Dom: "Science studies the 'objective' reality as it measures things with non-conscious devices. A thermometer always reads the right temperature, as it cannot bring a subjective aspect to it." Science studies the 'subjective' reality because it is an application of reason to sense-data. All we can experience is necessarily subjective (as it is our experience) and the only thing the scientific method can be applied to is our experience.

Niall, I agree with pretty much everything you said. It is quite possible that logic is not a valid tool for discovering the truth, if such a thing exists. However, we have to use logic to have anything to discuss.

Yes logic is very useful. Without it, communication becomes near impossible. My own belief is that logic is a valid tool, of course that assumption has its basis in faith.

NialMy you are entertaining! I read your below words and couldn't stop smiling. And I don't mean this in a mocking way. Your point is well taken.Quote:In fact, everybody on this forum and probably everybody on this planet, makes the assumption that logic is a valid tool for the discovering truth. However, logic requires the assumptions that certain truths are self evident. You can prove the validity of logic, using logic, but only after you first assume that logic is valid.Those assumptions are called axioms and are the basis for "thinking." Without making certain assumptions about reality we would each be quivering masses of babbling nonsense.Why do we assume logic is a valid tool? ...that science is a valid tool? Because logic and science deleiver the goods. Faith produces nothing externally. Faith makes the faithful feel warm and fuzzy, while logic produces results that can be repeated, tested and verified by objective thrid parties.I think I'm going to enjoy you around here.Chris "When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward,for there you have been, and there you will always want to be."

Thanks, I know what you mean. It was to a large extent my point. A belief in a God is the basis for most religions, without which they don't make much sense. In the same way, an assumption in that validity of logic is essential if you're going to make any sense out of logic.On a side note, science and logic deliver the goods in a closed system. They are internally consistent. However, the idea that because they produce results, they are valid, just isn't on. We, as a species, have a limited experience and those things which we witness are only a tiny fraction of those things that have occured and those things which will occur. Ever read William Carpenter's "One Hundred Proofs that the Earth Is Not a Globe? If you had a limited experience, then that book just might seem plausable. Truth is, its rubish.Anyway, you can't judge one system using the values of another anymore than you can judge one culture using the values of another. Relgion has its basis in intuition not logic, so it is immune from logic based attacks. Either way, you can't win.

Niall, you made the point I was leading up to for me: "You can't judge one system using the values of another anymore than you can judge one culture using the values of another. Relgion has its basis in intuition not logic, so it is immune from logic based attacks." The reason I have been arguing the points I have been is because people in this forum attacked religion - not a specific religion or religious organisation, but religion itself. Let me sum up my views, based on the ideas that have come up in this discussion. Science and logic, although they can never be said to neccessarily be accurate representations of reality, have been useful in investigating what we perceive as the physical world. Therefore, we may consider them as useful for this purpose and continue to use them as such. However, this does not give them a basis to attack religious belief, unless that belief makes statements about the physical world contrary to science. Even in this case, it is merely a choice of one assumption over another, although science has proved more accurate than religion with relation to the physical world in the past.

I suppose your point of view regarding whther you'd rather assume that reality is structured in a rational fashion or assume that God (or Goddess/gods/godesses, etc.) exists is influenced by what type of world you'd prefer to live in. For me, the notion that I might only exist because of and at the whim and mercy of some supernatural intelligence is a depressing one. Similarly (and I think these things may be connected) the idea that reality need not follow any rules whatsoever also makes me feel that life is pointless. After all, why should I think about things or deeply consider anything when I know that there is no point?Now I disagree with this: "Relgion has its basis in intuition not logic, so it is immune from logic based attacks."Religion in primitive cultures has a basis in logic. Logic, in it's most general sense, is merely the process by which we work out what might happen based on past experience. Religion is the useful "fill-in-the-blank" answer to the questions that arise from these observations. In effect "the god of the gaps" type rationale was the first cause of religion.Eventually, the potential of this tool to control the masses was discovered. Likely for good reasons at first. "The gods decree that you shouldn't eat those berries" is an easier sell than "Bob and Billy died after eating them and another 6 people got really sick". Not to mention that, once again, a mechanism beyond their understanding was responsible for the effect - therefore the gods were responsiblle.Once religion was co-opted for what we would term political power, it's basis in logic was eroded. At least it's basis in logic as pertains to the natural world. Most aspects of modern western religion can be deduced logically based on it's use as a tool of political power and secondarily for it's comfort factor.What really is intuition anyway? Believe it or not, I've given many people the advice to "trust their heart" or "go with their instincts". At first glance it's sounds opposed to my arguments above. However, I would say that what we think of as intuition (or whatever other name we want to call it) is no more supernatural or irrational than a logical proof.We all experience much more than we are aware of. We make decisions all the time based on all of this information without conciously considering anything. My wife told me that when she had geometry in high school she would always get terrible grades on proofs. She had the answer correct, but she could not enumerate the logical steps between. Of course, Geometry is often used to teach logic here in the U.S., so often the point is really the steps and not the answer, but my point is - she arrived at the correct answers without conciously considering the intervening steps. Would anyone consider that supernatural or even irrational and illogical?I find that most of the time I do the same thing. I arrive at solutions without conciously considering all of the steps between points A and B. Often I will force myself to go step by step and then discover that I may have overlooked something or that there was a better solution that I hadn't considered, but my intuition (for lack of a better word) rarely fails me.Now the other side of this "intuition" thing has to do with what makes us feel good. I have owned far too many cars than I should have at my age. Part of the reason for this is that when logically considering the factors that go into deciding what vehicle to purchase, one very important factor often gets left out - whether I really enjoyed driving the car. I don't mean whether I liked it or not - I mean whether it could put a smile on my face as I drove down a twisty road with the stereo on and the windows wide open. I know plenty of people who don't care about that so much. To them a car is a conveyance - it gets them from point A to point B so utility and fuel economy might be paramount to them. But that's not me. I must consider the nebulous thing that might only be called the "fun-to-drive" factor.So if religion is based on intuition, that would mean that it was based on logical factors that are not conciously considered and whether or not belief in it gives some comfort to the believer. This of course, does not immunize it from logical attacks. Claiming that is akin to placing one's fingers in one's ears and chanting "la la la I can't hear you!"

