Logic

[Seekermeister]

After browsing through the P&N, it is apparent to me that it's very similar to other debate forums where I have been. The variety of viewpoints and beliefs is primarily due to the manner in which each person uses or does not use logic. Logic is a basic component of every aspect of life, from living it, to studying it. Logic is merely a name for the perception of truth. Used badly, it can be hide or camouflage the truth.

Since logic touches so many things, it is not possible to detail every facet of it, but there are two divisions which can be studied more easily...science and religion. These two avenues are the basis of just about everything else relating to modern life.

Anyone who has read any of my posts already knows that I have a faith which is strongly Christian, so I'm not going to focus on that. Nor am I going to focus strictly on science, but how the two interrelate. Contrary to the beliefs of many, science has alot of builtin fallicies which dominate certain fields of academia.

My purpose is not to attempt to destroy science, because I consider it a very worthwhile endeavor. But, the only way that both science and religion can serve us best, is if we can find a way to make them intermesh, without undue influence of one on the other.

I'm only attempting to set the tone of any discussions that I expect will ensue, without simply using the thread to expound of my thoughts only. I do not want this to simply become a stage for trolls amuse themselves shouting their poorly thought out insults at anyone, but I seriously doubt that will happen. Therefore, I shall say now, that I shall only respond to someone that says something worth responding to, whether I agree with them or not.

So, let's try to keep the subject as logic, not simply science, religion or politics. I invite anyone that wishes to step up to their keyboards and express their thoughts. Since I do not want to dominate the thread, I shall try to keep my mouth shut...as much as I can...however little that might be. I shall keep my posts impersonal, so I hope that the rest of you will also.

 

[theblackbox]

i think that after reading through the posts most people post not off of logic but from environment and behaviour. I think that one's environment and immediate surroundings and current position in life or behaviour more weighs in on what is argued about here. The only part i don't get is why when people disagredd they have to be downright mean, and call others name. they stigmatize others for their beliefs by labeling them with terms that demean their beliefs and idealogy. I read things here and think that logic is thrown out the window for emotion and station in life. But, i don't get why people got to be hateful, and use vicious terminology toward each other, instead of simply debating each other or coming to agreement on something.

 

[sandorski]

I disagree strongly. There's no need for Science and Religion to intermesh. In fact, the less they do the better for both.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: sandorski
I disagree strongly. There's no need for Science and Religion to intermesh. In fact, the less they do the better for both.

Or you could keep an open mind and say that science is the pursuit to figure out "how God did it".

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: sandorski
I disagree strongly. There's no need for Science and Religion to intermesh. In fact, the less they do the better for both.

Or you could keep an open mind and say that science is the pursuit to figure out "how God did it".

Why?

 

[DaveSimmons]

They do not intersect or interrelate but are not necessarily in opposition.

Science attempts to discover the natural laws of the universe, laws that can be either directly proven by reproducible experiment or which can be used to reliably predict future outcomes and which do not contradict other, better supported laws.

There aren't "fallacies" in science when done well. Not every proposed law survives over time, but only because our understanding of the natural laws of the universe increase. It is a key aspect of science that proposed laws are not immutable, they are the current best approximations and are refined as our understanding grows.


Religion attempts to explain the supernatural, acts and laws that are outside of the natural laws of the universe. For example the Catholic church now supports evolution as natural law but then says Mankind was created directly when God "overruled" natural law to directly create our species. There is no possible way to prove or disprove this.


Science can prove that God or gods are not necessary but can never disprove that he/they exist. Religion and science can coexist except when people take stories in texts such as the bible as being completely and literally true even when one passage contradicts the next.

The Earth was not created thousands of years ago, it was billions, unless God took the time to antique the planet, decay isotopes, plant fossils pre-aged millions of years, and so on. That's (supernaturally) possible of course, but seems like an awful lot of effort to go to just to test the faith of the literal-truth folks.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
They do not intersect or interrelate but are not necessarily in opposition.

:thumbsup:

Religion and Science are two different things. For example, let?s say you're depressed. You can either go talk with your pastor or go see a psychiatrist.

 

[theblackbox]

don't science and religion both ave cuts, though?

i think science and religion can co-exist as long as science can't prove religion and religion can't disprove science.

