Logic and the Quest for Metaphysical Truths

I am finding that logic doesn't help us much at all in the quest for metaphysical truths.

We use logic in the service of our faith. It is not the reverse. Logic does not lead to God, for instance. What we believe about God (which is prior) leads us to our view of logic (which is posterior).

Take for instance this valid modus ponens:

If (P) Elvis is dead then (Q) Bush is the president of the USA.

P: Elvis is dead.

.: Q: Bush is the president of the USA.

This conclusion is not only true, but it follows from this valid argument.

But the question here is whether the first premise is a non-sequitur. What is the connection between Elvis being dead and Bush being the president? How do we decide if someone says that's what he believes because of a dream he had or that God makes the connection? What then? How do you use reason to deny this? [To see the problems of informal fallacies when applied to metaphysical truths see here.]

And what do you say to the pantheist who will choke out a koan in response to any of your logical questions?

And what can a theist say to the atheist who believes logic is biologically based? There's no logic that can change his mind if he has different presuppositions, just like there is no logic that can change a theistic mind either.

What one thinks about logic is a worldview issue. When a theist uses his view of logic to defend the existence of his God all he's doing is spelling out the implications of his worldview when it comes to logic.

In essence what he's saying is that if his God exists, then this is how a theist should view logic.

If God is everything (pantheism) or if there is no God at all (atheism), then logic is viewed differently, that's all.

So the real question is as exbeliever has posed: what is the reason for believing in God in the first place? Because it all hinges on whether or not God exists, and if he does, what he's like.

My particular attack on religious faith is to consider how we gained our presuppositions in the first place. We do so because of when and where we were born; an "accident of birth," or and "accident of geography." Go here and scroll down to the Outsider Test, to see for yourselves. This is the biggest background factor of all when it comes to religious faith..when and where we were born. So basically the theist is using an "accident of birth" to adopt his view of God (which is prior), and then arguing that logic leads him to believe in God (which is secondary), and that's it. So there is no significant way that the theist can use his view about logic (which is posterior) to show his God exists (which is prior). The cart is before the horse here. The truth of the matter is that the whole reason he defends his belief in God, and subsequently logic, is because of an "accident of birth."

In my opinion the Outsider Test leads me to agnosticism, and agnosticism leads inexorably to atheism.

7 comments: