Perhaps, though, the illogic of some religions comes in with conflicting axioms. (God is all loving AND God is jealous, etc.)
December 6th, 2005 at 5:07 pm
I think that’s a great point. What we’re dealing with these is that we have two sets of axioms: one that is specifically Old Testament Judaism, and then another which is New Testament Christianity laminated on top of it. I think this is actually part of the cultural power of Christianity, that it does have axioms which conflict with one another. The dynamic tension causes people to go through greater logical machinations or in order to make sense of the whole thing, and create a logically consistent explanation of why these two things are a paradox.
My next piece in this series is going to be about that pretty much, featuring this quote from Claude Levi-Strauss:
So maybe part of the way to create a powerful religion is to have axioms which contradict one another, and which force people to build layers of myth and logic (”mytho-logic”) to explain the whole thing… or come as close as possible.
December 6th, 2005 at 5:19 pm
sin and salvation are artifices created for the purpose of meeting the need for salvation of sinners. hegelian dialectic. round and round we go.
i resist the urge to have a reason for living, for getting things right, to finding fault and blame and pointing fingers. we are at the bottom of a linguistic well. words are poured in on our heads each day and we come away with “reasonable” ideas about living as a result. this reason runs into our feelings headlong, at times, and so which system wins? the reason or the feelings?
jesus was talking about personal power. 3 centuries later tales of his existance formed into religion. the two don`t make good company. he was saying know yourself. those who deconstruct his words and call him things that make thier story work are looking to have you sit in a big room on uncomfortable seats for long enough to go into an altered state where they can convince you of anything they want. most meetings work this way.
December 6th, 2005 at 5:21 pm
The problem with christians is not that they don’t use logic at all. They do use some logic, of course. They don’t go around saying “i have hair, the water is wet, therefore satan is evil”. The problem is that the little logic that they use is based on other illogical premises.
Oh and regarding this:
Here’s a quote from Wikipedia:
This kind of logic is definately not enough for determining truths!
When it comes to determining truths, I think that reason and logic have proven themselves to be as are reliable as something can get in our known universe. Faith hasn’t. This is, in the end, what matters. Which method is good and which one isn’t.
December 6th, 2005 at 5:34 pm
Hory, BBcode doesn’t work here. Please us HTML in the future. I’m going to convert your code to HTML
December 6th, 2005 at 5:43 pm
As to your specific comments:
Did you not see that is precisely what I said above? That all axioms are unprovable and hence illogical? The axioms which you are operating under are also similarly unprovable. You keep repeating that logic and reason are “reliable” and yet you’ve nowhere shown me how or why they are reliable.
I interpret your statement above about the “known universe” to mean that the reason they are reliable is that they reflect our exterior world, or can be used to accurately predict elements of our exterior world. But is that always the case? Without even venturing into the realm of the paranormal, psychedelic or spiritual, we need look no further than quantum mechanics to find a place where logic breaks down and paradox rules the day.
In any event, you speak a great deal about determining truths, but claim yourself a Universist, which states in Axiom # 16 of it’s catechism/FAQ/creed:
http://universist.org/fullfaq.htm#16
It follows then, doesn’t it, that you can’t use reason to arrive at an absolute truth?
December 6th, 2005 at 5:49 pm
i believe that using statements containing the same facts as a prior statement as proof of a prior statement is known as a tautology. much like science claims it`s not.
and we assume that an absolute truth exists, which lets the game continue.
we didn`t use reason to get here. why do we need it now?
December 6th, 2005 at 6:26 pm
I’m sorry about the codes, I only noticed them after posting.
BTW, I think you should increase the text size a little, on this site.
I am not sure if “my” axioms are unprovable or not… this is something very difficult. They are something that’s part of the nature of us and the universe itself. But when I talk about the foundations of christian beliefs I am referring to the Bible, which is far from being an axiom. So it’s not the same thing. To see that logic and reason are reliable you just have to look at the base of all human progress that happened throughout time.
Maybe, but even in this case faith would not useful. If there’s an underlying system to quantum mechanics then at some point we’ll be able to fully understand it through reason. If there isn’t one, why bother with “faithful” speculations?
I talk about truths, but I don’t claim any aboslute religious truths that Universism opposes. I never made claims that the meaning of my life should be the meaning of everyone, or that my interpretation on the existence of a god-like entity is necessarily true, for example. I have talked about the invalidity of faith which is often an illogical and self-contradictory method.
My position is basically this: if something is logical, it’s existence can be determined through reason, but it if something is illogical, then it’s impossible to find an interpretation for it’s existence. When people say that to know God you need faith, they are in my opinion saying no more than that God is chaotical and can be explained through whatever opinions we invent.
December 6th, 2005 at 6:35 pm
So what’s wrong with that? Isn’t that what allows you to create a God that is 100% rational?
