Should Science Speak to Faith?

[Guard Dog]

I'm with Sand here when talking about what gov. should and should not do.

Actually I should clarify. All of my comments were about the US governemnt rather than government in general. There is a great gap between what Sand (and many others) think the US Government should do and is permitted to do.

[Sand]

I am all for a more streamlined government but I refuse to have a blind eye to the suffering of others who do need help, Guard Dog. Help that requires the funds and resources only the federal government has. The government is there to serve the people, not the people to serve the government. May that be research grants to find new cures and medical treatments, to those who suffer from natural disaster, or even those who are too poor to afford proper medical care and insurance coverage. By your reckoning, they should just die off as useless rubbush.

Edited June 26, 2007 by Sand

[Qwerty the Sir]

Qwerty, I'm struggling to understand why you insist on trying to assert that I cannot use the term "fallacy" in an informal manner.

 

Well, when speaking of the strongest versions of the first cause argument, it is inaccurate. Your use of the word may actually lead people to believe there is a logical fallacy where there is none.

 

I'm also struggling to comprehend how, when I demonstrate that the proof for Purgatory -- as listed in the Catholic Encyclopedia, under Purgatory, Proof, hence the principle proposition (P) to be proved is the existence of Purgatory, by the establishment of the existence of intercessory prayers (Q) -- is affirming the consequent and therefore a FORMAL LOGICAL FALLACY.

 

I still don't know why you bring this up continually? First you claimed in post 158 that the argument was circular. In post 159, I pointed out that if the proof was circular, it would still be valid deductively and 'logical'. Then I pointed out that I thought it committed the logical fallacy of affirming consequent. I'd say with your recent statement, we agree on this part, and are speaking past each other.

 

Now, as for the existence of God, let's just take the first three, and demonstrate their fallacious logic.

Thomas Aquinas

1. The Unmoved Mover. Nothing moves without a prior mover. This leads us to a regress, from which the only escape is God. Something had to make the first move, and that something we call God.
   
2. The Uncaused Cause. Nothing is caused by itself. Every effect has a prior cause, and again we are pushed back into regress. This has to be terminated by a first cause, which we call God.
   
3. The Cosmological Argument. There must have been a time when no physical things existed. But, since physical things exist now, there must have been something non-physical to bring them into existence, and that something we call God.
   

All these arguments rely on an infinite regress and invoke God to terminate it. They make the (unwarranted) assumption God is immune to regress (who created God). Even if we allow a terminator, and call it God, there is no reason to imbue it with personality.

 

So, the logic is:

(P) God is uncreated, unmoved and uncaused

(Q) everything is created, moved and caused

 

Once again we are affirming the consequent (Q) and expecting it to prove the Proposal (P):

P>Q

Q.

Therefore P

Which, you will recall (or look above and READ) is a FORMAL LOGICAL FALLACY. It is also a faulty premise (as I also indicated) because there is no justifiable reason to assume that there is a terminator to an infinite regression.

 

Ah, finally. This is what I have been waiting to hear from you. An actual attempt to show a logical fallacy in proof/argument of First Cause/Prime Mover/God.

 

Now, you have brought up Aquinas version of the proof. If I may dare say that his version (at least in my opinion) is one of the weaker ones that have been put forth (perhaps simply due to the language it is written in and the different meanings of words back then). If you allow me, I will put forth another version later on.

 

First however, I must point out that your reconstruction of Aquinas argument/proof is severely flawed. If you read your reconstruction in words, we have:

 

"If God is uncreated, unmoved, uncaused, then everything is created, moved, caused; now, everything is created, moved and caused, and so it is concluded that God is uncreated, unmoved, and uncaused".

 

This is your symbolic reconstruction of Aquinas argument/proof, and comparing with the actual translated text, it really doesn't match. Read it to yourself and I'm sure you'll agree that this is not what Aquinas was saying.

 

Now, if Aquinas argument/proof had actually been like your reconstruction/formalization of it, then undoubtedly it would have been affirming consequent and logically invalid. It would have been an example of "bad logic" or "fallacious logic".

 

With that said, let me offer another cosmological proof/argument. This is a version that floats around in the recent literature:

• 1) Every being that exists is either a dependent being or a self-existent being.
  
• 2) Not every being can be a dependent being.
  
• Therefore there exists a self-existent being.
  

Now, if you look at the form of this argument, it very closely follows disjunctive syllogism, which is a named valid deductive form (thus rigorously 'logical'). Symbolically, it looks like this:

 

1) p v q

2) ~q

Therefore p

 

The cosmological argument/proof above is absolutely logical, and it's logic is flawless (it follows a very well known named form of deductive inference).

