From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Criticism:  "There's no logic in Christianity"
Date: 22 Dec 92 03:12:26 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <1992Dec21.162627.27379@csrd.uiuc.edu>,
skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) wrote:
> To recap, Kent Sandvik suggests "there's no logic in Christianity".
> I believe there is at least some logic to be found, and have presented
> the following counter-example:
> 
>      If we begin with the assumptions,
> 
> 	  1. Relationship with God is good.
> 	  2. Sin inhibits relationship with God.
> 	  3. All sin.
> 	  4. Forgiveness removes the effect of sin in (2).
> 	  5. Accepting Jesus provides forgiveness.
> 
>      then it follows that "accepting Jesus" is good.  Christianity makes
>      these assumptions and suggests that accepting Jesus is good.  It
>      follows that there is at least something logical about Christianity.
> 
> Mr. Sandvik feels that unless each of the premises in the above can be
> demonstrated valid, this is not an example of valid logic.

I agree, because if we want to compare Christian logic with let
us say Eucledian geometrical logic, we have to use the same rules
of the game.
 
> I begin by setting the record straight.  In his last post on this
> subject Mr. Sandvik, in what seems to be his usual style of false
> implication, suggested I have pointed out a difference between the
> logic of Euclidean geometry and the logic found in Christianity.  I
> have not done so.

Yes, indirectly you did so. Because you and I agree what a straight
line is -- as hindus, buddhists and others -- but we don't agree
what the relationship with a God that may or may not exist is.

> Mr. Sandvik again failed to support his claim, "there's nothing
> logical about Christianity".  He again made clear his disagreement
> with the premises of my counter-example, but failed to address the
> validity of the logic.

Well, you did the work, so the validity check is really on your side,.

> He responded to my observation that his standard for finding logic
> ("the premises must be valid") forces us to declare illogical systems
> which are generally considered logical (arithmetic, Euclidean
> geometry).  The difference for him lies in the extent of agreement.
> He notes is that, for example, we "agree on the [validity of]
> Euclidean building blocks," while we do not agree on the validity of
> Christianity's premises.  Evidently for Mr. Sandvik to find logic in
> an argument we must begin with universal agreement on the premises.

Yes, using logical rules, once again. If we can't agree on the 
premisses, how could we even agree that something is logically
constructed?

> I suggest that this refined standard leads us to a contradiction:
> Valid arguments can be labelled "illogical".  While valid arguments
> may be false, they cannot be illogical, by definition.

They could be *anything*, because we can't show the real truth
behind the statements.

> (Mr. Sandvik may be in error in suggesting that we agree on the
> validity of the axioms Euclidean geometry.  I have encountered no one
> who has seen an one-dimensional object (a "line").  I am skeptical
> that such a thing exists.  If I apply Mr. Sandvik's test for logic, I
> must declare Euclidean geometry illogical.)

If you don't agree on that straight lines exist, then you don't believe
in Euclidean geometry. Thus you are one of the few that don't believe
in this, and that's fine. However the majority of the educated people
in this world agree that the concept of a 'straight line' is a valid
one. This is independent if they are theists or not.
 
>      If Christianic issues would be logically useful, I'm sure Popper,
>      Heidegger, Nietzche, Russell, Whitehead, et rest would have used
>      them in their philosophical papers.
> 
> I noted that for this to make any sense, philosophers which did
> mention Christianity must be excluded from "et rest".  The criteria
> for their exclusion remains unclear.  (The only obvious criterion,
> "they mentioned Christianity", begs the question.)

If Christianity has logical elements, most of the modern time
philosophers would have used these tools. You must agree that there's
something suspect when Mr. Bertrand Russell didn't even mention a
single word about Christian based logical formulas in his big
task of defining logic once and for all.

>                                An argument may be entirely valid even if
>                                it contains only false propositions.

And this is the issue I don't agree upon, because as Wittgenstein
et rest showed, metaphysics is metaphysics, and as long as nobody
understands it, nobody understands it. It's not even worth
arguing about.

> P.S.  I have reason to believe Mr. Sandvik is again feigning dullness
> (in this case, about the purpose of the Pascal example) in order to
> have a place to set his soapbox in order to rant and rave about
> Christianity.

I yet again applaude that Mr. Skinner is politely avoiding any
personal attacks concerning discussions on this newsgroup, as 
a true Christian that loves his next brother, instead of hating
him.


Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000