Is Logic Biased Towards Atheism?

[atheos_sum]

Throughout these posts and in conversations with believers, atheistic reasoning is often objected to and dismissed as being a kind of “biased logic.”

What they have in mind is summed up by what someone told me yesterday. “Well, who made up the rules of logic? The atheists did and it’s no wonder then why it’s in their favor. You made up the rules and did not include God in them, so it’s not wonder he can’t win.”

Another standard objection is to put the focus on what the atheist has “faith” in, and to say that the atheist has “faith” in the laws of logic, or “faith” in reason. These are versions of the “primacy of faith” argument.

Now, either my “logic” is correct or incorrect, but I don’t think it can be “biased” unless, of course, I’m using incorrectly—which would bring us back to that second alternative, namely, “incorrect.” So the question I have is if we are actually using different methods of “logic.” But how can two different forms of logic coexist and be true? Also, isn’t it too much to presuppose God as a law of logic? I’m not quite sure how that is supposed to occur anyway. It would be like a jury presupposing the verdict before the trial.

Please keep your comments relevant to the topic.

 

[Lazerlike42]

I’ve only ever heard atheists use arguements which are contrary to logic, so I’m not quite sure how to respond to this.

 

[peregrinator_it]

Logic is a tool for verifying the internal consistency (that is, reasonableness) of arguments.

However, logic alone is not truth. Logic can be a test of truth, but things which are logical (though they are reasonable) can be untrue.

An example: the statements below are logically valid. The conclusion drawn from them is logically correct, but obviously untrue.

“All pink things are flamingos.
My pig is pink.
Therefore, my pig is a flamingo.”

The conclusion above is incorrect because the first statement is untrue- it does not reflect reality. All pink things are not flamingos.

Logic can only help one to the truth if one has correctly assessed and categorized the world around him.

But logic is not opposed to truth. Therefore, logic is not opposed to God or faith. Rather, logic can aid faith in its belief in God. Indeed, because God created human reason, God created logic with its limitations.

 

[DavidFilmer]

atheos_sum:
What they have in mind is summed up by what someone told me yesterday. “Well, who made up the rules of logic? The atheists did and it’s no wonder then why it’s in their favor. You made up the rules and did not include God in them, so it’s not wonder he can’t win.”Hmmm. I wonder what Socrates would have to say about this (he was no Christian, of course, but he never disputed the existence of the divine - even the wacky Greek gods recognized in his day).

And who is the “father of logic?” Aristotle, of course (student and author of all Socrates’ works). Of course, this dude lived nearly 400 years before the death of Jesus, and he never questioned the divine.

And, of course, St. Thomas Aquinas used logical reasoning to prove the existence of God (his “five proofs,” such as the unmoved mover). As did much earlier theologians (such as St. Anslem).

Does this person think logic is a recent invention?

I have never seen a convincing logical “proof” that God does not exist. Of course, we must not confuse logic with science. Science (and I mean the “natural” sciences - chemistry, physics, biology, etc) cannot possibly prove OR disprove God, since God is not part of the natural realm (He is super-natural). But logic has nothing to do with science, and logic is a perfectly good tool to examine the possiblilty of God (and God wins every time).

 

[Church_Militant]

Interesting post!

I don’t think that logic per se can be biased. The beginning supposition or premis can be faulty, but logic is simply following out a train of thoughts to an end. Non-sequitur is a problem with some people’s logic, where they draw a conclusion that doesn’t really follow, but again that is with the person and not the concept of logic itself, though people say that a person’s “logic is faulty” and that is what they mean.

I think of logic as sort the mental science of thinking things over and drawing correct conclusions.

One of the things that I love about being Catholic is, that to me at least, it makes a lot of logical sense in both it’s beliefs and practices.

 

[atheos_sum]

peregrinator_it:

But logic is not opposed to truth. Therefore, logic is not opposed to God or faith.

Logic is not opposed to what is true.
God is true.
Therefore logic is not opposed to God.

non-sequitur if i ever saw one.

