September 29, 2011
-
"I want an intelligent, logical argument. Not opinions from the Bible."
I realized I was being a glutton for punishment, so I'm not posting this as a comment. However, my mind can't let go of the dichotomy being set up here, with "intelligent, logical arguments" on one side, and "opinions from the Bible" on the other.
Are logic and the Bible mutually exclusive?
Every logical syllogism starts with a premise. Premises are, in essence, statements which are assumed to be true. You can go back and prove earlier premises, but eventually you have to start with some original assumption. Euclid needed his Five Postulates to prove all of geometry, but he couldn't prove his postulates if he tried. (And others have tried. Some have succeeded in saying that one or more of those axioms are not self-evident and require proof, but no-one has been able to mathematically prove them.)
The classic example of a logical syllogism:
All humans are mortal. (Premise, an assumed truth)
Socrates is human.
Ergo, Socrates is mortal.This is logically sound, and quite likely to be true, but its truth all hinges on that premise. If the premise is wrong, the conclusion will not be necessarily true. Let's say it's discovered that there are vampires out there, and they live forever so long as Buffy doesn't find them. Well, how do we know Socrates isn't one? Thus we would have an argument that is both intelligent and logical yet wrong.
(Hrm. Socrates vs. Buffy. That... would be a weird episode. But hey, no weirder than Once More With Feeling.)
Coming at my point from the other direction, just because I'm starting from certain unprovable assumptions doesn't mean my argument is necessarily unintelligent or illogical. We all build our beliefs, no matter how logical or reasoned they are, off other, similarly unprovable beliefs. We all do. Even the belief that the world as we perceive it with our senses actually exists, and is not some crazy fever-dream or Matrix, is itself an unprovable assumption. Descartes said that the only thing we can know with logical certainty is our own existence.
We can compare the unprovable underpinnings of our respective arguments, and discuss the ramifications of those underpinnings... But just because I am using something religious as one or more of my unprovable assumptions in my argument-building does not automatically make my argument unintelligent or illogical. A religious stance may still be internally logically consistent. (Not all are, to be sure, but some are.)
A good logician can acknowledge when an argument is internally logically consistent. That doesn't mean the logician necessarily agrees with or believes that argument's claim. He or she may have an equally logically consistent, yet opposing, argument, after all. Aristotle once said, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without having to accept it."
And that is all I ask, Constant Reader. Entertain the arguments that I here make, rather than rejecting them the instant I use the wrong buzzword. By all means, feel free to reject my arguments once you've heard them out. By all means, feel free to find flaws in my logic, errors in my judgment, fallacies in the fistula of ideas you find written here. I welcome that, enjoy it even. But don't dismiss my arguments before you've read past the title.
To do otherwise would be neither intelligent nor logical.
Comments (39)
Like very much!
@mtngirlsouth - Strange to see you say that
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without having to accept it."
This. A thousand times over.
Excellent post.
@MysticRythms - Why?
It irks me how people so casually refer to Reason and Common Sense and Intelligent Arguments as if these were undisputed, concrete, black and white entities. What is reason? Is it a rational intuition? If so, is a priori knowledge possible? (Then what do you make of your commitment to science?)
If reason is not an intuition, then is knowledge only derivable from experiences? Then how do you validate your own experiences if all you have to work with are your own experiences (problem of the Circle)?
If knowledge is a matter of me complying with epistemic duties, then how do you reconcile that with your denial of free-will and thus your denial of my control over my own beliefs? If knowledge isn't, why do you blame people for holding false beliefs?
I wonder if Xanga's self-professed "skeptics" and "thinkers" think about these questions.
I would just think you apt to debate rather than commend
I absolutely loved the way you wrote this. Props for the great Buffy references. I've tried to explain that an axiom can only be accepted by faith and can't be reached by logic. I have firsthand knowledge of the legitimacy of my premise, but I wouldn't if I hadn't started by accepting it on faith alone. She doesn't accept my basic beliefs and thus can't accept any logic springing from them. I'm trying to get her to examine the source of her beliefs; we'll see how that goes.
@nyclegodesi24 - I get the feeling the person in question has no knowledge of epistemology and wouldn't even understand your questions.
