The Roles of Logic and Science in Questions of Theology

[_JAK]

JAK, I simply do not care if you approve of Gödel's definitions or axioms. I do, and thus his argument provides a foundation for me to work from.

Calculus Crusader stated Tue Aug 28, 2007 2:15 pm:
JAK, I simply do not care if you approve of Gödel's definitions or axioms. I do, and thus his argument provides a foundation for me to work from.


Reread carefully your own post citing Gödel. As I detailed and your quotation of him demonstrates, he assumes the truth of his conclusion. Hence, there is no foundation as you wish to believe.

Another analysis for this fallacy in reasoning is:

Begging the Question

That’s what Gödel does as I detailed in a post responding to what you presented.

The conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises.

Stephen Barker explains the fallacy in The Elements of Logic: "If the premises are related to the conclusion in such an intimate way that the speaker and listeners could not have less reason to doubt the premise than they have to doubt the conclusion, then the argument is worthless as a proof, even though the link between premises and conclusion may have the most cast-iron rigor.”

(I have quoted Wikipedia for you just in case you don’t click on the link.)

JAK

[_richardMdBorn]

JAK By any objective measure, the National Review is a right-wing, partisan publication. Considering the total number of books KA has written and her status among academics, in what way are you qualified to evaluate her discussions of Islam?

I’m skeptical.

The National Review was founded by arch conservative William F. Buckley and presents conservative views on world subjects. Buckley was a member of The Order of Skull and Bones. It has historically been a very secretive club because of its far right positions. It included George H.W. Bush decades ago.

That the National Review is critical of Karen Armstrong is a compliment to her. The conservatism of the National Review is a philosophy. The likes of Larry Kudlow parroted every false claim of the George W. Bush administration on Iraq beginning with the weapons of mass destruction right to the present.

It’s understandable that such a publication would oppose any rational, thoughtful, academic approach. Today, with expanded and expanding information, right-wing ideologues must pound the table and excrete dogma to counter open, transparent, objective reporting and analysis. Currently, Larry Kudlow (with his own history of psychiatric problems) carries the banner of the right-wing for the National Review.

I suggest that you discuss the author of the article, Robert Spencer: You don’t appear to be aware that he’s more important in evaluating an article than the publication is which it appears.

ROBERT SPENCER is the director of Jihad Watch, a project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and the author of two New York Times bestsellers on Islamic jihad. Spencer has written seven books, ten monographs, and well over two hundred articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism. Along with the bestsellers The Truth About Muhammad (Regnery) and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) (Regnery), he is the author of Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith (Encounter) and Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West (Regnery). He is coauthor, with Daniel Ali, of Inside Islam: A Guide for Catholics (Ascension), and editor of the essay collection The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims (Prometheus). His latest book, Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't (Regnery), a refutation of moral equivalence and call to defend Judeo-Christian civilization from the global jihad, is now available.

Spencer (MA, Religious Studies, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) has been studying Islamic theology, law, and history in depth since 1980. He is an Adjunct Fellow with the Free Congress Foundation, and his monographs on Islam are available from the Foundation: An Introduction to the Qur'an; Women and Islam; An Islamic Primer; Islam and the West; The Islamic Disinformation Lobby; Islam vs. Christianity; and Jihad in Context.

His articles on Islam and other topics have appeared in the New York Post, the Washington Times, the Dallas Morning News, Canada's National Post, Middle East Quarterly, FrontPage Magazine.com, WorldNet Daily, Insight in the News, Human Events, National Review Online, and many other journals. He has led seminars on Islam and jihad for United States Central Command, United States Army Command and General Staff College, a Department of Homeland Security task force, and branches of the Joint Terrorism Task Force. Also, he has discussed jihad, Islam, and terrorism at a workshop sponsored by the U.S. State Department and the German Foreign Ministry. He has also appeared on the BBC, CNN, FoxNews, PBS, MSNBC, CNBC, C-Span, France24 and Croatia National Televison (HTV), as well as on numerous radio programs including Bill O'Reilly's Radio Factor, The Laura Ingraham Show, Bill Bennett's Morning in America, Michael Savage's Savage Nation, The Sean Hannity Show, The Alan Colmes Show, The G. Gordon Liddy Show, The Neal Boortz Show, The Michael Medved Show, The Michael Reagan Show, The Rusty Humphries Show, The Larry Elder Show, The Barbara Simpson Show, Vatican Radio, and many others.

