The fact taht millions of people are able to get along quite well in civilized
society without believing in God. If humanist morality "failed miserably",
then that would not be possible.
>And remember,
>what one considers "factual" is also a product of his/her worldview.
Now don't start getting postmodernist on me.
>> >I'm curious, Russ. Why is it that you regard logic and experimental
>> >evidence as superior epistemological sources?
>>
>> Because they have a very reliable track record.
>
>You seem to be relying upon the inductive principle here. Can you offer
>a rational justification for that principle without assuming what you
>are seeking to prove?
I don't see that I assumed anything. I merely claimed (and rightfully so)
that the methods of science are taken very seriously because they have
proven to be very successful.
>> >The question was asked before but I don't believe you addressed it in
>> >detail. I take it from your concern for logical consistency and proof,
>> >that you think highly of logic. What exactly do you believe the laws of
>> >logic to be (I don't want you to enumerate them but rather to tell me
>> >what you think their nature is i.e. are they human convention, etc.)
>>
>> I think that they are certainly human convention, and that they are one of
>> the most powerful and useful tools developed by the human mind.
>
>If the laws of logic are in fact creations of the human mind, then it
>seems inescapable that they are contingent and not necesary truths.
Depends on your perspective.
>In
>other words, they might have been other than they are. They could have
>been false. A necessary truth, on the other hand, is one that *must* be
>true in all circumstances. Please keep in mind that I'm not referring
>to physical but logical necessity here. Laws of nature are not
>logically necessary. I can conceive of my letting go of an object and
>it hanging supsended in midair without violating any principle of
>rationality.
Sure, if you were in zero-g. Otherwise, your imagined scenario would quite
radically violate principles of rationality.
>On the contrary, I cannot conceive of a case in which the
>law of contradiction did not hold true. I can't conceive of being
>totally wet and totally dry at the same time. Neither can I think of a
>case in which a statement could be both true and false at the same time
>and in the same respect.
>
>If in fact the laws of logic are contingent, then it is possible that
>they could change, in which case they are not invariable.
Sure, and it's also possible that a jar full of hydrogen will spontaneously
initiate a fusion chain reaction. But it's not a possibility that's worth
considering seriously.
>Russ, do you
>believe that the laws of logic are absolute, invariable, and
>immaterial?
No. But considering how productive they have proven so far, I'll rely on
them until such time as they are proven to be false.
>If so, how does such a belief comport with your naturalism
>and if not, then why do you refer to logic as if it were absolute and
>invariable?
I have never referred to anything as absolute and invariable. However,
just because nothing is absolute and invariable, it does not follow that
everything is chaotic and unreliable.
_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|
2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.