Now, i hope you’re not going to say that atheists just made up non-sequiturs to prove the Christian wrong.

You’re committing the same assumption that nearly all Christians make. God is already true before your investigation. But that cannot be, like i explained, it would be like a jury presupposing the verdict before the trial took place. Logic is supposed to help thinking beings arrive at such conclusions if they are in fact true, but they cannot already be supposed true if you are going to remain fair to reason. Yours is truly a biased “form of logic” as far as I’m concerned.

 

[atheos_sum]

DavidFilmer:

Hmmm. I wonder what Socrates would have to say about this (he was no Christian, of course, but he never disputed the existence of the divine - even the wacky Greek gods recognized in his day).

And who is the “father of logic?” Aristotle, of course (student and author of all Socrates’ works). Of course, this dude lived nearly 400 years before the death of Jesus, and he never questioned the divine.

And, of course, St. Thomas Aquinas used logical reasoning to prove the existence of God (his “five proofs,” such as the unmoved mover). As did much earlier theologians (such as St. Anslem).

Does this person think logic is a recent invention?

I’m not sure what this person was thinking exactly.

But I’m glad you pointed to Aristotle, because I think there is an important point to made. Aristotle was a deist insofar as his unmoved mover argument is concerned. Nevertheless, he did not rely on this unmoved mover to create an ethical structure, nor did he need the unmoved mover as a prerequisite for “faith in the laws of logic,” as many Christians are quick to say.

DavidFilmer:

I have never seen a convincing logical “proof” that God does not exist.

Neither have I, so long as deism is a possibility.

But, as it turns out, the more complicated the deity becomes (i.e. the more attributes he has, and the more allegories about him and so on) the more falsifiable the deity becomes. And as many atheists have pointed out, many of the definitions and attributes of God as manifested in Christianity, contain certain logical inconsistencies and contradictions.

 

[The_Augustinian]

The conclusion is that logic does not contradict with God (who is Truth), not that God is Truth. If the syllogism were a non sequitur then the conclusion would not follow from the premises. So, the fallacy, if any, would be begging the question, not non sequitur.

I don’t think the use of logic is “biased” towards Atheism. Atheists and Christians can use the same logic but with different premises and reach different conclusions which are equally valid, though not equally true.

 

[atheos_sum]

The Augustinian:

If the syllogism were a non sequitur then the conclusion would not follow from the premises. So, the fallacy, if any, would be begging the question, not non sequitur.

Ah, you are exactly right. hangs head sheepishly
The Augustinian:

I don’t think the use of logic is “biased” towards Atheism. Atheists and Christians can use the same logic but with different premises and reach different conclusions which are equally valid, though not equally true.

What are the premises Christians and atheists hold then?

 

[atheos_sum]

Here are the three basic laws of logic

1. The law of identity

For things, the law asserts that “A is A,” or “anything is itself.” For propositions: “If a proposition is true, then it is true.”

1. The law of excluded middle

For things, “Anything is either A or not-A.” For propositions: “A proposition, such as P, is either true or false.”

1. The law of contradiction

For things: “Nothing can be both A and not-A.” For propositions: “A proposition, P, cannot be both true and false.”

These principles are simple enough, and few people would be foolish enough to deny them outright. But some Christian theorists deny them indirectly; that is to say, they argue that the laws of logic are without rational foundation and must be taken on faith.

But on what grounds is this assertion made? Usually on the grounds that the laws of logic, strictly speaking, cannot be proven true. Therefore, concludes the theologian, in the absense of proof, we must accept them on faith.

 

[The_Augustinian]

atheos_sum:

What are the premises Christians and atheists hold then?

I’m a mediocre apologist, poor debater, and even worse logician. This is probably outside my competency, so I will make a new thread centered on this topic so as to attract more qualified people than me.

But to answer your question, I would like to sum up the various premises held in both major intellectual camps under two worldviews: Theism and Atheistic Materialism.

Theism presumes that if there is a God, then He can be known through the reason and through nature as a reflection of Him. These are not, according to the Catechism, proofs like in the natural sciences, but “converging and convincing arguments” which allow the believer to come to a certainty of truth.

