Logic (myth, theist, God, Christ, religion)

[stemann]

Originally Posted by PureX

But you're mischaracterizing faith in that statement. Faith does not do "anything depending on what the desires of a person dictate". Faith allows desire to dictate a course of action when probabilities are not discernible, and the possibilities are therefor otherwise equal. I think you're confusing faith with willful ignorance, in which a person willfully ignores the reasonable probabilities that are discernible in favor of their own desires. I understand the confusion, as many religious advocates unfortunately promote willful ignorance and incorrectly label it "faith".

Yes, I understand now about the difference between what is termed 'faith' and 'willful ignorance'. I must admit not formerly being acutely aware of this subtle- yet important- difference.

I think your definition of faith is actually very close to my definition of science, and we just haven't really realized it yet. What would you say were the differences between 'faith' and 'science'?

Originally Posted by PureX

Then how is the scientists desire any more logical than the priests? Aren't each pursuing their desires in the face of the unknown, hoping that doing so will lead them to a better life?

Science seeks knowledge. That is all it does. If scientists themselves practise science for the sake of having a better life, then that's their lookout and they may be deemed logical/illogical accordingly, but that isn't the point (I'm not saying you claimed that that was the point).

The point is: faith causes acts that are based on desires the outcomes of which are unknown and unknowable. I believe that this is illogical, from my A/null-A argument, which I shall defend below (or attempt to, at least).

Originally Posted by PureX

The flaw in this argument is that you have characterized the desire-based choices as "A" or "not A". When in reality the choices would be "A", or "B", or "C", etc. "Not A" represents a non-desire. In which case no choice would be made, and the dilemma would perpetuate. In the case of our man and the bridge scenario, the man would simply stand still and be unhappy, having no desire to choose crossing the bridge nor a desire to choose to not cross the bridge.

Non-desire is not a desire based option, and therefor does not apply to the scenario I proposed.

Originally Posted by PureX

But 'null-A' is not a goal. Nor is it a desire. You're presenting us with a false positive, here.

I must apologise for my inaccurately (or not at all) explained use of the term 'null-A'. Partly because I didn't explain it properly, and partly because I used it in te wrong context, because I hadn't realised that there are two different factors in this example.

1) Desire to cross the bridge.

2) Faith that the bridge will stand.

There are therefore four different outcomes:

1) You have both desire and faith: you will attempt to cross the bridge. (This then is subject to two more subsets: whether or not the bridge stands. But I will not discuss these as the 'logic' of a decision is not based on the outcome of it- just the reasons for it).

2) You have desire but not faith: you will not cross the bridge.

3) You have faith but no desire: you will not cross the bridge.

4) You have neither faith nor desire: you will not cross the bridge.

However, I am not really concerned with whether one crosses the bridge or not. The argument I attempted to use to show that faith is illogical is that you could just as easily perform action 'A' as action 'null-A' based on faith, so therefore it is illogical.

However, as you said: "Non-desire is not a desire based option." However, in the same scenario as a person gaining a desire to cross the bridge by, say, seeing the bridge, having some knowledge of the bridge, they must first become aware of the bridge, and then somehow- my premise hinges on 'arbitrarily'- gaining a desire to cross it. Therefore, the reverse must also be true: in the null-A example, they must, for some (arbitrary) reason, not gain a desire to cross the bridge. And so it must be equally logical to both attempt to cross and to not attempt to cross the bridge, which is illogical.

Originally Posted by PureX

But you are now applying morality to your "logic", in that you're assuming that to seek information about the structural integrity of the bridge is somehow a more virtuous endeavor than to seek the other side of the river, or some other personal desire. In reality what you have done, here, is admit that when we're confronted with the unknown, it's just as logical to seek more information as it is to seek any other desire, as long as we're leaving morality out of the scenario.

It's not logical for the girl to throw the starfish back into the water unless we allow morality to declare that the starfish should live. It's not any more logical to use science to seek new information when confronted with the unknown than it is to let our desires dictate our next action unless you allow morality to declare that the desire for more information is superior to any other desire, including the desire for God.

Originally Posted by PureX

But aren't you assuming that this goal is superior to all others, including the desire to hope that God be real? How is this a superior goal? And more importantly, how is it a "more logical" goal?

Originally Posted by PureX

Well, if you're not saying that the desire of the scientific process (for more information) is not more virtuous, then what's the logical difference between that desire any another in the face of the unknown? Remember that you began by trying to claim that faith is illogical, while science is logical. Yet as the discussion has shown, they follow the same logical progression of thought, and differ only in their respective desires, used to dictate a course of action. One desires more information, while the other desires that "God" is real.

Originally Posted by PureX

But doesn't a scientist "hope" that having more information will lead him to a better life? How is this any different from someone hoping that the existence of a loving and forgiving God will lead them to a better life?

