Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Atheism/Materialism and the Laws of Logic

SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2013 3:18:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If atheism (or, more particularly, materialism) is true, then how can one account for the laws of logic? Conventions? Platonic truths/ideas? Other?
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2013 3:22:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There are no laws of logic. Point to me where they exist. Can you hold one?

It's a psychological mechanism for functioning in the world.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2013 4:00:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/13/2013 3:22:13 PM, FREEDO wrote:
There are no laws of logic. Point to me where they exist. Can you hold one?

It's a psychological mechanism for functioning in the world.

Do you think this psychological mechanism, as you put it, reflects a feature of the external world?
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2013 4:04:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/13/2013 4:00:50 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 1/13/2013 3:22:13 PM, FREEDO wrote:
There are no laws of logic. Point to me where they exist. Can you hold one?

It's a psychological mechanism for functioning in the world.

Do you think this psychological mechanism, as you put it, reflects a feature of the external world?

Are you sure you have any idea what you mean by the question?

Objectivity is a language problem.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2013 4:14:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
We can't "account for them". No one knows why they exist. That's beyond our realm of understanding.

But why is it only a problem for atheists? Does God come before logic or does logic come before God? If logic comes before God, then God cannot account for logic and you have the same problem as us. If God comes before logic, then you have the problem of accounting for God. Logical necessity is the only easy answer for theists but that option is cancelled out the moment you say God comes before logic. Furthermore, everything we say about God is a logical statement, but if God is before logic, how can any logical statements apply to him?

I would also add that presupposing that God is before logic leads to absurdities. If logic is dependent on God, then laws of logic are not necessary. No laws of logic would be necessary laws of logic because the nature of logic would be dependent on God. That would mean square circles could be made to exist and every other logical absurdity and paradox. The atheist can however suppose that laws of logic are necessary and their falsehood can never hold true to reality. That position in itself is much more conceivable than the alternative. To paraphrase David Hume, when one side of a proposition is miraculous in nature while the other is conceivable, it seems the conceivable side is the one which is more likely true.

Either side you take, you always end up having to just shrug your shoulders and say "I dunno".
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2013 4:30:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
They just describe the way reality behaves, when it exists. Maybe there are other ways reality could behave that are inconsistent with the way our brains assume it can, but luckily we don't seem to have come across any such things or our minds might melt or something lol.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2013 4:37:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/13/2013 3:22:13 PM, FREEDO wrote:
There are no laws of logic. Point to me where they exist. Can you hold one?

Hmm. I could say the same thing about numbers, but if numbers don't exist then it's false to say that 2 + 2 = 4.

And if there are no laws of logic, it's false to claim that something can never be red all over and blue all over at the same time.

Weird road you're going down there, bro. Make sure to bring the pot.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2013 4:41:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/13/2013 4:14:36 PM, phantom wrote:
We can't "account for them". No one knows why they exist. That's beyond our realm of understanding.

But why is it only a problem for atheists? Does God come before logic or does logic come before God? If logic comes before God, then God cannot account for logic and you have the same problem as us. If God comes before logic, then you have the problem of accounting for God. Logical necessity is the only easy answer for theists but that option is cancelled out the moment you say God comes before logic.

Hmmm, I'd also add one more thing here. If you're a theist, you either hold that God has a reason for existing or he does not. If he does not have a reason for existing, than I'd say why must logic have one? If he does have a reason for existing, then I would have to ask how that can be if he is above logic. The concept of "reason" is a logical concept which we are already at the position for which it cannot be before God. If there is a reason for God existing, certain laws must be requisite for this reason. You'd have to explain, if you were able, why this reason exists. This supposes either laws of logic, which have already been discounted, or a higher plain than logic, which is above both logic and God. But then you would have to explain why this higher plain exists without invoking God, which I think is just as, if not more of a problem, than accounting for logic without God.

Furthermore, everything we say about God is a logical statement, but if God is before logic, how can any logical statements apply to him?

I would also add that presupposing that God is before logic leads to absurdities. If logic is dependent on God, then laws of logic are not necessary. No laws of logic would be necessary laws of logic because the nature of logic would be dependent on God. That would mean square circles could be made to exist and every other logical absurdity and paradox. The atheist can however suppose that laws of logic are necessary and their falsehood can never hold true to reality. That position in itself is much more conceivable than the alternative. To paraphrase David Hume, when one side of a proposition is miraculous in nature while the other is conceivable, it seems the conceivable side is the one which is more likely true.

Either side you take, you always end up having to just shrug your shoulders and say "I dunno".
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2013 6:10:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/13/2013 3:18:40 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
If atheism (or, more particularly, materialism) is true, then how can one account for the laws of logic? Conventions? Platonic truths/ideas? Other?

People. Show me a law of logic not articulated by a human being.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2013 6:21:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Saying laws of logic must be accounted for by some deity is like saying the word "apple" must be accounted for, and the proof is that there would still be apples in this world without the word "apple."

A language whose numbers are limited to "one, two, many" can describe the exact same phenomena as what we would call "one, two, three." In system A, "one and two is many" while in system B "one and two is three."
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2013 6:42:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/13/2013 4:37:20 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 1/13/2013 3:22:13 PM, FREEDO wrote:
There are no laws of logic. Point to me where they exist. Can you hold one?

