From: rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker)
Subject: Re: Criticism: "There's no logic in Christianity"
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 15:11:19 GMT

bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:


>Time to do some deconstruction:

>/(skinner)
>/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.

>If you want to sell the argument to anyone else, that is correct.



>/(skinner)
>/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.

>Wrong.  

>Correctly constructed arguments can be both false and illogical.

>This is an example which parallels yours closely:

>  1.  Dragons exist and like to eat people
>  2.  Silver has been blessed by the gods; that is why it shines so bright
>  3.  Dragons hate the metal silver
>  4.  SO:  it is good to wear silver

>The argument is false because the science doesn't back it up (dragons
>don't exist).

... No, No, No. The argument is false because 4 does not follow from 1-3.

>The argument is illogical because there is no demonstrated cause-and-effect
>between the steps.  Instead of a logical principle like:

>    a.  All dogs have tails
>    b.  That animal is a dog
>    c.  THEREFORE:  that animal must have a tail also

>what we have instead is a growing list of unproven assumptions that must be 
>simply accepted, without any logical formula to show *why* they must be
>accepted.  That is why it is not logical. 

>Arguments which are composed soley of take-it-on-faith axioms are not 
>logical arguments.


>/(skinner)
>/(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.  

>Seeing a line is _not_ the criteria that is used to determine if it exists.
>There are indirect ways of proof.  

>And, in spite of no one else ever having seen a line either, damn near 
>everyone agrees that the critter exists anyhow.

>The same cannot be said of your claims.



>/(skinner)
>/If I apply Mr. Sandvik's test for logic, I must declare Euclidean geometry 
>/illogical.)

>Don't be deliberately stupid.  

...Logic has *nothing* to do with factual truth. Logic is the science of
inferential systems. It deals with such issues as:

	1. How do certain formal statements follow from others.
	2. Is a formal system consistent.
	3. Is a formal system complete
	4. Is a formal system catagorical.
	5. Are two formal systems equivalent as far as inference is 
	   concerned.
	6. The relation between formal inference and semantic inference.

One can use perfectly good logic to deduce false conclusions from false
premises.

One can use invalid arguments to deduce true conclusions from true premises.

Theologians have been trying to hitch their particular superstitions to
Euclidean style systems. For example Thomal Acquinal and Baruch Spinoza.

As in any system of logic, the conclusions are factually no better than the
premises.

Conan the Libertarian

-- 
"If you can't love the Constitution, then at least hate the Government"

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc