The logical fallacy of logic.

[Strange]

To even put the word "logic" in the title is an insult to the whole concept of logic.

 

I tend to agree. Especially as the thread was created by someone who makes rather incoherent arguments based on fallacies and non-sequiturs.

 

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

 

Someone has already made that point. I fail to see why it is relevant.

 

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

 

I fail to see why that is relevant.

 

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

 

No one said that. Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

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.

 

It may be historical, but it is not a history book.

 

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 discussed there. I don't know why it is the subject of a thread about "logic".

 

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.

 

What!? That is almost completely a work of fiction. Dan Brown's version is shorter but made a better movie.

 

Nonetheless, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" was very informative.

 

There may have been a few true facts buried in there. But I don't know how you would sort them out without some serious research.

 

 

Of course, Jesus could not have had a wife, because then there would be a question of children.

 

Huh!? That is a bit rich from someone complaining about the level of logic in the thread.

[swansont]

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

 

I don't think that's an easy question, nor would it necessarily be science. But if something is an abstraction, it's not real. Science deals in models, and those models use abstractions. If somehow we were to know what an atom really was, it could bear no resemblance to our models. All we are able to confirm is how atoms behave. Our description of how they behave includes abstractions, like electric and magnetic fields. That's likely the sort of thing Bohr was referring to. The models we use to describe the real thing — the atom — are full of abstractions.

 

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.

That's basically what I was saying. Einstein's premise was wrong. That's why we do experiments, rather than rely on logic.

[Gees]

Strange;

 

Please consider:

 

Someone has already made that point. I fail to see why it is relevant.

 

I fail to see why that is relevant.

 

It is relevant to my logical little mind. I like to put things in order. The Bible is a book of books by many different authors, who employ different styles of writing. It is divided into the Old and New Testaments. The OP's thoughts seem to be relevant to only the New Testament, yet the OP calls the entire Bible metaphorical.

 

It would be like stating that a library has story books and forgetting that it has a great deal more.

 

Strange stated: No one said that. Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

The three following quotes from this thread would seem to disagree with you.

In the Religion section there's a thread 'Was Jesus a real person?', though the Bible is a book of metaphors.

 

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.

 

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.

 

You might want to consider that reading a thread and thinking about it gives more information and understanding than just scanning a thread.

 

It may be historical, but it is not a history book.

 

What do you think a history book actually is, Strange?

 

What!? That is almost completely a work of fiction. Dan Brown's version is shorter but made a better movie.

So you like movies? Try Hollywood or Disney. There is not much of that in philosophy.

Did you actually read the book? Scan it? Or did you get your information from another source?

There may have been a few true facts buried in there. But I don't know how you would sort them out without some serious research.

Don't worry about it. Leave the sorting out to the philosophers. That is what we do -- what is real, what is not real, and why.

 

Huh!? That is a bit rich from someone complaining about the level of logic in the thread.

 

You have heard of the logical fallacy "non-sequitur"? Well, this is the opposite: sequitur. When people marry, progeny often follow that event. The Bible does not state that Jesus was married and it does not state that Jesus was unmarried -- it is mute on that point -- but it was also unusual for a man to reach the age of 33, be a leader, be of a noble house, and also be unmarried. One would think that this unusual circumstance would be explained, but it was not.

 

Mary Magdalene traveled with Jesus throughout his teaching, traveled with the wives, family, and friends of His followers -- traveled with his Mother for crying out loud -- and this was accepted. The Church told us for centuries that this woman was a prostitute, with loose morals, who sold her body for money, and yet it appears that all of the good women in Jesus's company accepted her in a time when prostitutes were commonly stoned. Bullshit.

 

It had to have been a man, who made up that story. So the questions become, "Why was the prostitution story made up in the first place?", "Why did they even mention her?" Because they had to. She is mentioned in the Gospels and has been called Jesus's first disciple. There are also verses that imply that the other disciples were jealous of the time Jesus spent with her. So she was close to him . . . in what way? If she was not a prostitute, and it is now agreed that she was not, was she an unmarried female friend keeping company with an unmarried male, or was she his wife?

