Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
The Courts

Journal cyranoVR's Journal: Fun with Circular Logic 31

Journal by cyranoVR

DID YOU KNOW: Most online self-quizes are thinly veiled attempts to promote a particular point-of-view? It's true! Anyway, onwards to The Fun...

A Dialogue
Q: Tell, me: can you distinguish Right from Wrong?
A: Yes.

Q: Ok, how can you tell Right from Wrong?
A: From my Moral Sense.

Q: Interesting...and from where did you obtain this "Moral Sense?"
A: From God, obviously!

Q: Ok, but how do you know that your god exists?
A: Because I have a Moral Sense, duh.

Q: So you know God exists because you can tell Right from Wrong?
A: That is correct.

Q: And you can tell Right from Wrong because God exists?
A: Yes...

Q: And you know God exists because you are able to tell Right from Wrong?
A: Look, I explained that already! >:(

Etc...

CONCLUSION:

Why reason out ethical problems when some imaginary long-bearded Daddy in the sky can just "give" you the answers?

POST-SCRIPT:

If you want to respond to this JE, please read this first: Fr. Copleston vs. Bertrand Russell: The Famous 1948 BBC Radio Debate on the Existence of God.

This discussion was created by cyranoVR (518628) for Friends and Friends of Friends only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fun with Circular Logic More

Fun with Circular Logic

Comments Filter:
  • Why reason out ethical problems when some imaginary long-bearded Daddy in the sky can just "give" you the answers?

    Religion is the base of morality. Without religion, we'd all be killing people that got in our way (think animal kingdom). Religion gave us our civilality (is that a word?), so even if you don't believe it, you have to respect the things that came from it.
    • I prefer the bonobo way [wikipedia.org]. They got their morality from sex rather than from religion.:)

    • Re:Just remember (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cyranoVR ( 518628 ) *
      I *do* have respect for religion and faith. However - as I've stated many times before - what I don't have respect for is Dogma trying to masquerade as Reason.

      Furthermore, although Western Ethical Philosophy certainly has roots in religion, one could go a step further and argue that this same religion is actually product of culture - that is to say Man, not "God."

      In other words: Man wrote the laws and later claimed that an anthropomorphic God handed them down. Result: 2000 years later, certain people are
    • I have to agree with Cyrano, FK. Religion is not the basis of morality.

      If I had to point at anything as the basis for morality, I'd probably point at pragmatism. If I had to spend the rest of enterity on a desert isle with a hundred other people, we'd all agree fairly quickly that we would live better if we were all "Excellent to each other."

      Of course, we arrive at this conclusion because God shuffled the environment and some random mutations to produce a human species in His image--so much so, that whe
  • straw man argument. You create an off the wall example of what you think other people's views are, and then attack them for "saying" the words you put into their mouths in your examples. Rage against the machine all you want, but at least be logical about it, or else you've got nothing.
    • Ummmm...did you read the transcript of the debate between Fr. Copleston vs. Bertrand Russell?

      Skip down to the section titled "The Moral Argument" and read carefully.
      • I didn't see that link there earlier. I read through all the other links before, but had no idea where the "Bit of fun" came from... Speaking of which, is this Russell character serious? He says:

        Yes, but you see I don't need any more ground in that case than I do in the case of color perception. There are some people who think everything is yellow, there are people suffering from jaundice, and I don't agree with these people. I can't prove that the things are not yellow, there isn't any proof, but most peo

        • He's talking about the "name" and abstract concept of yellow as opposed the the electromagnetic spectrum yellow.

          Consider asian cultures where there is no color "green." What we call "green" is - to them - just a shade of what they call "blue."

          Now, when we're talking about physical reality, science allows us to be more precise. We can define "yellow" as being a particular range in the possible frequencies of electromagnetic radiation.

          There is no need to take this "on faith" because any individual can ver
          • But what irritates me is that certain parties persist in the charade that they are following a rational train of thought! It's dishonest intellectually.