@grammarboy - your feeling is wrong at least if what i believe is true and he is referring to me. he asked me this question about reason and common sense within the last hour or two in reply to a comment i made. though i don't believe in coincidence i just so happened to follow your rec to this blog. my answer was it would be too lengthy a discussion for Xanga, or something like that. it's a good question. i was born into a family of Christian ministers, studied world religions and philosophies for over a decade and have practiced Buddhism for over 24 years since. this doesn't presume that i am correct but i do have a knowledge of epistemology and i do understand his question. it is one more people should ask themselves.
@TheSutraDude - This post isn't about you, and I wasn't referring to you. I wasn't even aware that you were having a related discussion. The person quoted in the title of the post bashed LKJSlain for her beliefs, and we've been attempting to respond intelligently.
@grammarboy - i know it is not about me. he asked me that very question shortly before he commented here. you were referring to whomever he was speaking about and i considered it might have been me. it's no biggy. i'm not offended. it's a good question.
You must understand that when the dudes decided to write the Bible, it was meant to be read with a sense of humor. It was campfire entertainment, which has since been replaced with hours in front of the TV.
@nyclegodesi24 - It is possible to philosophize one's mind into oblivion.
The ability to reason is a faculty of the intellect just like walking is a function of the legs.
It's natural, but it takes training, practice and balance.
The ancient Greeks and Romans were great at reasoning.
@frostbitpanda - Parts are, yeah. I mean, that says nothing about the truth-value of those parts: the authors knew that campfire stories can be powerful things.
When you get to the parts that Paul wrote, though, those aren't the campfire parts. The fun part about Paul is that he'd had not only a thorough Jewish education, but he was Greek-trained in logic, and in several places you can see him set up syllogisms or If/then statements.
As a scholar of literature, I always find it interesting how many genres the Bible contains: poems, parables, histories, arguments, metaphors, prophecies, songs, etc. I do think we do it a disservice when we don't take genre into account. But that's another post entirely.
Hmm, Who cares? We can blither and caste our fates to the winds and not one of here or there will win the argument of Death holding all of the cards! In the end, just be happy you had the brain to conceive of such an argument rather than the boldness of having one!
"We all build our beliefs, no matter how logical or reasoned they are, off other, similarly unprovable beliefs. We all do. Even the belief that the world as we perceive it with our senses actually exists, and is not some crazy fever-dream or Matrix, is itself an unprovable assumption. Descartes said that the only thing we can know with logical certainty is our own existence."
Indeed. This is why I tend to argue for presuppositionalism before arguing for any other cause.
Even Descartes was wrong. He only proved his own existence by the assumption that he has thoughts. It's like saying "The monkey is pink. Therefore, the monkey exists."
I wonder, do you support Reformed theology?
@TheSutraDude - While I had you in mind when I commented, I also was thinking about InReasonITrust guy, and others like JT who goes on diatribes about reason and science versus religion so much without offering so much as scratching the surface of the issues. I wonder if these people are insecure about their intelligence, or if they haven't had enough attention by their parents as they grew up. Alternatively, maybe they've had some God-awful experiences with religion that scarred them.
Your comment about replacing "Freedom of Religion" with "Freedom of/to Reason" elicited a knee-jerk reaction by me, though. I am frustrated when people insinuate that I am stupid, and then only provide slogan-talk as to why. Slogan-talk is not an exercise of reason. Religious people do it all the time.
No amount of logical argumentation can make a false premise true.
@nyclegodesi24 - Descartes also relied on God existing and God being the guarantor of reason.
@nyclegodesi24 - The fact that we have language, culture, technology, science, friendships, family, etc., proves that we all live in the same reality.
If reality were a figment of each individual's imagination we would live in a world of total incoherence.
Instead, men seek order and form communities that set about bringing order into their affairs.
If there were no ordered objective reality even the most simple personal relationship would not be possible.
I know this not because I studied philosophy, but from simple observation and the power of reason.
