Posts

Showing posts with the label axioms

A Feature Not a Bug

Atheists undermine their strongest case when they restrain their confidence in logic because it is self-evident. That you must use the law of identity even in attempting to refute it is a feature not a bug.

Logic Is Axiomatic, Not Provisional or Merely Useful

"We cannot think [therefore, or say] anything unlogical...." --Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus Prolific atheist celebrity Matt Dillahunty -- who has done many videos on logic, reason, and certainty -- thinks the problem with the laws of logic is that it they not axiomatic -- self-evidently true -- and cannot be validated because you have to use them in the very attempt to refute them. I guess he thinks that involves circular reasoning or question-begging. Most generally, he thinks logic (along with reason) is no demonstrable. Here's how he puts it in a YouTube video : There are people who believe that reason is in fact absolute. I used to be one of them. Even as an atheist I would argue that the only absolutes are identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle. And now I recognize that while this is a reasonable position to hold, that all of the evidence shows that these things are inviolate and absolute, we have no way of demonstrating that be...

Dogmatic Atheism?

If the word  dogma  denotes a set of first principles that cannot be questioned, then not all dogmas are bad. For good or ill, the word is a pejorative for many people, although it's all right for some religious folks. But atheists ought to realize they have a dogma too. No, not in the sense that the theists think. The atheists's dogma is -- or should be -- logic. The laws of logic -- Identity, Contradiction, and Excluded Middle -- are first principles that cannot be questioned -- without question-begging. Any argument against them would have to employ them if it was to qualify as an argument. (This is true of the senses also. You have to use sensory evidence in trying to make a case against sensory evidence.) Therefore, the laws are self-evident axioms, which means they cannot be rationally questioned. It also means they cannot be proved because they are what make the idea proof  coherent and possible. Any attempt to show that these laws -- A is A; nothing can be both...