I said it depends on the ambiguity of the assumptions/conclusions because it seems possible to logically derive something that is opinion. I added that perhaps you wouldn’t consider something like that logic, perhaps im using the word too colloquially?

Either way, it quite clearly depends on the premises. If my premise is complete bollocks then the conclusion, although logically derived, is complete bollocks. I don’t understand how logic can itself be inherently true or false.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

I was very intentional about not using "true" about logic. A better word might be "valid."

Why is logic a valid tool? Logic is not empirical. Whatever this system of reasoning happens to be, you seem to be wanting to put enough stock in it that (assuming you can actually have a true premise) you think that the conclusion is going to be true. But you have offered no justification whatsoever that logic is trustworthy.

I admit my original statement regarding science was ill conceived. I was using the term science in too broad a sense. Logic and reason - requirements of science, can also be employed independent of science. That is my error.

As to what convinces me logic is valid... Its a method of going from premise to conclusion that seems to work.

this was more of a pilot study and something which we can conclude more research should be done rather than the results from it accurately represent reality iirc

I believe that those three words say a lot more than you think they do. It undermines the belief that science is (or empirical methods are) the only way we can get "truth." It either shows that science isn't actually a pursuit of "truth" (which some people hold), or that "truth" encompasses more than just science (because "seems to work" is a standard that applies more broadly).

Either way, I hope you can see that the "cycle" can be broken.

You can take ‘seems to work’ and prove that it does work though...

I could design experiments, apply logic to make predictions, and see if those predictions hold up:

I have 500 pens in a bag
all the pens in the bag are blue
conclusion: if i pick out a pen it will be blue with 100% certainty

By applying logic I can predict that if I were to pull a pen out of the bag it would definitely be blue. By doing this experiment and however many others I would begin to accrue evidence that logic is a valid tool to produce correct conclusions. Is it possible to prove this with mathematics?

There must be someone in the field of philosophy or maths thats come up with a better reason why logic is valid than 'it seems to work'?

Were you atheist while growing up? If so how did you handle a situation like this? I can't imagine being socially pressured to be Christian.

I mean when I told my mum I didn't believe in God, she freaked out for a day before being sensible about it. But socially it didn't matter. There was a sizable number of Christians at my school, but I'm sure a large atheist contingent also existed.

I'd like to point out that I was brought up to believe the Bible to be fact and it was definitely detrimental to me.

One of my housemates is a hardcore Christian and his faith seems pretty detrimental to him too. It's like he's constantly dragged down by the weight of Christianity, trying to conform and obey the rules so he goes to the right afterlife. I'd easily wager that he'd be better off and happier it.

Religion can have a pretty bad effect when you introduce kids to it. They trust everything that adults tell them as being pure fact. So rizeagainst has a good point.

This. For 12 years of schooling in atheism (public eduction in the NE US), I'd say the pressure was to be atheist. Anyone who believed in God was ridiculed, mocked, even ostracized. Not accepting Liberalism was just as bad if not worse. I witnessed people being indoctrinated in the name of science. I graduated high school believing 99% of the world was atheist and science probably proved atheism--it took years in the real world to discover how blind I was.

Atheists have a faith view that religion pressures people and indoctrinates them. The truth is, people know about the metaphysical because they are metaphysical beings, and no amount of atheist pressure can completely cover it up. "Science" as we call it now, should be limited to what it is--natural philosophy. It should not claim to speak of the metaphysical, yet what has happened is people have assumed that since science doesn't discover the metaphysical (which by definition it can't), the metaphysical does not exist. This assumption-this faith view-has been particularly detrimental in the public school systems in the NE USA; I'm not sure about the rest of the country.

People will always yearn for the eternal, not because someone tells them to, but because they know it within themselves. Atheists can try to explain it away, but the truth is:

It is the atheist who has done his best to try to cover God up in his own mind, and he fails miserably, but is very angry when others do not lie to themselves in the same way.

It's funny how in catching up with people I went to high school with--all my honors and AP classmates who have great careers, excellent college educations--by far most of them now believe in a higher power, a god-not many are still atheist. I guess all that atheist pressure and indoctrinating didn't work for most of them! From what I can tell, having families of their own (seeing the wonder of children, experiencing love more deeply), living outside the box of the pressure we had in high school to be atheistic, liberal, faithless, and thinking on their own has led them back to an understanding that atheism fails, and God must exist.

M

Oh please I don't believe this for one second. I went to two elementary schools, on junior high and three different high schools - two in Washington State and one in Oakland, CA.

I never once heard god talked about in any class, or during lunch, or after school in the gym, etc. etc.

Now I'm not saying that there hasn't been atheists that have mocked believers in schools, but you are exaggerating big time.

Save your breath telling me how you're not exaggerating, because you will not change my mind.

lawl yeah everyone was trained for 12 years to be an atheist, and now pretty much all of them believe in god/higher power. Your post reeks of someone with an agenda.

Translation: I discount your personal experience because of my personal experience. Don't bother telling me about your personal experience because my personal experience is clearly right and you're obviously wrong.

He wasn't just giving his personal experience, he was saying this is the way things are in the north east. Which as someone form the NE who didn't experience pressure to not believe in God or the metaphysical and didn't see this pressure in his school, in my personal experience he is wrong in his generalizations.

He also told all atheists what our personal experience of our non belief is like by saying we long for his God in our harts and are mad at people who don't lie to themselves and accept his God. But whatever...

The part you've bolded to isn't the part that Butcho quoted as was responding to.

Edit: And I agree that the broad commentary you cited isn't a consequence of the experiences presented in the first paragraph.

Well all i know is he's wrong in his generalization of my personal experience in NE schools. He's also wrong in telling me what my personal experience with his God is like. Look i just found it funny you would get on Butcho22 for something Megenoita did to a far greater degree. Its all good though.

From what I saw, he was just saying what happened to him at his school (and gave NE US as just a general location). I don't think he said that his experience was the only experience or that this was true of all schools in the NE, and then added a commentary about his view of public education.

Butcho called Megenoita a liar.

They are completely different types of comments.

Cool.

If you dont see that post as a rant against NE school systems there's not much to say. Also Megenoita called all atheists liars.

Are you focusing on the second paragraph or the first one? Butcho was responding to the first paragraph.

If it's about the second paragraph, I don't know what in particular makes you think that he's calling "all atheists liars" and how this is akin to calling Megenoita a liar. One is a direct personal attack, and the other is like when an atheist makes statements like "you only believe in God because you were brought up to believe in God."

Had a post made up... but your right im wrong.

Sort of. I wouldn't do that with just anyone. From what I've gathered about this poster from his previous posts, along with my personal experience, I'm fine with discounting his personal experience.

Although, the way it was written I probably would discount it with no history now that I think about it.

"zomg all the kids were trained to be athiests, but most all of them came out as theists. and some were doctors!"

Give me a break.

I quoted the first paragraph, but ended up commenting on both.

lol....