@nyclegodesi24 - thanks for explaining. no i don't think you are stupid but what i said in that comment was not slogan-talk. it is an honest sentiment and one i've not heard put in that way before. however i would never support carrying such a thing out by force. that would be counter to my values and counter to the way life works. for a year or perhaps more i was the token Buddhist commenting on Revelife. i wasted half my time there defending Christians against the rantings of Loborn who turned out to be a phony and a troll. since then although i will bring information and personal reflections to the table i have for the most part stayed away from religious, social and political debate. one reason for this is the time involved and the long waits between comments. another is the lack of personal contact which does make a difference. people are not apt to resort to personal insults when speaking to me in person as opposed to what they sometimes resort to on Xanga. third is i have done and do a lot of research and study. people sometimes challenge me to post sources. i used to post sources but i don't much anymore for two reasons. one is i don't have the time to do homework for people who are simply blurting out beliefs. another is if i post a source, say for example The New York Times or the Congressional Budget Office people too often answer with, "Oh well if you're relying on them for your information...." and you know what. in a way they are right but their sources are equally deniable. True Buddhism states there are 3 kinds of proof: documentary proof, theoretical proof, and actual proof. is the documentation sensible and consistent with itself and how confirmable is it? can the theory based on the documentation be applied in a way that does not require denying what occurs in real life. however the most important of the three proofs is actual proof. when i take action based on the documentation and the theory do i experience the results claimed? to give a physical example. one person claims mixing vinegar and water will cause a chemical eruption to occur. another claims mixing vinegar and baking soda will cause an eruption to occur. they both back up their claims with writings and theories that support their claims but one is wrong. the actual proof comes from trying both mixtures oneself. in the case of religion the question would be, are my prayers answered as was promised when i was offered the opportunity to try this religion? too often they are not answered and then come the myriad of excuses, excuses that too often result in diminishing the character and self-esteem of the person whose prayers are not being answered. the person is told it is because of his or her unworthiness that mixing the prayer of water and vinegar together doesn't cause an eruption, not that the religion that is wrong.
@TheSutraDude - What does Buddhism say about making ruthless, craven, unmerited, cruel, irrational, angry insults against your neighbor or against one you consider a mortal enemy?
@nyclegodesi24 - i'll give you an example of something that occurred a few months ago on Xanga. i said something in a comment about a scripture. someone replied to my comment and in doing so stated the scripture is a fabrication. the scripture is studied in seminaries btw. we went back and forth over the course of two or three hours. he never offered a source for his claim. i didn't ask him for one. about 2 weeks later he replied to another of my comments in a totally unrelated blog and my comment made no mention of the scripture in question. in attempting to discredit my comment in the new blog he attempted to discredit my character by bringing up that debate we had but he shot himself in the foot. he asked me for the name of the scripture in question. i replied with something to the effect of "Wait a minute. You spent 3 hours of my time arguing about something you posed as being an expert in and you cannot remember the name of the scripture you are supposedly so expert in?" his only response to me in the ensuing 5 or so comments was, tell me the name of the scripture. holy crap!
@TheSutraDude - Just as I thought.
You don't know what Buddhism teaches concerning ruthless, craven, unmerited,
cruel, irrational, angry insults against your neighbor or against one
you consider a mortal enemy.
Consequently, it is reasonable to conclude that you aren't really a Buddhist.
I make the same logical, reasonable arguments to people who call themselves Christians but who go out of their way to express their hatred of me personally, or who go out of their way to support every "Let's Hate LoBornlyte" post on Xanga. And they hate me as much as you do for pointing that out.
It's one thing to have a quick temper or personality flaws that decrease likeability, but it's quite another to cruelly insult a specific person at every encounter and to intentionally engender hatred for specific people or groups of people.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - "What does Buddhism say about making ruthless, craven, unmerited, cruel, irrational, angry insults against your neighbor or against one you consider a mortal enemy?"
That you'd probably be reincarnated as a grasshopper.
you'll notice i do not reply to Loborn's comments to me. i blocked him a long time ago and therefore am not informed of his replies. he is well aware of this and yet i often by accident come across replies to me from him. in this case it is understandable because i mentioned his name in my comment above but still, engaging him has always been a waste of time and once cornered as he always is he resorts to personal insults such as the time when out of the blue on a blog of Da__Vinci's he berated my deceased father, calling him some choice things. it did not bother me but it was yet another example of why engaging loborn is utter silliness.
loborn has earned his reputation of being a troll, being illogical, being mean-spirited, creating fake accounts to rec his own blogs, creating different accounts to make believe he is of this opinion or that. he has faked his identity, using the images of an Asian sports trainer as his own. i could easily answer his above question but he will quickly sidestep, switch and bait with another or resort to personal insult. TheBakersDozen2 warned, reprimanded and deleted mindless, unsubstantiated and insultive comments loborn jumped in and made to me on a debate site i was invited to participate in by TheBakersDozen2 and Da__Vinci.
let me say again, those comments do not bother me but engaging is a waste of time.
ok here we go. his quote to me:
"Just as I thought.
