You've obviously thought the issue through and asked yourself many questions. May I ask then, what did you answer when asked "who is to say that logic is valid?" or "what if we ARE in the matrix (or something similar)?". I have never come across a reasonable argument as to how one properly addresses these somewhat ridiculously hypothetical questions. The problem is IMO at the core of philosophy you have to be able to answer them. Since you really can't, philosophy is somewhat of a stalemate and well, that leads me directly to nihilism.
What a great topic to discuss!
I have indeed asked myself that sort of question, and the answer I got had nothing to do with having to believe or not believe something. Believing something was right out.
I'll assume you're familiar with the Plato's allegory of the cave. In it, he likens the things that we percieve to shadows painted on the wall, and that the 'real' thing is not immediately knowable. I think there are several flaws in his analysis of this allegory, but as long as we understand the setup, you should understand where I'm coming from.
Plato's point (wrong or right) was that the things that we look at and see are not knowable, but he leaves a bit out (though either he, or socrates.. or someone) touches on it later. There are things that do not cast 'shadows' as they were. Things that only exist in the mind of an individual.
Now, when an individual defines a 'thing', they can claim absolute knowledge of it. That is, if I create a new word, 'schnarznabble' and then give a definition for it 'the stuff you pull out of a drain when it's been clogged up', then that concept is understood in it's entirety by me. I no longer have to worry about faith, or belief. It's not an unknowable thing, it's been defined. What it means/stands for/etc is an absolute fact. This is constrained to an individual though.
The neat thing here though, is that these concepts can be shared. The concept of what 'one' is, is a good example. I think we can all claim that we have a fairly reasonable idea of what people mean when they say the word 'one'.
Now, here's the trick; remove the barrier that language presents. Reduce one to a concept without a single word to describe it, and just treat it as concept "X". Now, anyone else who has a concept identical to the first person also has concept "X". In fact, even if those people no longer exist, or never existed in the first place, the ideas that comprimised that concept still exist as concept "X". This is the idea of an absolute concept; the fact that it exists is proof that it exists.
It's a neat little philosophical dodge, but it's valid enough. Atomic existance and proof in one. This works even if we're "in the matrix" since an absolute concept is self-validating.
Wow. What a longwinded backstory. This concept of absolute concepts is interesting, though, and used extensively in subjects like math, and defining the rules of logic, as well as many other facets.
So, it's true in a literary sense to say that 'I believe in logic', but it would be more accurate to say that because logic is a system which defines both absolute concepts, and the absolute concepts of how those absolute concepts may interact, it is self-evident. Even if I were to 'disbelieve' in logic, it would still exist, solely self-supporting. In the language of logic itself, you could claim that logic is 'true' in the sense that it is self-validating.
When a concept is true in that sense, it doesn't need something so pithy as my belief to exist. On the other hand, I can depend on it's validity when I attempt to make a choice or attempt a proof.
In other words, you couldn't build a mind on pure nothingness, even as an abstract entity. It's sort of the paradox of perception and consciousness to me, that we can be but we can never really know.
Well, who's to say what is required to make a mind? Find that concept, describe it for yourself, and then you can know - true or false, as it were - whether or not a mind is capable of existing by itself. Whether or not that concept is the same concept of 'mind' that others share is probably a point of discussion though.
I agree, insofar as the concept I have of a mind requires ~something~ to exist upon, but absolute concepts do not.
Eh, maybe I'm just blowing smoke up my ass. *raises brow*
LOL
Lemme one-up you here, on a sidenote that hasn't got much to do with religion at all; if your definition of a mind includes a person 'plugged into the matrix', does it include a person who exists in a star-trek like holodeck, where they are created by a computer, and part of their creation includes lack of knowledge that they're controlled by a computer? Worse, Can you prove that's not what we are? =3
Getting back to the whole religious debate though, logic will only get you so far. After a point, you run out of absolutely valid concepts to rely on. From that point on, everything is opinion, theory, or assumption.
It seems, in fact, that when you drive down to it, the existance of god is unprovable, and therefore, those that chose to believe one way or ther other are .. more or less .. in unassailable towers, only insofar as they claim faith alone as their reason for believing in the existance or non-existance of god.
Though I believe that there is no god, I have no sort of logical rationale to really back that up, and in fact, I think that illogical ideas like that are probably detrimental (see previous post). If I were sorely pressed though, I'd claim that it seems to be a positive choice based on the benefits you get from believing in the existance of a god or not, on a personal level.
(of course, religions are great on a larger than personal level, because they represent the capibilities of a group, and a group that is deep rooted, at that. Religion is a wonderful tool for shaping how people act and think. Better than guns.)
Do believe:
Good bits:
-You potentially recieve a sense of 'understanding' - something to fill a human need for a 'belief system' hole.
-You get to judge others and claim a rationale (based on an unknowable assumption) to determine your moral and ethical valuations of the judgement.
Bad bits:
-Humans rally against hyprocracy. Holding others to certain moral standards implies holding yourself to them as well
-Life is an ephemeral stage, and you don't get to live it the way you want, but rather like a slave to someone else's standards. If you follow the standards well enough, usually you get to live the way you want (sorta) but if not, then you're usually subjected to concepts of pain, torture, and other negative things.
- the concept of 'understanding' is shattered each time actual life shows you something that you don't believe your god would have wanted (tragic death, death of any sort, faithful people being hurt or impoverished, etc)
Don't believe:
Good bits:
-You get to live life for yourself, and do what you want.
-Isn't that enough?
Bad bits:
- You have to deal with the fact that you are (cosmically speaking) alone in the world, exist without purpose or reason, and the totality of your personal existance will end when you die. (Nilhilists see this as a positive, even after adding the fact that the things you do while you're alive are eventually going to be forgotten, removed, erased .. no matter HOW special you were in life)
So ... weighing in the options, on a purely personal level, it seems most rational to chose disbelief in god. The benefits outweigh the penalities. I'd rather at least believe I was free to do what I want, than believe I was a slave in some sort of cosmic final exam.
Anyone care to disagree?