 

If she were his wife, she could have born him legitimate children. He was a criminal; he was the head of a new church; he was potentially a King of the Jews, or at least a rabble rouser, in a time when the Jews were dominated; so his progeny would have been in danger from a variety of sources. It would have been much better for everyone involved if he were not married. The Church decreed that he was not married and wrote off the potential wife as a prostitute. Problem solved. imo

 

Gee

 

[Strange]

It is relevant to my logical little mind. I like to put things in order. The Bible is a book of books by many different authors, who employ different styles of writing. It is divided into the Old and New Testaments. The OP's thoughts seem to be relevant to only the New Testament, yet the OP calls the entire Bible metaphorical.

 

As the question raised was about the historical reality of Jesus, then obviously the focus would be on the NT.

 

The three following quotes from this thread would seem to disagree with you.

 

None of those say "everything" in the bible is metaphorical, as you claimed. In fact the second says, "The Bible is a book in which metaphors play a central role." See that? "play a central [but not only] role".

 

Maybe English isn't your first language?

 

 

You might want to consider that reading a thread and thinking about it gives more information and understanding than just scanning a thread.

 

You might want to consider not being a smart-arse. Especially when you are wrong.

 

What do you think a history book actually is, Strange?

 

A book which uses a number of primary and secondary sources to present a reasonably accurate, if sometimes biased, view of historical events.

 

Did you actually read the book? Scan it? Or did you get your information from another source?

 

I started reading it but gave up when it was obvious that the authors were either liars or gullible idiots.

 

 

Don't worry about it. Leave the sorting out to the philosophers. That is what we do

 

"We"? Really?

 

You have heard of the logical fallacy "non-sequitur"? Well, this is the opposite: sequitur. When people marry, progeny often follow that event.

 

Often, but not inevitably. Which is why your comment was not logical.

[Phi for All]

The three following quotes from this thread would seem to disagree with you.

 

 

 

You might want to consider that reading a thread and thinking about it gives more information and understanding than just scanning a thread.

 

Consider this. My statement about the Bible being a metaphorical book was limited to the context of metaphorical versus literal interpretations. You misread my statement (admit it, in rereading it's pretty clear), and are now berating Strange for his reading and cognitive skills.

 

I think you're trying to make this personal for some reason, and the emotion is clouding your better judgement. Your attitude is affecting your behavior, which is affecting Strange's attitude and thus his behavior. None of this happens in a vacuum.

 

Now my attitude sucks.

[Gees]

Phi for All;

 

Please consider my following thoughts.

 

Consider this. My statement about the Bible being a metaphorical book was limited to the context of metaphorical versus literal interpretations. You misread my statement (admit it, in rereading it's pretty clear),

 

I did not misread your post and actually had no problem with it. You were simply trying to inject some rational thought into a topic that is fraught with the irrational and illogical.

 

But can a person inject logic into a topic by arguing? No. One has to actually make an argument, to break it down, put it in order, and discuss the details. We can not argue that the Bible is metaphorical or that it is literal, because it is both. So I tried to start the process of breaking it down, and being the fool that I obviously am, I thought I was helping by clarifying.

 

My first three points offered a breakdown and ordering of the Bible. My fourth point was that it is a history book (This is why all of the "begat"s are in the front. It is a Jewish history.) and history books are notorious for playing with the facts of history. My next point was that it should not be in the Philosophy forum, and we have already established that the moderators do not recognize what is and what is not philosophy. If philosophy had a speculations forum, that is where this thread should go.

 

Then I offered a well known book that researched the life of Jesus, and has an opposing view of the events depicted in the New Testament.

 

and are now berating Strange for his reading and cognitive skills.

 

Are you trying to protect him? Strange is a big boy, and I am not all that dangerous.

 

Actually, I think that Strange is very intelligent and has good comprehension. If you catch him on a subject he knows, usually science, he is very much worth listening to. He just has no respect for philosophy. I have never seen him have a philosophical position, or write a philosophical argument, although he likes to argue. He has one universal philosophic position, which is, "I am right; you are wrong, and I am going to prove it." Actually, he has one more philosophic position, which is, "Science is right; you are wrong." whether or not science actually has a position on that topic is irrelevant.