 

That is as far as I will go as I am not interested in getting into debate about its premises. If you want an in depth back and forth critique and defense of the premises, as well as elaboration on the terms "self-existent being" and "dependent being", I suggest looking at the journal articles on JSTOR.

Edited June 26, 2007 by Qwerty the Sir

[metadigital]

Qwerty, if you are agreeing with me that "Proofs" of the existence of God are based on faulty premises and use faulty logic, then I don't know why you are continuing to exchange replies. Your initial comment was that the logic was sound, even if the premise was not, which you now seem to be retracting.

 

In any caes, I think it's pretty clear that the logic is faulty (fallacious), AND the premises are dubious.

 

As for your "new, improved" version of the Aquinas Proof, it is still faulty. It's faulty because the set of "self-existent beings" could be null. It's just a restating of the infinite regress again.

 

I'll grant you that this new, improved staing has the benefit of following the disjunctive syllogism format, but it is still Formal Fallacy, this time a Hasty Generalisation.

 

Although discussing the niceties of formal logic is fun, it isn't really on-topic. What I'd really like to talk about is the origin of ethics ...

Nonetheles, ball that simply was rolling and will ever be so is not any better argument than First Mover, I'd say it's weaker too.

Adding a First Mover is counter to Occam's Razor.

 

And, even if we assume that there was a terminating agent for the infinite regress (called God), there is absolutely no need to ascribe any other characteristics, like sentience (omniscience) and omnipotence ... which brings you to a deist belief, that which the overwhelming majority of "religious" scientists hold. Calling it God is unhelpful at best and perniciously misleading. Who created God? To say that God wasn't created is equivalent to saying that the universe wasn't created. If God always was, then why can't the universe always have been?

 

 

Why people of the Abrahamic faiths insist that there is a being that can see every thought, every atom vibrate, everything's fate, and that such a magnificent being would be frantically concerned with the intricacies of what consenting adult people do behind closed doors. Or, as Sam Harris put it, in Letter to a Christian Nation:

[Conservative Right-Wing Christians] principle concern seems to be that the Creator of the universe will take offence at something people do while naked. This prudery of yours contributes daily to the surplus of human misery.

[Qwerty the Sir]

Adding a First Mover is counter Occam's Razor.

 

Parsimony itself is very controversial premise.

 

And, even if we assume that there was a terminating agent for the infinite regress (called God), there is absolutely no need to ascribe any other characteristics, like sentience (omniscience) and omnipotence ... which brings you to a deist belief, that which the overwhelming majority of "religious" scientists hold. Calling it God is unhelpful at best and perniciously misleading. Who created God? To say that God wasn't created is equivalent to saying that the universe wasn't created. If God always was, then why can't the universe?

 

Ah, yes, if someone were to use cosmological proof and smuggle in any attributes of God/First Cause/Prime Mover without adding new premises, then argument would be invalid (conclusion won't follow) and fallacy. This is why Aquinas (and other people who want to prove their own concept of God take two steps. One to establish First Cause/God/Prime Mover, and then to establish attributes.

[metadigital]

Parsimony may be controversial, but it sure beats everything else.

[Qwerty the Sir]

You edited post 204 after I had already replied so here is my reply to added portions.

 

Qwerty, if you are agreeing with me that "Proofs" of the existence of God are based on faulty premises and use faulty logic, then I don't know why you are continuing to exchange replies. Your initial comment was that the logic was sound, even if the premise was not, which you now seem to be retracting.

 

Um, where did you get this notion from? If you read the context where I said we agreed, you will see it is concerning the fact that the Purgatory proof is indeed affirming consequent (you actually said initially that the problem with the Purgatory proof was it’s circularity , and I pointed out that there was nothing circular but rather that the proof affirms consequent to which you later affirmed). The record is quite clear and I am confused as to what made you think otherwise.

 

I don’t know why you have the idea that I am retracting anything. Indeed, if anyone has retracted something, it was your change in labeling the “fallacy” of the Purgatory argument from circular to affirming consequent.

 

In any caes, I think it's pretty clear that the logic is faulty (fallacious), AND the premises are dubious.

 

Absolutely not. The only thing that was dubious was your reconstruction of Aquinas argument. If you reference my last post, I write your symbolic reconstruction of the argument in words and then compare it to the actual text of Aquinas. The two arguments are nothing alike. Your argument reconstruction where you claim to show affirming consequent is actually a misrepresentation.

