Just a question about logic, for whoever wants to waste 1 minute of their life,?

Question

Group 1 believes in "A", but admits there is no empirical evidence for "A". Group 2 does not believe in "A" because there is no empirical evidence. No one in group 1 is in group 2 and no one in group 2 is in group 1.

Sometimes people from group 1 want to have rules set up for groups 1 and 2 based on "A", to which they fully admit there is no empirical evidence.

Sometimes people from group 2 get upset and demand the proof of "A", and suggest that in the absense of such evidence, people in group 1 stop trying to control group 2.


Is it logical of group 2 to ask group 1 to show group 2 some empirical evidence of "A", and in the abscense of such evidence to stop trying to control group 2 with the "A".

Answer 1

It would be logical and mandatory, if we, in America, didn't have such genius forefathers who came up with separation of church and state.

I would recommend compromise over burden of proof. Otherwise countless generations would waste time and energy debating the validity of the proof. No one wants to go there.

Answer 2

"Is it logical of group 2 to ask group 1 to show group 2 some empirical evidence of "A", and in the abscense of such evidence to stop trying to control group 2 with the "A"."

It is logical for this reason:

Group 1 tends to justify their desires to control Group 2 on the basis of what they believe the implications of "A" are.
to put it another way, they implicitly suggest that if "A" is true, then people must do "B". If (A --> B).

Group 2 are right and logical to question the validity not only of "A" but also the given association "A-->B", neither of which may be true.

Given the Group 1 admits that they cannot provide any empirical support of "A", then logically "A" should not be treated as an assumed given, and all logical associations based on "A" (such as A-->B) also then have the same empirical standing of "A".

In other words, Group 2 is right to ask Group 1 to "put up or shut up" on the validity of "A" and "A-->B"

Answer 3

We run into real problems with the symbolic logic here. For instance, group 1 could simply be those who believe in morality(A), which has no purely empirical foundation. Group 2 could be those of nihilistic persuasion who do not want any obligation to an A. If group 1 bases societal law on some sense of A, group 2 has to offer some socially workable alternative to A to object to A being forced upon them.

Of course, if group 1 bases such laws on an A derived from an unproveable (like God), and group 2 can show viable alternatives to both the unproveable and the proposed A, then group 2 has a much stronger position than you present in your equation. In this case group 1's A becomes unnecessary, perhaps even irrelevant. Group 2 does not need logic to defend itself at that point.

Answer 4

Is it logical? I dunno. It is a prerogative, though. But one can ask others all the livelong day not to do something, and still people will do it ... thereby making useless any logical argument about why they should not do it.

What is your point? Are you asking that group 1 stop saying things to group 2? Are you suggesting that dialogue cease? Waiting for the day when either the empirical evidence arrives or else (a) group 1 admits that empirical evidence is never going to arrive or (b) group 2 decides that the empirical evidence is not essential?

Dialogue is a healthy thing. Perhaps it does not conform to the rules of logic, but when was this ever a bad thing? Talk spurs thought. Even if one dislikes the talk they're hearing, it still spurs them to think about what they're hearing.

Is not thinking a good thing?

Answer 5

You are assuming that each and every rule asked by group 1, only have virtue so far as there is a belief in A, so the next logical/philosophical question becomes: do some rules have virtue in and of themselves? Can something be right or wrong, without a belief to base it on? If so, who decides?

Answer 6

Absolutely. Otherwise group 3 who believes in "B" may come along demanding that both groups 1 and 2 follow "B" instead... and group 1 won't have any logical grounds to object.

Answer 7

That is the simplest explanation of the state of affairs in YA Religion and Spirituality and government I've heard in a while. Bravo.
To answer your question, yes, group 2 is correct and logical to ask for evidence in order to have to obey rules set up by "A"'s special little book of mean things "A" does to people who don't follow "A" like sheep.

Group one is illogical to the extreme.

Answer 8

Yes it is logical but I doubt group 1 will cough up the evidence.

Answer 9

Depends on who is in the majority. If group 2 grossly out weighs group 1 then the only logical option is to make the laws based on group 1.

Group 2 is void anyways for not having the insight to consider things beyond their own senses. Blind faith a Newtonian picture of the universe will make a person just that: blind.

Answer 10

No, because the things of God and of the Heart are not logical. Besides, God is not confined to the logic of man. What is most logical to Him you can't even get your mind around. Proof? You're still looking in the wrong place, precious.