A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

[thedoc]

That was half a case of whiskey every day.

But see...

http://www.chordie.com/chord.pere/getso ... ong.chopro

I've run into that before. The Pythons did different versions of the same skits, using slightly different wording each time.

To be expected, I suppose, when you perform a sketch hundreds of times.

Gorn.

I understand. Last year A group of us did "Mary Did You Know" for church at Christmas, and in arranging the song I was listening to Mark Lowery preform it on YouTube. He didn't sing it the same way twice, and none of the versions were exactly like the sheet music. But all this is understandable as he doesn't read music, he only wrote the words.

[Londoner]

That is like asking where the laws of mathematics come from. The answer is, "from reality."

I do not think so. Can you give an example?

One basic problem is that to describe reality is to say some things are real, other things are not real, the true and the false. But maths and logic do not deal with the truth of falsity of their terms, only the relationship between them. This is the distinction that is always quoted, that between what is valid and what is sound. Logic and maths only deal with the former.

Me: Besides, there is the awkward fact that logic and all the other ways we understand the world don't seem to fit together. For example, we cannot quite reconcile logic and maths.

I'm unfamiliar with this argument, the one that shows (presumably using logic) that mathematics does not work in a logical way.

Can you show that it is so?

I refer to the work of Frege and Russell who attempted but failed to do just that, and of Godel who demonstrated that this was not possible. That we cannot explain maths in terms of logic - or even in terms of its own axioms.

I only mentioned this as one example. Another would be in our notion of time; we cannot interpret the world empirically except against our notion of time as subjective, yet our interpretation of the world (in physics) contradicts this notion! It is another example of how a tool which seems absolutely fundamental to our understanding turns out to be less than perfect, thus opening the door to the idea that the ways we understand the world may say more about the nature of our understanding than about the world.

[Immanuel Can]

That is like asking where the laws of mathematics come from. The answer is, "from reality."

I do not think so. Can you give an example?

Sure. The laws of mathematics are a set of closed-system-referential, self-coherent abstractions, just as you say. However, they work very well in correspondence to the real world. We see this, for example, in engineering: that a physical structure that is not mathematically sound will not turn out to be functional in the actual world either.

Likewise, with logic. Yes, it is a self-contained system, like maths: but postulates that are not logically connected to each other do not yield reliable conclusions in the real world either.

It seems that logic and maths tap into some inherent property of the natural world...like coherence, perhaps.

Me: Besides, there is the awkward fact that logic and all the other ways we understand the world don't seem to fit together. For example, we cannot quite reconcile logic and maths.

I'm unfamiliar with this argument, the one that shows (presumably using logic) that mathematics does not work in a logical way.

Can you show that it is so?

I refer to the work of Frege and Russell who attempted but failed to do just that, and of Godel who demonstrated that this was not possible. That we cannot explain maths in terms of logic - or even in terms of its own axioms.

Ah, I see...by "explain" you mean "justify." No, you're right: we cannot "justify" these things, but have to take facts like the basic mathematical or logical coherence as suppositions; but once we do, we find them abundantly confirmed. That first step may not be "justifiable" beforehand, but it is in retrospect...at least, probabilistically.

...a tool which seems absolutely fundamental to our understanding turns out to be less than perfect, thus opening the door to the idea that the ways we understand the world may say more about the nature of our understanding than about the world.

Yes, this is so. All empirical knowing is merely probabilistic, not absolute. But if logic and maths vastly increase our probability of being correct, then how foolish would we be to dismiss such "tools" in favour of, say, random guesses or unexamined tradition.

I fear that's where a lot of "Postmodern" talk goes: it throws baby out with bathwater, and loses everything in confusion. Ironically, however, to make its case, Postmodernism itself cannot avoid using logic. For if its conclusions are not in any way verifiable, and have no appeal but to irrational emotions, then there is nothing to make them winsome to any more thoughtful mind.

