What do you think about this assertion regarding logic?

Question

I found this answer to my last question to be interesting. I'd like to see what your responses are to it. Thanks!

"In physics we allow logic to assert the existence of particles smaller than an atom despite the fact that we cannot see them through any microscope. We know they are there because we can observe the effects they have on other, larger particles. And we allow that to be called logical thinking.

"Yet a religious person who observes the changes in their lives and the effects that faith has on others' lives and concludes there must be something more is called illogical. That inconsistency is itself a logical fallacy that moderna nd postmodern people perpetuate for reasons unknown to me. But I tend to think God has a sense of humor about it all, something we rarely, if ever, allow for!"

Answer 1

Here's the key part: "there must be something more". Yes, there is something more... something unknown. To assume or draw the conclusion that you know what this something is, THAT is the problem. Maybe it's just a smaller particle that cannot yet be seen. Must we conclude that it's gnomes or fairies? Must we conclude that it's ghosts or spirits? Must we conclude that it's angels or demons? Must we conclude that it's aliens or magick? Why cannot it simply be considered unknown until properly observed, tested, and proven??

Ignorant or weak-minded people LOVE to jump to conclusions. But how silly would it be to apply their logic to other life situations? "My car died on the road. The enemy (Satan) must be attacking me today." No, you ran out of gas. "My car won't start. God must be trying to help me avoid some kind of danger." No, you have a dead battery. "I prayed to God to help me, and I received a check in the mail that same day! God answers prayer." No, the envelop was post marked for 2 days ago. The check had already been sent. You would have received it with or without prayer.

If you look for a supernatural explanation for everything in your life, you can probably find one. Especially if you turn a blind eye to logic and reason.

Answer 2

Here's the thing. As a Jesus Freak, I don't have a problem with calling faith in God illogical. I find that a lot of the things that make my life the fantastic experience it is are illogical. There is very little logic involved in monogamy, or love in general. There is no logic involved in the enjoyment of good food, or preferring Mozart to Zydeco. Logic cannot address the sense of wonder that one feels at the first viewing of the Grand Canyon, or Angel Falls, or the Aurora Borealis. Logic certainly doesn't explain recreational skydiving or base jumping, or even the idea of having a favorite football team.

Part of what makes humanity amazing is our ability to transcend logic and reason. Without that ability, there would be no novels, no poetry, no music. There would be no chocolate, no bikinis, no wine, no traditions. Life would be, in a word, mechanical. None of this means that I find nothing rational in Faith, but it does mean that I don't believe that Logic is the be-all and end-all.

Answer 3

It's a damn lousy analogy. If there were no more evidence for subatomic particles than there is for God, physics would be in uproar. Especially given that the first scientists to come up with a refutation for subatomic particles would probably scoop a Nobel. Science PAYS people to find holes in it!

It's strange how some here equate visibility with proof. You'd think that Photoshop would have reduced the trustworthiness of images, but there are still people here who suggest that atheists employ 'faith' because they believe that wind exists even though they can't see it.

Perhaps it's too much to hope for that there would be general knowledge of the massive structure of observation, experiment, calculation and argument that underpins the foundations of things like particles, evolution and the like. What monstrous arrogance that some feel that their subjective 'common sense' is enough to overturn these underpinnings.

CD

Answer 4

Since the passage in question was mine, I’d like to examine some of the above responses to it.

I realize there will have been many responses posted after I started typing this survey of the arguments but I lack the time to sufficiently deal with them all. I hope this is interesting and helpful for those who are open to it and at least civil and worthy of not insulting to those who might consider but reject it.

There are only two arguments that have been raised at this time.

Argument # 1. It’s a Faulty Analogy. Although several people claimed this, I am going to look only at the reasons given that it does not fit.

a. “This is called a faulty analogy. Looking at two things that are similar in one way, does not mean they are similar in all others ways also. If it did, this is also proof of alien abductions.” (Eleventy).

I hope I haven’t suggested that any effect would justify the assertion of any random cause. But if one control group who claim no faith were compared to another that does claim a faith and there are categorical differences in health, quality of life, happiness, stress, etc then [if the groups were robust and diverse enough] then the difference is the cause. Studies have shown prayer for healing actually enhances health, for example.

b. “The difference being that the changes in the physics example are observable.” (Bongernet)

Changes in people are observable as well.

c. “You are assuming the changes in yourself are from the outside.” (The wolfskoll)

I have not made a stipulation to the location of the cause, only that something more exists. Perhaps that something more is within you. Which is consistent with scripture, tradition, experience, and reason. Further, a neurological or psychological explanation in no way precludes the assertion that these things are conditioned by external sources and are not random and spontaneous, which would also be an assumption. Moreover, when combined with Rupert Sheldrake’s research on morphogenetic fields, I think the likelihood of it being external IS a scientific assertion.

Argument # 2. It’s Not a Controlled Experiment – It Could Be Something Other Than God Causing the Changes. This argument came from Jathgnos, Windom Earle (whose response I think was best), Jolly Roger (who wrote something condescending and then called me arrogant, um hello), Amanda, The Wolfskoll, et al.

It could. It could also be something other than quarks causing changes in the behavior of atomic particles – for example, chaos. Scientists cannot exclude this confounding variable, not to mention the fact that scientists hold that the process of observing particles changes the behavior of the particles. There are many things not excluded in asserting the existence of subatomic particles, because they cannot be excluded only addressed. Again, you are denying the benefit to religious people of the logical acceptance you extend to the physical sciences as a matter of course.