Very good points, I have to admit, as I have been trying to show science (or "the search for more information") as a 'more worthy' pursuit than faith, or "any other desire". The reason I believe it is logical to do this, tenuous as this reason may be, is this: discovery of information, in a general sense, will facilitate the fulfilment all other desires. Therefore, in order to best fulfil desires (in general), we are best put to follow science.

This will be countered very strongly, I know; I admit that it is not a very well-put-together theory. But I will attempt to defend it against attack, although I do not (yet) have an intuitive sense that it is true, like I do about some other things which I have not fully thought through.

Originally Posted by PureX

It is sometimes a fine line between acting as if what we hope to be true, is true, and acting as if we know that it's true when we don't really know this at all. And many religious proponents exploit this fine line to disguise the latter (willful ignorance) as the former (faith). As I mentioned, I understand perfectly how you might get these confused. Their intention is that we confuse them.

Absolutely. I have learned a heck of a lot through religiousforums.com. May the learning never cease.

Originally Posted by PureX

I've found that most of the atheists that I've talked to are atheists rather then agnostics exactly because they've succumbed to this confusion, and have wrongly assumed that faith is the willful ignorance that so many religious proponents falsely claim it to be. Once the difference is explained, however, they realize that their argument isn't with people having faith in their hope that God exists, but with people being willfully ignorant and dishonest in claiming to know that God exists when they can't actually know it. They were actually atheists only in response to the ignorance and belligerence of religion.

Yes, I think that technically I am an agnostic, since I believe that there cannot be true empirical knowledge of God either way. I have no problem in admitting the hard atheist position of "God definitely does not exist" is of equal standing as the theist (hard theist?) position of "God definitely does exist."

However, I would still describe myself as an atheist in that I do not believe that God exists. I do not claim any particular logic bases for this belief; I just think that that is the way my brain is chemically and psychologically built: to not be able to accept such an idea. However, this also is a belief, which could just as easily be wrong!

[stemann]

Originally Posted by fantôme profane

I have been enjoying this debate, but I think that you guys are complicating an already complicated situation.

Complicating an already complicated situation? That's called philosophy

Originally Posted by fantôme profane

If I can I would like to suggest a slightly different analogy. Let us assume that there are two people who both desire to reach the other side of the river. Let us also assume that both have been told the location of an invisible bridge that will lead them safely there.

Person A simply steps out on to the bridge.

Person B attempts to devise empirical tests to determine the truth of the bridge, whether it exits or not, whether it will hold his weight, whether it actually leads to the other side of the river. This person does this not because they wish the knowledge for it’s own sake, but because they wish to reach the other side of the river, and believes that the best way to do that is to gain this knowledge.

In this scenario I am not suggesting that one approach is better than the other (if it seems so, it is just because my analogy is crude).

It is possible that person A makes it safely across the bridge and person B dies before ever achieving this. It is also possible that person B falls into the river and drowns while person A finds another way across (a boat for example). It is also possible that neither make the other side of the river, or that both do.


Now I realize that this analogy makes the assumption that the Priest and the Scientist both have the same desires, and that is quite an assumption. But I think that this is the only way that these things are in any way comparable. And it is not completely unreasonable. One can say that the goal of religion is the betterment of humanity, and that this is the same goal of science. One could also say that the goal of religion is to know God, and the goal of science it to understand the universe (the same thing?).

You might argue that the goal of religion is to serve God, and that the goal of science is to gain knowledge for knowledge sake. But I see these both as means to an end, and not the end in themselves.

I can see what you are saying (I think.....) and I tried, in my response to PureX, to explain why I think science to be a 'better' method (even though I have immense difficulty with value statements. I had to assume they both attempt to attain the same goal, generally).

Originally Posted by fantôme profane

And of course both may have less noble goals, self-enrichment, subjugation of the people, destruction of their enemies etc. But even here science and religion may have the same goals (unfortunately).

Everywhere, in every country, time, belief system, people are still people. It's the way of the world.

Originally Posted by Mike182

Logic is a human creation, we use logic to deduce conclusion, since God already knows the answers, s/he has no need for it - why create something you don't need? Humans created Logic

I think you may be confusing 'logic' with 'logical debate' or 'argument'. Humans sure didn't create logic- we didn't invent numbers, or the laws of physics, and logic is metaphysical laws bound up with those.

Originally Posted by PureX

My guess is that we all begin with the same goal - a better life. But then we begin to diverge when we begin to decide what method will get us to that goal. Some of us decide that acquiring more knowledge (more control over our environment by understanding how it works) is the best way to a better life. Others decide that "magic" (more control over our environment through a relationship with 'God', it's governor) is the best way to a better life. Others still may decide that selfishness and/or hedonism is the best way to a better life. Some will decide that there is no way to a better life, or that they don't want a better life, and will choose to be happy with what they have.

