Logic?

[spazz]

Hey, I am not very well versed in philisophical thought and I was inquiring as to how we can use logic with any amount of certainty as a way of understanding the world. What exactly are it's foundations and justifications for it's use. If anyone could direct me to some books/articles I would be very grateful. Thanks in advance.

[Starboy]

Hi Spazz,

I'll give it a stab. Logic is a kind of mathematics, and just like mathematics there are applications where certain kinds of logic are known to work better than other kinds, such as fuzzy logic vs. horseshoe logic, or Boolean logic. As I see it, logic and mathematics are both artifacts of how our brains work. We, like many other creatures, remember and process stimuli by way of forming associations of neurons in our brains. Logic and mathematics are nothing more than a very elaborate set of rules for forming a chain of associations. Proofs are essentially such chains. Since these chains are the product of human minds which are in turn composed of chains of association and the human mind has evolved to favor associations that are beneficial, so human minds have discovered the rules of logical and mathematical chains of association that are beneficial.

So in short, the justification of logic is that it is beneficial. If it were not I do not think we would be having this discussion.

Starboy

[wiploc]

Originally posted by spazz
Hey, I am not very well versed in philisophical thought and I was inquiring as to how we can use logic with any amount of certainty as a way of understanding the world. What exactly are it's foundations and justifications for it's use. If anyone could direct me to some books/articles I would be very grateful. Thanks in advance.

The justification is the same as the justification for using our senses of sight and touch: it seems to work.
crc

[Drew J]

I have a funny story.

Typically, Christians have to try to castrate reason or at least make it take a back seat to faith. Anyway, I read one thing a Christian said about logic when confronted with some good atheistic arguments. He said that basically we can not prove that logic works out all the time, or even at all. He said to try to logically show that logic works is begging the question. And since that's the only way to show that logic works, we are left in a haze.

Of course he didn't seem to get that he was acting like a skeptic who tries to tell me that our senses can deceive us and yet he wants to grant that they don't just for the purpose of making an argument. I mean, he says we can't be sure of logic, and then he goes ahead and uses it while constructing an argument. :banghead:

[Witt]

Drew J:
I have a funny story.

Typically, Christians have to try to castrate reason or at least make it take a back seat to faith. Anyway, I read one thing a Christian said about logic when confronted with some good atheistic arguments. He said that basically we can not prove that logic works out all the time, or even at all. He said to try to logically show that logic works is begging the question. And since that's the only way to show that logic works, we are left in a haze.

Of course he didn't seem to get that he was acting like a skeptic who tries to tell me that our senses can deceive us and yet he wants to grant that they don't just for the purpose of making an argument. I mean, he says we can't be sure of logic, and then he goes ahead and uses it while constructing an argument.
---------------------------------

Hi Drew J,

I agree that religion is impotent. but I am not sure that we can say, religion is sterile, hahaha.

Religious off-springs abound.

Witt

[phil]

As it was said above, there are many types of logic. Each can only be used within it's own claims of uncertainty. Some forms of logic are actually rooted in uncertainty.

For any logic system to work with any certainty you must make a set of assumptions. From these assumptions can you base your system of logic and arrive at conclusions with 'certainty'.

-phil

[SlateGreySky]

He said that basically we can not prove that logic works out all the time, or even at all. He said to try to logically show that logic works is begging the question. And since that's the only way to show that logic works, we are left in a haze.

This is pretty much true, I think. The only possible justification for the use of logic would be logical in nature, and that really is begging the question (albeit perhaps not viciously).

Now, just because one concedes that point, one need not dispose of the use of logic (indeed, it may be wondered whether such disposal is possible at all). The point, I think (although maybe it wasn't the point of the author you read), is that logic is not set on any foundation beyond itself.

Comments?

[Haleysred]

Originally posted by Drew J
I have a funny story.

Typically, Christians have to try to castrate reason or at least make it take a back seat to faith. Anyway, I read one thing a Christian said about logic when confronted with some good atheistic arguments. He said that basically we can not prove that logic works out all the time, or even at all. He said to try to logically show that logic works is begging the question. And since that's the only way to show that logic works, we are left in a haze.

Of course he didn't seem to get that he was acting like a skeptic who tries to tell me that our senses can deceive us and yet he wants to grant that they don't just for the purpose of making an argument. I mean, he says we can't be sure of logic, and then he goes ahead and uses it while constructing an argument. :banghead:


I will agree that many Christians do not use logic as a means of "witnessing," but that is not to say that no Christians do it. I know very many Christians that use logic and the art of argument. Try looking into JP Moreland or Lee Strobel, both very brilliant men. If you know what their sound arguments are you can maybe gain better insight on their beliefs. If their beliefs are false you can point them out is a true logical discussion, as opposed to someone who does not understand logic.

I personally find it less frustrating to speak with a person of knowledge, than to argue with someone who doens't know what they are talking about. :)

[Keith Russell]

Haley, I've read both The Case for Christ and The Case for Faith, and although I am atheist, I was hoping for some serious challenges to my beliefs.

I was sorely disappointed.

Lee may be a talented journalist, but he is a poor debater.

K

[Haleysred]

If I may ask, what were you hoping to discover from Strobel? And how did he not hold to your standards?

[Philosoft]

Strobel rather uncritically accepts many of the existence arguments seen repeatedly on this very site. And he does so basically by holding up his interviewed scholars as paragons of infallible intelligence and wisdom, rather than by how the actual arguments survive the various challenges. Those arguments are simply not the airtight proofs he alleges they are. Any lurker on this site can discover that.

[Haleysred]

Originally posted by Philosoft
Strobel rather uncritically accepts many of the existence arguments seen repeatedly on this very site. And he does so basically by holding up his interviewed scholars as paragons of infallible intelligence and wisdom, rather than by how the actual arguments survive the various challenges. Those arguments are simply not the airtight proofs he alleges they are. Any lurker on this site can discover that.

Good call, I will agree with you that it does seem like Strobel matter of factly accepts what his interviewees have to say about the facts. Did you find that what they had to say to him had any validity at all, or do you find their statements false as well?

May I also ask then: If you were in Stroble's position, and you ahd decided that you were going to disprove the Bible on a historic level, what steps would you take to do so?

(I understand that tone is lost in writing, so I just want to clarify that I am in no way being sarcastic or anything of the sort. I am therefor being genuine in my questioning)

[Clutch]

Originally posted by Haleysred
May I also ask then: If you were in Stroble's position, and you ahd decided that you were going to disprove the Bible on a historic level, what steps would you take to do so? At the risk of derailing the thread: What evidence is there that Strobel was ever in this "position"? It has long been the fundy apologist's way of clearing his throat, to announce that he was once the most committed atheist ever, knew all the best arguments, but then saw the light. Why take Strobel as giving anything other than boilerplate with his little story?

(Just as every creationist used to be a committed "evolutionist", for that matter. Never mind that their conversion mysteriously seems to drive every bit of information about evolutionary theory out of their heads...)