 

People who have this "philosophy" style tend to look for something to dispute, so they are not really reading for understanding; and consequently, they miss things. This style of arguing lends itself to scanning and skip reading; a lot of people in forums use this style. Now I could be wrong. It is possible that Strange has memory problems, or is devious, deceitful, and intentionally misreads or misinterprets the posts, but I very seriously doubt this.

 

Please note that I did not challenge Strange; he challenged me. He stated that my ordering of Books in the Bible was irrelevant, that the Bible was not called metaphorical in this thread, that the Bible is not a history book, and that Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which he did not read, is fiction. He presented no evidence, presented his statements as facts, and corroborated this with only his opinion. Is that the way science does it? No evidence, just opinion? I don't think so.

 

I think you're trying to make this personal for some reason, and the emotion is clouding your better judgement. Your attitude is affecting your behavior, which is affecting Strange's attitude and thus his behavior. None of this happens in a vacuum.

Now my attitude sucks.

 

Well it is personal, because I love philosophy, and resent when irrational illogical rubbish is presented as philosophy. How well is it taken when irrational illogical rubbish is presented as science?

 

But after a while, I found the humor in it. A thread where people agree the subject matter is metaphorical, then argue about the reality of it is not philosophy; but it would make a wonderful skit for The Three Stooges.

 

Gee

[Strange]

He stated that ... that the Bible was not called metaphorical in this thread ...

 

Except I didn't say that.

 

It is pretty annoying to be so grossly misrepresented. Please take more care in future.

[MonDie]

 

I don't think that's an easy question, nor would it necessarily be science. But if something is an abstraction, it's not real. Science deals in models, and those models use abstractions. If somehow we were to know what an atom really was, it could bear no resemblance to our models. All we are able to confirm is how atoms behave. Our description of how they behave includes abstractions, like electric and magnetic fields. That's likely the sort of thing Bohr was referring to. The models we use to describe the real thing — the atom — are full of abstractions.

 

Why do you distinguish bewteen models and "the real thing"? If a model accurately describes a thing, then that thing is the model, is it not?

 

Kant objected (in his Critique of Pure Reason, A596/B624-A602/B630) that existence is not a property. “Thus when I think a thing, through whichever and however many predicates I like (even in its thoroughgoing determination), not the least bit gets added to the thing when I posit in addition that this thing is. For otherwise what would exist would not be the same as what I had thought in my concept, but more than that, and I could not say that the very object of my concept exists” (A600/B628).

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/

Please bring me something that's not real. I want to see what a non-real thing is like.

[swansont]

 

Why do you distinguish bewteen models and "the real thing"? If a model accurately describes a thing, then that thing is the model, is it not?

 

Kant objected (in his Critique of Pure Reason, A596/B624-A602/B630) that existence is not a property. “Thus when I think a thing, through whichever and however many predicates I like (even in its thoroughgoing determination), not the least bit gets added to the thing when I posit in addition that this thing is. For otherwise what would exist would not be the same as what I had thought in my concept, but more than that, and I could not say that the very object of my concept exists” (A600/B628).

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/

Please bring me something that's not real. I want to see what a non-real thing is like.

 

An electron hole in a semiconductor, or a phonon, would be examples of models of things that aren't real. An electron hole is the absence of an electron, but it's easier to model as a positive charge. A phonon is a vibrational mode of a lattice. They are calculational tools. Physics is rife with them.

 

Your demand that I bring it to you is ironic. If it's not real, I can't do so. Is a hole a real thing? Can I give you a hole, and only a hole, without the surrounding material that defines what the hole is?

[Ophiolite]

Why do you distinguish bewteen models and "the real thing"? If a model accurately describes a thing, then that thing is the model, is it not?

 

The map is not the territory.

Alfred Korzybski

[cladking]

 

Why do you distinguish bewteen models and "the real thing"? If a model accurately describes a thing, then that thing is the model, is it not?