As long as you know you’re being inconsistent it’s not a problem. It is the vehement and sometimes iolent denial of it here that stand out to me. What is the need? And here is a good chance to refer to Superathiest’s cryptic commentary above:

“Perhaps it's too much to hope for that there would be general knowledge of the massive structure of observation, experiment, calculation and argument that underpins the foundations of things like particles, evolution and the like. What monstrous arrogance that some feel that their subjective 'common sense' is enough to overturn these underpinnings.”

In science we take the word of the experts – the people who deal in physics regularly and have a wide knowledge of it (unlike me). We do not second-guess that it might be chaos or the fact that they coughed a few minutes ago or their own body temperature or body mass might affect the particles. But in religion the people who deal with it regularly are simply determined to be crackpots and anyone and their auntie Maude can comment at length on religion and how it affects people and whether God is real and we take whatever already makes sense to us, as if God were going to be like biology or engineering. The double standards are mind-boggling.

The fact that people have life changes as teh result in faith in different deities but not all or just any deities or the lack thereof might even rule out the likelihood and certainly the logical conclusion that any one god is the only and right one, but doesn;t it justify a broader statement about theism and faith, one that accepts the mystery and maybe even proves that several time-tested religions are paths to the same mountaintop?

Answer 5

I don't argue that faith can have a profound effect on a person's life (both positive and negative). What I do argue with is the assertion that such an effect has to come from an outside source. And that outside source has to be a god. And that god has to be the Christian god. And that Christian god has to be the one who's desires and behaviors are defined by a particular denomination. Do you see what I'm getting at here? The more specificity introduced to the scenario, the less credible it is.
You can make a supportable case that faith can affect a person because it's potentially measurable and observable. But saying that it comes from God is not supportable because it's not measurable and observable. Using your friend's comparison, saying that because having faith affects people, it proves God exists is akin to saying that because particles exist, it proves they are tiny pieces of fairy dust. Do you see the disconnect? The lapse in logic?

Answer 6

In physics, the only theory we have that fits all the known variables is the one you listed. We use the theory because it makes the most sense based on what we know, but if new evidence comes up the theory will change.

For a person who's life has changed there are many theories to fit the variables. God's involvement is one theory. People can also change because of social pressures or internal motivations. At best (or worst depending on your perspective), all the theories fit the variables equally well so none wins out over the other.

This is not a logical fallacy.

Answer 7

The difference between the two situations he/she has described is one of controlled experiments. In the case of physics, we posit that small unobservable particles exist because they provide the best explanation for the experiences.

The key difference here is that physicists and philosophers of science only believe that those particles are "structurally real." That is, either the particles exist, or something "structurally equivalent" exists that explains our observations.

In the religious instance, there are often several different explanations for the person's situation because of the level of complexity. For example, suppose someone becomes happier after they believe in God. This could simply be a result of psychological satisfaction, or the result of the people with whom they attend Church.

The fact is, there are many different explanations for such a situation, and to claim that "God" is the best one trivializes the others that rely on observable factors like cause and effect.

Answer 8

What the person using this "logic" fails to mention is the difference between "subjective" and "objective" evidence.
He also fails to understand the nature of physical evidence. While he claims that objects smaller than an atom cannot be seen with a microscope, the particles themselves can be be "seen" by the paths they take through cloud chambers and such. Obviously photons are smaller than atoms, and we can "see" them simply by being able to see.

Religious experiences do not have physically measurable traits. One cannot measure the electron voltage of a religious insight. One cannot calculate the wavelength of a message from God, or the energy density of the bible.

Religious experiences are subjective. A change in one's life may be caused by something akin to a placebo effect; one expects a change after "accepting Christ as lord and saviour", and change happens. Is this due to Christ, or did the believer effect that change with the expectation that Christ would do it? More than likely, it is the believer that makes the change.

Should religious experiences be accompanied with physical ones, one might be more likely to believe that religion has a real and physical effect. If a quadriplegic suddenly has her spinal cord repaired after coming to believe, it would be much easier to believe that the Bible is true. That doesn't happen though. The changes that happen in a believers life are not things that can be attributed to anything miraculous.

Healings in christians occur with no more frequency than for other groups. Many people have experienced spontaneous remission of cancer and such. The energy of electrons can be measured. The paths of subatomic particles can be seen and captured in images. The impact of subatomic particles can be measured. We can see and measure the changes in matter that result from subatomic reactions. Such is not the case with religion. Religion leaves us with nothing tangible and objective as evidence.

Answer 9

It shows a very shallow or limited understanding of science. One could take the phrase "can observe the effects they have on other, larger particles" to indicate an understanding, but it is not just observation, it is repeating experiments to determine that the same thing happens and that it matches the predicted behavior. There is also a large mathematical component that models the behavior. This is just a light or shallow summary of the process and the thought that goes into quantum mechanics.

The assertion that subjective observations of your personal life is the equivalent of strict, professional scientific study is at best, arrogant if not plain ignorant.

Answer 10

Most of the disagreements I've had with folks do not revolve around the aspect of faith and of the effect God can have on ones life. Belief in something larger than yourself and observing the changes in lives made by that faith--those observations are that-they are observable and can be proved or disproved. You will not find anyone with an intellect that would disagree on cause and effect in lives when it comes to faith and religion. The usual battlefield when discussing the religion has more to do with whether the bible is literal or allegorical.