P.S.: Προς άπαντας τους αγορευομένους εν ούτω χώρω φιλοσοφικής και επιστημονικής διενέξεως εις μίαν προσπάθεια προώθησης της παγκοσμίου αληθείας μεθ' ουδεμίας προϋποθέσεως, χαιρετώ σας. (this is not a challenge; whoever knows what it means, knows what it means, and should feel accordingly, and the rest - I can give you a translation in a couple posts or so )

Their remarks concerning you were accompanied by substantive points. Until recently your posts were nothing but derrogatory remarks. You are now actually engaging in discussion. 

It has nothing to do with philosophy. You labelled Dawkins as 'intellectually inept' not 'philosophically inept'. And I'm not arguing that Dawkins is not intellectually inept because an authority on the matter has claimed he is not intellectually inept. I am saying that his position is valid evidence that he is not, in fact, intellectually inept. Surely you see the difference.  

"Theism makes so much more sense [than atheism]" was your assertion. That is what I'm waiting for you to support.  

Logic is the study of valid inference. It is a tool, like science. It is derived from observations of existence within an environment. The brain is wired, through evolution, because of a need for locomotion, as a means to observe the environment, so it should be expected that it will use information received from that environment in the way it operates. We derive logic from these observations of the environment that have shaped the organ by which we know the environment and with which we derive logic from observations. 

I won't even go there with the Kelly stuff... substantive? Maybe in a parallel universe. I don't think she is really aware of the nature of this discussion.

Anyway, >>>

Logic is the study of valid inference. It is a tool, like science. It is derived from observations of existence within an environment. The brain is wired, through evolution, because of a need for locomotion, as a means to observe the environment, so it should be expected that it will use information received from that environment in the way it operates. We derive logic from these observations of the environment that have shaped the organ by which we know the environment and with which we derive logic from observations. <<<

I'll go along with the definition of logic you give, but I think its MUCH more than that. We'll see how far we go.

Your definition sounds a lot like the approach that John Stuart Mill took - that logic is known and justified a posteriori ("observation of existence&quot. Are you saying this is simply the way the brain is wired? That we determine what is logical by observation?

Why do I feel all these past few posts of yours are no more relevant (and deeply ingrated in your mind, even) than the question of what makes a wheel? Seriously, do you have an answer for that?

The brain is wired by natural processes, evolution via natural selection, so the way the brain is wired is a product of what we observe, the environment in which we exist. There is no real distinction to be drawn between logic as 'the way the brain is wired' and 'what we observe'. The brain is wired to observe what we observe by what we observe. We call logical that which follows the rules of inference as we (our brains) derive them from our observations of existence. Neither our brains wiring nor our observations are prior to the other (as the foundations of reason). They support one another as they are manifestations of the same thing, the physically existing environment, reality, the universe, the laws of physics.

I only think it fair that, if I answer your questions, you should support the assertions you make such as "Theism makes so much more sense [than atheism]." So far you have offered nothing to support this assertion.  

Kelly, where are you ?
This page is full of boring S#!7, please come back !

Sorry, but I became bored with this a few days ago. I have no desire to attempt to waste time on those who will use bullshit logic to twist words and definitions to suit their own purposes. I am content to accept the fact that Pastor McFly is going to continue being a bigot and spreading lies about atheists.

Thanks for the website, I just signed up. It promises to be some good reading.

Followed the link concerning the assertion that atheism is on the rise worldwide, and I was disappointed. I think there is a big difference between professing atheism and stating no religious preference. The distinction is even made in the article.

I haven't read all comments, so I apologize if the point has already been made.

V-

I will answer your question. One from me first as it leads to answering your question:

>>>There is no real distinction to be drawn between logic as 'the way the brain is wired' and 'what we observe'<<<

If this is true, then why should logic apply to unexperienced domains as well? Additionally, this view makes logic "contingent." You can only say that logic applies as far as you know, and generalize based on finite experience. As such logic loses its necessity, universality, and invariance. This view also makes logic "material" in nature (i.e. biochemical), rather than abstract.

To answer your question: theism (specifically Christian theism) make more sense because it comports with our view of reason. From a Christian perspective reason is the way God thinks and expects us to think. Sir Isaac Newton said, "O Lord I think Thy thoughts after Thee." And so reason - from the perspective of theism - is universal and invariant. Reason is also abstract, not material, in this perspective.

