From: open1-AT-execpc.com Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 15:17:00 -0700 Subject: Re: PLC:Prejudice, Logic and God Saicho-AT-aol.com wrote: > > Dennis says: "Being a theist is a consequence of being an Aristotelian. As > with my other positions, it is rationally defensible. The prejudice that it > evokes, however, is not.” > > I will pass up the temptation to argue that if prejudice (as is the case > here) is simply disagreement, it is as rationally defensible as any position > that originates in the human mind. Regarding Dennis' proof of God's > existence as presented in the GODPROOF.TXT I have only this to say: The prejudice that I was refering to was not disagreement, which is expected in philosophical dialog, but the presumption that my being a philosophical theist invalidates my analyses in areas that are logically independant of one's theology. To wit: " I find his remark that theism 'is the only position that is consistent with the background assumptions of science' quite telling. Had he told us this at the beginning it might have saved a great many words." It would only have saved a great many words if it had been a logical presupposition rather than consequence of my fundamental position. > When I see proof of the existence of a deity I run as fast as I can, since I > deny with my whole being that an organism can invent a system of language > then use that system to prove that anything represented by the contents of > that language exists outside the system. That's just my "prejudice." Well, that puts our a priori cards on the table doesn't it? To paraphase Yoda: Not unexpected is this. The fact is that these linguistic issues have been consifered and resolved long ago. As a counter-example to the claim that we are unable to "invent a system of language then use that system to prove that anything represented by the contents of that language exists outside the system," I need only point to the logic that establishes the existence of irrational numbers. Just as we can show the need for a non-rational number to make our mathematics consistent, so we can establish the need for a non-finite being to make our ontology consistent. > I > would have far greater respect for Dennis' theistic position had he claimed > he was a Kierkegaardian, and simply had faith -- as in the faith of Abraham. > Perhaps I am saying that I would respect a view, vis-a-vis God, that said: I > believe in God BECAUSE His existence cannot be proved; because faith requires > no proof; because I sincerely feel (beyond rationality and logic) God's > presence. While I respect Kierkegaard's integrity, it would be a violation of my integrity, knowing what I know, to be a fideist. > As for the Excluded Middle, I return (boy, that seems like years ago!) to > what is happening in quantum physics and suggest that it seems to have been > experimentally demonstrated that in certain situations one cannot say: > Something cannot be and not-be at the same time. There indeed may be a state > of being that is a kind of suspended contingency. As a physicist I am well aware of what is happening in QM, and there is nothing that militates against the Law of Excluded Middle. If there were, our ability to carry out the deductive phase of the hypothetico-deductive method would be compremised beyond repair. > In any case I hold that > language has trapped Dennis in an inextricable position. Once one has become > completely taken over by the belief that (logical) proof represents an > infallible mechanism for establishing anything beyond the manipulation of > symbols (that, in fact, produce tautologies), one is caught in a web of words > from which there is likely no escape. > > Regards to all, > Saicho As I scientist and a philosopher, I am committed to the position that what is validly deduced from true premises is true. My claim was that the existence of God "is the only position that is consistent with the background assumptions of science." Certainly, attacking the value and validity of logical tools used in science does not militate against that claim. Most logical results are not tautological in the sense that the predicate can be seen to be contained in the subject without the addition of further premises. Logical results are the actualization of knowledge latent in the *collection* of premises -- an admission that Saicho could have seen in the introduction of my proof, had he been more open. Thus, that God exists is not new knowldege in the sense of not being latent in the background of science, but is new in the sense that this latency is not usually the subject of awareness. The proof, as any piece of logic, only brings what is latent into the field of awareness. Dennis Polis
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005