Logic

Originally posted by whodey
Logic is a valuable tool. However, the reason we need faith in the first place is because we are dealing with an all knowing God. At some point, a finite limited mind will have a disconnect with such a God. At this point faith is required. Otherwise, we would reject such a God when we can't make the pieces fit.

What you are doing here is using logic to explain why we should not use logic in certain situations.

Let me rephrase your statement in a logical framework:

1. A finite limited mind cannot completely understand an all-knowing mind
2. Humans have a finite limited mind
3. God has an all-knowing mind

Therefore Humans cannot completely understand God's mind. (And this is your reason why we cannot always use logic when dealing with theology).

Once you declare that logic is not applicable in certain circumstances, you need to be able to explain what circumstances it can and cannot be used in. And you probably need to explain it without using logic, because once you have accepted that logic is invalid in certain circumstances, it is of little value to then use logic to explain when logic isn't valid.

Originally posted by whodey
Logic has it's own failings.
1. We have a limited intellect. This disallows us to understand the bigger picture. In other words, we can't know all the facts, let alone the implications for those relating to us.

So logic cannot have all the answers, because there is simply not enough information.
I agree, but I disagree that this should be considered a 'failing' of logic.

2. We assume that the truth can always be found in logic.
Maybe you do, but I don't.

However, I would ask this, is it logical to lay down your life for a complete stranger, or even someon who hates you?
Maybe, maybe not. The question really should be, would you lay down your life if you knew it was illogical to do so? I wouldn't.
But it needs to be made clear what you mean by 'is it logical'. I strongly suspect that your issue is not really with logic at all, but you don't realise it.

Originally posted by PatNovak
What you are doing here is using logic to explain why we should not use logic in certain situations.

Let me rephrase your statement in a logical framework:

1. A finite limited mind cannot completely understand an all-knowing mind
2. Humans have a finite limited mind
3. God has an all-knowing mind

Therefore Humans cannot completely understand God' ...[text shortened]... ertain circumstances, it is of little value to then use logic to explain when logic isn't valid.

Is it logical for a God to ask someone to sacrifice their son?

Originally posted by whodey
Is it logical for a God to ask someone to sacrifice their son?

It depends on the various circumstances.
For example, if God wants someone to sacrifice their son, then logically he might ask them to - if he thinks they will obey him.
It might also be logical for him to ask them to if he wants to test their loyalty.

However, I suspect you may be confusing logic with morality. Logic alone, won't directly tell you whether or not God is morally right to ask someone to sacrifice their son.
In general logic depends on certain premises which are themselves not pure logic.

Originally posted by whodey
Is it logical for a God to ask someone to sacrifice their son?

Your question is impossible to answer without more information. I can conceive of a set of premises that would make it logical and I can also conceive of a set of premises that would make it illogical.

I think perhaps we are confusing terms here. What I mean by logic is "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity." (This definition comes up as the first definition on Google). This means that, for a conclusion to be true, each premise that leads to the conclusion must be true. It also means that, if the premises are true, the conclusion flows from the premises.

In this sense, logical doesn't imply the conclusion is wise or fair, just that the conclusion is valid.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
This makes no sense. Logic is not a being. By saying "We can understand things that logic cannot" you are equating humans with logic, effectively trying to turn logic into some kind of being. It is not. It is, I would say, a tool that is present in our brains that is a kind of offspring from intuition. Logic has brought us a lot. With it we can cure d ...[text shortened]... et his life story be told in a book which then gets passed on and altered through the centuries?

I agree logic is not a being, but I disagree that logic cures diseases. Science doesn't proceed by logic so much as educated guess work. Inference is not deduction. Once a theory is complete it may make a logically consistent whole, but medical science is a long way from that. Physics is a lot closer, in the sense that the theories are more precise, but at a day to day level calculation and measurement rather than logic as such are the primary tools.

As far as questions where emotion gets you further than logic: "Would you prefer tea or coffee?" - logically there is no way of choosing an answer, as you have to have some preference to make a decision, so for that question emotions rule.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I agree logic is not a being, but I disagree that logic cures diseases. Science doesn't proceed by logic so much as educated guess work. Inference is not deduction. Once a theory is complete it may make a logically consistent whole, but medical science is a long way from that. Physics is a lot closer, in the sense that the theories are more precise, ...[text shortened]... wer, as you have to have some preference to make a decision, so for that question emotions rule.

Of course medical science works using logic. If I go to the doctor with a headache, he's presumably not going to start by examining my pinky toe. He's going to start the examination in the way that has proven most fruitful in the past.

New medication isn't just thrown onto the market with an attitude of "let's see what happens". It's tested rigoureus(ly)*, and a lot of thought has been put into the best way of testing it.

Calculation and measurement? I cannot think of many things that are more closely linked to working logically than those. If you're hanging up a shelf you don't just drill holes anywhere; that's illogical. You measure where to drill.