So I'm careful about claims that "reason isn't reliable," and so forth, whenever I hear people make them...for even if "true" in an absolute sense, they are probabilistically untrue. Reason and logic are themselves reliable processes, and used correctly, lead to vastly more probable results than the alternatives, even taking into account the variability of the empirical world.

[Londoner]

Sure. The laws of mathematics are a set of closed-system-referential, self-coherent abstractions, just as you say. However, they work very well in correspondence to the real world. We see this, for example, in engineering: that a physical structure that is not mathematically sound will not turn out to be functional in the actual world either.

But it will not be sound because of the maths, but because the numbers represent sound structures. The sums are indifferent to what they represent; 2 + 2 = 4 whether the 2s represent steel beams or matchsticks. Or to put it another way, applied maths and pure maths are different realms.

Ah, I see...by "explain" you mean "justify." No, you're right: we cannot "justify" these things, but have to take facts like the basic mathematical or logical coherence as suppositions; but once we do, we find them abundantly confirmed. That first step may not be "justifiable" beforehand, but it is in retrospect...at least, probabilistically.

Of course if we assume various axioms then things will follow from those axioms. But we can do that for anything. If we assume that everything in the world takes place through God's will, then it will follow that everything that happens is an example of God's will. And so for any number of ideas. OK, maths is a lot more useful a theory than the other one, but - strictly speaking - that doesn't confirm it.

But I think the problem I was drawing attention to is not that the basics of logic and maths are assumptions, but that they are different assumptions. They cannot both be confirmed. And also that we do not find the basic assumptions of maths confirmed, on the contrary we find (through maths) they are un-confirmable.

Yes, this is so. All empirical knowing is merely probabilistic, not absolute. But if logic and maths vastly increase our probability of being correct, then how foolish would we be to dismiss such "tools" in favour of, say, random guesses or unexamined tradition.

If empirical knowledge is only probablistic (as you term it), then could do we square it with the notion that logic is reliable because it is drawn from 'reality'? Either logic is validated by reality, or reality is validated by logic, but they can't validate each other, like two drunks holding each other up!

....But having said all that, we are left with the fact that the empirical world certainly seems to be mathematical, in the sense that the language of maths seems to perfectly describe the relationships within it. Is that because the world somehow is mathematical, or is it because we have the sort of brains that find mathematical descriptions satisfying? That there might be an alternative way of understanding the world, but we are not wired to comprehend it? It is annoying, but we can never know.

I fear that's where a lot of "Postmodern" talk goes: it throws baby out with bathwater, and loses everything in confusion. Ironically, however, to make its case, Postmodernism itself cannot avoid using logic. For if its conclusions are not in any way verifiable, and have no appeal but to irrational emotions, then there is nothing to make them winsome to any more thoughtful mind.

So I'm careful about claims that "reason isn't reliable," and so forth, whenever I hear people make them...for even if "true" in an absolute sense, they are probabilistically untrue. Reason and logic are themselves reliable processes, and used correctly, lead to vastly more probable results than the alternatives, even taking into account the variability of the empirical world.

Yes, that is obviously right. I'm only making a philosophical point, not a sensible one!

[Arising_uk]

Our knowledge of 'existence and existence is things and states of affairs' arise out of our consciousness, our perceptions. So, if logic arises from ' 'existence and existence is things and states of affairs', then logic is 'human logic'. ...

I have a pretty old-fashioned and out-of-date view on this, Logic arises because there are things and states of affairs, no things or states of affairs no Logic. As such, even if there are no perceiving creatures but things and states of affairs then I think Logic holds, you can't be a thing or state of affairs and not a thing or state of affairs at the same time, if you are a thing or state of affairs then there is a thing or state of affairs, etc. Now it's true that Logic also applies to language and reasoning but I think it arises because there are things or states of affairs. I rarely quote but -

"3.1432
We must not say, “The complex sign ‘aRb’ says ‘a stands in relation R to b’”; but we must say, “That ‘a’ stands in a certain relation to ‘b’ says that aRb”. "TLP - L.W.