>>>I am content to accept the fact that Pastor McFly is going to continue being a bigot<<<

A bigot? Oh Kelly, why must you be such an angry young woman?

Vessel has chimed in and let go of the insults. Read and learn....

Oh Pastor McFly, why must you be such a sanctimonious ass?

I reallly want to understand this, because I think you've just made the most incredible leap in reasoning of all time. Christian theism makes more sense because it agrees with Christian reason? So you make sense because you agree with yourself? AND that's because your perspective is that you know that something invisible wants you to think a specific way? ALSO reason is universal and invariant?

I'm asking these questions because it's my secret hope that you'll come up with something even wackier. Cuz that was pretty good.

In all domains there will necessarily be a what is and what isn't. Therefor, there will be valid and invalid inferences that can be made about that domain, given the presence of an intelligence.

 As long as there are valid and invalid inferences, or what is and what isn't, then the study of valid inference is possible. Logic is contingent in that it is a tool used by humans to determine between valid and invalid inferences (therefor it doesn't exist without humans, or intelligence if you prefer), but for any possible environment there must be both valid and invalid inferences so as long as there is intelligence to employ a method of determining between them we have what is necessary for logic.  

If I am in an environment, if I exist, then logic will be applicable. There will be valid and invalid inferences that can be made about that environment and the tool I use to determine what is valid is logic.

As far as I can tell, everything is material in nature. Abstractions being material does not mean that they are not abstractions in relation to those who hold them. What I call a car is actually a conglomeration of molecules. That it is a conglomeration of molecules does not make it not a car.

Who's view of reason? Is this the universal 'our'? That theism comports to a Christian view of reasoning is to be expected as the Christian religion is theistic. 

What is the difference between saying "reason is the way god thinks and expects us to think" and the much more parsimonious "reason is the way we think"? 

Thank you for this fine come-back Kelly, you gave that zealot ass the wash he just needed, cold and dry.

Nobody seemed to care about my little quiz, but I give you the answer anyway: the one who said "Lord Almighty, I feel my temperature rising (...)" is Elvis Presley, the King of rock & roll (RIP 1977)

This is the starting line of the song "Burning Love", one of my favourite. Had I been the King, I would have dedicated this song to Kelly. I can't help hearing it in my mind when I look at her picture

It's a shame the Memphis guy didn't guess, maybe he should try something else than library prowling

At its heart, this is the entirety of the evidence for Christianity. "The Bible is true because God wrote it." How do you know God wrote it? "Because the Bible says so."

Christian theism revels in its own self-evident truth. (This is true of theism in general, but many Christians truly seem to think circular logic imparts an air of mystery.) As the a priori existence of God is so much easier to accept than simple natural processes, it follows that theism makes much more sense than atheism.

By definition, that is the difference between a Christian and an atheist.  A Christian will accept God as an axiom of the universe, and use that axiom wherever they can; and so the universe not only makes logical sense (as God is a tautology), but this is seen as evidence for His existence. (Another neat bit of circular reasoning.) So any Christian schooled with a modicum of logic and philosophy will see the natural superiority of their reasoning.

An atheist, on the other hand, must sort out the universe without the help of God. There is the supposition that there is a natural order to the universe, there are natural rules that account for everything that is observable. This is a messy business, one that requires careful reasoning, discipline, panache, intelligence, and quite a bit of downright handsomeness.

Here's the interesting bit:

Reason is universal and invariant from the natural perspective, as well. Human logic evolved in response to real-world information. Human intelligence itself was born of information processing. Its value in an evolutionary sense is in its predictive powers-- the ability to process information in a way that is consistent with reality. Our reasoning ability was derived from universal patterns, in response to reality. This implies that reality is fudamentally logical.

Ultimately, Pastor McFly's arguments for a special God is essentially endowing God with the properties of the universe. Rather than making things simpler, this makes things much more complex; as God has no other properties than those contained within the universe, Pastor McFly is attempting to introduce an additional complexity merely for the sake of complexity. This is hardly rationalism, nor does it make more sense.

At least he gussies his arguments up with the gown of Logic, and the undergarments of Philosophy. It makes for a pretty display, anyway.

Intellectual capacity, reason and knowledge are red herrings in these kind of matters. Bias is where it's at.

