From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Criticism: "There's no logic in Christianity"
Date: 23 Dec 92 19:37:34 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <1992Dec23.140717.14360@csrd.uiuc.edu>,
skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) wrote:
> Mr. Sandvik deleted the section which specifically related to alt.atheism,
> so I will repeat (and elaborate).
> 
> Mr. Sandvik has indicated his disagreement with the following section
> of the FAQ, "Constructing a Logical Argument".
> 
> ----begin included text----
> It is important to note that the fact that a deductive argument is valid does
> not imply that its conclusion holds.  This is because of the slightly 
> counter-intuitive nature of implication, which we must now consider more
> carefully.
> 
> Obviously a valid argument can consist of true propositions.  However, an
> argument may be entirely valid even if it contains only false propositions. 
> For example:
> 
>    All insects have wings (premise)
>    Woodlice are insects (premise)
>    Therefore woodlice have wings (conclusion)

> Here, the conclusion is not true because the argument's premises are false. 
> If the argument's premises were true, however, the conclusion would be true. 
> The argument is thus entirely valid.

Hey, going Aristotlean, are we? Or all men are mortal, and so on...
In this exellent example you gave both you and I are indirectly assuming
that all insects have wings, and in this case I don't see any problems
with this argument. However in the case of Christian doctrines we can't
even state if certain premisses are real or not, so you could cook together
all kinds of statements that are supposedly true or false, but they can't 
be verified, so as Socrates would state:

"I only know that I know nothing"

Or as Wittgenstein:
"Whereof one  cannot speak, thereof one must remain silentS 

or as Voltaire:
"When he that speaks, and he to whom he speaks, neither of them 
understand what is ment, that is metaphysics."

What I'm aiming at is that my core point is that as long as we can't 
even agree upon the premisses, we can't define if the final logical
conclusion is true or not. In other words we are dealing with something
that is not even worth a qualification about. If someone else has an
opinion,
let me know. I'm just following the footsteps of Heidegger and Wittgenstein
:-).

> >As a good counter argument, we don't have mathematicians arguing
> >about the building blocks of logic, but we have theologians 
> >arguing about the Christian doctrine building blocks.
> 
> We are in this very thread arguing about one of the building blocks of
> logic (implication).  However, if Mr. Sandvik is not a mathematician
> his statement is technically correct.

I don't think we are arguing about logical tools, we are actually
arguing about how to implement them in various instances. That's
my impression, and the concern I have raised N times.

> P.S.  In t.r.m. I gave a simple counter-example to Mr. Sandvik's claim,
> "there's nothing logical about Christianity".  No mention was made of
> the trinity in that example.  As a result, the following is a red
> herring:


> >In the case of Christianity not even all Christians agree what
> >constitutes trinity, and thus to use Christian building blocks
> >to create logical statements is in my humble opinion something
> >that may or may not be true, but that can't be never argued about.

OK, if you want to take your premisses, like the issue of good 
and evil, we can't even agree if these premisses exist or not, so
the question is still valid.
 
> Mr. Sandvik wishes to apply to others a standard for exchange which he
> does not apply to himself:

And what are the standards, Christian ones, maybe?

> >Just as a side note, I don't hate Mr. Skinner even if his
> >emails are sometimes, eh, a little bit too personal for my
> >taste.

> Pot.  Kettle.  Black.

I really appreciate the Christian efforts of Mr. Skinner not trying
to judge other people, also his many efforts to turn his other cheek.

Cheers,
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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism