A Paradox in Christianity

[PhilosophicalBluster]

Let it first be known that it is not my intention with this post / argument / thing to insult those of the Christian faith in any way. That said, it is a point that sort of throws a monkey wrench into the whole Christian belief thing, so if you don't have an open mind please don't read this post. Bear in mind that I am not saying you have to accept, or believe what I say in any way shape or form, but just don't start screaming that I'm a blasphemer.
Anyway, on to the point.

I attend a philosophy club at my school, and while on one of many existential rants, my friend came up with this paradox. It goes something like this:

Before we move on to the actual paradox, I'm going to put down some truths that it is possible for most of us to agree on in order to establish a common ground. This sort of works better when you're face to face with the person, because then you can ask them whether they agree with those statements or not. Since I cannot ask people if they disagree with my point, I will put asterisks, if you do not agree, follow the asterisk.

Christianity asserts that it is the one true religion, and that all the others are wrong, correct?

If there is disagreement with this statement, go to: *

Animal and Human | Exclusively Human
Nourishment |
Reproduction | ~~Logic~~
Fighting |


Okay, so here we have a basic Human v. Animal chart. G-d gave us logic to make us superior to animals, correct?

If there is disagreement with this statement, go to: **


If G-d gave us logic, it is safe to assume that he wanted us to use it, right?

If there is disagreement with this statement, go to: ***


So G-d wants us to use the logic he gave us, but isn't it in fact illogical to choose any one religion (relating back to my first point that Christianity asserts itself to be the only correct religion) based only on what others can tell us? Faith is illogical, but G-d wants us to use logic. Paradox!

If there is disagreement with this statement, go to: The comment box




Disagreements----------------------

* In the first of the Ten Commandments, G-d says that you shall take no god before Him.

** In Genesis it plainly states that G-d created us above all the other creatures. Also, if G-d did not give us logic, than who did? If G-d is omnipotent, then how could someone other than Him give us logic?

*** If G-d did not want us to use logic, than why would he give it to us?

 

[Washington]

Christianity asserts that it is the one true religion, and that all the others are wrong, correct?
If there is disagreement with this statement, go to: *
* In the first of the Ten Commandments, G-d says that you shall take no god before Him.

God saying do Y not Z is NOT the same as saying a belief surrounding Y is a truer belief than the one surrounding Z. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Animal and Human | Exclusively Human
Nourishment |
Reproduction | ~~Logic~~
Fighting |

Okay, so here we have a basic Human v. Animal chart. G-d gave us logic to make us superior to animals, correct?
If there is disagreement with this statement, go to: **

Your chart is unclear.
Where is it said that god gave us logic in order to to make us superior to animals. The implication being that we would not be superior to animals---whatever that means---unless we had logic. And do you think all animals other than humans lack logic?

** if G-d did not give us logic, than who did?

How about, no one did. It evolved along with humans?

**If G-d is omnipotent, then how could someone other than Him give us logic?

How do you know that it necessarily takes an omnipotent god to create logic? Maybe the installation of logic in humans is entirely within the ability of demigods, or may benevolent angels.

If G-d gave us logic, it is safe to assume that he wanted us to use it, right?

I'd say that's a reasonable assumption. Although he also created evil and gets upset when we use it.





Edited to add (Just noticed the following was inadvertently left out in my initial posting)

So G-d wants us to use the logic he gave us,

For argument's sake I'll go along with your conclusion here.

but isn't it in fact illogical to choose any one religion (relating back to my first point that Christianity asserts itself to be the only correct religion) based only on what others can tell us?

It all depends on what you've established as qualifying criteria.

Faith is illogical, but G-d wants us to use logic. Paradox!

Well, like love, it doesn't lend itself to logical examination. Faith is typically seen as a firm belief in something for which there is no proof. And lacking proof implies a lack of applicable logic. Insist on having faith? Then don't expect the operations of logic to play any role.

Under your OP premise I assume your god would want you to use logic where it's applicable, and forget about it where it isn't.


So I see no paradox.

 

[BobW188]

First, it is not that other religions are wrong, it is that they are not fully true. No one who studies faiths like Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism or Hinduism with any objectivity could deny that they contain valid truth of great value.

Second, you state but do not show that faith is "illogical."

Third, what religion, what atheism, what agnosticism are you going to practice that is not based on what others have told you? Did you create Deism? How is it that your belief in Deism is not an act of faith? Where is your conclusive evidence?

