• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Is LOGIC the ultimate authority?

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
yea religion is not such a big topic at my place. I was raised to being a defiant or sceptic. but i have learnt as well that the most important lesson to being a sceptic is not thinking one was always right
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
yea religion is not such a big topic at my place. I was raised to being a defiant or sceptic. but i have learnt as well that the most important lesson to being a sceptic is not thinking one was always right

I wasn't raised as anything. Not even skeptic. I was just flat out careless. I once even stole cake from a nun's bake sale. Not as anything personal. I just did it. Even the hardcore gangster kids thought that was taboo. It's complicated how I even came to respect some of religion eventually.
 

CuriousFeeling

From the Undertow
Joined
Dec 18, 2009
Messages
2,937
MBTI Type
INfJ
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Even though from a scientific background, I embrace logic, I still don't think it is the ultimate authority. There are times where even logic can be faulty. No mindframe that we use to understand the world is infallible. A union of mindframes can be considered the ultimate authority, calling upon the strengths of logic, reason, intuition, empathy, empirical thought, and have them join forces with each other. Why limit the mind to a one way street when you can use it to its full potential?
 

Qlip

Post Human Post
Joined
Jul 30, 2010
Messages
8,464
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I'm still trying to parse the question. To me the question can be restated as: 1. Can the existence of anything of importance be deduced as predictable result of a prior event? 2. Are we capable of understanding everything that happens between cause and effect?

I'm going to say 1. Probably 2. Probably not.
 

Spurgeon

New member
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Messages
239
MBTI Type
xNxx
Who's to say God doesn't appreciate Logic anyways? It seems logical that God would.. or even set the rules for it. Being creator of the universe, it would entail more than just the creation of the material manifestation of the universe - but laws themselves. Even specifically in Christianity, the "incarnate Word" that is Jesus, is called the Logos. Logos was a carryover term from various Greek philosophers (but specifically neoplatonism). The concept of the Logos was instrinically tied with Logic. Christians, like the Apostle Paul or John, were versed in these concepts. Paul specifically was a Hellenistic Jew, and could display his own sophistry with the best of them.

Fast forward 2000 years and every Church of Fred wants to make it out like God and Logic are some kind of seperate thing.

Anyways, this is all assuming there is a God, of course (lets not debate that for now... and for the billionth time /snore).


Nice post. Couldn't agree more.


I'd blame the killing because of religion mostly on humans.

As for the rest, maybe there is a logic to those disasters and diseases. There's even worse things in the universe besides that. Think of a gamma ray burst, that could have or might have already completely killed off entire civilized systems in a blink of an eye. Destruction at it's most frightening and seemingly senseless level. But maybe there's a reason. The universe is a big place, and some actions might take priority because it's ultimately beneficial (but only a God would know if it was of any benefit).

And if we don't want to believe a God is orchestrating all of this for some logical reason, then we must believe in Chaos. In which case, Chaos is the highest authority. I dare anyone to actually embrace that though.


REALLY excellent post. Bravo!
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
yea religion is not such a big topic at my place. I was raised to being a defiant or sceptic. but i have learnt as well that the most important lesson to being a sceptic is not thinking one was always right

I'm defiant and skeptical of atheism.
 

Spurgeon

New member
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Messages
239
MBTI Type
xNxx
yea religion is not such a big topic at my place. I was raised to being a defiant or sceptic. but i have learnt as well that the most important lesson to being a sceptic is not thinking one was always right


Even though from a scientific background, I embrace logic, I still don't think it is the ultimate authority. There are times where even logic can be faulty. No mindframe that we use to understand the world is infallible. A union of mindframes can be considered the ultimate authority, calling upon the strengths of logic, reason, intuition, empathy, empirical thought, and have them join forces with each other. Why limit the mind to a one way street when you can use it to its full potential?

More excellent posts!

Thank you guys. You just made my day. :)
 

freeeekyyy

Cheeseburgers
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
1,384
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
spock2011.jpg
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Logic is not an authority, but neither is it a servant. Logic can't relate to you like a person, because it doesn't have ends, loyalties or passions. Logic cannot dictate what you should believe nor enforce any decrees; neither will it strive to please you or follow commands. Logic is an authority or servant only in a metaphorical sense; it is "ultimate" only with respect to the purely formal properties of truth and inference.

We can be wrong about logic, and we can err in our reasoning. Some of us just do not care about truth or reason. To assert the 'ultimate authority' of logic is rather pointless, since it does nothing to settle disagreements of fact or ends. If we accept an argument as logical, and we are interested in truth and reason, then we, not logic, are the authority who makes that decision, and we, not logic, are responsible for any errors that follow.

Logic cannot compel; it is not an actor. Our passions may be compelling, in some sense, and we may have a passion for truth and reason. A logical argument may seem "compelling", but such compulsion does not come from logic itself, but rather from our passion for truth and the logic of argument.

Logic has no authority to compel unless we surrender ourselves to it, but then we are merely giving unchecked power to our fallible attempts to reason. It's best, I think, to eschew the idea of an authority in such matters. It is the parochial delusion of a species preoccupied with social strata: a crude attempt to shoehorn an abstraction into the place of a hero or leader. I love logic, but not this "authority" that people try to make of it.
 

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
I think it's u Germanz who have the nihilism complex...

tumblr_kvs7od7Va61qzicsqo1_500.jpg


And since when was Lark an American?

ja its like that. you cant have only highly intellectual idealists. someone has to do the real work aswell :)
 

Giggly

No moss growing on me
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
9,661
MBTI Type
iSFj
Enneagram
2
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I hate to see it any place.

True.

I guess it just shocks me when I see it in the religious realm because I don't expect that.
 

Tamske

Writing...
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,764
MBTI Type
ENTP
I'm wondering in which sense "authority" is meant. Should you use logic and only logic to decide whether something is true or false? You won't get far. Logic is really good for getting new truths out from old ones; or to decide whether two ideas fit together or not. That's what logic is for, and if there is a flaw in it, it will be repaired. Like science, logic is being improved all day.
So where do the first truths come from? Two possibilities. (1) You can choose a basic set of rules (axioms). That way you'll get math. You can get Euclidean geometry or non-Euclidean; some truths in Euclidean will be false in non-Euclidean.
(2) Observation. If you aren't contented with a mental construct, carry out experiments and find out truths about how the universe works.

What about morality? Logic can't decide about good and bad, can it? No, but it can help, as well as observation. There's a set of ethical rules which is improved as time passes. Early 20th century Jews were regarded as a race, defined by blood. The Nazis weren't really out of sync with the morals of their time. Observation and logic, the scientific pair of truth-hunters, abolished race and blood theories in favour of genetics... and nowadays most people wouldn't think of treating their fellow humans that bad. Except for homosexuals, [sarcasm] of course! They aren't fully human... [\sarcasm]
 
Top