 

You have frankly not shown at all anything ‘bad’ with the logic of the argument.

 

As for your "new, improved" version of the Aquinas Proof, it is still faulty. It's faulty because the set of "self-existent beings" could be null. It's just a restating of the infinite regress again.

 

The new proof/argument has nothing to do with Aquinas. It comes from recent literature (William Rowe, who critiques the argument’s premises [importantly noting that it is deductively valid and logical beforehand]) and it is from the proofs/arguments Leibniz/Clarke.

 

Your objection right here is a critique of a premise. I’m sure that if your went on JSTOR, you would find your objection answered to and fro.

 

I'll grant you that this new, improved staing has the benefit of following the disjunctive syllogism format, but it is still Formal Fallacy, this time a Hasty Generalisation.

 

I had stated before that even if a premise of an argument itself comes from a logically fallacious argument, the new argument (given it follows valid form) is still logical. Content of premises have nothing to do with logicality. To illustrate, we have two arguments in succession that lead to conclusion ‘Q’.

 

One is a regular modus ponens set up like this:

 

1) P > Q

2) P

Therefore Q

 

The second argument is an argument for the first premise (P > Q). It goes like this:

 

1) R > ~(P > Q)

2) ~R

Therefore ~~(P > Q) or P > Q

 

The first argument is deductively valid. The second argument commits the fallacy of denying antecedent and is invalid. However, though the first premise (P > Q) is reached through an invalid argument, its position in the first argument has no bearing on the first argument’s logicality.

 

As for whether the first premise actually is a hasty generalization (which is an inductive and not deductive fallacy), again, I point you towards JSTOR. The meanings of self-existent and dependent as well as Principle of Sufficient Reason all have bearing on whether the premise is a false dilemma or a logical truth (tautology) and there is much debate.

 

Although discussing the niceties of formal logic is fun, it isn't really on-topic. What I'd really like to talk about is the origin of ethics ...

 

Again, I am replying to your statement that the proofs for God/First Cause/Prime Mover had “enormous logical fallacies”. So far, aside from pointing out affirming consequent in a misinterpreted version of Aquinas proof/argument, you haven’t shown any of these fallacies. As for premises themselves, well, lets just say it is quite a one sided portrayal to just call them “fallacies”.

 

Parsimony may be controversial, but it sure beats everything else.

 

Simply invoking Ockham’s razor to dismiss an argument shows an unwarranted assumption that it is ‘better’. It is just as “faulty” of a premise as the issue of infinite regresses (which you have labeled more than once). In fact, considering that there is a debate on whether infinite regresses are even logically possible, I would say that principle of parsimony is less warranted.

Edited June 26, 2007 by Qwerty the Sir

[WITHTEETH]

Hmm, the origin of ethics...

 

Well that probably rooted from the capacity for empathy right? And whenever empathy evolved in man/woman.

 

Heres an oldie stolen from the OBSIDIAN Vaults compliments of Meta.

 

The origins of religion

Our ancestors did not always have religion, yet many religious practices seem to have very ancient origins. So when did religion first evolve? Arch

[Gorth]

Which brings us back to "the selfish gene"

[metadigital]

Qwerty, before your ludicrous mutterings make me go back and draw out line-for-line this inane argument, just STOP.

 

You started by telling me that I was wrong in calling the circular logic fallacious. Then you retreated to a semantic argument about the definition of a Formal Fallacy. Enough!

petitio principii

n noun Logic a fallacy in which a conclusion is taken for granted in the premises.

 

ORIGIN

Latin, literally 'laying claim to a principle'.

Circular reasoning: also known as Begging the question.

In logic, begging the question has traditionally described a type of logical fallacy, petitio principii, in which the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises

[Sand]

Um...

 

Religion bad.

Science pretty.

 

[Cantousent]

Frankly, I find the argument interesting. We've all been far more guilty of taking a thread, off-topic, have we not? I can think of a few threads in which even the moderators have taken the entire discussion away from its original course. This is the sort of normal thread evolution we see throughout this entire board.

 

I have to admit, however, I always find it irritating when it seems like someone is more interested in "winning" an argument rather than having an open and honest discussion. I'm not saying that's what Qwerty is doing in this thread. I'm just saying I hate it when someone wants to be clever more than intellectually honest.

 

Why not argue the nature of logic in this thread? If we cannot agree on basic principles and terms, I doubt if we can broaden the discussion at all.