http://jihadwatch.org/spencer/

It doesn’t appear that you ever discussed my earlier quote

Karen Armstrong, long famous for her description of Muhammad as the consummate “peacemaker” who “brought together the warring tribes of Arabia,” has assumed the mantle, yet again, not of the Prophet, but of the Prophet’s defender. In an article in The Guardian she retells in her inimitable fashion the story of European Christendom’s relations with Islam and with Muslims. In her retelling, the Muslims are innocent victims, and more than innocent victims, likened again and again to the Jews. They are also the only people who provided, in that bright shining moment of European history known as Islamic Spain, the only real tolerance and humanity to be found anywhere in Europe before the modern era. It is a tough job, but Karen Armstrong proves equal to the task. And her real theme is not history, but that Europeans should feel ashamed themselves for showing any signs of wariness or suspicion about the millions of Muslims who now live in Europe, having come among the indigenous Infidels to settle, but not to settle down.

The end of the review is classic.

Armstrong’s nonsense perhaps has to do with some rude and indigestible bits of history that she dimly recalls, about the story of Prester John, the mythical Christian king of a mythical Christian kingdom, placed first, in European imaginations, in India, and later transferred to Ethiopia – a fable, designed to hearten European Christians who were always fearful of Muslim assaults, the Arab raiding parties by sea, up and down European coasts, and the Turkish land armies of the mighty Ottoman Sultan.

Her every word adds to the absurdity. There is no evidence for Armstrong’s assertions about Columbus himself, or about what motivated him. History is putty in her hands, we said earlier. But the word putty does not do her infantile approach to history justice. History is for Karen Armstrong not so much putty as Playdoh. She can roll it about, she can pull it apart, she can twist and turn it with the same delight exhibited by a two-year-old when a-too-solid block of Playdoh is finally softened up for use by grown-up hands. But the two-year-old is an innocent at play, and even if he leaves a momentary mess, he has done no real harm. Karen Armstrong is not innocent, and manages to do a great deal of harm, careless or premeditated harm, to history. Too many people read that she has written a few books, and assume, on the basis of nothing, that “she must know what she is talking about” – and some of the nonsense sticks. And perhaps an enraged professor or two bothers to dismiss her, but mostly – this is how the vast public, in debased democracies, learns its history today. It is hearsay as history – “Karen Armstrong says” or “John Esposito says.”

And that is only her first paragraph.

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpag ... ec_id=7158

I guess that’s your idea of a scholar.

[_richardMdBorn]

JAK Previously I listed works of Karen Armstrong:

Through The Narrow Gate (2005) Karen Armstrong
A History of God (1993) Karen Armstrong
The Great Transformation (2007) Karen Armstrong
The Battle for God (2000) Karen Armstrong

Let me just list these and others in a more complete list.

Books by Karen Armstrong
• The Great Transformation: The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions (2006)
• Muhammad: A Prophet For Our Time (2006)
• A Short History of Myth (2005)
• The Spiral Staircase (2004)
• Faith After September 11th (2002)
• The Battle for God: Fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam (2000)
• Buddha (2000)
• Islam: A Short History (2000)
• In the Beginning: A New Interpretation of Genesis (1996)
• Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths (1996)
• A History of God: The 4000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam (1993)
• The End of Silence: Women and the Priesthood (1993)
• The English Mystics of the Fourteenth Century (1991)
• Muhammad: a Biography of the Prophet (1991)
• Holy War (1988)
• The Gospel According to Woman: Christianity's Creation of the Sex War in the West (1986)
• Tongues of Fire: An Anthology of Religious and Poetic Experience (1985)
• Beginning the World (1983)
• The First Christian: Saint Paul's Impact on Christianity (1983)
• Through the Narrow Gate (1982)

Peer reviewed articles are generally more important in assessing scholarly credentials than books.

Public Broadcasting Host BILL MOYERS on Karen Armstrong: She was a spark plug in my PBS series on Genesis, her books are best sellers, "The History of God", "The Battle for God", "Jerusalem". She's written a biography of Buddha, and a short history of Islam. Soon we'll have her new memoir of her life after the convent where she spent seven years as a nun. Joining me now is one of the world's foremost students of religion, Karen Armstrong.

My reference to this author was to demonstrate with evidence that Armstrong’s status is as Bill Moyers characterized her: “one of the world’s foremost students of religion.”

I don’t consider Moyers to be an authority on religion. Bernard Lewis is an authority.