Please bring me something that's not real. I want to see what a non-real thing is like.

 

No model is real. As a model, as a belief it is real just as belief in ghosts can be real but there is no referent in reality.

 

The very words we use to discuss this are models.

 

It doesn't matter how many experiments underlie a model or how many subtle predictions can be made through understanding it.

[MonDie]

 

An electron hole in a semiconductor, or a phonon, would be examples of models of things that aren't real. An electron hole is the absence of an electron, but it's easier to model as a positive charge. A phonon is a vibrational mode of a lattice. They are calculational tools. Physics is rife with them.

 

Your demand that I bring it to you is ironic. If it's not real, I can't do so. Is a hole a real thing? Can I give you a hole, and only a hole, without the surrounding material that defines what the hole is?

 

Here you've invented a new meaning of real. To say a thing isn't real or doesn't exist is to say there's an absence of it. Hence in ordinary conversation you would take the non-existence of a hole to mean that a hole is absent, not that it consists of an absence. Many things consist in part of absences.

[swansont]

Here you've invented a new meaning of real. To say a thing isn't real or doesn't exist is to say there's an absence of it. Hence in ordinary conversation you would take the non-existence of a hole to mean that a hole is absent, not that it consists of an absence. Many things consist in part of absences.

A hole can exist or not, but it's a state of being rather than a physical object. It's an abstraction, a concept.

[MonDie]

A hole can exist or not, but it's a state of being rather than a physical object. It's an abstraction, a concept.

 

I don't think that's necessarily true. We could make a formula for identifying holes, the output being an abstraction of the distances between the individual molecules. However it's much easier to define a hole as something I can stick my fist through. They can share the same referent despite the former being abstract.

Edited November 27, 2015 by MonDie

[Ophiolite]

Last night I saw upon the stair,
A little man who wasn't there,
He wasn't there again today
Oh, how I wish he'd go away.

 

Hughes Mearns

[swansont]

 

I don't think that's necessarily true. We could make a formula for identifying holes, the output being an abstraction of the distances between the individual molecules. However it's much easier to define a hole as something I can stick my fist through. They can share the same referent despite the former being abstract.

 

Yes, it makes easier, but that doesn't make it real.

[MonDie]

 

Yes, it makes easier, but that doesn't make it real.

 

It shows that abstraction can be a matter of sense rather than reference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_and_reference

 

The word "hole" may refer to many things that are only superficially similar, but each referent is real.

 

Last night I saw upon the stair,

A little man who wasn't there,

He wasn't there again today

Oh, how I wish he'd go away.

 

Hughes Mearns

 

Talk to my psychiatrist.

Edited November 27, 2015 by MonDie

[swansont]

It shows that abstraction can be a matter of sense rather than reference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_and_reference

 

The word "hole" may refer to many things that are only superficially similar, but each referent is real.

.

That's not what your link says. I can refer to sasquatch, but that doesn't make it real.

[MonDie]

That's not what your link says. I can refer to sasquatch, but that doesn't make it real.

 

Sasquatch doesn't effect our experience of reality because there is none in reality. Holes do. Electron holes do. Phonons do.

[Endy0816]

The issue is that we are always stuck defining a hole in terms of something else.

 

You consider a hole to be in the ground by where the earth is not, an electron hole is where an electron is not, etc.

 

There's no independent existence. You can tell me where the ground or electrons are and convey the same information.

[Strange]

There's no independent existence. You can tell me where the ground or electrons are and convey the same information.

 

I'm not quite sure what argument you are trying to make, but I think this started with the relationship between the model and reality. So, here, the "reality" is the locations of all the electrons including some "missing" from certain locations. It would be really, really hard to model that and get useful results. So the model used is based on the existence of fictional positive charge carriers (with a charge of +1, a mass much greater than the electron and therefore lower mobility). This is much simpler even though it does not (directly) represent reality.

[swansont]

 

Sasquatch doesn't effect our experience of reality because there is none in reality. Holes do. Electron holes do. Phonons do.