Or, if we are claiming Logic is not subject to the uncertainty that applies to ordinary human assertions, then the word 'Logic' is just taking the place of 'God' in thedoc's formulation. (And to do that, to equate God with pure reason is something I think most theists would have been happy with.)

Logic or Symbolic Logic identifies the impossible, the possible and the necessary, that is, the contradictions, the contingencies and the tautologies. As such there is no uncertainty about the tautologies and contradictions but the contingencies are empirical and as such are subject to epistemological uncertainty. Although I know this is an unpopular view nowadays.

If there is a 'God' and 'it' exists, i.e. 'it' is a thing or state of affairs then 'it' is subject to Logic but I accept that 'it' may not be subject to our Physics. Although if 'it' wishes to be the theists 'God' then 'it' is.

[Arising_uk]

Possible but unlikely, but it seems to be true that you do not understand God. ...

Are you claiming an understanding of your 'God'?

Therefore a God that is beyond logic is beyond your understanding.

To me this statement just shows a misunderstanding of Logic.

[Arising_uk]

Are you saying "non-existent" as in having no physical manifestation? ...

No, I'm saying "non-existent" as in doesn't exist.

but allowing for a spiritual presence?

You'd have to explain a "spiritual presence" that doesn't have existence first. You mean just in your head?

[Arising_uk]

Logic is a human construct that deals only with the correct structure of an argument, it just does not apply to anything else. ...

Yes it does, it applies to anything that exists as it arises just because something exists.

[Immanuel Can]

If empirical knowledge is only probablistic (as you term it), then could do we square it with the notion that logic is reliable because it is drawn from 'reality'? Either logic is validated by reality, or reality is validated by logic, but they can't validate each other, like two drunks holding each other up!

Nice analogy.

But they don't have to. Reality is very clearly the primary thing, and like mathematics, logic is an interpretive tool, or methodology, or paradigm of thought for decoding that reality. Reality wins.

The interesting question is why it works so very well. And it certainly does...much better than anything else...even if our human and empirical limitations only enable us to use it probabilistically. That's an odd fact, and it requires some sort of accounting.

I would argue that it's because the Creator is a God of rationality, law and order. His creation reflects His nature.

I suppose the Atheists would have to say, "Garsh, we just got darn lucky."

[Arising_uk]

...
Yes, this is so. All empirical knowing is merely probabilistic, not absolute. ...

You use "merely" so glibly. QED is 'merely' accurate to what, 10 -14 decimal places? GR is of the same 'accuracy'. Your 'God' is what so far, 0.

[Arising_uk]

...

I suppose the Atheists would have to say, "Garsh, we just got darn lucky."

No, with respect to Logic we'd just have to say "because something exists".

[thedoc]

Possible but unlikely, but it seems to be true that you do not understand God. ...

Are you claiming an understanding of your 'God'?

I understand that God exists, beyond that I'll wait till God explains it to me. I don't need to have all the answers right now.

[thedoc]

Logic is a human construct that deals only with the correct structure of an argument, it just does not apply to anything else. ...

Yes it does, it applies to anything that exists as it arises just because something exists.

If you think that logic applies to everything, then explain the logic of a Bumble Bee being able to fly, when the scientists claim the a Bumble Bee shouldn't be able to fly.

[Arising_uk]

If you think that logic applies to everything, then explain the logic of a Bumble Bee being able to fly, when the scientists claim the a Bumble Bee shouldn't be able to fly.

More nonsense from godbothering creationists. No scientist would have said a bumble-bee shouldn't be able to fly as they patently do. An engineer might have calculated that using a mathematical model they had at the time they couldn't account for its flight but all this shows is that mathematical models are not always up to the job. What this has to do with Logic I have no idea but if there is anything then Logic applies to it and that includes your 'God'.

[Arising_uk]

I understand that God exists, beyond that I'll wait till God explains it to me. I don't need to have all the answers right now.

And yet you admit that your 'God' could be any number of the 'Gods' that have been about? As such 'it' may well just be one of many.