Logic and Empiricism

In Evangelical Support Group :: 21, Phat writes: I found this interesting, because it seemed to be an insight into what I have thought of as a common Religious misconception on the nature of logic and how it relates to empirical understanding. I think that 'Religious-ites' reject using logic partly”if not entirely”because they believe empiricism a part of logic. Because they know that their God cannot/does not exist in the empirical world”or, at least not in an empirical sense”, they find that logic, to be logical, must reject God also as an inherent part of itself. For this reason, they reject logic.Let's talk about this, however, because it is my belief that logic does not require empiricism. Instead, I”and I'm assuming many others”see logic as a method of evaluation based on progressive, fundamentally simplistic processes in thought and reason. In this sense, logic can be applied to anything without having any fundamental affect on the precise nature of that thing. I believe 'Religious-ites' see logic & God (scripture) to exist something like this:empiricism + reasoning = logic
faith + reasoning = scripture... where empiricism is built in to the definition of logic; you can't arrive at logic without it. In reality”at least as I believe”, however, logic/God (scripture) exists something such as this:reality + logic = empiricism
scripture + logic = faithIn this sense, both empiricism and faith can use logic to come to conclusions that are, well, logical.I would like to open this up to see what the Religious-ites on the board think of this”in accepting logic do you feel you would also have to reject God and embrace empiricism? Also, what do the non- Religious-ites on the board think of this”does it seem to accurately explain the Religious-ite rejection of logic as a means for arriving at conclusions?JonEdited by Jon, : Fixed link

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
_ ____________________________ _En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10

This has happened before. It often leads to people looking for”and often finding”Y. Consider evolutionary study:If Human and Monkey,
Then common ancestor existedHuman and Monkey; therefore, common ancestor existed.Now, five hundred years ago no one would've had access to this common ancestor, but I do believe we've dug parts of the fella up, no? If not, would you still say the best thing would be to go back and re-evaluate the relationship between humans and monkeys to see if they really did have a common ancestor? Or would the more 'progressive' thing be to actually try to find that common ancestor? From dictionary.com:

quote:

---

rea·son·ing /rizn, rizn/ [ree-zuh-ning, reez-ning] -noun
...
2. the process of forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.

---

According to this, reasoning can be applied to either facts or premises. Premises don't necessarily have to be true/real/empirical. Fundies see reasoning/logic to be as you seem to think they are, and so find them completely contradictory to their faith (like my first 'equation' represented). In that sense, then, they steer far and clear from attempting any to add any bit of reasoning to their faith, because it would lead from their fundimentalism. Generally, a fundie who does attempt to use reasoning to evaluate their beliefs either quickly stops doing so, or quickly becomes a non-fundie. Your problem seems to come in the confusion of faith with being the same as fundamentalism.Reasoning and fundamentalism are at odds, not reasoning and faith/religion.JonEdited by Jon, : No reason given.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Edited by Jon, : There we go

By scripture/God, I was simply refering to all beliefs really. Anything that's a belief cannot be substantiated in reality, and this is what I was trying to refer to. The equation probably is better if we edit it to reflect this:belief + logic = faith, i.e., more logical beliefsJonEdited by Jon, : Seplling

I'm sorry if this confused you, or was written in a confusing manner. This is exactly what my first post was getting at. Fundamentalists have a twisted idea of how things fit together. They think it's perfectly logical for God to literally create Man then the Animals whilst also creating the Animals then Man. To them, it all seems logical, and they then branch out from there and begin applying such equally half-ass 'logic' to everything they encounter, always assuming that the end result of 'logic'”at least as they think of it”should be literal scripture.If, instead, you start with scripture”or any set of beliefs”and apply logic to it, you can rip apart all the literal bells and whistles and get down to the bare-bone heart of it; the 'essential' faith, as it were. For example, applying 'real' logic to Genesis moves us to take away the order, the number of days, etc., and get down to the simplistics of it: God's all-powerful, yet intimate, relationship with humanity. Logic applied to scripture gives us, in essence, a more logical scripture; just as logic applied to evidence simply gives us a more logical rendering of the evidence. In this way, 'real' logic isn't meant to create new systems from old ones; instead, its purpose is to refine the systems to which it is applied.Imagine you have 3 apples and 4 apples. Applying logic, we conclude there are 7 apples. But there were always 7 apples; logic didn't bring them into existence. They are a fundamental, yet 'hidden' property of our two groups of apples. Logic gives us the tools to see what is already there, yet may lay hidden.So, in other words, I agree with you; logic is not required for scripture, per se; but it is required for logical scripture/beliefs.Jon