[_JAK]

JAK Previously I listed works of Karen Armstrong:

Through The Narrow Gate (2005) Karen Armstrong
A History of God (1993) Karen Armstrong
The Great Transformation (2007) Karen Armstrong
The Battle for God (2000) Karen Armstrong

Let me just list these and others in a more complete list.

Books by Karen Armstrong
• The Great Transformation: The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions (2006)
• Muhammad: A Prophet For Our Time (2006)
• A Short History of Myth (2005)
• The Spiral Staircase (2004)
• Faith After September 11th (2002)
• The Battle for God: Fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam (2000)
• Buddha (2000)
• Islam: A Short History (2000)
• In the Beginning: A New Interpretation of Genesis (1996)
• Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths (1996)
• A History of God: The 4000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam (1993)
• The End of Silence: Women and the Priesthood (1993)
• The English Mystics of the Fourteenth Century (1991)
• Muhammad: a Biography of the Prophet (1991)
• Holy War (1988)
• The Gospel According to Woman: Christianity's Creation of the Sex War in the West (1986)
• Tongues of Fire: An Anthology of Religious and Poetic Experience (1985)
• Beginning the World (1983)
• The First Christian: Saint Paul's Impact on Christianity (1983)
• Through the Narrow Gate (1982)

Peer reviewed articles are generally more important in assessing scholarly credentials than books.

Public Broadcasting Host BILL MOYERS on Karen Armstrong: She was a spark plug in my PBS series on Genesis, her books are best sellers, "The History of God", "The Battle for God", "Jerusalem". She's written a biography of Buddha, and a short history of Islam. Soon we'll have her new memoir of her life after the convent where she spent seven years as a nun. Joining me now is one of the world's foremost students of religion, Karen Armstrong.

My reference to this author was to demonstrate with evidence that Armstrong’s status is as Bill Moyers characterized her: “one of the world’s foremost students of religion.”

I don’t consider Moyers to be an authority on religion. Bernard Lewis is an authority.

richardMdBorn stated Tue Aug 28, 2007 5:09 pm:
I don’t consider Moyers to be an authority on religion. Bernard Lewis is an authority.

Straw Man Fallacy

You simply ignore what I actually said and substitutes a distorted, version. Read the link above.

Bill Moyers is a veteran journalist who conducts many interviews on PBS.

What you consider about Bill Moyers is irrelevant.

Here, in case you didn’t click on the second Bill Moyers, you can learn about his illustrious contributions in broadcast journalism, publications, and his background.

JAK

[_Gadianton]

JAK,

Please see Godel's argument in symbolic form on wiki. While I'm sure one or more of his assumptions are wrong, as I'm not a Platonist, his argument is not a tautology. His conclusion doesn't merely just restate a premise.

[_marg]

JAK,

Please see Godel's argument in symbolic form on wiki. While I'm sure one or more of his assumptions are wrong, as I'm not a Platonist, his argument is not a tautology. His conclusion doesn't merely just restate a premise.

Gad, do you understand Godel's argument? If so, I will ask you some of the same questions I asked CC but got no response.

[_Gadianton]

Marg,

If your questions are regarding the meaning of his axioms, I don't have much interest as I noted above that it is unlikely I could agree with them anyway as I'm not a platonist. If your questions have to do with the structure of his argument, the symbolic manipulation, then ok. I only have two points of interest in this discussion:

1) If CC doesn't have the scholarly credentials to question Armstrong who isn't even a real authority in her field, then JAK most certainly does not have the scholarly credentials to to question Godel, who was probably the most noteworthy authority in history, of his field.

2) Godel's argument is not a tautology. Godel would not make a simple error that undermines the argument right out of the preface of a beginners guide to logic, c'mon.

[_richardMdBorn]

Public Broadcasting Host BILL MOYERS on Karen Armstrong: She was a spark plug in my PBS series on Genesis, her books are best sellers, "The History of God", "The Battle for God", "Jerusalem". She's written a biography of Buddha, and a short history of Islam. Soon we'll have her new memoir of her life after the convent where she spent seven years as a nun. Joining me now is one of the world's foremost students of religion, Karen Armstrong.

My reference to this author was to demonstrate with evidence that Armstrong’s status is as Bill Moyers characterized her: “one of the world’s foremost students of religion.”

Richard I don’t consider Moyers to be an authority on religion. Bernard Lewis is an authority.

