Religion and Logic: a consistent universe?

Great Debates
1

  1. I generally try to stay out of religious debates, but this perked my interest.

  2. No, this isn’t about making religion fit logic.
    Zev Steinhardt and I exchanged some words about the nature of god (or g*d if you prefer, I will stick to using “god” as a non-specific entity), and his/its being non-corpeal. Others in the thread were taking a logical reasoning approach to the problem.

This is the point that I feel leaves the widest gap between atheist and theist understanding; the former assume that current logic is infallible (until proven otherwise), and the latter usually ignore or misunderstand logic. The theory I am putting up in this thread is a simple one; true logic is beyond our comprehension (as of now, and in my opinion, ever). Logic is based on sets of fundamental principals or truths that keep everything working. They look at the universe as a mind bogglingly complex equation that can be balanced. They thus refuse to accept, or at the very least resist vehemently, any conditions where logic fails.

Theists and atheists alike view existence as a system with rules. Theists base it on religious feelings, atheists on the currently known logic. It is easier to dismiss theists, as obviously a logical system doesn’t have room for a god - but my point is, we don’t know logic well enough to make that kind of statement. It should not be, “there is no god” - it should be, “there is no evidence for god, though something similar may exist.”

I mean, how much do we really know about the world around us? We make rather primative logical observations and plug things in until they work out. But using the same logic, it is impossible to say that we know everything - including the existence and nature of god.

Put another way: The universe is very probably not consistent with current logic, and thus, logic becomes a less than useful tool for debunking religion, and atheists should stick to requiring evidence that something happens as the result of a supernatural (in the sense that what we know now is natural) force before accepting that a supernatural force exists - but must acknowledge (maybe as a little disclaimer in small print in the back of the magazine) that we don’t know nearly as much as we think we know.

All I’m suggesting is that applying an incomplete logical system to existence is foolish. I’m quite certain that there are things in existence that so utterly crush our logic that we can not comprehend their existence - maybe not god, but certainly different rules for the system.

And the thing that triggered this spewing of incoherent thought - why are so many people (theist and atheist alike) so strongly attatched to a logical/physical god? Can it not be the case that god is not a part of the logical system as we understand it, but exists beyond it? So hard to accept a, as Zev puts it, non-Corpeal entity? Why are atheists and theists alike so fixed on thinking of a god that is omnipotent/omniscient? Why does god need to apply to logic, much less our current and very incomplete logic? Does god even need to have a will, or be conscious? Why do we assume we know so much about anything - logic or god?

2

In the light of the rest of your post, I think this passage pretty much sums it up. You keep alluding to something that defies our logic, but you don’t say what it is. If something shatters our system of logic then we will go back to the drawing board until the pieces fit. I personally believe this is better than waving your hand and saying in a somber voice “God did it” or “God has a plan that we don’t know about.”

3

Well, I very purposefully didn’t say anything like that. In fact, I specifically discussed how atheists view god as a person who does something, instead of a non-Corpeal and possibly non-conscious force. I never claimed to know about it, because it is unknown. I have no qualms if you want to discuss conventional American “white man with a beard” Christian god, or Allah, or whatever. My problem is when you confine your scope to these limited concepts, instead of being open minded about what you don’t know.

I also never stated that god had any causation factor with events. I left my religion entirely out of it as much as I possibly could.

4

Well, as far as I’m concerned, if God is non-corpeal, illogical, doesn’t affect our universe, etc. then he may as well not exist at all.

This is pretty much my personal view. There appears to be no evidence, thus I’m not really interested. It seems like you’re waiting for something that “defies our logic.” Can you show me something that does? I would be very interested.

Bolding is mine. What makes you think this? Even if it is true, are you saying we could never build a model that would make sense? I agree with requiring some sort of evidence if someone wants to claim there is a divine being behind the curtain of the universe.

5

In any logical system there will be true statements which one cannot prove as such. Does that make everything foolish?

As I argued here, logic is just a kind of language. The universe is so, it is how it is: it does not “obey” any paticular form of logic any more than it “obeys” any other language or linguistical construct. My saying “the cat sat on the mat” does not mean that the real cat really did sit there.

I am a physicalist. The decision output by the wondrous biological computer in my skull is that only physical things (or things which supervene on the physical) exist. God is not physical, therefore God dopes not exist. Logic is a language, an epistemology, and these things ultimately do supervene on the physical rather like a computer program supervenes on the arrangements of logic gates in the chips. But logic, like a computer game, does not necessarily have anything to do with the universe, as a clever man said 90 years ago: “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” - Albert Einstein

Ockham’s Razor tells us that we ought not propose a plurality of entities to explain something when only one would do. Feel free to believe in this non-physical God thing if you wish (and even to consider Him necessary if it makes you happy), but I consider that it constitutes a gross violation of Ockham’s principle.

6

I’ve often been surprised how many people on the board think that logic is some sort of tool to find out what actually exists in the universe. Logic is useful as a sort of mental housecleaning device to keep absurdities out of our thoughts. I understand it is also useful in creating rules for the artificial worlds of mathematics and computer programs. But it cannot tell us what actually exists in the real world. The only way to find out what really exists is to go into the real world and find out. This is what science does.

An example:

Say you’re lying in bed late at night, unable to sleep. You hear a scratching in the kitchen. You formulate some hypotheses to explain this phenomenon.