 

[Moonbeam]

I find it highly illogical for people to note that there are illogical people out there and not also assume they may be among them. How could it be that the very people who think about people being illogical don't doubt themselves when the issue is seemingly so important to them. How come we don't see posts that start, "I am illogical but I see some people argue using logic. Isn't that silly of them?"

Maybe you should come down off your high horse of logic and get into the horse poo of real life where you and everybody around you don't know much of a damn thing. And I only want irrational answers to my post because I have very high standards.

 

[Seekermeister]

Not surprisingly, some of you are confusing the subject. It is not whether science and religion should be intermeshed, but whether the logic of science and religion should be. Truth is truth, where ever it is found, and truth is what logic is, or what is used to search for. However, neither the logic of science or religion will ever be complete without the components of each placed into their proper place in the structure of truth. If a person cannot perceive that portion of the truth, then they cannot perceive the validity of any other portion. Some people think that science is built on evidence, but the truth is that it is built on theories, which is merely logic going beyond what is supported by the evidence. In turn, the evidence found, and it's interpretation is based on the original logic used to find it. Therefore, science is only able to find the evidence that it is looking for, and only able to evaluate it in accordance with it's established logic. Throw into the equation the bias of some scientists, and the ability of science to serve the truth becomes limited by it's own selffullfilling circle of reasoning...the very thing that many people point to as the fault of religion. Both are weaker alone than they could be together.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I find it highly illogical for people to note that there are illogical people out there and not also assume they may be among them. How could it be that the very people who think about people being illogical don't doubt themselves when the issue is seemingly so important to them. How come we don't see posts that start, "I am illogical but I see some people argue using logic. Isn't that silly of them?"

Maybe you should come down off your high horse of logic and get into the horse poo of real life where you and everybody around you don't know much of a damn thing. And I only want irrational answers to my post because I have very high standards.

if logic is applied properly one might be able to more effectively do what you are suggesting....although i also agree that the op seems a bit silly....logic is an attempt at making sense out of that which really does not make sense ....for the purpose of living we do this..

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Not surprisingly, some of you are confusing the subject. It is not whether science and religion should be intermeshed, but whether the logic of science and religion should be. Truth is truth, where ever it is found, and truth is what logic is, or what is used to search for. However, neither the logic of science or religion will ever be complete without the components of each placed into their proper place in the structure of truth. If a person cannot perceive that portion of the truth, then they cannot perceive the validity of any other portion. Some people think that science is built on evidence, but the truth is that it is built on theories, which is merely logic going beyond what is supported by the evidence. In turn, the evidence found, and it's interpretation is based on the original logic used to find it. Therefore, science is only able to find the evidence that it is looking for, and only able to evaluate it in accordance with it's established logic. Throw into the equation the bias of some scientists, and the ability of science to serve the truth becomes limited by it's own selffullfilling circle of reasoning...the very thing that many people point to as the fault of religion. Both are weaker alone than they could be together.

No. Science is based on Truths that remain Truths unless someone can prove them False. IOW, everything Science uses as a Truth has been tested repeatedly and often continuously. It is not Circular Reasoning at all. It is sound Reasoning, using what you Know to be True as a basis to find new Truth.

Religious Truth is a whole other matter. It is as you describe Scientific Truth. That being Circular Reasoning. The Religious accept on Faith certain Truths, then interpret the World using that Truth. Many times those Truths are based on peoples experiences and as such are of value and could be considered worthy of the title, but certain Religious Truths certainly are not(God, Creation, etc).

Science and Religion perceive the world in very different ways. Science can Prove it's Truth, Religion can not and because Proof is a vital part of Science, the 2 can not be intermingled without damaging both. Your idea that they are weaker alone is silly.

 

[GroundedSailor]

I agree with sandorski. Science is based on structured logic which can be proved repeatedly. Religion by it's very definition is a faith. Religion is based on a set of assumptions which are accepted by he followers without questioning. These are extrapolated to include everything else. Those assumptions have not been proven true or false because there is (yet) no structured way to do so.

Science and religion can exist side by side but cannot intermesh. Simply put science requires questioning everything and religion requires unquestioning belief.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Seekermeister

Sorry, but I can see that you have no training in classical logic at all. Perhaps you should actually research the subject.

Your understanding of science also seems to be lacking.

science has alot of builtin fallicies which dominate certain fields of academia.

The only people I ever hear things like this from are the "creationists", and they are always wrong, no matter how "logical" they try to make it sound.

