[Dragaera] agnosticism (no flame) (was, long ago: (no spoilers) The 17 [Great Weapons])

[Maximilian Wilson]

On 5/22/07, Steve Rapaport <steve.rapaport at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Because as I understand what you are saying, belief (in God/No-God) =
> > assumption. But the basis of trusting in logic also requires an
> assumption,
> > a faith in the existance of reality (cause/effect &tc.). I may be wrong,
> but
> > I believe not. ;)
>
>
> No, that's clever but faulty in several ways.


[snip]

2. There is no need to "trust in logic" in order to accept such an argument,
> nor to understand his definition of faith.  But there is a need to "trust
> in
> logic" in order to bother having a logical discussion. [snip]
>

So you're requiring faith in the axioms of your proof system as a condition
for discussion. Fine, but you haven't proved that your logic is consistent
or complete, and in fact you can't do this without invoking a higher-order
meta-logic.

If you honestly
> think that you or someone you're discussing this with doesn't trust logic,
> then there's no point in arguing at this level.  You should simply whack
> them in the kneecaps with a 2x4, or pour honey on their head, and say "I
> win."   That's how to win an argument without logic.
>
> I agree that at a certain point faith becomes so well-supported that doubt
is irrelevant. That doesn't change the fact that it is, by the OP's
statement, irrational. (I would have said "non-rational.")

-Max

-- 
Be pretty if you are, be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.

Everything in Windows is very simple, but the simplest thing is difficult.
    -Clausewitz