I Am Not An Atheist
'Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning.'
(Former Atheist CS Lewis)
(Former Atheist CS Lewis)
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
I am not an atheist.
That said, the quote itself is an evident example of what having no meaning is: it haves none.
Just speculative armchair philosophy.
The fallacies are easily hidden in pieces of rethoric.
Like:
- Equating "meaning" with the folk take of the word, as concious or at least subjective understanding and a priori purpose, instead of intrinsic autonomous mode of being.
- Equating physical "laws" with human like "laws", as external to the phenomena and the universe as itself.
- Confusing rethorics and discursive inacurate reasoning with well defined strict mathematical logic where fallacies are harder to hide.
- Giving to logic any kind of ontogic commitment, which is a trivial error that only beginers in math and serious logic may fall in.
That said, the quote itself is an evident example of what having no meaning is: it haves none.
Just speculative armchair philosophy.
The fallacies are easily hidden in pieces of rethoric.
Like:
- Equating "meaning" with the folk take of the word, as concious or at least subjective understanding and a priori purpose, instead of intrinsic autonomous mode of being.
- Equating physical "laws" with human like "laws", as external to the phenomena and the universe as itself.
- Confusing rethorics and discursive inacurate reasoning with well defined strict mathematical logic where fallacies are harder to hide.
- Giving to logic any kind of ontogic commitment, which is a trivial error that only beginers in math and serious logic may fall in.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Speedyman Please, instead of generalities and for once at least, let´s go to the points I´ve posted and you disagre.
Tell me which and why my asertions are not logical. And since you´ve said nether scientific, please do it from the point of view of mathematical logic as used in Science.
As a sugestion, we may first focus and begin with the math´s definition of logic as only formal, so it´s a trivial but serious error to attributing to it any ontological commitment.
Tell me which and why my asertions are not logical. And since you´ve said nether scientific, please do it from the point of view of mathematical logic as used in Science.
As a sugestion, we may first focus and begin with the math´s definition of logic as only formal, so it´s a trivial but serious error to attributing to it any ontological commitment.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Speedyman It´s simple.
Your answer to mine was:
"...your reasoning... indulging in falli cues which are neither logical nor scientific"
I´ve invited you to say about the specific nature of your objections to my words in a more serious way.
And, focusing on logic, I sugested you to begin by explaing why do you find wrong a concept that is known since first formalization of propositional logic (Aristotelic) and best expressed contemporary in math with no bit of a doubt:
"...math´s definition of logic as only formal, so it´s a trivial but serious error to attributing to it any ontological commitment"
I am assuming that you know enough what "only formal" means for logic.
If that is true, please tell me why a so basic assertion in the very foundations of math may be erroneous.
If not, I´ll be glad to give you some simple examples of such well stablished concept.
Your answer to mine was:
"...your reasoning... indulging in falli cues which are neither logical nor scientific"
I´ve invited you to say about the specific nature of your objections to my words in a more serious way.
And, focusing on logic, I sugested you to begin by explaing why do you find wrong a concept that is known since first formalization of propositional logic (Aristotelic) and best expressed contemporary in math with no bit of a doubt:
"...math´s definition of logic as only formal, so it´s a trivial but serious error to attributing to it any ontological commitment"
I am assuming that you know enough what "only formal" means for logic.
If that is true, please tell me why a so basic assertion in the very foundations of math may be erroneous.
If not, I´ll be glad to give you some simple examples of such well stablished concept.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Speedyman I assume that academic texts of mathematical symbolic logic, from basic to advanced ones are correct.
I assume that development of math, logic and set theory since at least George Boole and later through today is right and, open to new dyscoveries, still defines what the corpus of knowledge on logic IS.
I assume that mathematicians had already rightly anf historically dropped with not a tear the discursive like kind of what once was called logic (and never was) as a trivial tool for rethorics.
So, it´s not at all nor only MY personal way on thinking on logic.
Since serious logic was born, breaking with "common sense" nebulous "reasoning", Aristóteles said what I´m also saying debunking the old Sophists.
And along history, my colleages mathematicians, with best developed tools, think, teach, work, research and say the same!
Tell me ONE who, as part of the centuries long mathematical known journey, says what YOU seem to be saying?
Please, don´t include thinkers from outside the recognized mathematical corpus and history.
Neither the personal believes of math thinkers aside math itself.
As simple examples, Descartes contributions to math are part of mathematical kowledge but his Discourse on Method is NOT.
Newton´s calculus is a solid aspect of math, but his dreams related to alchemy are not part of Chemistry.
Not Science nor Math need for alien help to define itselves.
That enough answered, my previous question to you still stands.
What and why is wrong the view that serious mathematical logic is formal and makes no assertion on the ontological status of it´s symbolic propositions?
I assume that development of math, logic and set theory since at least George Boole and later through today is right and, open to new dyscoveries, still defines what the corpus of knowledge on logic IS.
I assume that mathematicians had already rightly anf historically dropped with not a tear the discursive like kind of what once was called logic (and never was) as a trivial tool for rethorics.
So, it´s not at all nor only MY personal way on thinking on logic.
Since serious logic was born, breaking with "common sense" nebulous "reasoning", Aristóteles said what I´m also saying debunking the old Sophists.
And along history, my colleages mathematicians, with best developed tools, think, teach, work, research and say the same!
Tell me ONE who, as part of the centuries long mathematical known journey, says what YOU seem to be saying?
Please, don´t include thinkers from outside the recognized mathematical corpus and history.
Neither the personal believes of math thinkers aside math itself.
As simple examples, Descartes contributions to math are part of mathematical kowledge but his Discourse on Method is NOT.
Newton´s calculus is a solid aspect of math, but his dreams related to alchemy are not part of Chemistry.
Not Science nor Math need for alien help to define itselves.
That enough answered, my previous question to you still stands.
What and why is wrong the view that serious mathematical logic is formal and makes no assertion on the ontological status of it´s symbolic propositions?
Speedyman · 70-79, M
Ah I see your problem! You appear to think of maths and science - which are just branches of human thought to investigate the unverse - as exclusive of a creator / designer. In other words you believe that if we know the mechanism we can dispense with the agency which is a mistake the early scientist that were made and in fact scientist generally never made it until the 19 century when this false dichotomy was put before them . The fact that Newton was the greatest mathematician possibly ever never stopped him realising that it designer was that the basis of the universe . The fact that Maxwell was one of the greatest theory theoretical physicists ever, did not prevent him having a profound Christian faith. Science and faith are not exclusive but necessarily inclusive to an understanding of our universe. @CharlieZ
