Is Logic Biased Towards Atheism?

[Bobby_A.Greene]

David Brown:

Kneale and Kneale also deal with non-traditional logics as did the reference I cited.

David

Hi David,

So does that mean you have heard of a distinction between logic and systems of reasoning as you had mentioned in post #45?

 

[MysticRose]

Bobby A. Greene:

That is because General Existance Statements cannot be disproven.

Logic itself is a general existence statement

And I notice that you did not touch the reality that atheism is a belief

 

[Bobby_A.Greene]

MysticRose:

Logic itself is a general existence statement

And what kind of statement is Logic making?

Logic is a system of reasoning, a methodology. Logic is not a language, it contains no syntax or grammar or vocabulary; logic makes no statement of any kind (at least not that I’m aware of).

 

[David_Brown]

Bobby A. Greene:

Hi David,

So does that mean you have heard of a distinction between logic and systems of reasoning as you had mentioned in post #45?

In that post I said: I have never heard of “true logic” or any criteria to distinguish it from “systems of reasoning.” I also didn’t see a definition of what you had in mind. “True logic” doesn’t seem to be something I can find. I don’t know how “I have never heard” (my post #45) means “I have heard” or “I might have heard.”

I then when on to list some of the non-classical systems of logic.
Have you heard of those logics? Since you denied the existence of philosophical logic, were you aware of The Blackwell Guide to Philosophical Logic ? You also denied the existence of mathematical logic, were you aware of the dozens of books on the subject?

David

 

[Bobby_A.Greene]

And I notice that you did not touch the reality that atheism is a belief

A mistaken belief, yes.

The agnostic has a more intellectual stance, that of the general existance statement, than the atheist.

The atheist cannot disprove the existence of God using Logic. But logic is limited, it is not the ultimate indicator of truth or knowledge. Logic is as useful a tool as a hammer or a tokomak fusion reactor; but it takes the human mind, not brain, to think of a purpose for those tools that the mind had created in the first place.

Thus Aristotle’s mental development of the syllogism was rediscovered by western medieval theologians, Jewish, Mohamedian, and Christian alike, and used successfully to defend the faith against the atheists of the day, scientists and philosophers.

If nothing else, the theologians have successfully used logic to deduce that there is a design to the universe, or multi-verse, and thus, there must be a designer. The atheist is stymied to prove with logic a deterministic or accidental origin of the universe.

Logic is useful in converting a lot of atheists (and protestants) to Catholicism.

 

[m134e5]

Logic is not biased towards atheism. In fact, if you truly believe in logic, you CANNOT be an athiest. The universe didn’t simply create itself- something or someone has to start everything. Nothing can be made if there is nothing there to make it with or no one to make it.

 

[David_Brown]

Bobby A. Greene:

And what kind of statement is Logic making?

Logic is a system of reasoning, a methodology. Logic is not a language, it contains no syntax or grammar or vocabulary; logic makes no statement of any kind (at least not that I’m aware of).

Wait. I am confused. You have been telling us that there is a dinstinction between “logic” or “true logic” and “systems of reasoning” (# 37, # 57, #61) and now you say that “Logic is a system of reasoning.”

It would seem, therefore, that you place logic (or “true logic”) as a species in the genus of “system of reasoning.” If that is the case, then the distinction is a specific difference between logic and other non-logics and not a difference in kind. What is that difference? Some of the other logics (the ones you say don’t exist) accept porpositions, validity, soundness, and rules of inference, quantification, etc… Can you finally define “true logic” and “system of reasoning” and give the specific difference that distinguishes “true logic” from the other species of “systems of reasoning”?

Thanks,

David

 

[Bobby_A.Greene]

David Brown:

In that post I said: I have never heard of “true logic” or any criteria to distinguish it from “systems of reasoning.” I also didn’t see a definition of what you had in mind. “True logic” doesn’t seem to be something I can find. I don’t know how “I have never heard” (my post #45) means “I have heard” or “I might have heard.”

I then when on to list some of the non-classical systems of logic.
Have you heard of those logics? Since you denied the existence of philosophical logic, were you aware of The Blackwell Guide to Philosophical Logic ? You also denied the existence of mathematical logic, were you aware of the dozens of books on the subject?

David

Hi David,

1. Yes, I have heard of the types of ‘logics’ which you listed in your post #45, the only non-system of reasoning mentioned is Jan Lukasiewicz’s discovery of ‘many-valued logic’ which is just a novel application of ‘true’ logic, Aristotelian.
2. “I have never heard” = NEVER. Never does not mean actually or perhaps; just as the word ‘some’ means partial, not all! Never means, it did not happen at any time.