 

I think you mean affect, but things that arguably don't exist can affect our experience of reality. Try your argument with a child who is convinced there are monsters under the bed. They don't exist, bet they affect his/her reality. Anyway, Ophiolite summed it up quite nicely with the quote: The map is not the territory.

 

Phonons do not exist on their own. They are a calculational convenience. As with electric and magnetic fields, quantum states, etc. To paraphrase David Mermin (from the May '09 Reference Frame in Physics Today), are you a continuous field of operators on an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space?

[Endy0816]

 

I'm not quite sure what argument you are trying to make, but I think this started with the relationship between the model and reality. So, here, the "reality" is the locations of all the electrons including some "missing" from certain locations. It would be really, really hard to model that and get useful results. So the model used is based on the existence of fictional positive charge carriers (with a charge of +1, a mass much greater than the electron and therefore lower mobility). This is much simpler even though it does not (directly) represent reality.

 

Not saying that as a concept they don't make life easier, just that in real terms holes don't exist.

 

Keeping in mind on a hike I would still want you to shout, "Hole!" instead of providing a lengthy explanation as to where all the ground is at.

[Strange]

Not saying that as a concept they don't make life easier, just that in real terms holes don't exist.

 

Exactly. Presumably I misunderstood, but I thought that you were saying that if we had a model then whatever is modelled was real. But the thing we model may not exist. And if it does exist then the model is only ever an approximation and idealization of certain (relevant) properties of the thing.

[Gees]

Please consider:

 

For a long time I thought that if a thing existed, it was real, and that if something was real, it existed. But in the last few years, I have begun to separate these ideas. At this time, my definition of real is something that can cause an effect.

 

So I think that matter is real, forces are real, and emotion is real, but I am not so sure that thought is real. I have not yet worked out how thought and emotion interrelate.

 

If we consider that matter is not actually solid, that it is motion at the lower levels, what we find, by my understanding, is that matter, forces, and emotion are all based in motion. Motion is what causes effects, so motion is what is real. imo

 

You science guys can beat this idea up -- but be kind.

 

The issue is that we are always stuck defining a hole in terms of something else.

 

I agree with you. When I apply my reasoning to this issue, this is what I get; a donut has a hole -- both the donut and the hole exist. Can a hole cause a donut to exist? Not that I can see. Can a donut cause a hole to exist. Yes. So the donut is real, but the hole is not because it has no causation.

 

Why did I add emotion to my list above? Because emotion makes a big difference; consider:

 

If I drop a hammer on my toe, I will have no doubt that the hammer is real because of the effect on my toe. But if I imagine dropping a hammer on my toe, it will have no effect, because imagination is not real. On the other hand, if I believe that the imaginary hammer is real, then I will react or jump out of the way, so there will be an effect. Belief is thought backed by emotion, so the emotion makes it real -- even if that "real" is only temporary, until I realize that it was an imaginary hammer.

 

So to bring this idea back to the original topic: Was Jesus real?

 

As a historic figure, Jesus of Nazareth? Possibly.

 

As a symbolic figure taken to be a God? Yes. I went back to the original thread and watched the hour long video that started all of this drama. What I found there was a history of "Gods" that followed humanity's thinking through many centuries, nations, and societies, and culminated with the Biblical Christ.

 

So are "Gods" real? That depends on your definition of real. By my definition, emotion is real. But emotion is not and can not be known in a rational way. Emotion does not come to us through our five senses as facts do; emotion is interpreted and comes to us through the unconscious aspect of mind. So emotion is always interpreted, and it is my opinion that knowledge of "Gods" starts with emotion, which would make "Gods" just as real as poetry and art -- which are also interpreted emotion.

If we are going to use cause and effect as a measure of what is real, then history is saturated with the reality of "Gods". But do "Gods" exist? Not that I have ever noticed.

Ophiolite;

Last night I saw upon the stair,
A little man who wasn't there,
He wasn't there again today
Oh, how I wish he'd go away.

 

Hughes Mearns

 

Thank you for thinking of and posting this. I enjoyed this little brain teaser.

 

Gee