Any of these methods are logical when viewed from the position of ignorance, though some are based on unverified assumptions, while others try to make no assumptions at all (but fail, I think). And I guess that was my point all along - that science isn't any more or less "logical" than any other course of action taken in the face of the unknown. One way or another, we'll have to make some sort of an assumption, and then act on it: the scientist, the priest, the hedonist, and the nihilist, too.

I think it was Kierkegaard (sp?) who said that since everything must be based on some untestable absolute(s)- axiom(s)- so everything must essentially be based on faith in those axioms. How can you prove the axiom of identity- the fact that A=A? I don't think you can.

I also have thoughts that this is related to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle; namely, that we can't "know" anything exactly. Obviously this is not an exact analogy, but I'm not a great explainer of ideas.

Originally Posted by PureX

Everyone but the taoist ... *wink*

Those zany taoists.....

Originally Posted by royol

If it makes you feel better I am here for you to offend, and I wouldn't go as far as saying you were a 'loony', but I think you did get missed, please do not get so uptight,
you are sure of what you believe so sticks and stones will not change your mind, so just let crazy people like me rant on, smile to yourself and count your blessings.

And try and get out more.

Oooooooooooh!! Burn!!!!

[PureX]

Originally Posted by stemann

Yes, I understand now about the difference between what is termed 'faith' and 'willful ignorance'. I must admit not formerly being acutely aware of this subtle- yet important- difference.

I think your definition of faith is actually very close to my definition of science, and we just haven't fully realized it yet. What would you say were the differences between 'faith' and 'science'?

The scientific process is also an act of faith - but it's placing our faith in the practice of skepticism. That's all the scientific process is, really, is the practice of acting on imagination with skepticism. Religious faith is the practice of acting on imagination without the skepticism. But I think they're both logical in that they provide us with a method for moving ahead in the face of our own profound ignorance. Their logic differs a little but, too, in that they have different immediate goals. One seeks more information, and the illusion of security (control) that comes with it, while the other seeks "God" and the illusion of security (control) that comes with that. Ultimately, though, they are both methods of dealing with our own profound ignorance, and the fear and confusion we experience in the face of it.

Originally Posted by stemann

Science seeks knowledge. That is all it does. If scientists themselves practice science for the sake of having a better life, then that's their lookout and they may be deemed logical/illogical accordingly, but that isn't the point (I'm not saying you claimed that that was the point).

"Science" doesn't do anything. Science is just a methodology. People do the doing. And scientists are not robots, they're people like anyone else. They fear what they don't understand and control just like any other human being does. But having a method of dealing with the unknown goes a long way in alleviating and distracting them from their fears. But then the same can be said of the priest, too. He also has a methodology for dealing with the unknown, and the fear and confusion that accompanies it.

Originally Posted by stemann

The point is: faith causes acts that are based on desires the outcomes of which are unknown and unknowable.

Yes, and this is just as true of science as it is of religion. But faith allows us to move ahead in the face of that ignorance. Whether we place that faith in the practice of skepticism (science), or in the lack of skepticism (religion), is a secondary differentiation. The point is that we can move ahead even when our own profound ignorance has denied us the ability to see where we're going (to reason a probable outcome for a proposed course of action).

Incidentally, willful ignorance and blind pretense will also allow us to move ahead in the face of our own fear and unknowing, which is why I think they are often confused with faith.

Originally Posted by stemann

... I have been trying to show science (or "the search for more information") as a 'more worthy' pursuit than faith, or "any other desire". The reason I believe it is logical to do this, tenuous as this reason may be, is this: discovery of information, in a general sense, will facilitate the fulfillment of all other desires. Therefore, in order to best fulfill desires (in general), we are best put to follow science.

This is true only of some desires. If my desire is to build a boat, then the acquisition of information concerning boat-building, through the scientific process, would certainly be a good place to begin. But this discussion is really about the idea of and desire for "God", and the act of placing our faith in the existence of such a "God". And as you have already correctly stated several times, the reality of such an idea as "God" can't be tested by we humans (the idea is essentially an infinity, and therefor untestable by we finite beings). So the scientific process will be of no help to us in verifying the nature or existence of "God", and it would therefor be illogical for us to attempt to use it to achieve that particular desire. And that leaves us with the other various methods of moving ahead in the face of the unknown: religion, hedonism, nihilism, etc.

Originally Posted by stemann

I think that technically I am an agnostic, since I believe that there cannot be true empirical knowledge of God either way. I have no problem in admitting the hard atheist position of "God definitely does not exist" is of equal standing as the theist (hard theist?) position of "God definitely does exist."

However, I would still describe myself as an atheist in that I do not believe that God exists. I do not claim any particular logic bases for this belief; I just think that that is the way my brain is chemically and psychologically built: to not be able to accept such an idea. However, this also is a belief, which could just as easily be wrong!