>>>I really want to understand this, because I think you've just made the most incredible leap in reasoning of all time. Christian theism makes more sense because it agrees with Christian reason?<<<

No, not at all. I meant by "our" that the common understanding of "reason" is that it is universal (applies in all possible worlds), invariant (it is the same from person to person), and abstract (it is not material in nature). As Vessel pointed out below he says reason "necessarily" applies in all domains (I'm not sure how he knows that), and that all there is is matter. In that sense we can't ever arrive at truth or even argue from an atheist perspective. Christian theism comports with the view of universal, invariant, abstract entities - like laws of logic . Atheism, as I understand Vessel, leads only to solipsism, determinism, and skepticism.

Sanctimonious? I'm devastated!

I had my students come check this out. They all agree: you are an angry atheist. Must be that Irish temper.

As I take your position it can only lead to solipsism. Without universal experience you cannot extrapolate what you know in your private experience to unexperienced domains as well.

And if the laws of logic are contingent, then they are mere conventions. Therefore you and I could both stipulate our own laws of logic and both be correct. Every mind is different. From your perspective there is no necessity to logic. Hence there is no objective way to arrive at truth.

Okay. As long as you're not saying that your supernatural entity is the one area where reason can no longer apply.

"Necessarily" for the purposes of a rational discussion. Abandoning reason for any one domain makes it difficult to discuss in a "reasonable" way. Vessel isn't claiming exhaustive knowledge, either.

You may be trying for Absolute Truth, which is a red herring of enormous proportions.

... but choses to skirt those same universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic when discussing the actual object of faith. Like taking a week to make something that looks an awful lot like it took longer.

Determinism? Sometimes. Skepticism? Absolutely. Solipsism? Don't be ridiculous. Skepticism doesn't always immediately reduce to solipsism.

That's because you keep shooting for Absolute Truth, which is unattainable. It's a red herring. Even in the physical sciences, things are true to a high degree of probability, and that's reasonable.

You haven't presented content here. Nobody is saying that logic is contingent upon absolute truth, so your resulting "therefore"s are spurious.

Getting students to agree with a teacher is not the most difficult exercise in the world.

Nonsense. It almost seems as if you haven't read anything I've said. Again logic is the study of valid inferences. You seem to be equating logic and reasoning but logic is not reasoning as one can reason illogically. Re-read my replies and you will see that your objections are empty as to my justification of logic.

Now, as far as reasoning goes, if this assertion of your's "Every mind is different" were true then your objections would have merit, but it is not true. You were asking me to justify reason from an atheistic worldview which means from a worldview in which mind=brain. It is obvious that all brains are not different anymore than all computers are different. There are some minor differences but the overall system is the same in all humans. Otherwise we could not study the human brain to see how it works. We would have to study Tom's brain and Sally's brain and McFly's brain and ......

>>>That's because you keep shooting for Absolute Truth, which is unattainable.<<<

Will, is this statement itself absolute or relative?

You justification of logic makes it arbitrary and contingent. As such it loses any universality and invariance, not to mention your view makes it "material" (in some fashion) which makes it solipsistic.

If every mind isn't different then we should all agree as to what logic "is", and what the uses and evidence is for it. You say that it is the study of valid inferences. I partially agree with that definition, but there are any number of ideas as to "what" logic is, and "which" are the logical truths.

All due respect it is very clear to me that you are in a predicament to make the generalizations that you do from a naturalistic perspective. Since you haven't examined everyone's "mind" (btw- I don't agree that mind=brain. I'm not a materialist), you don't know that they are equal. But its quite obvious that they are not since there are vast disagreements as to the science of reasoning (i.e. logic). Even if we were to restrict our discussion to only Western, first-order, predicate logic, with truth-functional connectives there are still major differences. Some say that logic is inferences comprised of judgments made up of concepts; some say they are arguments comprised of propositions made up of terms; others say they are proof comprised of sentences made up of names. Some, like Wittgenstein, said they are like rules of grammar - arbitrary and relative to linguistic communities (hence "language games&quot. There are vast differences here from Mill to Russell to Quine, and they do not agree.

If we had the same "minds" then everybody would agree. But they don't.

Title of thread:

Damn Right I’m Angry: Part One

Tell your students that they should major in Captain Obvious instead of Team Dogmatic Ass Kiss.

No. How many times do I have to say that logic is simply the study of valid inferences? An invalid inference cannot be valid and a valid inference can not be invalid.  They are both objective facts.  A valid inference is valid and an invalid inference is invalid. Logic is the study of how to determine between the two. It can't be solipsistic. That you keep asserting it is doesn't make your point valid. Its almost as if this is a canned answer you use without actually taking the time to consider or understand your interlocutor's position. Reasoning is how we employ the tool of logic.  You seem to equivocate switching from meaning one or the other when using the term logic, depending on your desired goal, from sentence to sentence.