RichardMdBorn stated Tue Aug 28, 2007 5:09 pm:
I don’t consider Moyers to be an authority on religion. Bernard Lewis is an authority.

Straw Man Fallacy

You simply ignore what I actually said and substitutes a distorted, version. Read the link above.

Bill Moyers is a veteran journalist who conducts many interviews on PBS.

I don't consider Bill Moyers to be an authority on who is a foremost student of religion. I note that you STILL haven't dealt with my first quote about KA. Given the number of errors Armstrong makes in that article about Islam and the West, it's hard to see how she could be an authority on much of anything.

[_marg]

Marg,

If your questions are regarding the meaning of his axioms, I don't have much interest as I noted above that it is unlikely I could agree with them anyway as I'm not a platonist. If your questions have to do with the structure of his argument, the symbolic manipulation, then ok. I only have two points of interest in this discussion:

1) If CC doesn't have the scholarly credentials to question Armstrong who isn't even a real authority in her field, then JAK most certainly does not have the scholarly credentials to to question Godel, who was probably the most noteworthy authority in history, of his field.

2) Godel's argument is not a tautology. Godel would not make a simple error that undermines the argument right out of the preface of a beginners guide to logic, c'mon.

My questions have to do with the argument put forth by CC, his use of Godel’s argument for that argument as well as what conclusion can be drawn and relied upon by Godel’s argument.

With regards to your interest, # 1, I addressed it already. You didn’t comment on what I said. I’ll attempt again. JAK’s statement/point to CC in which he offered K Armstrong as a source to back him up was basic theological knowledge. CC didn’t argue JAK’s point instead he dismissed it. Remember the phrase “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” ? JAK’s claim was common knowledge not the least bit extraordinary, presumption rested with that claim. CC did not overturn it by his dismissal of K. Armstrong as a source for theological information. On the other hand CC’s claim is an extraordinary one. He claims a particular logic proves an actual God’s existence. The presumption does not rest with that claim, and CC needs extraordinary evidence to warrant it. He attempts to do so using Godel’s ontological argument. When JAK counters Godel’s ontological argument and how CC is using it, CC’s response does not refute JAK’s counter argument. Instead, CC focuses on ad hominem which indicates a disingenuous party when done repeatedly in lieu of proper argumentation. Furthermore his argument is that all theological claims are logically based which he never establishes.

Everyone in this entire world can argue against Godel’s argument, one doesn’t need credentials to do so. Just as everyone can argue against K. Armstrong. JAK has argued a case of the limitation of Godel’s argument and what it does not establish. It is up to CC to counter back. He has not done so, successfuly. JAK did not dismiss Godel out of hand, he presented a case against Godel’s ontological argument.

Godel’s ontological argument is fundamental to CC’s argument. K. Armstrong as a source back up to JAK’s point about many religious groups existing with different doctrines in not fundamental to the main argument.

With regards to your point # 2, don’t you think it is up to you to explain why you think Godel's ontological argument is not a tautology? I thought to some extent all deductive arguments were, but whether or not they are called tautological depends on how close or obvious the connection is between premises and conclusion.

So the following is what I'd also like you to comment on.

CC wrote: "You are correct in that logic is essential to theology."

I asked him: Explain why logic is essential to theology. Can theology exist without logic?

CC’s reply: Without formal logic 'anything goes,' which is not acceptable to me.

***My question for you Gad: Do you agree with CC? Is logic essential to theology/theological claims?

I cont’d to press CC: “You stated that logic is essential to theology. I don't see any justification for the "essential" part. JAK has pointed out to you and you might respond to him later, that value derived from logic is dependent upon reliable assumptions. In science there are scientific natural laws assumed because they hold up under testing and objective evaluation. It's a possibility they might be overturned in the future. But theories rest upon these scientific laws as the basic assumptions and build upon them. So science is logical in that way.

In theology the basic assumptions of the supernatural do not hold up to testing and objective evaluation. So those assumptions have no basis for merit as being actually true. JAK says it well " After many assumptions, theology may argue some causal link. The problem is that the initial assumptions were truth by assertion. Hence, applying “logic” following faulty assumptions really means we have no logic or we have flawed logic."”

***My question to you Gad, do you agree or disagree with JAK’s point? " After many assumptions, theology may argue some causal link. The problem is that the initial assumptions were truth by assertion. Hence, applying “logic” following faulty assumptions really means we have no logic or we have flawed logic."”

