The logical fallacy of logic.

[evobulgarevo]

In the Religion section there's a thread 'Was Jesus a real person?', though the Bible is a book of metaphors. So is it logical for us to interpret things literally when we know that symbolism plays a central role?

 

I also noticed that some content was removed:

 

Moderator Note

Posts hidden. This is a discussion of history, not personal testimony/preaching.

 

Is a discussion on Jesus a discussion of history? Or, would it be reasonable to take the symbolism into consideration?

 

Does logic get the better of us sometimes? Is there such a thing as being "too" logical?

[cladking]

 

Does logic get the better of us sometimes? Is there such a thing as being "too" logical?

 

 

 

Just as math can't be applied to the real world, logic can't be applied to words.

 

Words can be reasonably "logical" to the individual but definitions are too fluid for the logic to be maintained when communicated.

[swansont]

 

I also noticed that some content was removed:

 

Moderator Note

Posts hidden. This is a discussion of history, not personal testimony/preaching.

 

Is a discussion on Jesus a discussion of history?

 

That's not the point of that particular action. It's that preaching is not allowed. One is expected to participate in a discussion, not just present their side of things.

[Strange]

In the Religion section there's a thread 'Was Jesus a real person?', though the Bible is a book of metaphors. So is it logical for us to interpret things literally when we know that symbolism plays a central role?

 

Well, I assume the question was intended literally (as implied by the use of the word "real"). In which case, the metaphors and symbolism in the Bible are of little use - except that they may provide some incidental detail as to the time, place, people, etc. that could be used to check for corroborative evidence.

 

After all, if the question was not meant literally, then presumably it would be "Was Jesus a person of symbolic importance?" To which the answer is a rather obvious yes.

 

Or is there another interpretation that I am missing?

[Phi for All]

Does logic get the better of us sometimes? Is there such a thing as being "too" logical?

 

Logic isn't what you think it is. It's a branch of mathematics. What you're thinking of, what Mr Spock should have been saying in all those shows and movies, is rational, not logical. Nowadays, people use logical to mean, "That makes sense to me", just as they use "theory" to mean, "An idea I've come up with that makes sense to me".

 

So the real question is, is there such a thing as being too rational? I suppose this is as opposed to being too emotional, which we know can cause problems. Can you give me an example of someone being too rational?

[MonDie]

One might rationally conclude that being irrational can be better. It's hard to see how a false belief could guide behavior better than a true one, but false beliefs can certainly be motivating. However the rational person who concludes on irrationality rationally may never achieve true belief. Take Joe, the true believer who witnessed me perform a miracle, versus Jane, who merely finds it comforting to think my words are divine. Joe and Jane will respond very differently when I tell them they must assassinate the president, because only Joe really believes. Even if she wanted to, how could Jane intentionally achieve true belief like Joe's?

 

Logic isn't what you think it is. It's a branch of mathematics. What you're thinking of, what Mr Spock should have been saying in all those shows and movies, is rational, not logical. Nowadays, people use logical to mean, "That makes sense to me", just as they use "theory" to mean, "An idea I've come up with that makes sense to me".

 

So the real question is, is there such a thing as being too rational? I suppose this is as opposed to being too emotional, which we know can cause problems. Can you give me an example of someone being too rational?

Then why do English teachers talk about logical fallacies?

[Strange]

Then why do English teachers talk about logical fallacies?

 

Perhaps because English is probably the only area where rhetoric and (informal) logic are covered as most schools don't have philosophy lessons.

[Phi for All]

Then why do English teachers talk about logical fallacies?

 

A lot of the logical fallacies I've studied in terms of written arguments (taught to me by English teachers) have loose mathematical formulae associated with them, or are expressed with those symbols. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is the fallacy of assuming that since A precedes B that A is the cause of B. Same with False Dilemma, the fallacy of assuming that claim X or claim Y is true, so if claim X is false, claim Y must be true.

[evobulgarevo]

Well, I assume the question was intended literally (as implied by the use of the word "real"). In which case, the metaphors and symbolism in the Bible are of little use - except that they may provide some incidental detail as to the time, place, people, etc. that could be used to check for corroborative evidence.

 

After all, if the question was not meant literally, then presumably it would be "Was Jesus a person of symbolic importance?" To which the answer is a rather obvious yes.

 

Or is there another interpretation that I am missing?

 

"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real. – Niels Bohr"

 

We know that Jesus is recorded to have performed miracles, which some people claim weren't "real". As mentioned above, Niels Bohr tells us that everything we call "real" is made of things that cannot be regarded as "real".