You don't know what Buddhism teaches concerning ruthless, craven, unmerited,
cruel, irrational, angry insults against your neighbor or against one
you consider a mortal enemy."
wrong. the fact that i do not answer his vitriolic statements does not mean i do not know the answers but this is an example of the kind of "logic" he consistently uses to bait. my decision not to answer him is as i've stated, he does not operate on Xanga with integrity or in a trustworthy manner and is therefore to me a waste of time.
@Celestial_Teapot - A teaching is specific, not a matter of "probably".
It is unthinkable for a person steeped in reason to say that a specific, knowable teaching is "probably" this or that.
Nevertheless, people steeped in hatred do such things all the time because they are trying to inflame passions rather than appeal to reason.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - Patience, grasshopper.
The truth will come in time.
@Celestial_Teapot - Quoting a television show is also a huge red flag that points to a dearth in reason and functioning intellect.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - You mean movie.
@whataboutbahb - Yeah. I think Fideism is really Rationalism cloaked in different semantics. That's not to say that either one of them is bad philosophy - I'm really a pragmatist at heart.
@grammarboy - Btw, props on the use of the world "epistemology" - I haven't seen anyone else here use it outside of Bryangoodrich's blog.
@TheSutraDude - I agree that the online conversation is harder to do - but then in some ways it's easier, by allowing more thought to be put into responses, by recording responses, by making it easier to put up links, etc., but, right. Ultimately, veiled in our anonymity, we're not gonna change each others minds without investing trust in each other's words and intentions - and online conversations don't develop my ability to trust people much. I don't feed the trolls anymore, but I do get into the fray amongst the religion-debaters. Soemtimes it's enriching. But I can see how wasting hours of your time arguing with people in circles could leave you jaded and just indifferent.
@nyclegodesi24 - yes you are right. there are the plus sides you mention. i also like that it's possible to speak to people from all corners of the world although as you know it's pretty easy to do this in cities like New York too.
@Celestial_Teapot - Trivial pursuit is also an obsession with those who are strangers to reason. For in the pursuit of trivia, the pursuit of truth is lost.
@nyclegodesi24 - Fideism is the rejection of reason and the reliance on faith only.
Consequently, you will find atheists and many Christians who think exactly alike because they are fideists. Interestingly, fideists are extremely intolerant of the views of others and are angered in the extreme by people who employ reason.
Pope John Paul II wrote a great letter to the Bishops called "Fides et Ratio" (Faith and Reason) where he explained the fallacy of fideism. LINK
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - Knowing your luck, you'd be reincarnated as a lesbian.
just because I'm starting from certain unprovable assumptions doesn't mean my argument is necessarily unintelligent or illogical
I'm not sure it's a very good start though. I would think that one should have to go out of one's way to specify that to be the case, otherwise you're being misleading.
Aristotle once said, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without having to accept it."
OF COURSE! How hard it that? Not hard.
@frostbitpanda - your comment was entertaining
The Paul dude who you refer to, I think you need to take him with a pinch of salt. I mean, think of it. He use to condemn Christians for a living until after a all night binge drinking session, he saw Jesus. And he changed his name from Saul to Paul. As far as I know, only crooks do that, even in recent memory, only crooks assumed new identities. @LoBornlytesThoughtPalace -
@frostbitpanda - In Christianity, name-changes are a matter of course. Abram became Abraham, Jacob became Israel, Benoni became Benjamin, Naomi became Marah, Simon became Peter, James and John became "Boanarges" (the sons of thunder), etc. A name is a statement of character, and as one's character changes (as after a conversion), one's name often must change to reflect that.
In this case, however, it is a moot point. It never says that he changed his name because of his conversion: he went by "Saul" for several years after his conversion. The fact is, "Saul" is a Hebrew name, and "Paulus" is a Roman name, and this was a multiethnic multicultural first-century world. Paul had a name in each culture the way I am Cristobal in Spanish and Christopher in English and [C + book] in American Sign Language. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle#Names
Comments are closed.