Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Impulse Reality 220
s$
.d""b. impulse reality press no. 220 - at war with anada.
[-- $$ $$ $$ -- ------------------------------------------------------ --]
$$ $$ "The Sine Qua Non of Logic"
$$ $$ written by outreach
$$ $$ released 10/10/02
[-- $$ $$ ------ ------------------------------------------------------ --]
A philosophy is a belief of or relating to a truth about the
underlying and natural conduct of the known universe. Since the beginning of
man, there have been philosophers that have claimed through various
analogies, personal accounts, logical proofs, myths, etc. to have reached
enlightenment through whatever belief system another or they themselves had
founded. While it is common knowlege in philosophy that the works of the
present are greatly influenced by the works of the past, and therefore
progress should be moving in a logically forthright direction, there exists
one critical philosophical err that continues to be the ruin of new beliefs,
of which man seemingly cannot escape from the clutches thereof. This is the
practice of proofing through illogical means.
The primary example of this that comes to mind is religion, and any
other faith-based belief system. In these systems, reason and logic are
replaced by faith (or in other words, blind belief). The problem is shown
very plainly when common sense is applied to what man knows of the way things
work. Our principle methods of discovery in the technological and
observational sense are mathematics and science. Religion, with logic not
being a necessary (actually, it is somewhat devastating to faith) component,
has no need nor ability to produce hard evidence towards the nature of the
universe, and therefore does not, has not, and most likely never will act as
an inspiration, motivation, or proof towards a logical development that can
explain anything whatsoever using real life facts. Because of this inability
to cope with reality, the only rational alternative is to prove philosophical
beliefs through something that in fact does have an ability to relate
directly to the physical world through proven rules: mathematics and science.
Now do not misinterpret, I understand quite fully the possibility of
a conclusion of theism through logic, however whether the logic is flawed or
not is another story. On a personal level, I am an atheist. I do not believe
that I am wicked for this belief, as well as that I am not an infidel for
this belief ("Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving;
it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe." -- Thomas
Paine, The Age of Reason, Chapter 1); I merely have come to a rational
conclusion of atheism through the fact that throughout my studies I have
never come across even a slight bit of confirmable evidence suggesting in the
reality of an omniscient being such as a theist might suggest. In fact, the
main resource for many theists is a book, written by man, claiming to be
the passed down or translated word of god. Even if over the centuries the
said book has not been rewritten to the point of being drastically different
from the original, one still must realize that man originally wrote this. I
cannot see the logic in using something that is completely rooted in faith as
a valid resource when it was written by the most pharisaic, illogical, and
unintelligent (as compared in ratio to the intellectual capability in
entirety) species of animalia on this planet: humanity. Without the use of
what we know applies to the natural laws of the Universe, we cannot expect to
come to any, even remotely tangible conclusions. And in case this is proven
wrong, and through purely accidental means this described "faith" comes to a
correct conclusion, the method that reached the conclusion has no physical
law or ruling to it and therefore, in all possibility, will not be able to
be of use to reach any parallel conclusions on other topics. Mathematics and
science however, can.
Although throughout history mathematicians and scientists have proved
previous thoughts to be incorrect, this is not grounds to say that all of
natural law as deemed by past advocates of logic must be incorrect, and to
any educated person this is merely the natural evolution of technology that
can be seen all throughout the civilized and pre-civilized history of man.
In past debates I have seen many theists attempt to argue this point, only to
be driven back to the argument that all theists usually end up turning to:
since god is omniscient, his reality is beyond human comprehension. This may
be so, but it appears to be of a suspicious level of convenience to the
protection of the said faith's integrity, does it not?
So now, from a theist perspective, let's take a look at reality.
Two things are apparent in this example; there is a god and this god is
omniscient. Through common theist arguments, god can do anything, know
anything, and make a reality of anything. With that said, it seems obvious
that this god exists outside of the laws and boundaries we humans have found
for the universe we exist in. Therefore, even with a belief in god, through
rational means one can determine that the best way to analyze our physical
universe is through logic and math. It is a very saddening fact that many
people do not understand that religion and science can mix in this way. Can
The Bible and/or biblical faith, for instance, prove on the lowest level why
a rock falls when it is dropped? No, it can not. Physics however, can. How
does any theist belief show that logic is completely wrong? It doesn't, even
if it goes to the extreme of specifically stating that anything but the word
and law of god is incorrect. If god is in fact omniscient, then there is no
reason whatsoever why math, science, and logic cannot exist as the laws of
the universe at the same time. This brings me to my conclusion.
Altogether, whatever we use as the basis for proving a philosophical
theory, I do not believe it to be possible for a human being to have a
complete and objective interpretation of the facts, as we are very subjective
creatures; everything we know is based upon sensory perception, and therefore
is subject to the subjective inference of facts. Therefore, we can never be
truly sure whether a conclusion is informationally necessary, or is just an
informational possibility (as defined by Pierce in the 1890's as "which in a
given [state of] information is not perfectly known to be true," and "that
which is perfectly known to be true." ). What we can conclude on though is
that the only way to prove a real idea, is through real means. In this I say
that if we hope to come to a conclusion on the nature of the physical
universe, we must use means that are based around the physical universe;
mathematics, science, and rational logic. Any other means, such as the
aforementioned faith, is easily comparable as to using an orange in the place
of an automobile.
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
the clever thing to do here would be to put some sort of copyright. no.
http://www.phonelosers.net/ir
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
