Great article, as always! Looking forward to reading the others in the series.
I think a perspective from modal logic can complement the pragmatic view you outlined in your article. I'm referring to the distinction between an assertoric and a problematic statement.
There is a fundamental logical difference between the assertoric form (there is such an x) and the problematic form (there could be/maybe such an x exists). I think the difference lies in the causal connexion the judgement is implying.
The assertoric one is establishing such a causal connection between an event (defined, in our case, as an accumulation of sense stimuli interpreted by the brain,) and us, whereas the problematic one is merely saying that such a connection could be happening. Religious statements would then be nothing more than problematic statements taken to an illogical extreme.
In this context, asking for a proof of god would mean the religious person would need to adopt an assertoric form of statement rather than a problematic one, by establishing the causal relation between said being (god) and us. Clearly, simply saying "god exists" is a petitio principii, therefore god is not real (i.e. the thing is not in a causal connection with us or with other thnigs), and so doesn't exist.
Now, where the person to respond with "god could be real or could exist, we're just not aware of him through our immediate senses" then this problematic form of statement runs into the same trouble of all problematic statements, namely, incumbit probatio qui dicit.
I think you mean to comment on the other article I posted that day, the one on atheism and the burden of proof. That one's the first in a series. The one above is about a metaphysical versus a personal picture of God.
Certainly, the emphasis on faith in the monotheistic religions would suggest that God for monotheists has the logical status of a mere possibility. They trust that God is real, which implies room for doubt or lack of sufficient evidence.
But they might just as well say that God is necessary, as the First Cause or ground of being. Even in that case, though, the question is whether God for them is metaphysically necessary or just psychologically so. Is there a coherent way of positing a necessary being or is the point about God's necessity, combined with the emphasis on faith, just a way of saying that these religious people have an emotional need for there to be a deity as a condition for their happiness or sanity. In that case, the fallacy would be the confusion between what's wanted and what's shown independently or objectively to be real.
Yes, I meant to comment on the other article, sorry, my bad.
"Is there a coherent way of positing a necessary being or is the point about God's necessity, combined with the emphasis on faith, just a way of saying that these religious people have an emotional need for there to be a deity as a condition for their happiness or sanity"
I think it boils down to that psychological necessity. To the common understanding, the only "necessary being" is just matter as an abstract concept, which is to say nature. The need for god is psychological, not physical or logical.
I think I can empathize with that need, though. Had I been a passenger on the Titanic, I would have wished for the iceberg not to be an iceberg, or for any other supernatural occurrence.
The need is psychological and also social. As this article points out, theism is taken for granted in some cultures but not in others. The next article in the series, on the burden of proof issue, goes into this point further.
A question that interests me is whether every culture is sustained by some myths or by faith in a mythos that reinforces the people's ethos. What would an enlightened culture look like, one free from all delusions? I suspect that only enlightened subcultures or secret societies are possible, and that they're not long-lasting. The pressures to succumb to popular nonsense are enormous, since enlightenment doesn't make us happy or socially successful. That's why social movements tend to betray the teachings of their enlightened founders (the prophets, messiahs, philosophers, etc).
I, too, don't think that a completely enlightened society or culture is sustainable. That said, I think our culture is relatively enlightened in comparison with others who have existed throughout history.
But it's a difficult question. A society might outwardly express its adherence to a particular ethos and myths but inwardly don't believe in either of them.
Great article, as always! Looking forward to reading the others in the series.
ReplyDeleteI think a perspective from modal logic can complement the pragmatic view you outlined in your article. I'm referring to the distinction between an assertoric and a problematic statement.
There is a fundamental logical difference between the assertoric form (there is such an x) and the problematic form (there could be/maybe such an x exists). I think the difference lies in the causal connexion the judgement is implying.
The assertoric one is establishing such a causal connection between an event (defined, in our case, as an accumulation of sense stimuli interpreted by the brain,) and us, whereas the problematic one is merely saying that such a connection could be happening. Religious statements would then be nothing more than problematic statements taken to an illogical extreme.
In this context, asking for a proof of god would mean the religious person would need to adopt an assertoric form of statement rather than a problematic one, by establishing the causal relation between said being (god) and us. Clearly, simply saying "god exists" is a petitio principii, therefore god is not real (i.e. the thing is not in a causal connection with us or with other thnigs), and so doesn't exist.
Now, where the person to respond with "god could be real or could exist, we're just not aware of him through our immediate senses" then this problematic form of statement runs into the same trouble of all problematic statements, namely, incumbit probatio qui dicit.
I think you mean to comment on the other article I posted that day, the one on atheism and the burden of proof. That one's the first in a series. The one above is about a metaphysical versus a personal picture of God.
DeleteCertainly, the emphasis on faith in the monotheistic religions would suggest that God for monotheists has the logical status of a mere possibility. They trust that God is real, which implies room for doubt or lack of sufficient evidence.
But they might just as well say that God is necessary, as the First Cause or ground of being. Even in that case, though, the question is whether God for them is metaphysically necessary or just psychologically so. Is there a coherent way of positing a necessary being or is the point about God's necessity, combined with the emphasis on faith, just a way of saying that these religious people have an emotional need for there to be a deity as a condition for their happiness or sanity. In that case, the fallacy would be the confusion between what's wanted and what's shown independently or objectively to be real.
Yes, I meant to comment on the other article, sorry, my bad.
ReplyDelete"Is there a coherent way of positing a necessary being or is the point about God's necessity, combined with the emphasis on faith, just a way of saying that these religious people have an emotional need for there to be a deity as a condition for their happiness or sanity"
I think it boils down to that psychological necessity. To the common understanding, the only "necessary being" is just matter as an abstract concept, which is to say nature. The need for god is psychological, not physical or logical.
I think I can empathize with that need, though. Had I been a passenger on the Titanic, I would have wished for the iceberg not to be an iceberg, or for any other supernatural occurrence.
The need is psychological and also social. As this article points out, theism is taken for granted in some cultures but not in others. The next article in the series, on the burden of proof issue, goes into this point further.
DeleteA question that interests me is whether every culture is sustained by some myths or by faith in a mythos that reinforces the people's ethos. What would an enlightened culture look like, one free from all delusions? I suspect that only enlightened subcultures or secret societies are possible, and that they're not long-lasting. The pressures to succumb to popular nonsense are enormous, since enlightenment doesn't make us happy or socially successful. That's why social movements tend to betray the teachings of their enlightened founders (the prophets, messiahs, philosophers, etc).
I, too, don't think that a completely enlightened society or culture is sustainable. That said, I think our culture is relatively enlightened in comparison with others who have existed throughout history.
DeleteBut it's a difficult question. A society might outwardly express its adherence to a particular ethos and myths but inwardly don't believe in either of them.