PS. I am in the process of re-designing my site, which will include larger text sizes. If you can’t wait though, I recommend using the Firefox browser, with which you can simply type in CTRL and + at the same time and the text size will increase on any and every site. Very handy.
December 6th, 2005 at 6:42 pm
it does come down to what we say it is. doesn`t that, dare i say, make us the deciding factor……….or god. i mean, if we get the final say then what is the purpose of god in all this, other than an existential exercise.
i was talking with my ego the other day and he happened to say how happy he was that he was god. i have to say i feel pretty good about the arrangement too.
December 6th, 2005 at 6:59 pm
Hory, I realize now why you were saying that I was “begging the question”, because I added the bit in about “belief” being required to be saved. What if we used a different religious system whose root is not about belief, but a series of logical propositions, Buddhism (Four Noble Truths):
Is that logical? Why or why not?
December 6th, 2005 at 7:23 pm
I’m not sure what you mean. I’m not trying to create God. Only to find out about it, if there is one.
Is that logical? Why or why not?
I think it comes down to the second “truth”. To see if that conclusion is logical I’d need to see which the premises that generated it are. In any case, I don’t deny that religions have logical parts, and Buddhism is one of the more rational ones.
Sorry about mistakes that I make, but the preview function is not working (and I do have Firefox).
December 6th, 2005 at 7:42 pm
Well, again, we need to question “reason”. For instance, I can make the following circular argument, due to the dynamics of a circle:
P1: A = 2(pi)
P2: B = pi
C: A > B & A A & B B), is if you make a choice (which relates to the Uncertainty Principle in Quantum Mechanics, if I’m not mistaken). The problem with most “logical” systems is that they almost exlusively deal in linear or 2D models.
To illustrate my point, simply graph the equation x(sin(x))^x2 (in other words, x times the x squared of sin(x)) on a cartesian plane.
In 2D, the graph, as it approaches infinity, gets increasingly erratic as it increases in amplitude (towards + and - infinity), and becomes increasingly compact.
However, when translated into 3D, the graph becomes a constantly growing spiral, one that slows down its vertical expansion on a proportional rate to its increasing volume or area (if you want to analyze one single loop).
This is the problem I see in using reason alone. Reason, at its current stages at least, looks at things from a 2D view, hence why apparent, incoherent opposites occur sometimes, especially in terms of infinity (the seemingly bane of a rationalist’s existence).
Faith, in my viewpoint, serves as a way to help one keep the course (during the search). Faith should be, I believe, the inner voice that tells you that this 2D model isn’t the only perspective. That’s why the Rationalist and Faith models need to work together to transcend (2D to 3D or 4D, and for String Theorists, 11D) the limited and problematic models that fail to explain existence. This is why we can’t put Newtonian physics and Quantum Mechanics together, or explain consciousness, for that matter.
Just like using ONLY rationalism, if one ONLY uses Faith, one runs the risk of falling off the tight wire of pursuit for knowledge, and into the abyss of confusion and “chaos”. Just try walking a tightrope with one leg (or one limb for that matter). This is what is most commonly referred to Blind Faith, and it’s what has plagued Christianity for so long, because they’ve fallen into the abyss of confusion and either don’t want to, or have forgotten completely about the initial “pursuit”. Likewise, it’s seems that most “rationalists”, have fallen off the tightrope as well, and should be aptly named, Blind Rationalists, or succumbed to Blind Reason.
For these reasons, I believe that reason alone is not enough.
December 6th, 2005 at 7:42 pm
No, I know, the preview function stopped working. As I said, I’m redesigning. It’s on my list.
Then… what is it that you’ve been saying all this time?
December 6th, 2005 at 7:49 pm
Crap, I inadvertantly set off some html code and screwed up what I was trying to say. Tim, if you read this, please change:
To:
P1: A = 2(pi)
P2: B = pi
C: A is greater than B & A is less than B (which could also be said vice-versa, to emphasis B, insted of A), the only difference is what you choose (which relates to the Uncertainty Principle in Quantum Mechanics). The problem with most “logical” systems is that they almost exlusively deal in linear or 2D models.
December 6th, 2005 at 8:35 pm
How?
Pretty much that faith shouldn’t be advocated as valid for the discovery of truth.
December 6th, 2005 at 11:23 pm
Hory, tell me if I’m wrong, but the only thing that can be absolutely proven through reason is your own personal existence. Everything else must be taken upon faith in your experiences. You cannot prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that we are actually having this conversation; it could all be in your head. You place faith in your senses, your apparent connections to the world outside your own existence, to make any further logical assumptions, conclusions, etc. (as well as faith in axioms and other things that are “possible”)
All logical systems revolve around premises and conclusions, and the only time you can make a tautologically (or universally) true conclusion is when the conclusion is ALWAYS true, despite the truth values of the premises. An example of a tautology (univerally logical statement) would be:
God exists or God does not exist or We are God
For this tautological assumption to be true, only one of the phrases need be true, because of the “or” connectives. However, such a statement is useless in personal experience and the search or course of knowledge, because it provides no definitive answer, it merely asserts all the possible conclusions and connects them as possibilities.
