A logic vs religion question

[Ender]

I'm in a thread elsewhere, discussing that bit of yellow journalsim that was in Wired last issue about athiesm. I've been told the following

Great! Feel free to show me the empirical proof for math and logic. How much does math weigh? Can I cut logic open and examine its innards? What does it look like? How many pounds does a number weigh?

The first time I called that a bit of surreal nonsense, to which I was responded with

So you can't account for the laws of logic, then. This is so much easier when atheists do all the work for you!

TGHoughts on how to address this nonsense?

[Surlethe]

Ask him how he can self-consistently deny the laws of logic.

[Frank Hipper]

Surlethe's is better, but ask him how a physical examination of a mental process is supposed to proceed.

[Zadius]

He's strawmanning atheism by assuming that atheists don't believe in abstraction and that everything is physical.

[General Zod]

Ask him what 1+1 equals. If he says two, then congratulations. He's discovered empirical proof for math.

[Rye]

I hate this anti-empiricism strawman, that's all it is. Empiricism doesn't say that all things are categorically material, it never has. It just emphasises the role experience plays in gaining new knowledge.

They only gained their knowledge of maths, logic, et al through sensory experience, so they can't really deny knowledge gained through sensory perception without stealing the concept. Surlethe is right in bringing up denial of logic as a stolen concept fallacy also, but they're not denying logic, they're just denying empiricism as a logical epistemology.

I would simply say "when did I say that logic and numbers were empirical objects? I didn't, that's your stupid-assed sophistry and strawman, but I, just like you and everyone else, learned about them through my senses and relating sensory data to other sensory data to predict causal relationships. That's how you gain knowledge of logic through experience.

Why don't you tell me how it would be possible to concoct the principles of logic if you could never observe causality? How could you even recognise your own existence without sensory inputs? You couldn't, you would be unable to distinguish yourself from anything, because you wouldn't know or recognise anything.

Ideas are not denied by materialism or empiricism. Nor is logic, nor are numbers or any other mental phenomena."

[petesampras]

Logic is a tool, not a thing which we have discovered. It exists in the sense we have invented it. It has no existance outside of us (mankind).

Formal logic is, essentially, a language in which you can right statements about the world. Unlike other languages it has a clear set of rules which can show all implications of any statement that you make.

If you try to argue that logic and maths have some real existance beyond tools, you are going to lose. The way to deal with someone who makes these kinds of arguments is to first point out that we need a means of describing and making statements about the world - otherwise all discussion is meaningless. From there you can point out that logic and maths are the best tools/languages we have for this purpose. Challenge them to point out superior tools for the job. If they can't then they have to concede that we are best off sticking with maths and logic.

[Darth Wong]

I'm in a thread elsewhere, discussing that bit of yellow journalsim that was in Wired last issue about athiesm. I've been told the following

Great! Feel free to show me the empirical proof for math and logic. How much does math weigh? Can I cut logic open and examine its innards? What does it look like? How many pounds does a number weigh?

The first time I called that a bit of surreal nonsense, to which I was responded with

So you can't account for the laws of logic, then. This is so much easier when atheists do all the work for you!

TGHoughts on how to address this nonsense?

What a moron. Concepts do not exist outside the minds of those who conceive of them. In the case of math, they are useful, and well-defined. In the case of God, it is neither useful or well-defined. But in both cases, the concept only "exists" as an idea in the mind of a human.

If he understands that God is a concept which exists only in the minds of believers, rather than a real entity which exists independently of human thought, then we're getting somewhere. He is in fact acknowledging this to be true by trying to create equivalence between God and mathematical concepts (all of which are man-made intellectual constructs designed to help us with other tasks), but he probably won't admit that upon cross-examination.

You're clearly dealing with either an extremely stupid creationist or a very clever one. If he's extremely stupid, then he actually thinks this makes sense. If he's very clever, then he knows it's bullshit but he also knows that it's so far out to left field that it will at least temporarily throw the average debater for a loop. A lot of creationist debate tactics are nothing more than delay tactics, designed to perpetuate the argument and make it go around in circles indefinitely. Some of the more clever creationists actually recognize that logic is not with them so they know they can't actually win an honest argument. Instead, they only try to make sure it never ends, because as long as it continues, they feel like they're winning. It's kind of like an insurgency; as long as the fighting continues, the insurgent is achieving his goals.

[Sunstreaker]

Ask him how he can self-consistently deny the laws of logic.

I like this question.

In response to Darth Wong's statement he's probably either dumb, or being dishonest.


Is he trying to equate god to an abstract idea like logic? Because if he is, he just lost the argument of god's existence. God is supposed to be a living being based on religious dogma. And he can't be both abstract (as in can't be touched) and concrete.

If he's just being an ass about logic than ask him to describe the color blue or what a rose smells like. Those are things most of us can sense with our eyes and ears but can't really describe easily.

He's got you into a trap I think. Logic can't be used to prove the existence of logic, but math can be proven though simple observation. He knows how to count to 10, right? Can he look at his fingers? Can he take away x fingers from 10 to get y right? Treat him like a kindergartener since he's acting infantile.

As for logic....his own argument uses logic. He's proving logic's existence by arguing at all. (even if it's faulty logic it's still logic)

Or better yet, don't waste your time on him.

