On absolutism

Back a few posts ago, I alluded to a post about a website alleging to have a proof for God's existence I made and to PZ Myers of Pharyngula fame making a post about that same website almost a year after the fact. Well, apparently the person responsible for the site is a well known internet crusader named Sye TenB, and he is a bit of a one trick pony. The lines of argument illustrated on the Proof God Exists site who proceeded to fill up the Pharyngula comment thread as well as the comment thread of another site linking to that thread with his unique versions of "Oh yeah? Prove it!". I call it "unique" because he supposes his arguments prove that those who do not believe in the Christian God have no basis for using the "laws of logic" which supposedly can only exist with said God, and feels that this argument is so self-evidently compelling and accurate that the only comments he needs to offer after that are those asking for skeptics to offer up a comprehensive explanation of how they can have logic before they can even begin to ask Sye to support his own claims. Luckily, on the site linked to in the last link, he compiles his list of questions he would like skeptics he's been assailing with nothing but questions to answer, about a 150 comments into the discussion. And, I just can't resist presenting them in order to have something to talk about over here. So...

1. How you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic according to your worldview, and on what basis you proceed with the assumption that they WILL hold.

For some interesting subtext, the idea of "laws" as abstract entities is a common assumption, unstated or otherwise, that Sye makes. The idea of laws of logic is really not that hard to explain without using God as a method of support, in that the laws of logic are abstract in the sense of being concepts, rather than extant things, and serve as a human description of the observed tendencies of nature. Where that ends, the rest is extrapolation from those observations. So, this is where problems begin: the laws of logic aren't necessarily the things that we are supposed to prove them to be. They aren't necessarily invariant, aren't necessarily universal, and they do not need to hold in all situations. In a way of thinking, we hold the laws of logic to be those things in the same way that we hold the idea that the sun will rise tomorrow to be true: based on inductive reasoning and experience. It only gives us a certain level of assuredness that they are accurate, and only within the confines that we normally use it in. There is always the possibility that the uniformity of nature is a flawed assumption, but it is one that we need to make in most cases in order to function. So, the laws of logic aren't universal or invariant, they simply are assumed to be so for all that we can tell.

2. According to what standard of logic do you make logical determinations, how do you account for that standard, and why does it necessarily apply?

I frankly have no idea what this is asking.

3. If the law of excluded middle is not absolute, then why should it matter that you feel it is violated?

[Note: he mentions this particular law because he was apparently accused of violating it. Which is odd, because it is a logical law saying that there is no third possibility in an "either P or not P" situation, and Sye is good for sticking to such kind of dichotomous thinking.]

The assumption that something is either "absolute or not absolute" is a good example of the law of the excluded middle, and it is something that Sye uses in spades. But, the interesting thing about being shy of absolute, either in the sense of having a 100% chance of being true or being applicable to 100% of circumstances, is that "not absolute" lumps "accurate in 99.999% of circumstances" with "no accurate at all". They actually give an example on the wikipedia page for the law that has a similar problem: "Either it is red or it is not red". True, maroon may not be "red", but it may have "redness" to it than say, yellow.

What does this have to do with the question? Well, it is obvious that one should not care if a not-absolute law (in the sense of having an obscene number of exceptions) is violated, but that is irrelevant to whether a not-absolute law (in the sense of not being perfectly applicable or known to be an accurate description of reality in all situations) being violated warrants a raised eyebrow or not.

4. Does truth exist, and how is it possible for you to know if anything is true?

Truth does exist, somewhere out there. It's the things that aren't false. Whether or not we know what exactly is true or not with absolute certainty doesn't really matter as much. There is always the possibility that we are mistaken due to the possibility of indisprovable methods by which our perceptions are altered. We just can't be certain that we aren't in the Matrix, or aren't insane, or aren't being tricked by a demon into viewing an illusory world. Even if you posit a God as your basis for logic, the possibility of being deceived remains, and may in fact be increased unless you can find a method to verify that the posited agency would have no desire or ability to deceive you as well as the others. The appeal to below-perfect certainty is old and something that kind of has to be shoved aside for practical reasons.

5. How do you know that the law of excluded middle is true?

It's based on extrapolation, similar to the law of non-contradiction. It can also be determined inductively, by observing that either something is A or it isn't, in every case that you and everyone else can find in your everyday lives. Granted, I don't esteem the law too highly in that it almost intentionally seems to leave levels of gradation out of the picture. But, in most cases, it seems to be accurate.