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

Third, what religion, what atheism, what agnosticism are you going to practice that is not based on what others have told you? Did you create Deism? How is it that your belief in Deism is not an act of faith? Where is your conclusive evidence?

True, I was told about Deism, but I chose it as the right religion for me based on personal experience and what I find to be logical / likely.

I come to the conclusion that faith is illogical because it is illogical to choose a religion because you can only base it on what others tell you.


--------------


And to Washington, I am playing by what Christianity states. Christianity does not believe in Demigods, does it? And from what I've seen, most denominations of Christianity do not believe in evolution. In order to make a paradox, I have to use their own rules and pit them against each other, that's the whole point.

I do not assume animals other than humans lack logic, but maybe a different word would be better. You agree that there is a thought process that we as humans have that most other animals do not possess, yes?

When you say "Under your OP premise I assume your god would want you to use logic where it's applicable, and forget about it where it isn't." Who are you referring to as 'my G-d'?

"I'd say that's a reasonable assumption. Although he also created evil and gets upset when we use it."
So in your opinion logic is evil?

 

[Leonard]

Let it first be known that it is not my intention with this post / argument / thing to insult those of the Christian faith in any way. That said, it is a point that sort of throws a monkey wrench into the whole Christian belief thing, so if you don't have an open mind please don't read this post. Bear in mind that I am not saying you have to accept, or believe what I say in any way shape or form, but just don't get [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]ed off.
Anyway, on to the point.

I attend a philosophy club at my school, and while on one of many existential rants, my friend came up with this paradox. It goes something like this:

Before we move on to the actual paradox, I'm going to put down some truths that it is possible for most of us to agree on in order to establish a common ground. This sort of works better when you're face to face with the person, because then you can ask them whether they agree with those statements or not. Since I cannot ask people if they disagree with my point, I will put asterisks, if you do not agree, follow the asterisk.

Christianity asserts that it is the one true religion, and that all the others are wrong, correct?

If there is disagreement with this statement, go to: *

Animal and Human | Exclusively Human
Nourishment |
Reproduction | ~~Logic~~
Fighting |


Okay, so here we have a basic Human v. Animal chart. G-d gave us logic to make us superior to animals, correct?

If there is disagreement with this statement, go to: **


If G-d gave us logic, it is safe to assume that he wanted us to use it, right?

If there is disagreement with this statement, go to: ***


So G-d wants us to use the logic he gave us, but isn't it in fact illogical to choose any one religion (relating back to my first point that Christianity asserts itself to be the only correct religion) based only on what others can tell us? Faith is illogical, but G-d wants us to use logic. Paradox!

If there is disagreement with this statement, go to: The comment box




Disagreements----------------------

* In the first of the Ten Commandments, G-d says that you shall take no god before Him.

** In Genesis it plainly states that G-d created us above all the other creatures. Also, if G-d did not give us logic, than who did? If G-d is omnipotent, then how could someone other than Him give us logic?

*** If G-d did not want us to use logic, than why would he give it to us?

As a logical construct, utterly insular, this works. However, voluminous amounts of further data ARE out there for consideration, and your construct ignores that data.

You have created a syllogistic system, which can only be maintained by keeping hermetically sealed against further data...............

 

[Washington]

And to Washington, I am playing by what Christianity states. Christianity does not believe in Demigods, does it?

Okay, just sticking to Christianity then, I suppose we could drop the demigods and stick with the angels.

And from what I've seen, most denominations of Christianity do not believe in evolution.

Probably true, but what is your point? The Catholics, Episcopals, and Methodists who together make up about one third of the American population, all believe in evolution.

In order to make a paradox, I have to use their own rules and pit them against each other, that's the whole point.

Okay.

I do not assume animals other than humans lack logic, but maybe a different word would be better. You agree that there is a thought process that we as humans have that most other animals do not possess, yes?

Yes.

When you say "Under your OP premise I assume your god would want you to use logic where it's applicable, and forget about it where it isn't." Who are you referring to as 'my G-d'?

Because of your spelling of god, "G-d," I assumed it was the Christian/Jewish god. But now that I've spotted your deist icon I see my mistake.

"I'd say that's a reasonable assumption. Although he also created evil and gets upset when we use it."
So in your opinion logic is evil?

No.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

I understand your confusion, Washington. I just use G-d to be politically correct.


