9 Reader Responses

1. Tim Boucher Says:
   December 6th, 2005 at 2:00 am

   Some items which may be useful for brief introduction to basic logic (these all kind of cover the same ground):

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inference
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning

   I recognize that my examples above don’t fit perfectly with these definitions, but I’m trying to open up several points of dynamic tension for the purposes of discussion.

2. Hory Says:
   December 6th, 2005 at 7:00 am

   One if / then construct is certainly not a manifestation of valid logic.
   I can very well say “If you eat birds you will be able to fly.” Where is the logic in single statements such as this? A valid conclusion needs at least two valid premises:
   1) The fire produces high temperatures.
   2) My skin degrades when exposed to large temperatures.
   => If I will expose my skin to fire then it will degrade (valid)
   We say christians (and many other theists) are illogical because they pretty much say that their beliefs are true because the book they read those beliefs in says about itself that is true.
   Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy. The foundation of christian beliefs is based on circular reasoning.

3. Tim Boucher Says:
   December 6th, 2005 at 1:30 pm

   I think you misunderstood my point. Circular reasoning, though circular, IS still a type of reasoning. A logical fallacy is still a part of logic. It functions according to the same underlying method, whether or not the truth-value is there.

   The type of argument you’re describing is a syllogism, and is the foundation of deductive reasoning, in which you take general principles that are known to be true, and then derive case-specific instances from those. Your example is great. But what separates it from this example:

   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

   According to your definition above, this then is valid logic, assuming that both our premises are true. How do we arrive at true premises? That’s going to be the topic of Part 2 of this series.

4. Ktulu Says:
   December 6th, 2005 at 1:37 pm

   Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy. The foundation of christian beliefs is based on circular reasoning.

   I most certainly agree, Hory, circular reasoing is a logical fallacy. You cannot have your conclusion as a premise. However, one cannot use logic as a means to an end. It’s like trying to build a house, by yourself, with just your right hand. Faith acts as the left hand, the hand that (from a right-hand dominant perspective) holds the nails, screws, drills, etc. in place while reason exerts the force. You cannot build with just one hand, and like wise, you cannot build Utopia without faith (in at least yourself and humanity). Faith, in the truest sense, has nothing to do with religion. The first definition for faith on dictionary.com has nothing to do religious contexts:

   Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

   In that sense, even a rational mind must have faith, faith in the truth and value of his or her own logical models. A rational mind without such faith spirals to the point of existentialsim (a belief that I believe is useless in the context of relating to the rest of humanity, and hence, flawed).

   The problem that I’m sensing from you Hory, is one of action-reaction. You’ve noticed the logical flaws in Christianity (something I belief was added to it over the course of time), and thus fully embraced rationality as a reaction. The problem is that you still haven’t transcended or moved beyond the problem itself. You just chose to be on the other side of the discussion. To further illuminate my point, i’ll include a metaphor I wrote on Tim’s post on Faith and Rationality:

   Metaphorically speaking, reality is like a big hologram, in which we all live in, believing it to be “real” (whatever real is). Then comes along a piece of paper, translucent and perplexing. Some say they see God as being the creator of this unrecognizable piece of paper. Others say it is a code from a group of intellectually-advanced beings. Even more claim it’s part of an alien language. A mage sees it as a sheet of spells. And the list goes on…

   Ironically, the scientist picks it up, stares at it, and then throws it away, claiming it’s just a bunch of scribbles and lines drawn by a 2 year-old.

   And in some crazy way, they’re all right, and they’re all wrong. The paper is bi-section of two lasers recorded onto film. If anyone had come up with the idea to shine a bright light through it, they would have realized it was a hologram. Then, they might have applied the concepts of this hologram to everything they see, and thus realize that they are living in a hologram themselves. Once they realized this, they would stop feeding the “light” in their perception that was creating this hologram, and truly “see” that they were staring through another piece of paper the entire time (kinda like your “colored glasses”). They would then realize what was truly real, and what was just “paper”, and then realize how they are all one, “God” experiencing itself; they would see that they are one-massive intelligent being, who can create things like translucent “picture paper”; they would realize that this paper is a form of “magick”, and they would finally realize that it was created by a SELF in the infantile stages who can barely even recognize that it’s two hands belong to it’s body.

   The two hands in this metaphor relate back to Faith vs. Rationality. Neither are a part of the consciousness experiencing life in a “bio-suit” of sorts. The hands, like the rest of the body, are just tools to be used at the disposal of the conscious mind.

   If you disagree with me, then riddle me this:

   What creates are conscious experience? Where in the brain is it? What is neurological impetus for creative thought? What part of our brain separates us from are mammalian counterparts, thus giving us “human” qualities, qualities that religions equate to the “divine”?

   Seriously, I would like to know, because as a Psych major, I have yet to hear a logical or quantifiable response .

   Lastly, before you can transcend your current problem Hory, you need to analyze the various “faiths”, and look for the logical patterns that emerge (there are many), and then analyze the symbolic nature of religions, especially in their truest, politically-emptied sense. Is not also Logic which uses symbols to create its own language? Take a logic class, or a math class for that matter, and the answer is yes. To understand the system, you have to go beyond literal X’s, Y’s, etc and understand the variables they represent. The same holds true in religious contexts, though I will agree that most people who place BLIND faith in religion take the symbolic langauge too literally to grasp any logical understanding in it. The same could be said for rational reactionists, though, they place BLIND distrust in religious faiths because they don’t understand it either.