Hmm. I could say the same thing about numbers, but if numbers don't exist then it's false to say that 2 + 2 = 4.

And if there are no laws of logic, it's false to claim that something can never be red all over and blue all over at the same time.

Weird road you're going down there, bro. Make sure to bring the pot.

Falsity and truth are language problems. The real world does not have features in the way we understand them.

Humans seem to be stuck in a perpetual grand arrogance that the universe is confined according to their own terms. We make ourselves God. It is in this sense that I often say everything human is a Satanist and a Fascist. Which is not to say that I have anything personal against it.

With this understanding, I often make seemingly contradictory statements that are, both at once, true. Because I use different context.

Casually, it is true that 2+2=4. Because it is an arbitrarily useful concept.

Literally, it is nether true nor false.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
autodidact
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2013 8:37:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/13/2013 3:18:40 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
If atheism (or, more particularly, materialism) is true, then how can one account for the laws of logic? Conventions? Platonic truths/ideas? Other?

Actually this problem is very simple.
The solution, emergent properties.
If one takes a look at every individual part of a cell is any one part alive all by itself? No, but put them all together and you have life. Life is an emergent property. Consciousnesses and emergent property.
Access to abstract ideas is an emergent property as well.
Such simple ideas like numbers are more accessible, next comes math with the laws of logic on its heels. Why is it so near to math because 2+2=4 and 2+2=\=4 can not both be true at the same time, the law of non-contradiction.
As we grow in knowledge we can access more abstract ideas.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2013 8:52:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/13/2013 6:10:18 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/13/2013 3:18:40 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
If atheism (or, more particularly, materialism) is true, then how can one account for the laws of logic? Conventions? Platonic truths/ideas? Other?

People. Show me a law of logic not articulated by a human being.

I'm not sure what you mean by "people". You seem to commit yourself to the supposition that the laws of logic are merely created, not discovered (ie conventions) or to some other such absurdity (ie the truth of such statement "2+2=4" is dependent upon conscious creatures/humans, etc.).
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2013 9:14:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/13/2013 3:18:40 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
If atheism (or, more particularly, materialism) is true, then how can one account for the laws of logic? Conventions? Platonic truths/ideas? Other?

I'd say the non-theists' best bet would be Platonic truths/ideas.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 5:05:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Fool: I am not a materialist, nor am I an Atheist in this sense "Those who says that they believe in no Gods."

That is not even a coherent Statement. WTF is No Gods? I don't have an Idea what non-something is. Because then it would be something. And so such statement arealways false. Because they don't state anything. There is Literally No Sense in what they could be true. Let alone Make sense.

But I am absolutely something whether merely conscious Being, I doubt somethings, And I believe in others, desire a few things and dislike some. I understand somethings(absolutely), and surely ignorant of many. But The Logos is already there, For Not even God, could fail to be himself. It is not something to be dictated or created, or Given, or legislated. Because those conceptions must be those conceptions, to be those conceptions, get the conception?

Nor could even the possibility of the possibility be possible if it was not possible to be possible in the First place. And so on and so forth and through out all things.

"This Logos holds always, but humans always prove unable to understand it both before hearing it and when they have first heard it. For although all things come to be [or, "happen"] in accordance with this Logos, humans are like the inexperienced when they experience such words and deeds as I set out, distinguishing each in accordance with its nature and saying how it is. But other people fail to notice what they do when awake, just as they forget what they do while asleep."
Heraclitus of Ephesus 540 BCE
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 7:43:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/13/2013 8:52:22 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 1/13/2013 6:10:18 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/13/2013 3:18:40 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
If atheism (or, more particularly, materialism) is true, then how can one account for the laws of logic? Conventions? Platonic truths/ideas? Other?

People. Show me a law of logic not articulated by a human being.

I'm not sure what you mean by "people".

https://www.youtube.com...

You seem to commit yourself to the supposition that the laws of logic are merely created, not discovered (ie conventions) or to some other such absurdity (ie the truth of such statement "2+2=4" is dependent upon conscious creatures/humans, etc.).

We did create them. And, when it suits us, we uncreate them.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 8:35:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/13/2013 9:14:53 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/13/2013 3:18:40 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
If atheism (or, more particularly, materialism) is true, then how can one account for the laws of logic? Conventions? Platonic truths/ideas? Other?

I'd say the non-theists' best bet would be Platonic truths/ideas.

But they're so weird. :/
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 9:29:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Probably my favourite debate on DDO was on this topic

http://debate.org...

SD, I'd be happy to debate it, if you're going so far as to claim that Laws of Logic provide any sort of case for theism.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 11:52:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/14/2013 8:35:55 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 1/13/2013 9:14:53 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/13/2013 3:18:40 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
If atheism (or, more particularly, materialism) is true, then how can one account for the laws of logic? Conventions? Platonic truths/ideas? Other?

I'd say the non-theists' best bet would be Platonic truths/ideas.

But they're so weird. :/

Reality is wierd. :D
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
StreetLogician
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 5:03:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/13/2013 3:18:40 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
If atheism (or, more particularly, materialism) is true, then how can one account for the laws of logic? Conventions? Platonic truths/ideas? Other?

Please stop confusing atheism with materialism. They are not the same thing and atheist's do not need to be materialists.