 

Einstein was being logical when it comes to his work on QM yet NIST showed that 'spooky action at a distance' is a real thing.

 

Can our logical thoughts lead us to illogical conclusions?

[andrewcellini]

 

"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real. – Niels Bohr"

 

We know that Jesus is recorded to have performed miracles, which some people claim weren't "real". As mentioned above, Niels Bohr tells us that everything we call "real" is made of things that cannot be regarded as "real".

 

that all depends on what exactly niels bohr was referring to when he said "everything," doesn't it?

 

also the claim that "we know that Jesus is recorded to have performed miracles" is contentious because the biblical story of jesus is not consistent with the supposed "historical" jesus.

 

and depending on your religious beliefs you may claim to "know" jesus didn't perform miracles, or performed different miracles than christians claim.

 

Einstein was being logical when it comes to his work on QM yet NIST showed that 'spooky action at a distance' is a real thing.

 

Can our logical thoughts lead us to illogical conclusions?

einstein showed that so called "spooky action at a distance" was a theoretical consequence of QM in the first place. that's why he rejected that interpretation of QM (he wanted a theory consistent with local realism). too bad entanglement is a measurable phenomena.

Edited November 18, 2015 by andrewcellini

[Phi for All]

I'm pretty sure Bohr was referring to the fact that the molecules that make up everything are mostly nothing themselves. If it looks solid but is made up of basically nothing, is it real?

 

Can our logical thoughts lead us to illogical conclusions?

 

I think I could set up an imaginary situation where my rational thoughts might lead me to an irrational conclusion. But what would that show us beyond that it's possible?

 

This sounds suspiciously like someone getting ready to stretch a concept beyond all recognition to fit some preconceptions.

[Strange]

Can our logical thoughts lead us to illogical conclusions?

 

They can certainly lead to wrong conclusions. (I don't see how logic can lead to an illogical conclusion.) This is the difference between validity and soundness.

 

 

Niels Bohr tells us that everything we call "real" is made of things that cannot be regarded as "real".

 

Ignoring any discussion of whether Bohr is right or not (as off topic) one can assume the question means: was he as real as any other person.

[Phi for All]

 

They can certainly lead to wrong conclusions. (I don't see how logic can lead to an illogical conclusion.) This is the difference between validity and soundness.

 

So an argument that's sound is also valid, but a valid argument isn't necessarily sound, is that right?

[John Cuthber]

 

 

 

 

Just as math can't be applied to the real world, logic can't be applied to words.

 

Words can be reasonably "logical" to the individual but definitions are too fluid for the logic to be maintained when communicated.

 

"logic can't be applied to words. "

You just did.

[Strange]

 

So an argument that's sound is also valid, but a valid argument isn't necessarily sound, is that right?

 

Exactly.

 

http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

[cladking]

"logic can't be applied to words. "

You just did.

 

Words are constructs with ephemeral meaning that we use to try to communicate concepts. Even though we think in language concepts aren't really "constructs" per se because the thinker knows what each word means. We can manipulate words, ideas, grammar, and knowledge to arrive at new knowledge and new ideas. However once these ideas arise we have only language in which to communicate them to others. Each listener takes his own meaning based on his expectations and beliefs. But the concept we are trying to communicate is no less real or no less valid because of this; it merely isn't understood.

 

This is why science rejects concepts like truth, logic, and reality. Instead it builds theory by the effect of reality on experiment and individuals build paradigms on this effect. It's not the reality we see but our beliefs whether these beliefs are derived from science, religion, or the man on the moon. But the concepts and ideas generated in the minds of men are real and are valid or invalid independently of science or religion. They are not dependent on anything but reality itself as a measure of their accuracy or truth.

 

Almost all progress has been the result of serendipity and this is because we aren't so smart or as good of observers as we believe ourselves to be. But the ideas that constitute progress don't arise in the minds of those who forego learning and rational thought. These ideas spring up in the minds of those who use the newest instrumentation, or study the hardest, or learn the most, or are keen observers. There are many traits that can lead to serenditous observation. One boss used to tell me that if no one knows how to do a job you put the laziest man in the plant on it and he'll quickly find the easiest way.

 

Reality is astoundingly complex and this is one of the reasons that it is excluded from metaphysics. Factoring observation from reality can't be done directly by the human mind. It requires some metaphysics. The ancients described this as reality itself being "hidden". We simply see our models prefentially to everything else. They named the reality and understood it through these names.