1.) The wind is moving a branch across your window or wall.
2.) There’s a small animal (Mouse? Squirrell?) in the kitchen or kitchen wall.
3.) There’s a burglar in the house.
4.) The demon Yok-Thognarrh has forged a portal to this dimension and has come for your soul.

Well 4 can be eliminated pretty quickly. There are no such things as demons. 3 is more plausible, but humans make a heavy tread. This is more of a scratching sound. So you ascribe 4 and 3 to night terror, and concentrate on 1 and 2. You look out the bedroom window and note that there isn’t much wind. You also note that the scratching seems to vary wildly in location, too much for wind. So you eliminate 1 and you are left with 2. There is a small animal in your kitchen. Possibly a Squirrell.

Congratulations, you’re a scientist. You’ve happened on a startling observation, thought of several explanations, and figured out the best one. This type of reasoning was characterized by Peirce as “Abductive” reasoning, or “Inference to the best explanation.” Peirce proposed this as an alternative to Deductive and Inductive reasoning, niether of which seemed to describe what scientists actually do. You will note the utter absence of formal logic from your decision making process. You simply applied what you already knew about the world (“demons don’t exist,” “humans have a distinctive tread,” “The wind can only move things so far”) to explain a novel observation and incorporate in into your world view.

Of course in this homely example you have an advantage that scientists do not. You can get your butt out of bed and see what’s actually going on. However Science often deals with things that are far removed from ordinary human experience: Removed by time, scale,or space. Scientists can’t shrink themselves down and note that all the positive charge of an atom is located in the nucleus, nor can they take a way-back machine and watch an asteroid wipe out the Dinos.

To take a less homely example, NOVA recently ran a doc on massive Gamma ray bursts. Like the scratching in your kitchen, the bursts were an unexpected phenomenon. A number of theories were put out, some pretty implausible (E.T.'s).
Two plausible theories involved neutron stars and some sort of extra-galactic source. Neutron stars were the most plausible explanation, but further observations revealed that the bursts were indeed extra-galactic. Eventually models showed that they were probably coming from gigantic supernovas, “Hypernovas” according to the film. This is the generally agreed on model.

Again you will note here the utter absence of anything resembling formal logic. To repeat my point, Logic is utterly impotent to discover anything factual about the Universe. Scientists don’t use it except as a mental house-cleaning device.

Jake The Plumber I note that I’ve drifted pretty far from your OP. Sorry about that :o . I was going to tie this all back in but I’ve gotta go. However, I would point out that if we’re going to talk about God objectively (That is as a matter of public evidence) we need to focus on observation, not Logic. Perhaps I will gloss this later.

7

I’m an atheist, and I, like most atheists, lack belief in any god, but do not state that I know that no god exists. So I suppose I fall into the reasonable camp.

I’m not sure that a defined god must violate the laws of logic, though it would probably violate the known “laws” of science. I’m also very suspicious of “logical” proofs about the natural world. The historical record shows that these have been error prone due to false assumptions and postulates. The scientific method, though often wrong, seems to move more steadily towards a good and falsifiable understanding of the universe.

I think what we can say is that it is possible to construct a consistent model of the universe without any gods. So gods are not necessary. It is possible that future discoveries might make a god required, but I’m not holding my breath.

8

This is my response to the conditions in the OP as well. If you hypothesize a deity that is beyond both our comprehension and our physical world, then you’ve basically hypothesized an irrelevance. Interesting exercise, but at the end of the day it has no connection, by definition, to our lives and existence.

9

Just as heads up, since the word is being used a lot I think it’s “corporeal” not “corpeal”.
Random House

10

I like the Einstein quote concerns the limits of logic above — as far as the other I’d like to add this —

Best I can tell – the principle behind Occum’s Razor is nothing more than the human desire for an elegant, less complex solution. Like Einstein’s quote about logic - there’s nothing about that Occum’s principle that says it matches reality. Sure, the Universe might be “elegant” and describable, in the end, using a unified theory or some such. But it just as well could be complex and supernatural — as I see this. That being the case - I’ve been agnostic to the degree I really don’t see the point in discussing the issue much (as a subject in itself) –

11

Ockham himself would probably disapprove of that. I’m pretty sure he was a theist. I’ve seen people try to argue for the nonexistence of God using Ockham’s Razor, and I have yet to see something that makes sense.

I’m not certain God exists. I’m not sure if I “believe” in God (what does that mean, anyway? Is it the same as asking whether or not I think there is a God?), since I certainly don’t have enough evidence to convince most atheists they’re wrong. But I know it’s possible that God exists, and my opinion is that it’s more likely God does than not.

If you want to argue for the nonexistence of God, there are probably much better arguments than Ockham’s Razor.

12

Agreed, Tiger - Ockham’s Razor is merely a guiding principle, not an inviolate law.

But, Othersider, it is most certainly the best argument I have ever seen for the non-existence of God. If everything in the universe, including its very existence, human thought and emotion and even personal experiences of God (like I, a diamond-hard atheist, have had myself) can be explained by cosmology, neuropsychology and any other scientific discipline, God would then be unnecessary. William of Ockham was indeed a theist, but only because 13th Century Surrey did not have access to these scientific explanations, and so God was a necessary entity then. I argue that it is not any more.