You strike me as a true philosopher David, someone who is indiffent to the grammar or definitions of their own language; and philosophers are noted for redefining a word to suit their own use.

 

[Bobby_A.Greene]

David Brown:

Wait. I am confused. You have been telling us that there is a dinstinction between “logic” or “true logic”

Hi David,

I think you have confused yourself, I have never made a distinction between logic and true logic. Please don’t use a sentence fragment to take an simple explanation to someone else, post #37, out of context.

I think you should first familiarize yourself with the History of Logic for a distinction between systems of reasoning and logic.

 

[Bobby_A.Greene]

m134e5:

Logic is not biased towards atheism. In fact, if you truly believe in logic, you CANNOT be an athiest. The universe didn’t simply create itself- something or someone has to start everything. Nothing can be made if there is nothing there to make it with or no one to make it.

Yes, I agree totally; this is the reasoning which stumps all atheists. If atheists abide by the law of physics, than they must abide by Galileo’s Law of Inertia: A body at rest tends to remain at rest unless acted upon by an external force.

Again, if nothing else, physics suggests that the universe is a result of design and not accident, unless atheists are in denial about the laws of physics.

 

[David_Brown]

Bobby A. Greene:

Hi David,

I think you have confused yourself, I have never made a distinction between logic and true logic. Please don’t use a sentence fragment to take an simple explanation to someone else, post #37, out of context.

I think you should first familiarize yourself with the History of Logic for a distinction between systems of reasoning and logic.

I often do confuse myself. But, you said (I cut your whole statement from # 37): “I am also observing the word ‘logic’ being very loosely used. There are not several different types of logic, but there are several different types of ‘systems of reasoning’ which are not true logic.” So you must have some meaning for “true logic” or were you just being redundant? Did you really mean “which are not logic”? You still haven’t explained your terms in any case.

By the way, I have studied logic as an undergraduate. I studied logic as a graduate student at Houston. I studied logic as a post-graduate student at Toronto. And I have studied logic as a philosophy professor and logic teacher for almost ten years.

So you have to excuse me, but when I hear someone say: “There is no such thing as “Mathematical Logic”!” (post # 36) and “Also, there is no such thing as “Philosophical Logic”!” (post # 36) and someone who doesn’t know: “For example, what aspects of logic are found in Modal Logic that are not already contained in Logic?” (post # 35), I have to wonder if they understand logic. I have cited references for the existence of Mathematical Logic (post # 44). I have cited references for the existence of Philosophical Logic (post # 45). I have cited examples of non-traditional logics (post # 45). All of which can easily be discovered and which are well-known and well-accepted in the philosophical community (of which I am a card-carrying member). I have told you (post # 43) what modal logic has that is not in traditional logic (operators for possibility and necessity). And yet you bleat on about how I should study logic??? PLEASE!

You might try something constructive, like giving the specific difference for logic as a system of reasoning and accounting for all the logics you claim don’t exist.

David

 

[David_Brown]

Bobby A. Greene:

Hi David,

I think you have confused yourself, I have never made a distinction between logic and true logic. Please don’t use a sentence fragment to take an simple explanation to someone else, post #37, out of context.

I think you should first familiarize yourself with the History of Logic for a distinction between systems of reasoning and logic.

Very funny, Sir. You accuse me of taking something out of context by taking me out of context. What I said was:
Wait. I am confused. You have been telling us that there is a dinstinction between “logic” or “true logic” and “systems of reasoning” (# 37, # 57, #61) and now you say that “Logic is a system of reasoning.” .

The distinction is not between “logic” and “true logic” but between “logic or true logic” and “systems of reasoning”–you parsed the “or” incorrectly. Perhaps I should have made my parsing more perspicuous.

David

 

[MysticRose]

**Logic is a language ** for reasoning. It is a collection of rules we use when doing logical reasoning. Human reasoning has been observed over centuries from at least the times of Greeks, and patterns appearing in reasoning have been extracted, abstracted, and streamlined. The foundation of the logic we are going to learn here was laid down by a British mathematician George Boole in the middle of the 19th century, and it was further developed and used in an attempt to derive all of mathematics by Gottlob Frege, a German mathematician, towards the end of the 19th century. A British philosopher/mathematician, Bertrand Russell, found a flaw in basic assumptions in Frege’s attempt but he, together with Alfred Whitehead, developed Frege’s work further and repaired the damage. The logic we study today is more or less along this line.

In logic we are interested in true or false of statements, and how the truth/falsehood of a statement can be determined from other statements. However, instead of dealing with individual specific statements, we are going to use symbols to represent arbitrary statements so that the results can be used in many similar but different cases. The formalization also promotes the clarity of thought and eliminates mistakes.