 

But the reality remains. Reality transcends how we study it or define it. Reality must necessarily even affect the tools we use to look at it and understand it as these tools and language define our understanding of it.

[evobulgarevo]

that all depends on what exactly niels bohr was referring to when he said "everything," doesn't it?

 

also the claim that "we know that Jesus is recorded to have performed miracles" is contentious because the biblical story of jesus is not consistent with the supposed "historical" jesus.

 

and depending on your religious beliefs you may claim to "know" jesus didn't perform miracles, or performed different miracles than christians claim.

 

einstein showed that so called "spooky action at a distance" was a theoretical consequence of QM in the first place. that's why he rejected that interpretation of QM (he wanted a theory consistent with local realism). too bad entanglement is a measurable phenomena.

 

As far as I understand, Niels Bohr was referring to 'everything' that comprises the 'material' world, or rather that which we call material.

 

If you look at the Bible as a history book you would find that it talks about someone by the name of Jesus Christ who performed miracles.

 

In the Bible there are multiple examples of these miracles. The miracles, however, don't seem to align with our understanding of the material world.

 

Considering that one of the goals of the Bible is to make us aware of these non-material occurrences and considering that the material world may in fact be made up of things which cannot be said to be 'real', wouldn't a solely historical discussion of Jesus Christ be an incomplete discussion?

 

Einstein was being logical and logic lead him to an incomplete conclusion.

 

I'm pretty sure Bohr was referring to the fact that the molecules that make up everything are mostly nothing themselves. If it looks solid but is made up of basically nothing, is it real?

 

I think I could set up an imaginary situation where my rational thoughts might lead me to an irrational conclusion. But what would that show us beyond that it's possible?

 

'If it looks solid but is made up of basically nothing, is it real?', that's the question.

 

Regardless of the conclusions your rational thoughts may lead to, they are real. We don't even question that; we accept thoughts as real even though they're not solid.

 

If an architect thinks up a building, only the thoughts of that building would be real. If that building is built, however, then the building would also be real. But according to Niels Bohr, the building would be "made up of basically nothing".

 

So is the building as real as the thoughts?

 

Ignoring any discussion of whether Bohr is right or not (as off topic) one can assume the question means: was he as real as any other person.

 

We know the Bible is real and we also know that it references someone who was named Jesus Christ. The Bible is a book in which metaphors play a central role.

 

A metaphor can be interpreted literally, but that would defeat the purpose of the metaphor. The 'real' meaning would be misinterpreted.

 

Does logic limit us to literal interpretations? Knowing that interpreting a metaphor in a literal way would yield an inaccurate understanding, wouldn't it be irrational to do so?

 

[andrewcellini]

If you look at the Bible as a history book you would find that it talks about someone by the name of Jesus Christ who performed miracles.

 

In the Bible there are multiple examples of these miracles. The miracles, however, don't seem to align with our understanding of the material world.

 

Considering that one of the goals of the Bible is to make us aware of these non-material occurrences and considering that the material world may in fact be made up of things which cannot be said to be 'real', wouldn't a solely historical discussion of Jesus Christ be an incomplete discussion?

 

Einstein was being logical and logic lead him to an incomplete conclusion.

why would i look at the bible as a history book? there are numerous inconsistencies in the life of jesus according to the bible, and a large gap of his life is unrecorded.

 

when you mention einstein coming to an incomplete conclusion, it doesn't strengthen your case. he was "being logical" when he examined the theoretical consequences of QM and noticed the peculiar phenomena of entanglement. he was being reasonably skeptical in rejecting it because he couldn't reconcile it with local realism, and thought there were hidden variables. this was, however, demonstrated by experiment to not be the case, but i'm not sure that einstein was alive when there was experimental confirmation (bell's theorem is from the early 60s), so his conclusion had the possibility of being correct at the time. had he known, he probably would have conceded.

 

the point is, the consequences of theories are important (that's how we get out predictions), but ultimately their fate is at the hands of experiment. we know that it's improbable for the "miracles" in the bible to have occurred; we know more than the authors of the bible who conceived of such events.

Edited November 19, 2015 by andrewcellini

[swansont]

 

"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real. – Niels Bohr"

 

We know that Jesus is recorded to have performed miracles, which some people claim weren't "real". As mentioned above, Niels Bohr tells us that everything we call "real" is made of things that cannot be regarded as "real".

 

Einstein was being logical when it comes to his work on QM yet NIST showed that 'spooky action at a distance' is a real thing.

 

Can our logical thoughts lead us to illogical conclusions?