Thus, rationality cannot be used solely for the discovery of truth because truth, as I see it, must be a tautologically true statement, a statement that is absolutely true (otherwise it falls into the realm of possibility, not truth).
You, Horry (and everyone else, myself included), take everything else besides your personal existence to be true BASED UPON FAITH. If you truly eliminate faith from your quest, you fall into the existential abyss of contradiction and possibility.
So, as I see things, Horry, you either haven’t truly eliminated FAITH from your rationalistic mind, or you are on the verge of collapsing into the abyss I have described.
Thus FAITH IS necessary for anything beyond existentialism, and it is through the combination of faith and rationality that we can arrive to Truth.
So I ask you Horry, 1) How, if at all, is my logic flawed, 2) How does one eliminate faith without falling into the abyss of existentialism, and 3) Have you truly eliminated faith from your approach to life, or are you merely reacting to BLIND FAITH (which I, too, dislike)?
:)
December 6th, 2005 at 11:25 pm
Jesus laughed cause he knew his mom was a whore-can I have a shinny star
December 6th, 2005 at 11:50 pm
2nd draft. Jeasus laughed cause he knew his ma was a whore,all man die in it that they were delivered from. -i want the Big shinny silver star
December 6th, 2005 at 11:55 pm
Not sure if this is on point at this point, but P.J. O’Rourke has pointed out that if you can’t prove something (like for example our entitlement to independence from England), you just “put it out there and call it self evident!”
The drafters of the Declaration weren’t relying on logic so much as they were trying to rally the people. The document is full of logical fallacies. It was not meant to be very deep, just a war cry and rallying point!
All IMHO of course.
December 7th, 2005 at 12:45 am
Awesome.
Yeah, that’s cool with me. The real reasons for that war went much deeper than the King of England being mean.
Anyway, yeah… logic, blah blah blah.
December 7th, 2005 at 9:34 am
Ktulu, I know that there are many things which can’t be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and I acknowledge this uncertainty. I don’t need faith to “enforce” my beliefs. It’s just a matter of selecting the most likely possibility as being true. Continuously questioning beliefs that have a small chance of being untrue is not very useful unless you have new arguments which might make a difference. Understanding probability is enough to get by without going crazy. I don’t need a fake, faith-based, 100% confident belief in order to be… happy. Even if it were all in my head, what am I supposed to do then? I could only get by with my life. It doesn’t have anything to do with faith. I am not confident about it - I am powerless and resigned with this idea.
Also, the existence of reason need not be based on faith. It’s something that’s in our nature. The basis of reason is also in the ordered nature of our perceived universe. First we think, and then we think about thinking. After thinking about thinking I conclude that thinking is useful.
While I agree that IF in theory there was a part of the universe we can’t interpret through reason, we’d need an alternate method, I don’t see how faith is supposed to be useful. I can just as well say that to fully understand the universe you must take a cucumber and bash it against your head. Just because a method is unlike reason doesn’t mean it automatically can interpret the part of the universe that reason can’t. I think that’s the mistake you make. Is reason not enough? Maybe. But why is faith better?
And I wonder if an existence in a “plane” where reason and logic don’t apply is worth living. In a medium of chaos and randomness, why be alive if you are practically the slave of that environment?
December 7th, 2005 at 4:07 pm
Hory, I think you’re missing what I am saying. I am not saying that Faith is better than Reason, I am saying that they are necessary to be used together. They can work hand in hand, as long as you learn to use them as such.
It was faith, I contend (or relative stupidity), that allowed us to break the sound barrier, allowed us to split the atom, allowed us to perceive DNA (oh wait, that was LSD, not faith, lol, but that’s another story), and will one day allow us to go faster than the speed of light. The path towards truth has many barriers, and it is our faith in something greater (or smaller), that pushes us to see over and beyond the barrier, rather than accepting it as the end. Yes, Reason is embedded in the mind, but Faith is also found in the mind, in our Curiosity. Curiosity killed the cat, but when did that stop anyone? You cannot evolve without faith that your curiosity will result in a positive, yet currently indeterminable result.
Faith is what allows you to find that method. A method that your incomplete logical models can’t account for. Once you reach a dead end with your right foot, you must step with your left, ON FAITH, that the problem will rectify itself and then you will be able to step with your right again, your reason. Reason is great for determining things, and probability is great too. But uncertainty is a given (Due to the uncertainty principle), unless you want to contend that his logic was inept. Thus if something is uncertain, logic cannot make a verifiably accurate, and indefinately repeatable, assumption unless the models are trascended to accomodate the uncertainty (hence the hologram metaphor).
:)
December 8th, 2005 at 5:42 pm
[…] with our eyes closed? I often come to their defense when people say that Christianity and religions are illogical, but I think in this case, it really doesn’t m […]