There are various types of logic such as logic of sentences (propositional logic), logic of objects (predicate logic), logic involving uncertainties, logic dealing with fuzziness, temporal logic etc. Here we are going to be concerned with propositional logic and predicate logic, which are fundamental to all types of logic.

cs.odu.edu/~toida/nerzic/content/logic/intr_to_logic.html

Yes it is in itself a language …

cheniere.org/books/aids/appendixIII.htm

 

[David_Brown]

Bobby A. Greene:

Hi David,

1. Yes, I have heard of the types of ‘logics’ which you listed in your post #45, the only non-system of reasoning mentioned is Jan Lukasiewicz’s discovery of ‘many-valued logic’ which is just a novel application of ‘true’ logic, Aristotelian.
2. “I have never heard” = NEVER. Never does not mean actually or perhaps; just as the word ‘some’ means partial, not all! Never means, it did not happen at any time.

You strike me as a true philosopher David, someone who is indiffent to the grammar or definitions of their own language; and philosophers are noted for redefining a word to suit their own use.

1. Since you haven’t defined your terms, I fail to see the point. If you wish to describe non-traditional logics as “novel applications” and therby claim it’s all Aristotle or novel applications of Aristotle, more power to you. I don’t think the proponents of those logics would necessarily agree (since at least some were desigend as rejections of Aristotle). It doesn’t justify your denial of Mathematical Logic or Philosophical Logic, though.
2. I said I had never heard the distinction (post # 45), you said (post # 61) “So does that mean you have heard of a distinction between logic and systems of reasoning as you had mentioned in post #45?” I responeded (post #64) by pointing out that “never” means never because **you misunderstood ** my original statement that I never heard of the distinction. So here I take you to be correcting yourself. Good job.

Nice dig at philosophers. But since I have been using philosophical (logical) terms in their commonly accepted way and you have not–or have not defined your terms, I think you should take a look in the mirror.

Just so you know, I am a professional philosopher and therefore may be libelled so you might want to keep the moderate insults personal.

David

 

[Contarini]

atheos_sum:

Perhaps it is the idea that logic alone will not lead one to God. One needs to have faith in order to believe in God. So, without faith, and with only logic, perhaps one is inclined to be an atheist. Maybe that is what this person was saying. Logic is a kind of reason, and there is an inverse relationship between reason and faith.

If one takes a Thomistic view, that’s sort of the case insofar as when you can prove a thing by reason you don’t need faith. But that’s hardly an “inverse relationship.” Rather, faith gives us a greater certainty than reason alone would give us. I don’t think it’s true that with “only logic” people are inclined to be atheists. Logic cannot give certain answers outside a very narrow range (you have to have very well-defined and clearly known premises to reach a sure conclusion using logic alone), so people can use logic and come to all sorts of conclusions. Atheism is one of those conclusions, true. But I don’t see it as being the most logical one. If I relied on reason alone I would probably believe that there is some sort of intelligence behind the universe but that it is unlikely to care that much about the welfare of individuals. In other words, I’d probably be some sort of deist. That’s the position that Anthony Flew appears to have reached in his old age.

Edwin

 

[Catholic2003]

MysticRose:

A British philosopher/mathematician, Bertrand Russell, found a flaw in basic assumptions in Frege’s attempt but he, together with Alfred Whitehead, developed Frege’s work further and repaired the damage. The logic we study today is more or less along this line.

Bertrand Russell also wrote Why I am Not a Christian, thus bringing us back to the “athiests made up the rules of logic” claim.

 

[atheos_sum]

Contarini:

If one takes a Thomistic view, that’s sort of the case insofar as when you can prove a thing by reason you don’t need faith. But that’s hardly an “inverse relationship.” Rather, faith gives us a greater certainty than reason alone would give us.

Perhaps “inverse relationship” doesn’t quite do it justice, I agree. But your next statement is much more troubling. How can faith give you more certainty than reason?

To rationally demonstrate a belief is to show that it warrant acceptance according to the epistemological standards of human knowledge. You are claiming that faith is to be considered a reliable means of gaining knowledge, and even more reliable than reason. I know of a Thomist who represents the mind as a toolbox and says that reason and faith are tools that are compatible and achieve different tasks. But faith is more important because “faith perfects reason.” Is that what you say?