Your comment:

Since logic touches so many things, it is not possible to detail every facet of it, but there are two divisions which can be studied more easily...science and religion. These two avenues are the basis of just about everything else relating to modern life.

Science and religion are not branches of logic, in any way, shape , or form. The only useful purpose for even considering religion as it pertains to modern life is from a philisophical point of view.

As to why I do not offer more wieght to your religious angle, IMHO, your religion is little more than a collection of bronze-age myths, superstitions, and morality tales and a slightly more recent (but still ancient) retelling with a new twist.

I consider such beliefs irrational, and as a rational being (who does use logic), I reject them out of hand.

You are nost certainly entitled to those beliefs and your freedom to express them. You may even fashion your life around them. But when you try to represent them as logical; I will scoff. When you try to guide the government to force others to abide by the rules of your beliefs; I will get angry.

Have a nice day, but don't waste too much time composing religious syllogisms.

 

[Rainsford]

I would dispute the idea that peoples' viewpoints are only shaped by how much they do or do not "use logic". I think perfectly intelligent and reasonable people can disagree and at the same time, people who agree with some who's reasonable and intelligent aren't always reasonable and intelligent themselves. The OP assumes that if "logical" people look at a situation, they will all reach the same conclusion. That's obviously not true, mostly because only the most basic of situations have one right answer.

 

[Lemon law]

One could argue man created god to explain how the universe was created. Which still begs the question of what created god? But I do agree---that science demands some sort of replicatable proof---while religion demands blind faith in certain dogma's---and like oil and water will never mix well.

Nor will rigid adherance to the laws of logic be a means to have two logical people reach the same conclusion on the issues of the day---even though it becomes painfully obvious when someone is using illogic and double standards---because the popular issues of the day really boil down to how you logically weigh a huge number of conflicting goals---and to what extent various means justify
the ends. Maybe it might be possible in a two issue world---but when you are trying to get more of
some entity A in a world where factors B,C, D, E, F all operate---getting more of A may mean you get almost none of C and too damn much of E.---and its anyone's guess on the effects.

Plus you get in the utopian problem---if everyone thought that way it might work---and while the spirit may be willing---the flesh is often weak.

So when in doubt---we argue.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Not surprisingly, some of you are confusing the subject. It is not whether science and religion should be intermeshed, but whether the logic of science and religion should be. Truth is truth, where ever it is found, and truth is what logic is, or what is used to search for. However, neither the logic of science or religion will ever be complete without the components of each placed into their proper place in the structure of truth. If a person cannot perceive that portion of the truth, then they cannot perceive the validity of any other portion. Some people think that science is built on evidence, but the truth is that it is built on theories, which is merely logic going beyond what is supported by the evidence. In turn, the evidence found, and it's interpretation is based on the original logic used to find it. Therefore, science is only able to find the evidence that it is looking for, and only able to evaluate it in accordance with it's established logic. Throw into the equation the bias of some scientists, and the ability of science to serve the truth becomes limited by it's own selffullfilling circle of reasoning...the very thing that many people point to as the fault of religion. Both are weaker alone than they could be together.

Logic is one path to truth. Since religion and science attempt to address different questions and, therefore, arrive at different 'truths', their paths to this destination necessarily differ. If, in the final analysis, science and religion discuss the same truths, then and only then can the same path lead us to this destination. However, even if they were both going to the same destination, it's pretty clear that the paths we take to get there will be different, as they have already diverged extensively.

 

[Aisengard]

Religion defies the basic tenets of logic.

Science is based on proof, and therefore is bounded by rules of logic.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: sandorski
No. Science is based on Truths that remain Truths unless someone can prove them False. IOW, everything Science uses as a Truth has been tested repeatedly and often continuously. It is not Circular Reasoning at all. It is sound Reasoning, using what you Know to be True as a basis to find new Truth.

Religious Truth is a whole other matter. It is as you describe Scientific Truth. That being Circular Reasoning. The Religious accept on Faith certain Truths, then interpret the World using that Truth. Many times those Truths are based on peoples experiences and as such are of value and could be considered worthy of the title, but certain Religious Truths certainly are not(God, Creation, etc).

Science and Religion perceive the world in very different ways. Science can Prove it's Truth, Religion can not and because Proof is a vital part of Science, the 2 can not be intermingled without damaging both. Your idea that they are weaker alone is silly.

