Logic and Empiricism

quote:

---

"reasoning is dependant on examining the evidence."

---

Nope.If X then Y.
X.
Therefore, Y. (Valid)If X then Y.
Y.
Therefore, X. (Invalid)I know the first syllogism is valid and the second is invalid through reasoning alone. No evidence required.In faith, you assume your premises are true; in empiricism you test your premises. Either way, logical reasoning is possible.

quote:

---

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?

---

Seems pretty dead on to me.Well, what's the fun in simply agreeing, so let's quibble:While "reality + logic = empiricism" seems fine to me, I wouldn't say that "scripture + logic = faith". It's the "=" sign; I do not think that logic is part of the definition of faith, although it's compatible with faith.For that matter "scripture" isn't part of the definition of faith, either.Still, as a 6-word, 4 symbol philosophical essay, is pretty good.

D'oh. Double post.Edited by Zhimbo, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Here's an example from faith

​

X. Y.

​

You don't need an "if then" statement

---

No, you don't *need* an "if then" statement. Nor is it forbidden.Also, logical reasoning does not require evidence. Nor is it forbidden.You didn't refute the examples I gave, you just gave different ones.If you accept on faith that an immaterial human soul enters the egg upon fertilization, AND you accept on faith that destroying any physical home of a human soul is murder, it is perfectly logical to conclude that abortion is murder. That is valid *reasoning*.Furthermore, none of those statements are empirical statements, so there's no way to empirically test the validity of this statement.