That seems to be a complete non sequitur. All gasoline engines operate in the same manner and yet they produce very different results. Still, they are all the same. Why don't they all do exactly the same thing as you think brains should if they are all the same? To link that "if" to that "then" you are going to need to provide a little of the reasoning to justify that conclusion. I don't  expect you to write out formal syllogisms but a little of the intermediary thought processes would be beneficial. We all use reasoning, but we do not all employ the tool of logic  equally.

Really? Do tell. Just a little sarcasm.

I also haven't examined everyone's heart. I guess we can't be sure that all hearts pump blood due to contractions of the muscle tissue. And we can't know anything about the how human respiration works without studying every set of human lungs that has ever existed.

And I know you don't agree that mind=brain (silly as that seems to me) and that you are not a materialist, but I am not addressing your flawed position. You asked  me to justify logic and reasoning from my atheistic perspective. Whether or not you are a materialist is irrelevant to my doing that.

As I've already said above this is a non sequitur. Let's see how you get from if we had the same type of brains (not the same brains as that would suggest they also occupied the same point in space-time which would require they were the same object) then we would all agree on everything. I need something more than that naked assertion to assess the validity of your claim.  

You have to be joking. I mean, I hope you're joking, because the alternative is that you think that I can't read.

Do you seriously want to rehash 3,000 years of defining "truth"? Would you rather I said "exhaustive knowledge" in the context of empirical reality, or do you want to stick with Christians, and say, following Aquinas: "Veritas est adaequatio intellectus et rei"? (Actually, they're sort of the same thing, so that isn't fair.) Why don't you fire off some philosopher's names for shorthand so that I know where you're coming from.

For instance, are you saying you reject the scientific (empirical) approach to truth (that something is true when it is true to a reasonable degree), or maybe you want to follow Kant or Kripke in their respective approaches to discovering truth?

Don't go accusing me of skirting the issue of absolute and relative, either. I just want to get some ground rules before we continue, because there's a TON of material on this subject and lots of different ways to approach it. My bias addresses Aquinas's statement, of trying to bring together "res" and "intellectus", through critical rationalism (after Popper).

We recently had new carpet installed. I call it brown. My wife calls it chocolate. Oh, gee, it must be two different colors! Too bad we can't agree.

My wife owns a big ol' truck. It only seats three (if they're friendly), and gets about 12 MPG. I own a little VW Cabrio. It seats four, and gets about 33 MPG. The truck can haul lumber, plywood, drywall, and tiny boxes of screws or nails. The Cabrio can tote a couple of bags of groceries. Oh no! They must be completely different, and not similar in any way!

All your arguments are based on two erroneous assumptions -- that the universe is not objective outside of God, and that we cannot observe the universe.

As I pointed out earlier, our brains evolved to view the objective universe and deduce patterns. This means our brains are wired to observe the objective universe logically. Now, you can play word-games with definitions all you want. That doesn't make your point correct. Nor does it make you intelligent.

Your assumption that only God can give Absolute Truth (note the capitals; they imply something, as you missed with HisWillness) is, in fact, not supported by the evidence. It appears the universe itself provides truth.

As our minds are wired the same way (excluding variances that lead to psychosis or other mental maladies), we have the ability to deduce the rules of the universe. The epistemology that allows us to do so is called "the scientific method." The application of the scientific method, and the fruits thereof, is called "science." I know it's a little obscure, but you might look it up -- it's proven, over the last little bit of time, to be extremely effective at prising out the rules of the universe. In fact, though most people don't know it, almost every modern convenience (including the computer at which you completely [intentionally?] misunderstand the responses to your poor logic) is a direct result of the application of this obscure study of "science."

Now, exactly what has your epistemology of "God gives me the truth" given us? What practical results has it produced? And in what way does that demonstrate that your epistemology is better at observing the invariant (not true), objective (true) universe?

I just realized what's been bothering me about this post.

You are attempting to use philosophy to abstract out any meaning from logic, simply to build it up to support your illogical claim that only God can provide objectivity, and allows us to view the world objectively. By pedantically arguing against absolutes, you are trying to impose an absolute.