            It's the story of every dogma: Why shouldn't everyone believe the same as me, since I am so cleary right? They are blinded to the faith needed for their position by their desire to not question their own beliefs...
            • Not only that: they impose their dogmatic worldview onto other forms of thought. They believe science, math, logic, etc. are just alternative religions based on dogmatic assumptions.

  • Dawkins. (Score:2)

    by Zarf ( 5735 )
    Go read Dawkins. Much more current.

    Then we pepper life with a little Godel and remember that Syllogistic thought may be logically correct but built on false premise.

    Do you know why 1 + 1 is 2? Can you prove it? Most people can't because they don't know about the Peno Postulates. What if the postulates are wrong? Is all of arithmetic just a Syllogism? A simmilar line of logic might be: What if the shortest distance between two points isn't a straight line?

    All logical reasoning is built on a set of p
    • Posters on Slashdot proof-read their comments before hitting submit. Therefore, their comments are accurate. Because their comments are accurate you can believe all you read on slashdot.
      • Posters on Slashdot proof-read their comments before hitting submit. Therefore, their comments are accurate. Because their comments are accurate you can believe all you read on slashdot.

        Wrong - should read: Therefore, their comments are grammatically correct and free of spelling mistakes.

        See? It's all about stating and re-stating your ideas more clearly!
    • So now we've jumped from Religion and Ethics to Post-Modern Ontology [google.com], eh? Well, I have to say I see your point, but it seems to me that grouping the statement 1+1=2 with "There is a God" is a bit misleading.

      If you have trouble believing the concept that 1+1=2...well, good luck filing your tax return!

      All joking aside, if 1+1=2 wasn't true, then our universe wouldn't work in the predictable nature that it does (mostly - we'll conveniently ignore sub-atomic quantum mechanics for now). Perhaps in some alter
      • You don't understand Godel. And, I never defined God.

        An assumption such as the ones which underly the natural numbers must be made at some point. The point at which you make the assumption is crucial. Also, it follows that no system of logic is fully capable of completely describing itself unambiguously.

        Godel actually manages to prove that there is no way to prove the fundamental set of assumptions we make to build such concrete things as Mathematics, Physics, ect.

        A philosopher may take that revela
        • Well, I've only read summaries of Godel so you are probably correct in saying I don't understand him.

          However, my understanding is that there has been quite a bit of work done on the subject [wikipedia.org] since Principia (written in 1910-13 after all(!)) and Godel, so as I understand it, the Philosophical Problems of Mathematics are far from resolved (that is to say, they haven't decided that they are unprovable). And Godel's theories are hardly the final word on the subject and have been widely criticized.

          Let me also a
          • In one discussion, you can have pages of dry, boring formulas and logic-based exchanges. In the other, you have self-righteous evangelists pointing an accusing finger and telling you that Morals Revealer is going to send you to Hell. I hope you can see the difference, and why one - in the context of philosophical discussion - should be dimissed on its face.

            I think you've made quite a few jumps as well here. I would never defend that kind of position in any context.

            There's a nice Sci-Fi I read a whil
            • It's just a pity he isn't a Christian.

              WTF is that supposed to mean? Is there some subtext here that your not being honest about?

              This is what I'm talking about: if your thinking is biased from a hidden agenda, just come out and be open with it.
              • WTF is that supposed to mean? Is there some subtext here that your not being honest about?

                It's supposed to mean: I'll bet you don't care as much about the acutal debate as you do bashing a straw man. It's bait. Just like your remark here.

                It's also funny... if you've read Dawkins or even know what he's famous for. So, laugh.
    • Just as a follow-up to my earlier comment, please see this amusing article:
      BBC: Old dogs learn new tricks [bbc.co.uk]: Scientists discovers that dogs can count.