[petesampras]

As for logic....his own argument uses logic. He's proving logic's existence by arguing at all. (even if it's faulty logic it's still logic)

Logic is a clearly defined formal system. You can often translate informal arguments into logic, but not always. You don't have to use logic to form an argument, so getting into an argument is not evidence that you believe in logic. Logic is generaly the best tool for arguing because it forces arguments to be clearly defined and internally consistant.

[General Zod]

As for logic....his own argument uses logic. He's proving logic's existence by arguing at all. (even if it's faulty logic it's still logic)

Logic is a clearly defined formal system. You can often translate informal arguments into logic, but not always. You don't have to use logic to form an argument, so getting into an argument is not evidence that you believe in logic. Logic is generaly the best tool for arguing because it forces arguments to be clearly defined and internally consistant.

Logic seems to be either an on or an off thing imo. Since all arguments have to flow from a premise to a conclusion in order to be proper arguments, they're either logically consistent, or they're not. The person making the argument may not be aware of the difference, but someone familiar with how logic works can tell whether their argument is bullshit or logically sound.

[petesampras]

As for logic....his own argument uses logic. He's proving logic's existence by arguing at all. (even if it's faulty logic it's still logic)

Logic is a clearly defined formal system. You can often translate informal arguments into logic, but not always. You don't have to use logic to form an argument, so getting into an argument is not evidence that you believe in logic. Logic is generaly the best tool for arguing because it forces arguments to be clearly defined and internally consistant.

Logic seems to be either an on or an off thing imo. Since all arguments have to flow from a premise to a conclusion in order to be proper arguments, they're either logically consistent, or they're not. The person making the argument may not be aware of the difference, but someone familiar with how logic works can tell whether their argument is bullshit or logically sound.

If an argument can be translated directly into formal logic, then you can specify whether the argument is sound according to the rules of logic. This does not mean that by getting into an informal argument that you are accepting the rules of logic in your debate, which is what the other poster was suggesting.

[General Zod]

If an argument can be translated directly into formal logic, then you can specify whether the argument is sound according to the rules of logic. This does not mean that by getting into an informal argument that you are accepting the rules of logic in your debate, which is what the other poster was suggesting.

How exactly would you go about proving an argument incorrect without using some form of logic to determine whether or not it was a proper argument in the first place? It's not exactly as though it takes a good deal of training to realize condition y of argument x does not add up to proposition z, therefore y is wrong.

[petesampras]

If an argument can be translated directly into formal logic, then you can specify whether the argument is sound according to the rules of logic. This does not mean that by getting into an informal argument that you are accepting the rules of logic in your debate, which is what the other poster was suggesting.

How exactly would you go about proving an argument incorrect without using some form of logic to determine whether or not it was a proper argument in the first place? It's not exactly as though it takes a good deal of training to realize condition y of argument x does not add up to proposition z, therefore y is wrong.

You are missing the point. Logic is clearly the best way we have developed of presenting an argument. That does not mean that the fact that someone enters into an argument means that they have implicitly accepted logic. So you cannot use the fact that someone is presenting informal arguments as evidence that they have accepted logic. If they were to present arguments in actual formal predicate or propositional logic, then you could use that argument.

[CaptJodan]

You are missing the point. Logic is clearly the best way we have developed of presenting an argument. That does not mean that the fact that someone enters into an argument means that they have implicitly accepted logic. So you cannot use the fact that someone is presenting informal arguments as evidence that they have accepted logic. If they were to present arguments in actual formal predicate or propositional logic, then you could use that argument.

This goes hand in hand with the idea that a fundie would invariably say that their belief trumps your logic. After you beat down their stupidity, they simply repeat that their belief in God makes your argument and logic useless. They won't engage in a logical argument, they'll engage in an argument over "feeling" or what they believe is the truth or whatnaught.

It's still an argument based on something, but surely not based on logic.

[petesampras]

You are missing the point. Logic is clearly the best way we have developed of presenting an argument. That does not mean that the fact that someone enters into an argument means that they have implicitly accepted logic. So you cannot use the fact that someone is presenting informal arguments as evidence that they have accepted logic. If they were to present arguments in actual formal predicate or propositional logic, then you could use that argument.

This goes hand in hand with the idea that a fundie would invariably say that their belief trumps your logic. After you beat down their stupidity, they simply repeat that their belief in God makes your argument and logic useless. They won't engage in a logical argument, they'll engage in an argument over "feeling" or what they believe is the truth or whatnaught.

It's still an argument based on something, but surely not based on logic.

There is ultimately no argument against the creationist/fundie who rejects logic and science in favour of faith. All you can do is force them to accept this.

[Darth Wong]

They aren't necessarily using logic, but whenever someone says "A because of B", he is trying to use logic. The fact that he doesn't know or recognize the rules for doing so is irrelevant. It's like someone who picks up a football and runs onto the field in the midst of the players trying to throw it around. He's trying to play football, regardless of whether he knows or cares how to do it properly. If he was honest about faith overcoming logic, he would simply say "It is true. I need no reason."

They are trying to have their cake and eat it too; they want to act as if they are using logic without actually doing so.