I am starting to think that philosophy is good for only two things:

1. providing excellent conversations with good friends while we're stoned

2. Giving a certain subset of the population something to do in the four years between high school and McDonalds

Socrates used to argue one side of a debate, convince the audience he was right, then switch sides to convince them of the other side. I used to think we've progressed beyond that. Instead, it seems the arguments have merely gotten more circumlocutious.

Here's why you are wrong:

1. Supposing the existence of a God equivelent or similar to the Christian God, He is capable of anything

2. If He has done anything to affect the universe, He has superimposed His will upon the natural world

3. The natural world is thus subject to arbitrary manipulation by Him, and so is not consistent

This is in direct opposition to the objective findings of science. The very fact that science works is proof to a large degree that the universe is objective and consistent, and our observation of the universe is accurate.

So, misapplication of philosophy aside, how do you justify your claim that science indicates our brains (and minds) and perceptions are clear and accurate within a purely-naturalistic world? If that is true, there should be natural evidence of God's influence in the universe. Yet none has been found, in spite of thousands of years of searching.

If your only support is philosophy, then your position is weak, at best, as philosophy can be used to prove anything, given the right assumptions.

Try MINOR differences. You're again assuming the people in these forums can't read. The different points of view still require each thinker to keep his or her rational hat on when evaluating a philosopher's argument for various criteria like validity.

Mill's methods outline causal reasoning, Quine's logical works were highly critical of higher-order logic as basically set theory (set theory still being a rational method of expression of ideas), and called Russell his biggest influence. I don't see your "vast" differences here.

It's obvious that you're trying to discredit what one can be "sure" of, which is just short of an appeal to emotion. We're not your students, Marty. You can direct from the main point all you want, but you still can't give even indirect evidence for any supernatural anything, much less your specific deity.

Did you ever think to ask the company that you bought it from what the manufacturer of the carpet calls the color? 

Bwaaa?

Hey! I call misattribution! That was my quote. Mine, Damnit!

I will not have you attributing such a concise and beautiful argument to Pastor McFly.

And the manufacturer calls it "Montana Dusk Industrial Mocha." But that ain't no color. If it isn't in my Crayola box, it ain't a color.

I wasn't being sarcastic, but I do think it is more than what you stated.

Very simply, calling it a non sequitur doesn't mean it is one. Your view of logic is prejudicial and unsubstantiated as it reflects only what your brain is telling you about these things.. It is confined to only your personal experience, and so it is not universal. It is materialistic, and as such it isn't abstract. At best you could be a pragmatist, but you cannot offer any justification for logic being universal and invariant. Therefore you cannot provide a basis for even arguing. From your perspective I can simply stipulate any law of logic my brain, and it is just as rational as the next.

You stipulate logic as "the study of valid inference", but that doesn't justify it to announce it. This is one among many views that I mentioned which you dismiss as a non-sequitur. I gave you several examples of where logicians are in a great deal of disagreement today - most of whom see it as much more than simply the rules of immediate inference and syllogistic logic.

I appreciate what you are saying, but it cannot provide any objective and universal basis for reasoning. Hence the solipsism.

No joke- prove this statement itself. Obviously you know my point- affirm it and you have to deny it. I didn't say you skirted anything, except in this last reply

Regarding Western logic only having "minor" differences... define the Analytic/Synthetic distinction, draw it, justify it, and tell me if Quine viewed it as "minor". Then we'll talk.

I never treated anyone here like my students. My students are far more reflective. They also don't call me names when they differ with me.

This argument assumes the brain cannot distinguish objective fact from subjective experience. This is in direct opposition to the results of the scientific method.

The fact that we have been able to glean objective data from the universe indicates we are able to objectively observe the universe. The fact that we are able to use those facts to generalize processes, and abstract hypothesis, and then use those hypothesis to predict other objective facts about the universe, indicates that, in fact, we are able to view the objective world with a modicum of certainty.

This hardly degenerates into solopsism. Different and distinct lines of indepent inquiry often converge on the same conclusions.

The sarcasm was mine.

Your claim was "if every mind isn't different then we should all agree what logic is". This is a non sequitur. We should all agree what logic is does not necessarily follow from every mind isn't different.

I have another question for you since I have been so nice as to answer your's. What do you teach and to what level students? I'm just interested and hoping it is neither logic nor philosophy.

You seem to be equivocating logic and reasoning again. You really should stop that.

No. It is confined to those who experience what I do (objective reality) with like information processing units (human brains).

Abstractions are material as they exist as information within human brains. They are still abstractions as they are what we refer to with the term abstraction.

