(July 15, 2012 at 11:11 am)MysticKnight Wrote: I agree logic can be tested so it's not in the same field, but where we wrong to depend on logic before analytically rigorously testing it? Were we wrong to believe in it in a properly basic manner without testing it?
No, we weren't wrong.
Logic is inherent in humans largely due to the evolutionary process which, in the case of humans, thinned out the less logical; logic, being a distinguishing feature in humans, was one of the biggest things that separated us from other predators. It is intuitive because it works to survive, which lends it credibility in assessing the truth of our surroundings. There are places in which intuition fails, namely in more recent physics, but this doesn't discredit intuition in the "human sphere" where our senses are nearly impeccably accurate.
Logic doesn't need the same rigorous testing due to the nature of logic's origins, that of selective progression that depended on interpretation of the natural world and one's surroundings to such a degree that unproblematic survival might be ensured.
I guess I said all of that so I could say that the "testing" of logic can be said to have already been taken care of by nature.
My conclusion is that there is no reason to believe any of the dogmas of traditional theology and, further, that there is no reason to wish that they were true.
Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity.
-Bertrand Russell
Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity.
-Bertrand Russell