 

You need to define what you mean by real. Many parts of physics are abstractions, rather than real things — physics describes how things behave, not what they are.

 

Also, Einstein could have been completely logical in his thought process, but if he started from an invalid premise, his conclusion may be wrong. IOW, the correctness of the conclusion does not necessarily indicate the validity of the logic.

[Strange]

If you look at the Bible as a history book you would find that it talks about someone by the name of Jesus Christ who performed miracles.

 

And the question is, effectively, is there any other evidence that corroborates the stories in the bible. There are many other characters mentioned in the Bible. We are fairly certain that some of these are real because there are a variety of other source which confirm what the Bible says.

 

That does not seem to be the case for Jesus so it is hard to confirm that he was a real person. Or, even, that he was a single person. There were many Messianic and gnostic (and therefore secretive) cults at the time and so the biblical stories could be an amalgam of several different people.

[evobulgarevo]

the point is, the consequences of theories are important (that's how we get out predictions), but ultimately their fate is at the hands of experiment. we know that it's improbable for the "miracles" in the bible to have occurred; we know more than the authors of the bible who conceived of such events.

 

We don't know more than the authors on the recorded 'miracles', we know that they were recorded in the Bible as such. Meaning that they were witnessed as 'miracles'. Today there are things that are recorded that also go beyond our current grasp of the world.

 

A recent example would be those blue lights above LA. Shortly after that occurrence the mainstream put out an "official" and "logical" explanation of the whole thing.

 

So would it be logical to believe the mainstream because it has a firm grasp on public opinion and the explanations really do seem 'logical'?

 

Knowing that this is not a single occurrence of "weirdness" and knowing that there have been occurrences that have seemed "unusual" in history, wouldn't it be logical to remain open minded and discuss the possibility of both sides until there is firm and credible proof of either?

 

The word "improbable" appeals to logic, but it doesn't exemplify a certainty.

 

 

You need to define what you mean by real. Many parts of physics are abstractions, rather than real things — physics describes how things behave, not what they are.

 

Also, Einstein could have been completely logical in his thought process, but if he started from an invalid premise, his conclusion may be wrong. IOW, the correctness of the conclusion does not necessarily indicate the validity of the logic.

 

That's in part what I've already asked. What is real and how do scientists define real?

 

Einstein or otherwise, as far as I understand, all scientists look to start with a 'valid premise'. Or rather, a premise which they themselves believe to be valid. The point is that the field of science in itself is based on changing assertions and evolving conclusions.

 

So even though something may have been deemed 'logical' by past generations of scientists, it doesn't mean that it was accurate. But those past generations don't seem to realize it during their own lifetime. It seems that it is future generations that are able to point to conclusions that may have in fact been based on invalid premises and thus put forth new "more accurate" conclusions.

 

And the question is, effectively, is there any other evidence that corroborates the stories in the bible. There are many other characters mentioned in the Bible. We are fairly certain that some of these are real because there are a variety of other source which confirm what the Bible says.

 

That does not seem to be the case for Jesus so it is hard to confirm that he was a real person. Or, even, that he was a single person. There were many Messianic and gnostic (and therefore secretive) cults at the time and so the biblical stories could be an amalgam of several different people.

 

As you've pointed out, there is a "variety of sources which confirm what the Bible says". Though the Bible in itself is a compilation of sources.

 

The various sources compiled in the Bible point to Jesus as being a real person, and their accounts of him are quite similar. But that wasn't really the point as this goes into a mere discussion of historic events.

 

The point is, knowing that these historic events involved actions which go beyond the material world would it be logical to simply discuss them from a historical point of view?

 

Discussing Jesus and the miracles he performed simply from a historical perspective is like discussing the double slit experiment without looking into the behaviours of wave-particle duality.

[andrewcellini]

 

We don't know more than the authors on the recorded 'miracles', we know that they were recorded in the Bible as such. Meaning that they were witnessed as 'miracles'. Today there are things that are recorded that also go beyond our current grasp of the world.

we certainly do. for example, we know of a little thing called "conservation of momentum" which would have hampered survival of pretty much every living thing when god stopped the earth in the old testament.

 

 

The word "improbable" appeals to logic, but it doesn't exemplify a certainty.

i don't think you know what improbable means.