I have given a definition of logic and justified the existence of logic as to that definition.

That doesn't follow at all from anything I've put forth. I am now almost certain you have not read anything I've written. 

I've explained why there must necessarily be valid and invalid inferences in any existence. Logic is the study of valid inferences. This accounts for logic. What else do you need?  

No, I dismissed the other nonsense as a non sequitur (see above).

There are a great many views as to how specific systems relate to objective reality but no one will contest that logic, itself, is the study of valid inferences.

Actually, the logicians you reference are dead so they aren't doing much arguing today.  Anyway,if you find a logician who disagrees with the statement that logic is the study of valid inferences let me know.

Reasoning is not logic and logic is not reasoning. Reasoning is a brain function. Logic is the study of valid inferences. Reason can employ logic, or not. Reasoning as I have stated is simply the way the brain processes information received from the environment. These brains are built to process information from the environment and shaped by the environment.

No solipsism.

This conversation is becoming boring. If you have something new to say I might be interested in continuing. Otherwise it looks to have run its course. I would appreciate if you would tell me what it is you teach though. I would also be interested in a discussion pertaining to  your justification for logic and reasoning.

Which is why I thought you were joking. I mean, I laughed and thought it was cute, but I felt a little insulted if you were asking me seriously. But you don't know me, and you may lump me together with people who would call you names. For instance, I don't personally agree with Kelly calling you a "bigot", but Kelly is free to say what she likes.

The thing is that I'm sure you know that producing a valid argument doesn't produce a sound argument. I can introduce the tooth fairy and santa clause into logical arguments and come up with something valid. Even just from a non-technical point of view that's readily apparent. Even before we start talking about different approaches to logic, if we introduce questionable characters into the mix, we should be able to reach conclusions about them, but our conclusions are suspect.

I should have framed my statements in a positivist way so that you could attack them for whatever failures you belive they have. Really, you caught me being flippant, and for that I apologize. If your assertion is that positivism has limits, then say that. It's been said before, and we can discuss that (toward my goal of defending anti-theistic activism, and your goal of invalidating its basic premises).

No. I refuse because it's just a side-step, as was the back and forth logic-is-immutable, logic-is-mutable dance. If your statement is that man is fallable, or positivism has limitations, or even that the limitations of logic do not allow us to discuss your specific brand of theology, then let's talk about it. But this argument is over the basic premises that would drive an anti-theist activist site. I was asking you what framework you wanted to use to argue about it as a courtesy.

Here's my motivation, so you know exactly where I'm coming from: I fear dogmatists because of their uncanny ability to commit and rationalize destructive acts. Theism adds the twist of supernatural endorsement, which I find questionable on several levels.

I agree that its mushrooming into oblivion. You are a much better cut-and-paster then me.

All semantic issues aside all I am saying - at the most fundamental level - is that we can't resolve this issue without universal standards of reasoning, and I simply don't see how your expression of atheism, and justification for logic (reason - whatever), can do that - the most obvious point being that we don't agree. If evolutionary electro-chemical processes in the brain are the basis for logic, then we would be agreeing. But we don't. If logic is simply electro-chemical processes that are contingent upon a person's brain, then they lose their necessity and univerality.

I currently teach apologetical method and critical thinking. But mostly I pastor a Presbyterian Church and serve in the US Air Force Reserve as a chaplain.

Let me know if you wish to discuss further. I appreciate the cordiality.

>>>Which is why I thought you were joking. I mean, I laughed and thought it was cute, but I felt a little insulted if you were asking me seriously. But you don't know me, and you may lump me together with people who would call you names. For instance, I don't personally agree with Kelly calling you a "bigot", but Kelly is free to say what she likes.<<<

I certainly did not mean to insult; it was a sincere question just to illustrate the nature of the problem. I don't lump you together with Kelly. She is just one angry woman with a quick temper - and a lot of rhetoric.

>>>The thing is that I'm sure you know that producing a valid argument doesn't produce a sound argument.<<<

Agreed. But I'm not arguing deductively. I'm asking a more fundamental philosophical question. I'm not asking atheists to define or use reason/logic. I'm asking them, given their worldview, to justify any approach in the first place. If laws of logic are not universal, invariant, abstract entities, then we are left in skepticism. We can't even argue.

My point about the Analytic/Synthetic distinction was to illustrate a significant issue of difference in predicate logic. I am more Quinian in my understanding of analyticity; I am not a positivist and do not think that view on revisionary immunity can be defended. But it was just an illustration of the fact that Western, first-order, predicate logic with truth-functional connectives is anything but unified.