Contarini:

I don’t think it’s true that with “only logic” people are inclined to be atheists. Logic cannot give certain answers outside a very narrow range (you have to have very well-defined and clearly known premises to reach a sure conclusion using logic alone), so people can use logic and come to all sorts of conclusions. Atheism is one of those conclusions, true. But I don’t see it as being the most logical one. If I relied on reason alone I would probably believe that there is some sort of intelligence behind the universe but that it is unlikely to care that much about the welfare of individuals. In other words, I’d probably be some sort of deist. That’s the position that Anthony Flew appears to have reached in his old age.

Edwin

Yes, Antony Flew has reached an interesting conclusion, much like Aristotle’s or Voltaire’s. Perhaps his deism is the most logical decision. So why am I an athiest? The reason why I portray my views as “atheism” is not because I believe the supernatural realm to have been logically demonstrated false. Rather, it is based on pragmatist notions.

William James once wrote an essay titled “The Will to Believe.” In it he has a discussion of what he calls “live” and “dead” options. These terms are relative to the individual. A live option is one that you consider to be a possibility and a dead one is, of course, not a possibility (for whatever psychological/cultural reasons.) In India Hinduism is generally a live option, whereas in America it is largely dead.

At any rate, most of the gods are not worth believing in, especially if the prospect of them gives you no sense of awe, piety or holiness. The only gods I consider worthy of “believing in,” which is a dubious notion itself, are the gods that I grew up with: monotheistic gods. So, if the God of my fathers father’s can be demonstrated false—or at least shown highly likely to be false—then I consider myself to be an atheist as far as pragmatism is concerned.

The pragmatic atheist does not need to be convinced of the impossibility of every imaginable deity, but only the ones that seem “live” to him. That is to say, if my only live options were, say, X Y and Z, and these are all shown to be false, then I am without live options—until I discover more that pique my curiosity. This is very psychological, but did I make myself understandable?

But as far as deism is concerned, I think it very well may be true. But such a deity—if one can call it that—is not even worthy of being worshipped. It does not require piety or anything of the sort. So what does it matter if we say we “believe in it.” We cannot have a “relationship” with it either. It hardly matters at all. If it is pragmatic in any sense to believe in it, it is because it is an uncomplicated cosmological explanation.

 

[David_Brown]

A friendly question atheos_sum:

William James’ essay “The Will to Believe” is generally taken to be trying to refute arguments like the atheistic argument of W. K. Cliifford in “The Ethics of Belief” (infidels.org/library/historical/w_k_clifford/ethics_of_belief.html)). In that essay Clifford famously said: “To sum up: it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” James argued that Clifford is wrong, at least in the case of live, forced, momentous options (which would include some religious and ethical choices).

Do you associate James with your pragmatic atheism? If so, how? I am curious.

David

 

[john_doran]

atheos_sum:

The laws of logic are fundamental to all concepts, thought and communication. We cannot prove them because they are presupposed by the very concept of “proof,” and to demand a proof of them is commit the fallacy of the Stolen Concept. Even the denial of these principles entails their acceptance. We accept the laws of logic because we must accept them; they are self-evident and necessarily true. Faith plays no part here.

it depends on your definition of “faith”. i am assuming a rather blandly generic “belief in a (set of) proposition(s) for which one has no proof”. which means, of course, that belief in the laws of logic on the basis of anything other than their (discursive) demonstrability, is belief grounded in faith.

but that is as may be. i would venture to suggest that the existence of the real world and the reliability of our senses and the existence of the past are also all “self-evident” in a very real way.

 

[MysticRose]

Originally Posted by atheos_sum
The laws of logic are fundamental to all concepts, thought and communication. We cannot prove them because they are presupposed by the very concept of “proof,” and to demand a proof of them is commit the fallacy of the Stolen Concept. Even the denial of these principles entails their acceptance. We accept the laws of logic because we must accept them; they are self-evident and necessarily true. Faith plays no part here.

I have a question here how is that man excepts these concepts as factual in the first place as fact? Does he not have to have Faith in Logic and that logic is therefore something that is without error so that it can be relied upon to be believed as true even to begin with?

faith (fth)

NOUN:

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

It seems for most in this thread you like to run right past the FACT that you have to have Faith to even believe in logic therefore making Atheism a system of beliefs and therefore making it technically a religion in itself … by defintion … Atheism even though it denies God is still a system of beliefs in denial of God and therefore because this CANNOT be conclusively proven then it is a theory therefore it is a belief system. BY the way by the rules of logical stements what I have just stated is a fact, and therefore a logical true or positive statement …therefore an atheist would have to contend that the negative is the truth but in logic the positive is always more true than the negative UNTIL proven. Atheists contend on a regular basis that we have the positive side not the negative and then will say that it is our job to prve the positive when in the laws of logic this is not so at all as the positive always outweighs the negative therefore it is harder to prove the negative statement …