This isn't true at all. As Einstein once said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." Science can only disprove things, never prove them, because there are infinitely many models that will fit any phenomenon. Science simply picks the model with the fewest parameters that fits the model, though this does not make the model 'true' - it's simply the best fit to the data available. As Einstein also said, "There is no logical way to the discovery of these elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance."

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: sandorski
No. Science is based on Truths that remain Truths unless someone can prove them False. IOW, everything Science uses as a Truth has been tested repeatedly and often continuously. It is not Circular Reasoning at all. It is sound Reasoning, using what you Know to be True as a basis to find new Truth.

Religious Truth is a whole other matter. It is as you describe Scientific Truth. That being Circular Reasoning. The Religious accept on Faith certain Truths, then interpret the World using that Truth. Many times those Truths are based on peoples experiences and as such are of value and could be considered worthy of the title, but certain Religious Truths certainly are not(God, Creation, etc).

Science and Religion perceive the world in very different ways. Science can Prove it's Truth, Religion can not and because Proof is a vital part of Science, the 2 can not be intermingled without damaging both. Your idea that they are weaker alone is silly.

This isn't true at all. As Einstein once said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." Science can only disprove things, never prove them, because there are infinitely many models that will fit any phenomenon. Science simply picks the model with the fewest parameters that fits the model, though this does not make the model 'true' - it's simply the best fit to the data available. As Einstein also said, "There is no logical way to the discovery of these elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance."

Which is why, in my opinion, all real knowledge is about feeling.

"There are a million paths in life and they all lead nowhere. Choose a path that has a heart."

God has hidden himself in love so all who love can find him.

 

[Craig234]

And I only want irrational answers to my post because I have very high standards.

The feather of the pig is on the dark side of the moon pie.

 

[DealMonkey]

I'm sorry to break it to you OP, but Religion is not logical. IMHO religion forces you to turn your brain off (and thus logic) and simply believe on faith that what you're being told is factual. It's the antithesis of logical thought.

 

[Enig101]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: sandorski
No. Science is based on Truths that remain Truths unless someone can prove them False. IOW, everything Science uses as a Truth has been tested repeatedly and often continuously. It is not Circular Reasoning at all. It is sound Reasoning, using what you Know to be True as a basis to find new Truth.

Religious Truth is a whole other matter. It is as you describe Scientific Truth. That being Circular Reasoning. The Religious accept on Faith certain Truths, then interpret the World using that Truth. Many times those Truths are based on peoples experiences and as such are of value and could be considered worthy of the title, but certain Religious Truths certainly are not(God, Creation, etc).

Science and Religion perceive the world in very different ways. Science can Prove it's Truth, Religion can not and because Proof is a vital part of Science, the 2 can not be intermingled without damaging both. Your idea that they are weaker alone is silly.

This isn't true at all. As Einstein once said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." Science can only disprove things, never prove them, because there are infinitely many models that will fit any phenomenon. Science simply picks the model with the fewest parameters that fits the model, though this does not make the model 'true' - it's simply the best fit to the data available. As Einstein also said, "There is no logical way to the discovery of these elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance."

This is correct. Science is the search for a means to define and influence our world. It is not the search for "truth" in the most absolute sense of the word. I would say it is the search for "practical" truth. Religion is a means to define absolute truth, and it necessarily takes a leap of faith to do so, because human perception is limited.

There is no logic to religion whatsoever. All current major religions were devised long before any modern technological advances, and are based on a very ignorant view of the natural world.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
So, let's try to keep the subject as logic, not simply science, religion or politics. I invite anyone that wishes to step up to their keyboards and express their thoughts. Since I do not want to dominate the thread, I shall try to keep my mouth shut...as much as I can...however little that might be. I shall keep my posts impersonal, so I hope that the rest of you will also.

They simply can not coexist without hypocrisy. On the one hand you have science. If you use a scientific approach to gathering information you are constantly looking for new information that contradicts what you currently know. On the other hand, you have religion. If youre religious you seek information which only supports your current persepctive and you ignore all evidence which contradicts it. How would you propose to resolve these diametrically opposed forms of understanding/information gathering/philosophy/whatever you want to call it? Without hypocrisy of course.

 

[Zebo]

I took logic a long time ago in college but it was an emotional appeal so I ignored it.