NiallWelcome to booktalk!!!Quote:In fact, everybody on this forum and probably everybody on this planet, makes the assumption that logic is a valid tool for the discovering truth. However, logic requires the assumptions that certain truths are self evident. You can prove the validity of logic, using logic, but only after you first assume that logic is valid.And Quote:Relgion has its basis in intuition not logic, so it is immune from logic based attacks. You don't really believe this rubbish do you? The whole basis of your argument is false and I'll explain why.All we can know about, is what is around us: what we call objective reality. What are you going to investigate with your intuition if it's not objective reality? And if what you are investigating is not part of objective reality, are we to assume it doesn't exist? If it doesn't exist why are we talking about it?If there is anything outside of objective reality (and if such a realm exists it certainly doesn't for us), what makes you think that your intuition has anything to do with investigating it.It isn't logic that is in question. You concede that logic is a valid tool for understanding the truth about objective reality, but what you have failed to understand is that intuition itself is also part of objective reality and is therefore as vulnerable to investigation as a part of objective reality as any other phenomenon including logic. You concede that logic is a valid method - in fact it is the only method of uncovering truth - so let's use it to investigate intuition, using logic applied to evidence, and see where it takes us:We know, because of overwhelming evidence, that we evolved from animals (more accurately we evolved with them). If we accept that Darwin's theory of natural selection was the mechanism for driving evolution, then we are forced to accept that whatever universal, genetically based, features of the human mind there are, must have evolved for the purpose of facilitating the perpetuation of those genes which generated them.Human beings are self-evidently tribal beings - those individuals who co-operated must have survived at the expense of those who tried to live on their own. To facilitate tribal behaviour we have an innate capacity for dividing ourselves into in-groups and out-groups. I suggest that in order to promote group identity we also developed the capacity to feel something that we call spiritualism. And those groups that had a shared "religious" identity survived and prospered at the expense of those groups that did not bond as tightly because they did not have a shared spiritual identity. We have therefore inherited a capacity for an intuitive feeling that there is more to the Universe than there really is.It is not logic or the existence of objective reality that should be in question - we should be challenging the view that intuitive, spiritual feelings tell us anything at all.Now! I've used rational argument and drawn on objective evidence to undermine spiritualism. What would a case using intuition, without evidence or rational argument look like?I'll tell you: I believe it - so it is true. Edited by: PeterDF at: 9/19/03 5:00 pm

seanf 2003Quote:However, this does not give them a basis to attack religious belief, unless that belief makes statements about the physical world contrary to science.All religions make the false statement that the physical world can, and does, contain a god or gods.

Peter:1. Thanks. 2. ''what makes you think that your intuition has anything to do with investigating it?''My intuition. Nobody said that intuition had to be logical!3. ''You concede that logic is a valid tool for understanding the truth about objective reality, but what you have failed to understand is that intuition itself is also part of objective reality and is therefore as vulnerable to investigation as a part of objective reality as any other phenomenon including logic. You concede that logic is a valid method - in fact it is the only method of uncovering truth - so let's use it to investigate intuition, using logic applied to evidence, and see where it takes us..........''You're putting the cart before the horse. You are looking at objective reality and then using logic, you've decided that intuition is part of objective reality. Like I said, you can't use logic to prove that intuition is not valid. You can examine it using logic and come to logical conclusions, but those conclusions cannot be used to judge the nature of intuition anymore than someone can use intuition to judge logic.Jeremy, christianity doesn't make that claim. Kind of a big error really.Steve, I don't doubt that what you said regarding the formation of religions can be true. I just don't think that it is the case for ALL religions. I don't doubt that you could make a case that this is true for any religion but that doesn't make it true. After all, look at what freudians do. Regarding the nature of intuition, I disagree. I feel that you're making the same mistake as Peter. You are saying logic is the ultimate tool. I will use it to attempt to rationalise intuition. I find that intuition is merely a form of rationalisation. Don't you see the problem. You are making the assumption that logic is superior to intuition, then you judge intuition using logic. If you regard the two as equal tools, then that judgement just doesn't hold. Without using logic, you cannot make a judgement that favours logic over intuition. Were someone to judge logic using intuition, they might find logic to be inferior to intution. That doesn't make the judgement valid.