Re: If Theism isn\'t a Delusion, Then What Is It?
Frank 013: Why the personal slight? Are you offended by the word faulty?
No; I'm frustrated at constantly seeing you try to fit my arguments into some mold that they weren't intended for. You've decided somewhere along the line that I think our senses are inherently faulty, logic is inherently faulty, we ought to behave as though we can't trust either, religion is blameless and science is worthless. And it doesn't matter how often I connect my actual arguments to more moderate viewpoints, you continue to argue as though I were arguing for those extreme points of view.
me: What I'm saying is that a is arational.
Frank: But only if you assume that it is somehow flawed. There is no evidence that it is in anyway flawed or lacking.
No; you don't have to assume that it is somehow flawed. Arationality is a flaw only if you assume that total rationality is a pre-requisite for any practical application of logic. If that were the case, then having an arational premise would be a flaw. But I don't make that assumption; neither does logic as a philosophical discipline. It's an unreasonable exectation to have, because we are, as finite beings, incapable of building a logical argument on a completely logical foundation.The premise is only alogical if there is reason to believe that it is incomplete, there are no such reasons, not through our senses, not through our technology and not statistically.
I get the feeling that you're not understanding what I mean by alogical. I don't mean illogical
-- that would imply that the premise contradicts itself in some way. What I mean by alogical is that the premise is supplied by something other than logical argument. Sense datum is, in that sense, alogical -- it's provided by sensory perception rather than logical thought. Hypotheticals and assumptions are also alogical.
You can look at logic as a kind of machine -- a copy machine, say. It performs a specific function, and does that consistently, but it requires external input. That input can be, itself, a photocopy (that is, a premise arrived at by logical argument), but that photocopy is of something that was not itself a photocopy. And in this analogy, whatever was not a photocopy (that is, not made by the machine of logic) is alogical.
That's what I mean when I say that we don't have access to a purely logical argument. We can't make an argument that doesn't ultimately derive from something provided by some faculty other than logic.