-------------------------


Leonard:
What are you referring to as data? The Bible? Historical accounts of miracles? Give me a hint.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I understand your confusion, Washington. I just use G-d to be politically correct.

I find it offensive. Please stop.

But as to your OP... yes, I see where you're coming from. God wants two mutually exclusive things from us: logical behaviour, and an adherence to Christianity.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

Heh, I'm going to assume the first part of that was a joke.

 

[solarwave]

Ignore this.

 

[BobW188]

I cannot personally experience my faith? How do you arrive at this?

I have no quarrel with your Deism, it sounds like you honestly and thoughtfully arrived at it. But let's face it, you have no better evidence (not no evidence; no better evidence) for your Watchmaker than I have for my Bearded Old Man In The Sky. Both our beliefs are ultimately based on faith, supported by evidence we consider to have met our personal burden of proof. (Including experience.)

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I cannot personally experience my faith? How do you arrive at this?

I have no quarrel with your Deism, it sounds like you honestly and thoughtfully arrived at it. But let's face it, you have no better evidence (not no evidence; no better evidence) for your Watchmaker than I have for my Bearded Old Man In The Sky. Both our beliefs are ultimately based on faith, supported by evidence we consider to have met our personal burden of proof. (Including experience.)

But do you have anything objective? The mind is awfully good at deluding itself.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

I cannot personally experience my faith? How do you arrive at this?

No offense to you or your faith, but my conclusion about 'spiritual experiences' is that the mind believes what it wants to believe. That may or may not detract from the meaning or feeling of one of said experiences, but there is a logical explanation that doesn't require the existence of any faith.

As far as I know, few people in this day in age personally experience faith. You may or may not have personally experienced your faith, however, there are likely people who claim to have spiritual experiences who have obviously not. So therefore, for the majority of people (but not necessarily everybody, or you in particular) faith is illogical.

I have no quarrel with your Deism

I never assumed you did.

But let's face it, you have no better evidence (not no evidence; no better evidence) for your Watchmaker than I have for my Bearded Old Man In The Sky. Both our beliefs are ultimately based on faith, supported by evidence we consider to have met our personal burden of proof. (Including experience.)

In my opinion (obviously not yours, since you are a member of your faith) it is much more probable judging by things that go on in the world to day that something created the universe and walked away than the idea that there is an active G-d. I think there's a difference between the faith involved in believing in the Christian G-d, and the conclusion I come to by probability in choosing an apathetic G-d.

I understand how you could make an argument that the two are similar, but in my eyes, they are very different.

 

[SaintPhotios]

It's hard to count exactly how many things are problematic in this argument. First of all, you have your premises, but when you get to your conclusion, you include yet more premises (unfounded premises, no less) that have not been accepted. And even if the interesting form is excused, it still looks like the first premise is the only premise than I can say is remotely true.

2nd premise: logic isn't an attribute of humans, so I don't think God can give us that. Logic is essentially the rules concerning the way the world is. In the universe, a proposition is either true or not true. That statement is a rule of logic. We can understand that rule. But it isn't as if logic is this actual thing. You can say God gave us understanding, but not logic.

3rd premise: This isn't necessarily true in all circumstances(even though I agree that we should). Also, inherent in this premise is the presupposition that we are as God created us.... which, even according to Christian teaching, is not true. (The Fall)

Now for the conclusion, you include another premise without establishing some sort of proof for it.

isn't it in fact illogical to choose any one religion based only on what others can tell us?

what is your basis for this? I propose that Christianity is philosophically defensible. furthermore, you seem to assume that it is illogical to believe something that you cannot experience. but have you experienced black holes? I'll even lower the standard. Do you even have any personal experience that would suggest black holes are remotely probable? you have the testimony of scientists. But again, your belief in black holes runs into the same problem as my belief in God (which I believe is no problem at all if His existence is philosophically verifiable... but this isn't the thread for that).

 

[solarwave]

I attend a philosophy club at my school, and while on one of many existential rants, my friend came up with this paradox. It goes something like this:

I wish my school had a philosophy club.

Christianity asserts that it is the one true religion, and that all the others are wrong, correct?

Pretty much, though Judaism was once true.


Animal and Human | Exclusively Human
Nourishment |
Reproduction | ~~Logic~~
Fighting |

Okay, so here we have a basic Human v. Animal chart. G-d gave us logic to make us superior to animals, correct?

