From: skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Criticism:  "There's no logic in Christianity"
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 16:26:27 GMT

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

(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.)

Certainly by Mr. Sandvik's measure Christianity is without logic, but
the observation is uninteresting, as so is most everything.


Mr. Sandvik also suggested another standard for finding logic:

     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.)

I mentioned Pascal as example of a recognized philosopher that used
Christianity in his philosophical papers, specifically wondering what
criteria excludes him from the list of philosophers above.  Mr.
Sandvik now intends to criticize the logic of Pascal.  He may freely
do so, but he will be arguing against a straw man, as no one has here
argued Pascal represents anything more that a philosopher that
mentioned Christianity.


                               Gregg Skinner

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

                                          (from the Alt.Atheism FAQ 
                                   "Constructing a Logical Argument")



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.

If my arguments in this thread sound a bit stilted it is because I
must minimize the number of platforms upon which Mr. Sandvik might
rest his soapbox.  It seems that whenever I give an example to clarify
an argument, Mr. Sandvik will attack the example on unrelated grounds,
pretending that in doing so he attacks the argument.