My framework, then, is more fundamental. I'm asking how an atheist can provide a basis for reasoning given their presuppositions.

BTW- what's your status? teacher, student? Its quite obvious that besides Vessel your the ONLY one here who has a clue about these issues.

-Marty

Ontological relativity is predicated on multiple coherent translations. It suggests there is a multitude of incompatible but equally-valid denotations of every referent. The validity of the referents would have to extend beyond the semantic. Each sentence must be coherent not just with itself, but with all other ontologies. So, Quine's indeterminacy of reference is unable to account for coherent communication.

I believe I understand your position is that coherent communication is not possible without objective ontology, and that naturalism alone can't account for that objectivity. I may be wrong in my understanding, I admit. Please correct me if I'm wrong, and not too stupid to understand your reply.

I agree with you that Quine is not the final answer. In the end he is a pragmatist, and as such cannot have a concept of necessity. Where I agree with Quine is that the logical positivist (ala Ayer) reduction of analyticity to empty logical truisms is a dogma. I think he brilliantly shows that all attempts to define analyticity draw upon the concept of necessity, and are circular.

I understand analyticity as those beliefs that critical to the integrity of a worldview (or belief-system). They are the beliefs that are the most immune to revision.

In this sense the belief "God exists" and the belief "God does not exist" are fundamental epistemological starting points in terms of which data is pre-interpreted; there are no brute facts. All facts are theory-laden. The falsification of analytic beliefs cannot be done, then, in a direct, ordinary manner. It must be an indirect method that asks the question, "Does the fundamental starting points provide a coherent foundation for reason, science, ethics.

As I'm sure you know what logic "is", and "which" are the logical truths presupposes certain metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical commitments. The question becomes which worldview can make sense out of reason and analysis.

And your analysis is correct, and it was my essential point (poorly stated) to Vessel that naturalism cannot provide the necessary presuppositions to account for logic as universal, invariant, and abstract. As such logic is only known in the person's mind (solipsism), and cannot be universal and invariant since evolution presupposes flux and change. One is left to the uncertainty of induction as well.

That's my understanding of analyticity, as well. However, I'm not convinced Quine's deconstruction of analyticity in terms of synonymy is adequate, as synonymy is a specific, and not general, case of analyticity.

Quine himself was unable (or perhaps unwilling) to assail the class of analytical statements that fell under what he called "logical analyticity." These would include the statements Kant defined as statements in which the opposite statement is self-contradictory. (I'm paraphrasing very poorly here.) Most mathematical axioms would fall under this category.

From my humble Humean viewpoint, I believe that Quine's arguments from synonymy are restricted to a very small subset of analytical statements, and does not invalidate analyticity wholesale.

From an empiricist's viewpoint, the question is also one of congruence with perceived reality. Also, a positivist (which you have stated that you are not, but I am) would hold analytic statements up to the same standard of synthetic statements -- if they provide a basis for further exploration into reality with no contradictions, then they are contingently true. The whole assumption of the non-contingence of analytic statements is unfounded. They are treated differently from synthetic statements, in that synthetic statements are assumed false until they have been tested, while analytic statements are assumed true until they fail.

I can see how this might be the foundation for your assumption of non-objectivity of a naturalistic ontology. In response, I can only say that the analytic truths used as a basis for scientific positivism have resulted in a huge set of synthetic statements that are highly congruent with empirical reality.

Whether that reality is objective or not, I can't say. It is objective enough that multiple lines of independent research converge on single synthetic statements.

Now that I have a better understanding of your point of view, I have another question, with a little setup.

An event happens, and is observed. There is a chain of perception, from the event in reality, to the sensation of the observer, to the perception of the sensation, to the evaluation of the perception in the mind of the observer, to the encoding of the evaluation into linguistic or logical symbols for the purpose of  communication, to the reception of communication by another person, to the abstraction of the perception into a synthetic statement. Assuming a naturalistic viewpoint, which points are fundamentally objective, and at which points is objectivity lost? From a theistic standpoint, which points are fundamentally objective, and at which points (if any) is objectivity lost?

I believe this is key, though I could be off in the weeds. If so, just let me know.

Thanks. I was a bit confused, probably due to my inability to understand your point of view. Now I think I have at least an inkling.

As an aside: what do you think of Goedel?