** In Genesis it plainly states that G-d created us above all the other creatures. Also, if G-d did not give us logic, than who did? If G-d is omnipotent, then how could someone other than Him give us logic?

God made us better than animals yes. By logic I guess you mean reason/a rational mind? Since the word logic to me means 1+1=2 or if I see a rock infront of me there is probably a rock in front of me. Most animals have some sort of logic, just not reason. Im gunna take it you mean reason. So I think it is fair to say God gave us reason to use.

So G-d wants us to use the logic he gave us, but isn't it in fact illogical to choose any one religion (relating back to my first point that Christianity asserts itself to be the only correct religion) based only on what others can tell us? Faith is illogical, but G-d wants us to use logic. Paradox!

Choosing one religion is not illogical, but in fact you should use logic to do this. Logic doesn't mean being a computer needing 100% evidence (which nothing has) to believe, it just mean you need reasonable evidence to believe. In the Bible (I think) Paul says not to believe what he says just because he tells them to, but because of the miracles, lives changed, and the resurrection of Christ, which proves what he is saying is right. Faith isn't illogical. "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" Hebrews 11:1. This does not believing something blindly, it means putting your trust in something you have good reason to trust. The word faith is pretty close to the word trust.

 

[solarwave]

As far as I know, few people in this day in age personally experience faith.

If you mean experiencing then you will find a great many people around the world claim this.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

It's hard to count exactly how many things are problematic in this argument. First of all, you have your premises, but when you get to your conclusion, you include yet more premises (unfounded premises, no less) that have not been accepted. And even if the interesting form is excused, it still looks like the first premise is the only premise than I can say is remotely true.

2nd premise:

logic isn't an attribute of humans, so I don't think God can give us that. Logic is essentially the rules concerning the way the world is.

Wait wait, so there is something in this universe that G-d didn't create? I thought G-d created everything! "In the beginning G-d created the heavens and earth" isn't that something like how the first sentence of Genesis goes? Logic is an attribute of humans even thought they don't always use it. Selective use of logic leads to things like faith.

In the universe, a proposition is either true or not true. That statement is a rule of logic.

You don't (can't) know that. How do you know we do not create the universe around us with our minds? For example. Let's say you get a box. In this existential quantum philosophy stuff, for all you know, there could be a cat in the box. But there could also not be a cat in the box. The cat is simultaneously in the box and not in the box until you open it, and whatever happens happens. Very confusing, but welcome to quantum philosophy

We can understand that rule. But it isn't as if logic is this actual thing. You can say God gave us understanding, but not logic.

How do you know that there are not rules that you as a human do not have the brainpower to understand? We are finite beings trying to interpret an infinite being and the infinite world he created. Who are you to try to interpret G-d? He gave us the capacity for logic. If he didn't want us to have and thereby use logic, then why give us the capacity?

3rd premise:

This isn't necessarily true in all circumstances(even though I agree that we should). Also, inherent in this premise is the presupposition that we are as God created us.... which, even according to Christian teaching, is not true. (The Fall)

But if your Christian G-d is truly omnipotent, then didn't he create everything?

Now for the conclusion, you include another premise without establishing some sort of proof for it.

what is your basis for this? I propose that Christianity is philosophically defensible. furthermore, you seem to assume that it is illogical to believe something that you cannot experience. but have you experienced black holes? I'll even lower the standard. Do you even have any personal experience that would suggest black holes are remotely probable? you have the testimony of scientists. But again, your belief in black holes runs into the same problem as my belief in God (which I believe is no problem at all if His existence is philosophically verifiable... but this isn't the thread for that).

Ooh, good argument. But see, Black holes have credible evidence. There is evidence of their gravity on the stars, etcetera. Believing in the Christian G-d requires a much bigger leap of (illogical ) faith than believing in black holes.

The difference between the Bible and a scientific discovery is that the Bible is apparently infallible as it is written, but scientific discovery is open to criticism by other scientists.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

Choosing one religion is not illogical, but in fact you should use logic to do this. Logic doesn't mean being a computer needing 100% evidence (which nothing has) to believe, it just mean you need reasonable evidence to believe. In the Bible (I think) Paul says not to believe what he says just because he tells them to, but because of the miracles, lives changed, and the resurrection of Christ, which proves what he is saying is right. Faith isn't illogical. "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" Hebrews 11:1. This does not believing something blindly, it means putting your trust in something you have good reason to trust. The word faith is pretty close to the word trust.