CC’s responded to me: Gödel defines a God-like being, sets forth some axioms, then proceeds to prove such a being exists.


***My question to CC but now to you: What definition does Godel give for this "god-like being"?

What axioms are assumed?

Does this "logic" arrive at a conclusive conclusion or a probability?

Does the conclusion conclude that a God exists as an actual entity, by actual I mean a thing which exists in reality.


***I wrote this to CC and would like to know if you agree with me or not?

The weakness or problem with the way you are using this modal logic is that it is a game or system which does not have to connect to the actual world but you are using it as if it does connect. If it is used as if it links to the actual world but there in fact is no link, then it's used incorrectly. And that means the logic has broken down. Your conclusions will not be logically derived. If this God proof Godel logic doesn't link to an actual world, then any conclusion drawn can not be relied upoon as saying anything true about the actual world.

CC, where is the link/connection to the actual world in this Godel logic for God? What definition of a god is it theoretically concluding exists in the actual world?



***I wrote this to you, do you agree or disagree?
"I don't think JAK has been critical of modal logic. I think he has been critical of the argument given by CC that one can use Godel's ontological argument using modal logic to justify there is logical proof of God's existence. Modal logic may be useful, I've got no qualms with that and I doubt JAK does either. The problem is with how someone uses it. If one is going to set up a definition and assume axioms and then use that closed system/game whatever you want to call it, to say something about the actual world, there has to be some link to the actual world to warrant doing that. You say "God in theism reasoned from ontology, similarily, isn't something emperical evidence will ever say much about." Well that's fine but then one should be clear and honest about the limitations of what an ontological argument regarding a God concept can say. It can not say, it has logical proof of the existence of an actual God."

You wrote
3) sorry, but JAK has not, nor will he ever find a simple logical fallacy in Godel's thinking, no matter what Godel was thinking about.


I responded: Yes but Godel's logic is a closed system. I'm sure JAK appreciates that if one wants to restrict one's reasoning to such a closed reasoning system, it is limited to what information can be derived from it with regards to the actual world we live in.

***Do you agree with me or not?

[_JAK]

JAK,

Please see Godel's argument in symbolic form on wiki. While I'm sure one or more of his assumptions are wrong, as I'm not a Platonist, his argument is not a tautology. His conclusion doesn't merely just restate a premise.

Your last sentence is correct. I’m not sure why you write it.

Did you see the following?:

JAK regarding marg’s analysis:

I would be remiss not to recognize that you are reading me correctly and that your additions and analysis are correct as well.

To pick up on one point from you (Mon Aug 27, 2007 11:17 pm):

marg stated:
Yes but Godel's logic is a closed system. I'm sure JAK appreciates that if one wants to restrict one's reasoning to such a closed reasoning system, it is limited to what information can be derived from it with regards to the actual world we live in.

A primary reason that modal logics is referred to in academic circles with an s being added to the word logic is for the very observation you make here. Such constructs are closed. And, as I identified, they make assumptions which must be included or their constructions disintegrate.

You will recall in CC’s posting for Gödel,
“Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive”

Prior to that Gödel creates his own definitions:
“Definition 1: x is God-like iff x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive”

(These are as posted by CC previously.)

As you, marg, correctly observed, we have a “closed reasoning system...”

God is assumed in both the definition and the axiom.

Yet CC attempted to say that Gödel proved God. Of course Gödel did nothing of the kind. Hence, in “model logics” we are confined by claims which ignore that which is not within the “closed __ system” as you astutely recognized.

I’m sure you recognize (as you imply) that reasoning is actually removed by constraints of a closed system.

In the listing CC provided, many questions which could/should be asked are precluded by definition and axiom making them off limits.

In “Definition 1: x is God-like iff x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive,” we have insurmountable begging of question.

In addition to the assumptions, we also have no definition of “positive.” Is there universal agreement on what is positive? There is not.

“Essential properties” assumes there are unessential “properties. Otherwise, why use the word. Why not say “properties”?

“Essential” is not clarified and therefore not known.

If we are to have “only those properties which are positive,” we require detailed analysis of what qualifies and what is disqualified. Secondarily, we need consensus on conclusions regarding that.

Now the definition reduces all of these unknowns to “x”. So while we appear to be setting up for a form of deductive argument, in fact, we have no clarity for “x”.

Absent clarity & transparency for definition 1, building upon that also lacks clarity & transparency.

JAK