Finally -- sorry for being snarky in my last message. HisWillness is much better at this than I.

What's the difference between "necessity" and "analytic truth?"

>>>I had a feeling this is what you were driving at, but I'm struck by its inflexibility. If I understand you correctly, neither the Christian nor the atheist have adequate tools to examine theism because of a kind of "relativism singularity" that blows up on them any time the topic reaches the point of communication. But Nigel states the position in a better way: from a Quinian point of view, indeterminacy of reference points to incoherent communication. That captures the fundamental argument perfectly!<<<   Well I wouldn't say "inflexible." I do think one can argue their basic beliefs just not in the ordinary way. It must be a more transcendental argument similar to what Kant was doing. Kant's search for a synthetic a priori truth was just such an attempt to show that analytic judgments are meaningful and can be falsified.   >>>From your side, the specific reference of the Judeo-Christian God gives you at least an "essential" starting point for an approach to philosophy that can avoid relativism. What can the naturalist claim that is so absolute? Nothing! But the naturalist could have suspicions about this absolute, and deign it arbitrary. It's typically a matter of geography that separates a group's belief in one deity over another, so we're left sometimes arguing over a sort of supernatural "somethingness" that lacks relevance to any one congregation. The naturalist also has difficulty with the supernaturalist's pre-determined truth, seeing as it often comes from a book of questionable authorship or oral tradition. In turn, the supernaturalist contends that any earthly means of evaluation are limited to the natural, and so cannot apply.<<< I would say that there are certain metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical positions that deem all non-Christian worldviews inadequate to provide the necessary preconditions for intelligibility. I could elaborate if you wish, but I'll save it for now.   >>>What's neat about the above statement is that I would ask it from the opposite angle, and that reveals our arguments better than any logic. Since I've never had an earnest belief in any deity, I wonder how people get into religion and religious activity in the first place. Life as a kind of discoverable relativism has always been enjoyable for me. But my position must seem like a spiritual spacewalk to you! For me, the amazingly consistent movement of the planets, biological processes and microscopic wonders has been my rock and solid foundation. To you, maybe it seems like I'm studying the surface remnants of a great creation.<<< Well, a fundamental belief in my worldview is that man is a special creation, enabled with rational faculties being made in the image of God. To quote St. Augustine, "O Lord Thou hast made us for Thyself and our hearts are restless until they find rest in Thee." So he was a NeoPlatonist, but I agree with him Obviously you differ, but I think we all need to account for our beliefs.  >>>To answer your question, though, from my perspective, I think you're right: once one aspect of an argument is decided as supernatural, we would have to learn the alternate rules of the realm of the supernatural before continuing. Since we apparently have no method of reliably demonstrating this non-physical universe, we get a stalemate.<<< You may be familiar with the work of Alvin Plantinga. Reformed Epistemology tends to adopt the idea of stalemate, although Plantinga would never concede to a mystical form of reason. He would just say that he can be just as rational by having God as a basic belief as an atheist can. As such he fels no need to prove anything. It was once said that when Antony Flew was still an atheist he challenged Plantinga to prove God exists, to which Plantiga blew cigar smoke in his face and said, "I don't have to"! I certainly think presuppositions are falsifiable, but it requires a transcendental approach. >>>But that question turns around for me. When the physical universe is marginally "unsure", and the non-physical universe is even less approachable, what basis does the preacher have for being so certain? Please understand, that's not some "zing" of a rhetorical question, I'm asking honestly. Where there is such admitted uncertainty, how does one continue to "spread the word" when the universe from which the word comes is one without natural rules? This has never actually occured to me before, so it's a bit mind-bending. If you have any insight, let me know.<<< Let me put it succinctly and then elaborate: I am certain the Christian God exists because without presupposing that worldview I couldn't prove anything. FYI- I didn't go to church at all as a kid. I converted in college. I wasn't a druggie, etc. I was an agnostic who was bothered by Hume's critique of induction. I was a physics major at the time and found Hume's critique compelling. So I began a quest for justifying scientific "law", especially in light of presupposing evolution as the metaphysic. yada yada yada, I found Trinitarian Christianity to answer far more questions of justification.   >>>Perpetual student of lost cultures; mainly classics. And while flattery will get you everywhere, there are a number of thinkers on the site who can form an argument.<<< So, was there an Atlantis? Just kidding. Nigel enters the fraternity of the intelligent, no doubt. I'm just glad to engage in thoughtful discussion and not be repeated called ___________. -Marty