[Sand]

True enough, Cant. It doesn't matter who wins or lose, it is the argument itself that matters.

[metadigital]

Because:

1. the nature of logic is completely irrelevant to the topic of science and faith (start another topic);
   
2. I can't tell if Qwerty is agreeing that Aquinas's Proof is fallacious or not, because every reply has a different voluminous reply about some obscure quodlibet,
   
3. whatever the point is, it's wrong.
   

[Sand]

What is wrong for one might be right for another.

[metadigital]

Meaningless drivel.

[Sand]

Meaningless drivel.

EXACTLY!

[Qwerty the Sir]

Qwerty, before your ludicrous mutterings make me go back and draw out line-for-line this inane argument, just STOP.

 

You started by telling me that I was wrong in calling the circular logic fallacious. Then you retreated to a semantic argument about the definition of a Formal Fallacy. Enough!

petitio principii

n noun Logic a fallacy in which a conclusion is taken for granted in the premises.

 

ORIGIN

Latin, literally 'laying claim to a principle'.

Circular reasoning: also known as Begging the question.

In logic, begging the question has traditionally described a type of logical fallacy, petitio principii, in which the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises

Edited June 27, 2007 by Qwerty the Sir

[Sand]

I think one can logically say that your argument about logic with Meta is off topic, Qwerty.

[Qwerty the Sir]

Perhaps we are at a complete impasse about what constitutes logic/fallacy in respect to circularity (thanks for opening my eyes Sand and Cantousent).

 

However, the cosmological argument does not rely on circularity. I am keen to see what "enormous logical fallacy" it commits (again keeping in mind the lack of circularity). You have only really addressed this once, and I pointed out that your reconstruction of Aquinas' argument was incorrect:

 

 

"If God is uncreated, unmoved, uncaused, then everything is created, moved, caused; now, everything is created, moved and caused, and so it is concluded that God is uncreated, unmoved, and uncaused".

 

...was your reconstruction of the argument (put into verbal terms) and that does not match the text of Aquinas.

[Qwerty the Sir]

the nature of logic is completely irrelevant to the topic of science and faith (start another topic)

 

If a person claims an argument concerning God has "enormous logical fallacies", then a discussion about those logical fallacies, and the logic behind it is certainly warranted and on topic.

 

I can't tell if Qwerty is agreeing that Aquinas's Proof is fallacious or not, because every reply has a different voluminous reply about some obscure quodlibet

 

I have stated many times that I believe the cosmological proof to be deductively valid, free of fallacious form (disjunctive syllogism - so "logical"), flawless in it's logical form. Here is another affirmation.

 

whatever the point is, it's wrong

 

If this is your mindset, then perhaps I have wasted my time.

Edited June 27, 2007 by Qwerty the Sir

[Walsingham]

Qwerty, I can see your arguments are expertly rendered. However, do you think you could give us an executive summary with each one. I can't read long bits of text in this fething white on black font.

[WITHTEETH]

Learning about logic without its empirical cousin involved is like learning historical facts on the carebears, who gives a $$$$.

[Guest The Architect]

So let me get this straight, and correct me if I'm wrong because I'm a fool and have probably got this all wrong but, this debate's kinda like a question to all scientists asking: is the goal to teach science or to discredit religion? Can they coexist peacefully? And is religion inherently bad?

 

Well, in my opinion, to the first, the goal should certainly be to teach science and not discredit religion. I mean, while I consider myself to be certainly by no means scientifically literate, I don't think I'm nearly as bad as many people out there who couldn't even tell you what a "watt" is a measure of, or what a calorie is, or what the "trans" in trans-fat means, or to be able to describe the four parts of the combustion cycle of a car's engine. So what I'm trying to say is, I don't think religion is science's biggest problem, though one could argue I'm just making a ridiculous and completely baseless generalisation, as I don't go around asking people scientific questions, you know.

 

To the second, umm... don't science and religion already peacefully coexist already, or am I wrong and should shut up? Don't answer the latter. Anyway, from my experience, there are already a handful of scientifically literate people who are religious, like my cousin for example, and many who are who don't disrespect religion. I've never heard of any war's of any scale being started because of a clash of science and religion.

 

And is religion inherently bad? Well, I don't know, because I can't even name the 52 religions {or is there more?} to begin with, so I'm in no position to judge, I believe.

Edited June 29, 2007 by The Architect

[Fionavar]

Well I think that it is time to take a siesta in the Sandbox. thanks for your energy and input - now say night, night Gracey ...