Yes, many findings in science have been produced "by accident", but surely at its core, science is based on working (methodo)logically. You make an observation, you try to deduce what you have observed (this is where logic comes in) and you set up an experiment to test if your deductions are correct (again, by being logical, not by randomly throwing some chemicals together to see what happens).

For your second point, I dare say that preference is created in our brain in a logical fashion. Same way, it may seem illogical that some like sweet and some like bitter, but there is - I admit, I'm guessing - a chemical reason for that, hidden in our brain.

Mind you, I'm not "against" emotions, I merely wondered why god would not use logic to communicate with us.

* not sure if -ly- is required here, and google didn't help much.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
Of course medical science works using logic. If I go to the doctor with a headache, he's presumably not going to start by examining my pinky toe. He's going to start the examination in the way that has proven most fruitful in the past.

New medication isn't just thrown onto the market with an attitude of "let's see what happens". It's tested rigoure ...[text shortened]... gic to communicate with us.

* not sure if -ly- is required here, and google didn't help much.

I have posted this before... But it's apt here and I don't think I've posted it in a thread you
were involved in.

This is a talk on rationality, and the 'Straw Vulcan' fallacy many people have about it.

While the topic is rationality and not logic, it goes directly to the discussion at hand here,
in that it's discussing the fact that most people have a misapprehension about what rationality
is and how to apply it [and how emotions fit in].

YouTube

The Straw Vulcan, Julia Galef Skepticon 4 [51 mins.]

Originally posted by DeepThought
I agree logic is not a being, but I disagree that logic cures diseases. Science doesn't proceed by logic so much as educated guess work. Inference is not deduction. Once a theory is complete it may make a logically consistent whole, but medical science is a long way from that. Physics is a lot closer, in the sense that the theories are more precise, ...[text shortened]... wer, as you have to have some preference to make a decision, so for that question emotions rule.

When asked if I want tea or coffee I logical answer tea when I want tea and coffee when I want coffee.
The Logic goes something like this:

1. Whenever I reply tea, I get tea.
2. Whenever I reply coffee I get coffee.
3. I want tea.
4. (Conclusion) I must reply tea.

Premises 1, 2 and 3 are true so my conclusion is true.

There is nothing emotional about my response!!

Originally posted by Suzianne
Logic is sterile. It usually suffers through contact with humans. Humans have heart, emotion. There is much that we can understand that pure logic cannot.

This anthropomorphism of Logic (along with Science) seems to
be a favourite of theists. Why? Neither Science nor Logic will ever
disprove whatever god or gods you believe in. Why so scared?

Originally posted by Great King Rat
Of course medical science works using logic. If I go to the doctor with a headache, he's presumably not going to start by examining my pinky toe. He's going to start the examination in the way that has proven most fruitful in the past.

New medication isn't just thrown onto the market with an attitude of "let's see what happens". It's tested rigoure ...[text shortened]... gic to communicate with us.

* not sure if -ly- is required here, and google didn't help much.

Method is not the same as logic. I am not saying Science is wrong or unmethodical, but it's only logical at the level of disproof. Suppose a theory P predicts some phenomenon Q. So we have "if P then Q". If we don't see Q in experiments then concluding the theory is wrong is logically sound. If we do see Q then concluding the theory is correct is a fallacy called affirming the consequent. Science is based on this fallacy, in the sense that any induction is doing that. This is why falsifiability is so important. The most we can say after a theory has survived repeated testing is that it's reliable so far.

It's tested rigorously b.t.w..

Originally posted by wolfgang59
When asked if I want tea or coffee I logical answer tea when I want tea and coffee when I want coffee.
The Logic goes something like this:

1. Whenever I reply tea, I get tea.
2. Whenever I reply coffee I get coffee.
3. I want tea.
4. (Conclusion) I must reply tea.

Premises 1, 2 and 3 are true so my conclusion is true.

There is nothing emotional about my response!!

Your desire for tea is an emotion, you need to generate your premises before you can draw any conclusions, so in this case emotion takes precedence over logic.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
This anthropomorphism of Logic (along with Science) seems to
be a favourite of theists. Why? Neither Science nor Logic will ever
disprove whatever god or gods you believe in. Why so scared?

I beg to differ.

Unless you are requiring absolute proof, then Science has already disproved
the god/s they believe in.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I beg to differ.

Unless you are requiring absolute proof, then Science has already disproved
the god/s they believe in.

I beg to differ.

Science has not proven the non-existence of the Creator God of the Holy Bible because the creation testifies of HIM. That is both logical and scientific.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Your desire for tea is an emotion, you need to generate
your premises before you can draw any conclusions, so in
this case emotion takes precedence over logic.

Wanting a cup of tea is an emotion?

That is stretching it.

But you suggested that answering "Would you prefer tea or coffee?" -
could not be answered logically, I have shown it can, albeit based
on one's sensory system which you decide to classify as an emotion.