Atheistic Materialism, in its crudest form, basically denies that there is anything known beyond the five senses, and that Nature is sufficient in itself, and needs no Creator.

Since I’m probably not giving either side much justice in describing them, more discussion is encouraged in the new thread.

 

[didymus]

peregrinator_it:

Logic is a tool for verifying the internal consistency (that is, reasonableness) of arguments.

However, logic alone is not truth. Logic can be a test of truth, but things which are logical (though they are reasonable) can be untrue.

An example: the statements below are logically valid. The conclusion drawn from them is logically correct, but obviously untrue.

“All pink things are flamingos.
My pig is pink.
Therefore, my pig is a flamingo.”

The conclusion above is incorrect because the first statement is untrue- it does not reflect reality. All pink things are not flamingos.

Logic can only help one to the truth if one has correctly assessed and categorized the world around him.

But logic is not opposed to truth. Therefore, logic is not opposed to God or faith. Rather, logic can aid faith in its belief in God. Indeed, because God created human reason, God created logic with its limitations.

With logic where you end up depends on where you start out. If you want to prove the existence of God you could start with the premise that “nothing can exist that has not been created” and go from there, but that would be cheating since you’ve basically folded your conclusion into your premise.

I don’t think that God’sexistence can be logically or scientifically proven – that’s what faith is for.

 

[Catholic2003]

The underlying premise of this thread is faulty. There are dozens of different kinds of logic. People are free to select from any known logic, or invent a new one of their own.

Classical logics include first-order logic, second-order logic, various higher-order logics (e.g., classical versions of Church’s simple theory of types), and infinitary logics for various ordinals.

Constructive logic, which denies the law of the excluded middle, is probably one of the more popular “alternative” logics today. It grew out of intuitionistic logic, which came to fruition as a negative reaction to Hilbert’s non-constructive proof of the basis theorem.

Categorical logic is a variety of logic based on category (and topos) theory instead of type theory.

 

[David_Brown]

As for logical arguments against the existence of God, there are several in The Impossibility of God , ed. Michale Martin and Ricki Monnier (the book has a wide range of different kinds of logical arguments). For a much much more technical use of logic, Jordan Howard Sobel’s Logic and Theism: Arguments for and Against Belief in God (I had a post-graduate seminar with Sobel when he was working on it, even got a reference in the book. It is a tough go.).

David

 

[john_doran]

atheos_sum:

What they have in mind is summed up by what someone told me yesterday. “Well, who made up the rules of logic? The atheists did and it’s no wonder then why it’s in their favor. You made up the rules and did not include God in them, so it’s not wonder he can’t win.”

no one “made up” the laws of logic, just as no one “made up” the law of gravity. people perceive and then record the various laws of nature.

atheos_sum:

But on what grounds is this assertion made? Usually on the grounds that the laws of logic, strictly speaking, cannot be proven true. Therefore, concludes the theologian, in the absense of proof, we must accept them on faith.

exactly.

same goes for belief in the existence of the real world, the reliability of your senses, the existence of the past, and so on.

 

[Catholic2003]

Model logics are more of an extension to logic than a different kind of logic, adding the idea of “necessarily true” (as opposed to merely being true but not necessarily true). However, relevant logics, which deny the paradoxes of material implication (e.g., (A => (B => A)), are most easily understood as being interpreted in modal logic.

And I’m sure I’ve left a few other out.

 

[Catholic2003]

Catholic2003:

Categorical logic is a variety of logic based on category (and topos) theory instead of type theory.

Oops, that should read “instead of set theory” at the end of the sentence.

And I did leave out linear logic, which distinguishes between internal and external choices in the “AND” and “OR” logical connectives. The canonical example is a restaurant menu, where “tea OR coffee” on the menu means the customer gets to choose which one, whereas “fruit OR seafood (in season)” on the menu means the restaurant gets to choose which one will be served.

 

[cheddarsox]

Logic does not prove the truthfullness of anything.

