{"id":803,"date":"2008-08-06T09:17:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-06T09:17:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/2008\/08\/06\/atheism-and-logic-the-epistemological-question\/"},"modified":"2008-08-06T09:17:00","modified_gmt":"2008-08-06T09:17:00","slug":"atheism-and-logic-the-epistemological-question","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/2008\/08\/06\/atheism-and-logic-the-epistemological-question\/","title":{"rendered":"Atheism and Logic &#8211; the epistemological question"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>One question Sye keeps asking (see preceding post) is:<\/p>\n<p>(1) How can you atheists <span style=\"font-style: italic\">justify<\/span> the laws of logic? How can you <span style=\"font-style: italic\">know<\/span> that the laws of logic hold true?<\/p>\n<p>We saw, in an earlier post, that asking for a justification of logic seems to produce a paradox. If the justification involves an inference, then it will itself use the laws of logic, and so be <span style=\"font-style: italic\">circular<\/span>. And thus no justification at all!<\/p>\n<p>I pointed out one possible way round this problem (which I am not necessarily endorsing, BTW) &#8211; <span style=\"font-style: italic\">make the justification non-inferential<\/span>. Perhaps we can just directly <span style=\"font-style: italic\">see<\/span> that certain very basic forms of argument are truth preserving (this is actually quite plausible, isn&#8217;t it?).<\/p>\n<p>Sye says that God&#8217;s revelation let&#8217;s him know logic can be trusted. So he too appeals to a kind of &#8220;seeing&#8221;-type justification. But the above version is more economical. Here are the competing accounts:<\/p>\n<p>1. The above atheist-friendly suggestion is that we can just &#8220;see&#8221; certain forms of inference are truth preserving.<\/p>\n<p>2. Sye&#8217;s suggestion (I think &#8211; is this right Sye?) is that he can just &#8220;see&#8221; that God tells or shows him that certain forms of inference are truth preserving.<\/p>\n<p>One problem with Sye&#8217;s suggestion is that, armed with the laws of logic and the power of reliable observation, we then very quickly find extremely good evidence that Sye&#8217;s God does not exist (evidence that Sye studiously refuses to consider, despite my request that he do so &#8211; see my &#8220;The God of Eth&#8221; link on sidebar, Sye).<\/p>\n<p>Another problem is that Sye is aware that other people have a wide variety of religious experiences involving all sorts of incompatible deities (Zeus, Thor, Mithras, etc., plus Buddhists have experiences revealing there&#8217;s <span style=\"font-style: italic\">no<\/span> God), and that such experiences must, then, be largely unreliable. So how can he be confident that <span style=\"font-style: italic\">any<\/span> of these experiences are reliable, let alone that his happens to one of the few reliable ones?<\/p>\n<p>The first atheist-friendly suggestion does not run into either of these very serious problems. It may not be correct. But it has great advantages over Sye&#8217;s account. And Sye certainly has not yet shown it isn&#8217;t correct.<\/p>\n<p>[[[So, perhaps we should now issue this challenge to Sye: we have provided an account of how we can be justified in believing the laws of logic. He hasn&#8217;t. Therefore, we&#8217;re justified in using logic against him. But he&#8217;s not justified in using logic against us!]]]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>One question Sye keeps asking (see preceding post) is: (1) How can you atheists justify the laws of logic? How can you know that the laws of logic hold true? We saw, in an earlier post, that asking for a justification of logic seems to produce a paradox. If the justification involves an inference, then [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":13,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[68],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-803","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sinner-ministries-proof-of-the-existence-of-god"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/803","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/13"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=803"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/803\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=803"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=803"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/believingbullshit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=803"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}