But how do you know the Bible is the word of G-d, not a politically driven man? Let's even take it a step further, how could you possibly know that the Bible is even non-fiction? The thing here is that you're taking the Bible's credibility for granted. I am not doubting the historical significance of the Bible, but you cannot just write that a miracle happened and have that automatically mean it happened.

People write that the Holocaust never happened. Does that make it true?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You don't (can't) know that. How do you know we do not create the universe around us with our minds?

That doesn't bely the law of excluded middle. Do you agree that A=A and A≠¬A, ∀A?

For example. Let's say you get a box. In this existential quantum philosophy stuff, for all you know, there could be a cat in the box. But there could also not be a cat in the box. The cat is simultaneously in the box and not in the box until you open it, and whatever happens happens.

I think you're confusing three different facets of quantum theory (superposition, uncertainty, and probability), the "Schrödinger's Cat" thought experiment, and the unrelated quantum logic.

Either that or I've misunderstood what you meant .

Very confusing, but welcome to quantum philosophy

Quantum philosophy just boils down to how you personally interpret quantum mechanical results (just as in special relativity: you can see it as mass increasing, or time decreasing). Many-worlds? Copenhagen?

Ooh, good argument. But see, Black holes have credible evidence. There is evidence of their gravity on the stars, etcetera. Believing in the Christian G-d requires a much bigger leap of (illogical ) faith than believing in black holes.

Says you . How do you know they don't have perfectly good reason to believe?

 

[SaintPhotios]

PhilosophicalBluster:

Wait wait, so there is something in this universe that G-d didn't create? I thought G-d created everything! "In the beginning G-d created the heavens and earth" isn't that something like how the first sentence of Genesis goes? Logic is an attribute of humans even thought they don't always use it. Selective use of logic leads to things like faith.

you're assuming that logic is "some thing" ... it isn't an independent object. It is the set of rules governing propositions with truth value.

How do you know we do not create the universe around us with our minds?

It's irrelevant. This is essentially the brain in a vat problem. Even if our perception is entirely illusory, then statements of fact are no different, and the rules of logic still apply. We may be wrong about certain statements as what we perceive is false. But that doesn't allow for such things as contradictions.

Let's say you get a box. In this existential quantum philosophy stuff, for all you know, there could be a cat in the box. But there could also not be a cat in the box. The cat is simultaneously in the box and not in the box until you open it, and whatever happens happens.

Let's say you get a box. In this existential quantum philosophy stuff, for all you know, there could be a cat in the box. But there could also not be a cat in the box. The cat is simultaneously in the box and not in the box until you open it, and whatever happens happens.

there is a vast difference, if you believe in an objective reality, between one's uncertainty about a cat in a box, and whether or not there actually is a cat in the box. You not knowing that the cat was in the box didn't mean that it was in some sense not in the box. To make that claim you would have to commit to saying that your knowledge or lack thereof has some bearing on physical particles. If you're being serious, then this is an incredibly problematic position to take. I think you're misunderstanding what quantum philosophy when it says that quantum physics is probabilistic.

How do you know that there are not rules that you as a human do not have the brainpower to understand? We are finite beings trying to interpret an infinite being and the infinite world he created. Who are you to try to interpret G-d? He gave us the capacity for logic. If he didn't want us to have and thereby use logic, then why give us the capacity?

You're kind of jumping around. First of all, I feel almost certain that there are rules that we don't have the brainpower to understand.... this is irrelevant. Secondly, Christian do not to attempt to "interpret" God in His essence. For instance, Christ, according to Christianity, has human nature. We can speak of God in certain respects insofar as we feel they have been revealed. But Christianity (I'm only speaking for Orthodox) do not speculate about aspects that have not been revealed. (before mentioning that we can't know it was actually revealed, you'd be begging the question. your example was assuming God did in fact exist.) And I don't know where your last sentence came from.I never suggested He didn't want us to use logic.

But if your Christian G-d is truly omnipotent, then didn't he create everything?

you're apparently unfamiliar with Christian theology concerning the Fall (a.k.a. the Fall of Man). if you look it up then what I said will make more sense.

Black holes have credible evidence. There is evidence of their gravity on the stars, etcetera. Believing in the Christian G-d requires a much bigger leap of (illogical ) faith than believing in black holes.

The argument was not about credibility. The original argument was that it is illogical to believe something based solely on what other have said. So according to the original argument, believing in black holes would be illogical. I suggest reading the OP.