6. Is the law of excluded middle true everywhere?

Have no idea. Considering that there are plenty of cases that we can find in which it is only trivially true in the "wheres" that we are aware of, however, it is very possible that there is something out there blatantly defying the human-constructed concept that the law expresses.

7. Is the law of excluded middle true at all times?

Pretty much the same question, gets pretty much the same answer.

8. How do you know that the ‘remaining laws of logic’ are true?

FAITH! Seriously, though: induction. They work when applied to everyday life, at least to some degree, so they are accurate enough to be considered "true" enough.

9. Are the ‘remaining laws of logic’ true everywhere?

10. Are the ‘remaining laws of logic’ true at all times?

Again, pretty much the same question (s).

11. On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that the’remaining laws of logic’ WILL hold 5 seconds from now?

Experience and lack of a conceivable reason for expecting that there would suddenly emerge an exception to one or more of them, since they work adequately to explain our collective experiences thus far. So, in other words: induction again.

12. How do you know that ’true and false are all that is relevant?’

13. Is it true everywhere that ‘true and false are all that is relevant?’
14. Is it true at all times that ‘true and false are all that is relevant?’

15. On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that the statement ‘true and false are all that is relevant’ WILL be true 5 seconds from now?

Pretty much the same damn question.

16. By what standard of logic is the argument on my website fallacious, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to my argument?

The standard of logic that accounts for middle grounds, doesn't reify abstract concepts, and doesn't presume that "almost certainly true in almost all situations" can be disregarded due to not qualifying for the almighty criteria of "absolute truth".

17. What do you know to be true, and how do you know it to be true?

Depends what you mean by "know" (i.e. what level of certainty you are requiring of me), because if you want things that anyone can be absolutely certain of, you would get an answer of "nothing" from any honest person. Even "I think" and "I am" are a bit much, because the latter is arrived at by the former, with the former itself presuming that "I" is a meaningful concept when being skeptical of one's own existence, and also by not giving the experience of "thought" the same level of skeptical doubts that other material sensations were given. We effectively know nothing with 100% certainty without making assumptions at a certain level.

18. Please give an example of how ‘argumentation and refutation’ lead one to ‘that which is true?’

By necessity, argumentation and refutation involving people who are not inordinately stubborn and committed to their perspectives will eventually result in arrival at "the truth" (i.e. the best and most accurate possible answer that they can arrive at with the information available) if both arguers and refuters are doing their jobs. By offering up possibilities, and either refining them or simply discarding them if they are deemed incorrect based on alternate information, eventually, they will arrive at a possibility that is irrefutable, and that will most likely "the truth" as defined above. It is similar to natural selection in a way: critical selection, if you will. May only the best explanations survive.

19. How do you know that logical axioms cannot be refuted?

20. How do you know that logic is irrefutable?

Induction. If it can be refuted, someone should get cracking on it.

21. How do you know that your reasoning about logic is sound?

Sound means that the premises involved are both in good logical form (deduction) and that they are "true" (determined, again, via induction). So, we can know that our reasoning about logic is sound if it is logical. If you want to call that circular, go ahead. The answer was phrased in a manner to make it so that a circular explanation was the only one possible. If we had another accurate method of verification it might be something to note. Otherwise, it's not all too egregious.

22. You say that you know that logic is true by the impossibility of the contary, how do you know that the contrary is impossible?

If you've been keeping count, this is the sixth question with "how do you know?" in it, with three "how do you account for" and two "on what basis?". As his posting style has been described by most who have met him, he is like a child continually asking "why?", not in order to gain information, but simply to annoy. Of course, he also uses it in order to avoid having answer any questions pointed in his direction, even if people try to show that the very basis for his assuming that atheists have to answer all of his questions before he even needs to bother to answer theirs is ill founded. Here I have to say that "impossibility of the contrary" should be restated as "severe improbability to the point of effective impossibility of the contrary" and that this is known through....induction.

23. How do you know that you are (were) typing on a keyboard?

Because virtually all accounts from others that I can find refer to this object that I subjectively experience in a consistent manner as "a keyboard". And because I can see the letters corresponding to the key that I desire to press appearing on the nearby screen and because I can see my hands moving to correspond with not only that desire, but with the sensations I experience in those hands. Of course, it could all be a dream or a hallucination, but, then again, couldn't anything? So, in other words, I "know", within certain limits, that I am typing on a keyboard, save some remote circumstances that are applicable to almost every human experience to make us possibly doubt their validity.

24. With regards to my question: “Could the universe have both existed, and not existed, at the same time and in the same way before there were humans in it, you finally answered:”No it could not.” Why not?