      This would indicate that 1) physical reality precedes the abstract concept, and 2) the animal mind develops the abstract concept as an evolutionary advantage for operating in physical reality. (See my comment to FortKnox elsewhere in this thread for more thoughts on the subject).

      Also, see Cognitive Mathematics [wikipedia.org].
    • 1+1=2

      I can take one apple and another apple, put them in a bowl, and count the number of apples in a bowl.

      The capital of Germany is Berlin.

      I can purchase a plane ticket to Berlin, fly there, and inquire as to what the capital of Germany is.

      in 1492 Columbus discovered the Americas

      Tough one. If I were to check historical records, journals, and whatnot, I would actually learn that Columbus landed on a Caribbean island in 1492. Giovanni Caboto was the first euro to land anywhere near the country
      • It is about context isn't it? Two apples in a bowl don't prove unabiguously that one and one are two... it does show that in the case of apples on the planet earth in a bowl one and one apple certainly are two. But what about apple sauce?

        How do you know it's not the wrong Berlin?

        How do you know Columbus isn't a well established legend among the people of the area?

        You reversed the argument. Those are my lines. If you follow the previous patterns you're supposed to prove to me that there is a God.
        • Just for fun, how would you argue the opposite side of the argument?

          Is this one of those Philosophy 101 things I've heard so much about?:)

          Well, the flaw in the apple argument is that there is no explicit reason to extrapolate from one bowl incident to all possible cases of 1+1.

          What would be acceptable proof?

          Dunno. I guess we have to make some things axiomatic.

          Of course, to paraphrase Libertarians, the philosophy that axioms least axioms best, but absolute solipsism would also be silly.:)
          • Be careful here...Zarf is implying that logic is just another form of (for lack of a better word) religion.

            Put another way, he is essentially arguing that the only way we can know anything is from Authority Figures. In this school of thought, the only difference between "Science" and "Religion" is that one draws its authority from...let's say...Newton and the other from God.

            [Note to Zarf: I'm not attacking you below, just discussing the problem in greater detail]

            Of course, there is an obvious flaw with t
            • Put another way, he is essentially arguing that the only way we can know anything is from Authority Figures. In this school of thought, the only difference between "Science" and "Religion" is that one draws its authority from...let's say...Newton and the other from God.

              *Ahem*

              No. I'm not. I haven't even made it over to arguing for any kind of "God" yet. I would hardly argue that science is "flawed" you are putting words in my mouth.
              • Hmmmm...why I am being accused of "putting words in [someone's] mouth" when actually attempting to analyze their point of view. Note to everyone: if I get it wrong, please just correct me. That's what this about. Consider perhaps that maybe you weren't expression yourself properly? Ah well: Life.

                Anyway, having ready your other comments, it definitely seems that you take a position that certain forms of knowledge are unknowable ("undecideable"). The thing is - this assertion is actually an axiom itself.
                • Godel is ultimately wrong

                  That's about like saying that 1 + 1 doesn't equal 2.

                  bringing us back to "word games" once again

                  What other games would we play? Logic is Lanugage. Math is Language. Computation is fundamentally linguistic and symbolic. It doesn't matter if I use a formalized language or a natural language... you're going to miss something... that's a limitation of language itself. Bachus-Naur anyone?
        • How do you know it's not the wrong Berlin?

          You're just playing with words here. The phrase "please take me to Berlin, Germany" can be understood as shorthand for "please take me to Latitude 52 31' North, Longitude 13 20' East."

          If you are not sure that Berlin is the capital of Germany, you could travel to those cooridnates and view the government document that states establishes Berlin as the capital.

          Now, that begs the questions: "Why is the geographic location called 'Berlin'," and "Why do you accept tha
          • Somebody hasn't done their homework.

            Kids these days, they're so smart.

            I still haven't read a single philosopher address what the mathematicians of a hundred years ago found. I'm not arguing for dogma here, I'm talking about layers of abstraction.

Slashdot Top Deals

Quantum Mechanics is God's version of "Trust me."

Close