   I’ll end with this faulty logical set-up:
   P1) Rationality is logical
   P2) Faith is not Rational
   C) Faith is not logical

   The setup is faulty because it supposes a pre-eminence of the rational (and logical) system. If logic (or at least, your logic) is pre-eminent, then would you be likened to a “god” with infinite understanding of how things work, due to your logical models? Of course not, for if Rationality were truly an all knowing reality-tunnel, then the truest Rationalist would be impervious to making mistakes, and would be able to transcend themselves. But alas, the right hand cannot transcend the body, only the consciousness can, and I’m wondering how conscious you truly are. Finally, sticking with the hand analogy, the right hand appears to be opposite of the left hand in terms of design, but does that make it irrational? No, it needs to be opposite in design, so you can USE THEM TOGETHER to transcend their individual properties, like the whole concept of synergism.

   I’m sorry for the long comment, but I had to get all of that out of my head.

5. james Says:
   December 6th, 2005 at 3:41 pm

   Refer to David Hume for a nice dissection of “If… then…” logic.

6. Religious Logic, Part 2 - Pop Occulture Says:
   December 6th, 2005 at 4:43 pm

   […] e 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 […]

7. Hory Says:
   December 6th, 2005 at 5:44 pm

   Ktulu, I don’t have anything against trust, hope, or confidence. I am against “using” blind and faith to claim truths with certainty. And that’s what many religions do.

   As for those difficult questions - I don’t know the answers. What are you trying to prove with this? To me it shows that we should acknowledge our uncertainty. Replacing it with irrational certainty is just self-deludement.

   Your two hands analogy is nice and all, but I don’t see how it actually proves what you’re saying. If reason and logic have something with which they go “hand in hand” with, it’s uncertainty, in my opinion. You’ll only need them when you are unsure.

   Uncertainty is part of the human nature. It generates inquieries through which humans make progress. If to solve uncertainty you use reason, logic, personal experience and intuition, you find certain truths, but also even more uncertainties. This continuates the cycle of self-advancement. But if you just use dogmatic faith to get rid of those issues of uncertainty, you will become the servant of illusionial beliefs:

   Who am I? / The creation of God.
   Where did I come from? / God made me.
   Why I am I here? / Because God wants me to.
   Where am I going? / Where God decides I should.
   Why does the universe exist? Because God created it.
   What’s right or wrong for me? What God decides it is.

   This sums up why religious faith is an obstacle in the progress of humanity.

8. Tim Boucher Says:
   December 6th, 2005 at 5:54 pm

   Hory, I think you might get a kick out of this older post of mine from well before I knew about Universism

   http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2005...ilosophical-vs-scientific-skepticism/

   You also might enjoy Jeremy’s addition to some of the concepts which I explored here and elsewhere. His site seems to be down today though, so here’s a cached version, along with the main contents of the post. It’s got kind of a contemporary gnostic slant, but maybe you’ll get something out of it:

   1. The act of questioning is the single definitive act which defines humanity. Every great thought, every great philosophy, spirituality, movement, etc. began with a question. Asking questions is also the most radical act one can perform, and the most essential skill needed to live within the confines of the Materia.

   2. According to Gnostic creation mythology, Existence itself began when the God asked itself a question, which can can express as So? In asking, the God began the process of creating distinctions between objective and subjective, self and other. This act of questioning led the God to continue investigating itself, researching itself, learning about itself.

   3. Asking questions is Godlike. When we ask questions we fulfill our roles as sensory organs of the God in its eternal quest to come to know itself.

   4. The Path of Radical Questioning is a methodology that can be applied to any endeavour. This Path allows for answers and conclusions, but only after all aspects of the question have been pursued.

   5. Questions concerning worldly things must be asked from the perspective of one with no definitive resolution. One must not seek to question individual aspects of an epistemological framework, but the framework in its entirety. For instance, we might ask which political theory is best for society, but better that we ask whether “political theory” or “society” are valid conclusions in and of themselves.

   6. Although the ultimate goal of the Path of Radical Questioning is the Empyreal Solution, said Solution is transcendent and cannot be expressed within the limitations of the form world.

   7. Examples of the Path of Radical Questioning include, but are not limited to, the Socratic Method, Zen koan practice, Gnostic Wisdom traditions, Sufi teaching stories, the Holy Qabbalah. These paths, and others, can provide a kind of Empyreal Solution that cannot be expressed or transmitted except through practice.

   8. This Path allows for, and requires, strict discipline and self-scrutiny. Even the act of questioning itself must constantly be questioned.

9. Tim Boucher Says:
   December 6th, 2005 at 5:56 pm

   Or this from my About Me section:

   I understand religions as our attempt to give form to the divine, because we suck at contemplating raw infinity. Religions, in some sense, are nets which we cast in the hopes of catching god. But it’s like trying to catch the sea with a net. It’s much more likely that we’ll just get ourselves tangled up, and god will slip through. I think god wants us to follow and imitate him as he playfully escapes our nets and challenges us to reach new levels of understanding and love.

   To me, religions are better used as search engines. They can help us articulate the questions which will lead us towards our goal of following god. And we will find that through this on-going process, this quest, all that is not essential in us and our beliefs and which can’t stand up to scrutiny is washed away, leaving us in a very unique and exciting relationship with the divine and with ourselves.

   The main difference in my eyes between this and Universism is that there’s no judgement call made about reason vs. faith. People are free to explore the issue and come to any conclusion that suits them, rather than any conclusion which suits them AND IS rational.