A long time ago people noticed that mice showed up in piles of dirty clothes in barns, or maggots in meat left out. They, using logic, came to the conclusion that dirty shirts created mice, and meat somehow turned into maggots. It made logical sense…but it was not the truth.

Lots of people have been proved erroneously guilty or innocent in courts of law using logic, the truth not being able to be accurately discerned.

Logic is a useful but not infallible tool. Religion is another useful but not infallible tool. We need both reason and faith to function in this world. People put both their reason and faith in different baskets.

Logic can help us discern the likelyhood that a certain thing is in line with the truth, but in the end, it can prove nothing.

Science is not infallible either. I am a scientist and science educator and this is the first thing I teach my students. We are all on a journey of discovery. I think that claiming we have THE COMPLEAT truth on anything is simply human pride and folly.

cheddar

 

[atheos_sum]

john doran:

exactly.

same goes for belief in the existence of the real world, the reliability of your senses, the existence of the past, and so on.

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.

Catholic2003:

The underlying premise of this thread is faulty. There are dozens of different kinds of logic. People are free to select from any known logic, or invent a new one of their own.

Classical logics include first-order logic, second-order logic, various higher-order logics (e.g., classical versions of Church’s simple theory of types), and infinitary logics for various ordinals.

Constructive logic, which denies the law of the excluded middle, is probably one of the more popular “alternative” logics today. It grew out of intuitionistic logic, which came to fruition as a negative reaction to Hilbert’s non-constructive proof of the basis theorem.

Categorical logic is a variety of logic based on category (and topos) theory instead of type theory.

The laws of logic are not, as you suppose, only one set of basic principles among many possible sets. These laws are not selected arbitrarily or by convention. There are no “alternative logics.” Remove, say, the law of contradiction from your system and replace it with a substitute, and what do you get? Some bizarre alternative system? No. You get no system at all, and no assertion at all, for you have removed the condition of intelligible statement in any system whatever. When you change the law of contradiction what do you change to?

If you remove excluded middle, you get likewise nonsense. So the proposition, “Jesus had twelve original disciples” is either true or not true (ceteris paribus—don’t think about spatial-temporal slices, and keep the definitions constant.) If you remove the law of excluded middle, Jesus both had twelve disciples and did not have twelve disciples simultaneously. How can this be?

Surely we would live in a strange world where the law of excluded middle did not apply:

– I am typing on my computer and not typing on my computer…?

– I am drinking coffee and not drinking coffee…?

– I am a man and not a man…?

woah… it’s the matrix man…

 

[RobNY]

cheddarsox:

Logic does not prove the truthfullness of anything.

A long time ago people noticed that mice showed up in piles of dirty clothes in barns, or maggots in meat left out. They, using logic, came to the conclusion that dirty shirts created mice, and meat somehow turned into maggots. It made logical sense…but it was not the truth.

Lots of people have been proved erroneously guilty or innocent in courts of law using logic, the truth not being able to be accurately discerned.

Logic is a useful but not infallible tool. Religion is another useful but not infallible tool. We need both reason and faith to function in this world. People put both their reason and faith in different baskets.

Logic can help us discern the likelyhood that a certain thing is in line with the truth, but in the end, it can prove nothing.

Science is not infallible either. I am a scientist and science educator and this is the first thing I teach my students. We are all on a journey of discovery. I think that claiming we have THE COMPLEAT truth on anything is simply human pride and folly.

cheddar

I think the example of spontaneous generation is a bit off. After all, it was the development of scientifc method that ended up erasing that mistaken idea. Fransico Redi used scientific method in his experiment, at least I am fairly certain what he did could be considered scientific method.

What you seem to be talking about is inductive reasoning. By no means was the spontaneous generation theory “scientific” in that it didn’t proceed from scientific method. It was considered to generally be true, but was obviously wrong. Inductive reasoning is much more practical to use in everyday life, and indeed, we use it, even if subconsciously. Inductive reasoning is much more likely to be wrong, but of course, deductive reasoning can be near impossible to use in many situations.

Just my two cents.