Yuyutsu,

".....worship brings humility.
Humility helps to break the bonds of the ego...."

Yes - I understand that.

"Yes, our bodies and minds are fragile, but that's a different story."

I was referring to our bodily presence and our mind's grasping that it is one of fragility - but you knew that.

So man, in his realisation of his puniness amidst the natural world, woundn't resort to projecting certain qualities onto an all powerful deity for protection and comfort?

So you worship, for humility's sake, a God that you say does not exist...even as a notion or concept?

..........

Jayb,

".... [Deleted- see above]......"

Thanks for gracing this forum - so do we!

.

Dear AJ Philips,

.

You wrote :

« It’s not that you’re not capable of understanding this. I think it’s just that you don’t want to »

You just hit the nail on the head, AJ. That is the crux of the problem. But it is not that I do not want to understand. I arrived at an understanding right from the start, but my immediate reaction was that the concept was invalid.

Only too conscious of my modest station in life as a blithering neophyte in just about every intellectual domain imaginable (no formal education after the age of thirteen), I had serious doubts about my understanding - particularly since you, a declared atheist and highly articulate logician, clearly considered the concept to be valid. So I continued to doubt and even questioned my ability to understand.

But whichever way I examined the concept, it was in contradiction with everything I had understood about life and the universe up to that point : that there is no such thing as absolute truth, that everything in the universe is relative, and that human logic has its limitations.

I do not pretend to have a totally independent and unbiased mind but I do my best to choose my influences as carefully as I can (which is why I was wary of formal education). Bertrand Russell is one of those influences in whom I have a certain amount of confidence. I just googled “Bertrand Russell and logical absolutes” which found 6,070,000 results. One of those was :

http://www.carneross.com/blog/2011/01/02/mathematical-proof-pluralism-apologies-wittgenstein-and-godel

In this article, the author examines Bertrand Russell's life-long quest to understand the nature of truth and indicates :

« … it’s worth taking a quiet moment to remember two men who proved, mathematically, that there was no such thing as absolute and complete truth. Kurt Gödel and Ludwig Wittgenstein are rightly renowned in the esoteric worlds of logic and philosophy. But although their intent was never overtly political, their work has a deep political significance. In a way, these two logicians proved the logical necessity of pluralism »

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

I am personally incapable of assessing the value of the article but, as it is a question of “proof” (a term which George is notoriously allergic to) by mathematics, I suspect that he could, perhaps, throw some light on the subject.

Also, I must confess I have difficulty understanding your statement :

« … concepts that abide by laws of logic that apply whether or not we’re around to conceptualise them. These are not prescriptive laws, they’re descriptive laws that describe the nature of reality »

Please excuse me if this sounds silly, but I initially presumed that the “laws of logic” you were referring to were the laws of “human” logic. Which is why I could not understand how they could possibly exist if there were no “humans” (“whether or not we’re around to conceptualise them”). Nor could I understand how such “laws” could be “descriptive” if there was nobody around to do the “describing” or to perceive the “description”.

It took me a long time to realize that there may possibly be another interpretation of your expression, i.e., that the “laws of logic” you were referring to were, in fact, the “laws of nature”, the word “logic” being understood in the sense of its Greek origin, “logos” – (a) the rational principle that governs and develops the universe, or (b) the divine word or reason incarnate in Jesus Christ (John1:1–14).

Obviously, as you are a declared atheist, the possibility that you are referring to so-called “divine logic” is to be excluded.

And as you refer to “concepts that abide by laws of logic that apply whether or not we’re around to conceptualise them”, in this latter hypothesis, it would appear that you are, in fact, referring to “human concepts that abide by the laws of nature which apply independently of the existence of mankind”.

If, as I suspect, that is what you really meant, it would have been helpful if you had expressed it in such clear, simple terms right from the start.

.

Perhaps this could explain what AJP had in mind when referring to logical absolutes:
http://logical-critical-thinking.com/logic/logical-absolutes/.

Dear Poirot,

<<So man, in his realisation of his puniness amidst the natural world, woundn't resort to projecting certain qualities onto an all powerful deity for protection and comfort?>>

Men (and women) do all sorts of things for all kinds of reasons, but that's got nothing to do with religion, this sounds more like tribalism.

Had God existed, then such projections would constitute a business-like, give-and-take relationship with Him - which is essentially selfish, not religious.

<<So you worship, for humility's sake, a God that you say does not exist...even as a notion or concept?>>

This is one reason.
I also worship because it purifies my heart.
I also worship because it is good to worship, as it says in Psalm 92: "It is good to give thanks to the Lord, to make music to your name, O most high. To proclaim your love in the morning and your truth in the watches of the night".
I also worship God simply because I love Him.

Are you aware perchance that worshipping God as "Father" is not the only way?
You may be interested in reading this excellent summary - http://www.wicca-spirituality.com/relationship-with-divine.html

.

Dear George,

.

Many thanks for the link to that clear and simple explanation of so-called “logical absolutes”. Now that I know what they are I can try to make some intelligent comments about them.

Though brief, your contribution to the discussion is quite significant. Quote :

« Perhaps this could explain what AJP had in mind when referring to logical absolutes:
http://logical-critical-thinking.com/logic/logical-absolutes/. »

It is evident that as an eminent university professor of pure mathematics, you would have been familiar with so-called “logical absolutes” had they existed in mathematics. Apparently, they do not.

If, indeed, they do not apply to the logical system of mathematics then they can’t be “absolute” or “universal”. Their “absolutism” or “universality” must be limited to a particular logical system other than that of mathematics.

There is little doubt in my mind that whoever coined the term “logical absolutes” was probably a theist. I consider that there is no such thing as the “absolute”. It is a notion which evokes the transcendental, the supernatural. As such it is tendentious and, therefore, probably has no place in logic.

I suggest that “logical consistency” would have been less tendentious and, perhaps, a more appropriate term.

In the same manner that I find the term “absolute” unacceptable in the definition of a concept of logic, I also find the terms “law” and “true” equally unacceptable.

Instead of the term “law”, I prefer the term “axiom”, i.e., “a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it”. The three axioms in the definition of so-called “logical absolutes” are not, strictly speaking, laws. They are conventions.

The same applies for the term “true”. Nothing is absolutely or universally true. Everything in the universe is relative. There are as many truths as there are observers, even if they all happen to coincide and accord in some instances and in certain circumstances. There is no guarantee that they will coincide and accord in all instances and in all circumstances.

Instead of “true”, I prefer the terms exact, correct or accurate.

.