 

Discussing Jesus and the miracles he performed simply from a historical perspective is like discussing the double slit experiment without looking into the behaviours of wave-particle duality.

again this doesn't really help your case. you can discuss the double slit experiment in a classical way, at least for a laser (this is actually the way it was introduced to me in Physics III). it all depends on how deep you want to go. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

 

this doesn't really help your case because, in the above, you're still doing physics even though there is a sort of perspective (and scale) change, and physics is in part guided by evidence. what you're suggesting is to somehow reconcile the evidence with a collection of stories which can't be corroborated by external sources and are not self consistent. this is not comparable to switching from classical to quantum descriptions; it's more like the idea of presenting creationism and evolution side by side, treating them as equals.

Edited November 22, 2015 by andrewcellini

[Strange]

As you've pointed out, there is a "variety of sources which confirm what the Bible says".

 

But not when it comes to the existence of Jesus.

 

The various sources compiled in the Bible point to Jesus as being a real person, and their accounts of him are quite similar. But that wasn't really the point as this goes into a mere discussion of historic events.

 

But their is no independent corroboration of these sources. (Which were obviously chosen because they support the preferred narrative.)

 

The point is, knowing that these historic events involved actions which go beyond the material world would it be logical to simply discuss them from a historical point of view?

 

Of course. But you seem to be conflating two different things: the existence of Jesus and whether he actually performed miracles. Both of those could be investigated historically to see if there is any (independent) evidence. It appears there isn't.

[Phi for All]

Discussing Jesus and the miracles he performed simply from a historical perspective is like discussing the double slit experiment without looking into the behaviours of wave-particle duality.

 

Since you've decided to take this thread back to arguing about your religion, I'd have to say that you really don't understand logic or critical thinking at the level you think you do. People have told you that there is historical corroboration for SOME (SOME! SOME!) characters in the Bible, not for Jesus, and certainly not for any of the miracles the Bible speaks of, yet here you still irrationally assume everything the Bible says about him is automatically true, and deserves discussion at a decent level of rigor.

 

I have to say that being too rational is a problem when you end up wasting time on people who don't listen. Reason tells me that if I present a sound enough case, founded on trustworthy explanations and reality-based knowledge, derived carefully from scientific principles, anyone with an honest, intelligent, sincere interest in how the universe works would listen to it and immediately see how flawed, willfully ignorant, and ultimately deceptive the creationist doctrine is. But critical thinking often doesn't account for how deeply the biases against intellectualism run in fundamentalist Christianity. It's hard to be rational when dealing with people who think a book most agree is metaphorical is to be taken literally, word-for-word, because it's perfectly error-free.

[Gees]

I have never seen so many false statements and mixed topics in one thread -- before viewing this one. To even put the word "logic" in the title is an insult to the whole concept of logic.

 

Please consider:

 

1. The Bible is a book of books with assorted authors written over a vast period of time.

 

2. The Bible is divided into the Old Testament and the New Testament.

 

3. To state that everything in the Bible is "metaphorical" is absolute nonsense.

 

4. The Bible is a history book, and as with all history books it was written to promote the authors' history. History books are notorious for having a selective perspective and rarely give the whole truth about anything.

 

5. Whether or not Jesus lived in that time and whether or not Jesus performed miracles is up for debate, but this should really be discussed in the Religion forum and has nothing to do with Einstein or physics.

 

It has been a long time, but the only reference to actual research on Jesus (aside from religious studies) that I know of was in the book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" written in the 70's -- I think it was the 70's. This work started out as a BBC documentary that just kept being extended until it finally turned into a book. Although the church denied many of the findings in the book, they could not dispute or disprove any of the research.

 

Years after "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" was written, another author took some of the information from that book and wrote The Da Vinci Code which made a fortune. Of course, the original authors were pretty hot about that because they did not make much money off of their book, but the new book was more fun and written as a story. "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" is really pretty dry.

 

Nonetheless, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" was very informative. I learned that Mary Magdalene was pronounced a whore or prostitute about 500 years after she died -- by the church -- when it appears that she was actually a sort of noblewoman of good family that would have made a suitable wife for someone like Jesus. (It was around this time that the church admitted that Mary was probably not a "prostitute", but denied that she could have been Jesus's wife.) Of course, Jesus could not have had a wife, because then there would be a question of children.

 

It is also interesting to note that most, or all, of the "testimonies" written by the Apostles were written 100 or so years after Jesus's death. Either the Apostles lived very long lives, or these books were written second or third hand.

 

There were also explanations and information regarding some of the 'miracles' and a serious question of the Crucifixion, but it has been a while since I read it, so I can not specify more. If anyone wishes to argue this matter, it is as reasonable a reference as you are likely to find, and I recommend it.

 

Gee