Violates law of non-contradiction, but then again it also could be true and human conceptions of reality, logic concluded, cannot accurately articulate or imagine how or why. Like quantum physics, sort of.

25. What in quantum physics has been deemed a “possible exception to the law of identity.”

Why is there no question mark? Also: speak of the devil. Have no idea what the answer to the question is. Oh well.

26. Why does ”What could or could not happen in the absence of consciousness” have no bearing on a discussion of logic?”

27. How do you know that ”What could or could not happen in the absence of consciousness” has no bearing on a discussion of logic?”

Because we have no idea how to verify anything about such speculation (?). Also: is it too late to propose a drinking game?

28. Can new evidence ALWAYS change truth?

The emphasis should have been on CAN. New evidence can change "truth" as we perceive it, and it always CAN, but that does not mean it will in any given situation, let alone "ALWAYS". Depends on the nature and amount of said evidence.

29. If new evidence is presented, then the truth can change that new evidence can change truth, such that it is true that no new evidence can ever change truth, or is that one of those truths that can’t change?

Ooooo. What clever wordplay. Why do I get the feeling that this man wouldn't know "truth" even if it slowly eviscerated him in front of his loved ones? This up there with his favorite "is it absolutely true that there are no absolute truths?". By making every claim an absolute claim, rather than a tentative one, he can play a hell of a shell game. Here, it's pretty much the same thing, except he also words it in such a way that he makes it sound like finding new evidence could possibly make one reach the conclusion that future new evidence should have no bearing on our perceptions of reality. What that evidence could possibly I cannot possibly conceive. Therefore, it cannot possibly exist. (That was a joke, just for clarity's sake).

30. How do you know that your perceptions are valid?

That's a good question to direct at yourself. Anyway, I've already dealt with the idea that perceptions aren't perfect a lot. Unless you have some method of verifying that it is or is not the case, you mostly have to assume that human perceptions, at large, are valid in order to function in life. It is a necessary assumption, to save us from solipsism.

31. How do you know that the reasoning with which you interpret your perceptions are valid?

32. What is your basis for assuming that the universe IS orderly?

Who are you talking to? Induction would be the answer if it was true, but the universe is NOT orderly. Don't get me wrong, it does have a certain amount of "order", especially locally, and laws of logic as well as nature have been constructed in order to describe and subsequently make predictions based on the certain level of order that we can extract from our surroundings. But, aside from those patterns that we natural pattern-seeking homo sapiens find, the universe really is rather jumbled. It is a blend of order and chaos, not wholly one or the other.

33. On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that the universe will be ordlerly 5 seconds from now?

It's at this point that I say: fuck off. I think anyone else who had been reading the questions by now, or listening to a child spout off similarly inane and repetitive questions, would have said something similar far before this point.

34. If the laws of logic can change, how is it possible for you to substantiate knowing anything with them???

Triple question marks!!! Let me reframe this question for you:

"If the laws of logic have a .000001% chance of changing, how is it possible for you to substantiate knowing anything with them???!!!11!explosion!"

The answer should be obvious: depends on your definition of "know" once again. If "know" means "hold something as true with 100% certainty", then it requires a leap of faith. If "know" means "hold something as true with 99% certainty or greater," then I think there isn't a question to answer.

35. How is it possible to derive the law which states that A cannot be both A and not A at the same time, and in the same way using observation, argumentation, and refutation?

Drumroll please:........................

...................................................

.................................................

......................Induction.

You observe that there are "A's", there are "not A's", but there are no "A's and not A's", and any attempt to make or find such a thing has failed. (And it's also kind of tied up in with semantics and word meanings: if it is raining, then, by definition, it cannot be also be "not raining" at the same time. In a way, it's not so much logic as a limit on wordplay at that point, since you are disallowed from describing a drizzle as "raining and not raining" or using the same to describe the conditions underneath an umbrella or a tree during a storm).

Of course, to note is the fact that nowhere is it shown why the existence of God would in anyway help to explain "the laws of logic", and these questions are in fact brought up entirely in order to avoid answering such questions about the flimsy case he makes for such a thought. I will admit this much, however: he has brought to my attention a few aspects of the "laws of logic" that are rather primitive. At very least, the degree to which the laws of the excluded middle and of non-contradiction can be applied depends upon the nature of the "A" involved in the propositions and on whether "A" is a distinct, independent group or a part of a larger alphabetic gradient.

Well, that's about all I have to rant about for this post. Remember, the truth is out there!