Understanding that we could always be wrong is the key to sanity, wisdom, and good mental health, I think. Just as the denial of our own fallibility is the doorway to insanity and much needless suffering for everyone involved. My only argument with theists or atheists concerns this human inclination for willful ignorance and blind pretense in the practice of faith. We all live by a combination of imagination, past experience (some knowledge), and faith because we simply don't have the omniscience to do otherwise. Denying this doesn't make it not so, even though it makes it invisible to those who practice such denial. And that makes the people who do so a danger to themselves and everyone else around them. Our real enemy isn't our ignorance, it's our dishonesty in the face of that ignorance. As long as religion is honest, I believe it's as viable a method of dealing with such infinite unknowns as "God" as any other method, and it's better than most.

[stemann]

Originally Posted by PureX

The scientific process is also an act of faith - but it's placing our faith in the practice of skepticism. That's all the scientific process is, really, is the practice of acting on imagination with skepticism. Religious faith is the practice of acting on imagination without the skepticism. But I think they're both logical in that they provide us with a method for moving ahead in the face of our own profound ignorance. Their logic differs a little but, too, in that they have different immediate goals. One seeks more information, and the illusion of security (control) that comes with it, while the other seeks "God" and the illusion of security (control) that comes with that. Ultimately, though, they are both methods of dealing with our own profound ignorance, and the fear and confusion we experience in the face of it.

Science gives us more control over the physical world than religion does. If one is attempting to "move ahead" in some way; that is, to achieve a certain goal, science will explain all the physical components affecting the achievement of this goal, thus giving one a greater knowledge and so greater control of the situation. If faith in God (via religion) can be said to give one the confidence to achieve this goal, then so can psychiatry.

Originally Posted by PureX

"Science" doesn't do anything. Science is just a methodology. People do the doing. And scientists are not robots, they're people like anyone else. They fear what they don't understand and control just like any other human being does. But having a method of dealing with the unknown goes a long way in alleviating and distracting them from their fears. But then the same can be said of the priest, too. He also has a methodology for dealing with the unknown, and the fear and confusion that accompanies it.

When I say "Science" I mean "The Scientific Method". The concept of "The Scientific Method" does not necessarily require the inclusion of a scientist in order to be understood, it is a metaphysical description of the methodology.

The aim of the scientist is pure objectivity in the scientific method. This can't actually be achieved because we are all subjective beings, but one can still aim to be as objective as possible. The personal reasons for a scientist becoming a scientist are not an issue. I still stand by my view that science is a more successful way of dealing with the unknown than religion.

Originally Posted by PureX

Yes, and this is just as true of science as it is of religion. But faith allows us to move ahead in the face of that ignorance. Whether we place that faith in the practice of skepticism (science), or in the lack of skepticism (religion), is a secondary differentiation. The point is that we can move ahead even when our own profound ignorance has denied us the ability to see where we're going (to reason a probable outcome for a proposed course of action).

Incidentally, willful ignorance and blind pretense will also allow us to move ahead in the face of our own fear and unknowing, which is why I think they are often confused with faith.

But, like I said, desires are arbitrary and so faith could just as easily cause us to not "move ahead" than to move ahead.

Originally Posted by PureX

This is true only of some desires. If my desire is to build a boat, then the acquisition of information concerning boat-building, through the scientific process, would certainly be a good place to begin. But this discussion is really about the idea of and desire for "God", and the act of placing our faith in the existence of such a "God". And as you have already correctly stated several times, the reality of such an idea as "God" can't be tested by we humans (the idea is essentially an infinity, and therefor untestable by we finite beings). So the scientific process will be of no help to us in verifying the nature or existence of "God", and it would therefor be illogical for us to attempt to use it to achieve that particular desire. And that leaves us with the other various methods of moving ahead in the face of the unknown: religion, hedonism, nihilism, etc.

So what would be your definition of "moving ahead" with respect to the desire of God?

Originally Posted by PureX

Understanding that we could always be wrong is the key to sanity, wisdom, and good mental health, I think. Just as the denial of our own fallibility is the doorway to insanity and much needless suffering for everyone involved. My only argument with theists or atheists concerns this human inclination for willful ignorance and blind pretense in the practice of faith. We all live by a combination of imagination, past experience (some knowledge), and faith because we simply don't have the omniscience to do otherwise. Denying this doesn't make it not so, even though it makes it invisible to those who practice such denial. And that makes the people who do so a danger to themselves and everyone else around them. Our real enemy isn't our ignorance, it's our dishonesty in the face of that ignorance. As long as religion is honest, I believe it's as viable a method of dealing with such infinite unknowns as "God" as any other method, and it's better than most.

Again, what is your definition of "dealing with"?