The Trouble With Logic

The biggest problem with logic is it must be subject to the paradigm it’s based on.

Let me explain before you shoot me down.

Whatever we believe to be logical derives its status as logic directly from our belief system.  To use the most common two paradigms in America (and probably all Western countries) let’s look at religion and science based logic.

Science bases its logic on the facts they find in studying the world around us and universe within our ability to “see”.  If a theory is not provable, it remains a theory for the most part, with one exception, of course, scientists hold fast to this form of logic.  The origin of species is the only area not provable by the scientific method of repeatable, demonstrable evidence.  The scientist can look at the evidence and conclude through what is known the unknown, but there’s no way to date to repeat the origins of life in a test tube.

They are working on synthesizing life through DNA manipulation, but from the testimony of one scientist experimenting with this we are several years from being able to do this on a repeatable basis and many more years away from being able to start life from “nothing”–meaning lifeless strands of DNA.

Religion, however, believes in an Originator for life and all that we know.  Logic under this paradigm, therefore, takes on a slightly different slant than science.  They are not really at war for the scientist cannot prove or disprove God’s existence and neither can the religion, hence the suspension of belief in one for the scientist.  The person who accepts a specific god or goddess as their origin does so in faith that this is the Creator, which then gives them the reason for their existence.

Logic follows the reason for existence, then, which means we can reason through scientific method and come up with a haphazard reason for our existence.  Whereas with a god or goddess we know we were wanted and designed for whatever reason the supreme Being gives for us.  Logic must follow hard on the heels of reality/truth or it isn’t logical at all.

Taking A Similar Road

Let’s now take a far-fetched paradigm (to most of us, that is) to illustrate this point.

Say the origin of the universe is that a gigantic, cosmic goat sneezed it out of its nose.  With this as a truth, what would our logic be?  The pun-ny answer would be “snotty” whereas the real answer would be more along the lines of absurd.  The truth of our origins wouldn’t be so much absurd as the reasons for it.  So our existence in this case would be an absurdity without rhyme or purpose, it just is what it is.

Now I’ve heard people raised with a Western mindset use “logic” to prove their understanding of moral certainties and wondered how they can be so emphatic about their POV, since logic must be based on truth.  Strangely enough, our American sensibilities are based on Judeo/Christian values to the point that even our rebellion against conservative mores tends to be based on our perception of God within this paradigm.  The sexual revolution was in direct opposition to the Christian ethic of the traditional, established family in America, and therefore based on it as point of resistance. 

Using our preconditioned understanding of the universe to prove moral certainties is not logic but argument.  Logic itself must be based on a paradigm for it to work within an argument, so those who say they reject Christianity cannot base their arguments, logically, on what they consider to be a spurious system.  To call the law of stealing logical but reject the law of adultery is an oxymoron.  Now if someone claims that these laws are universal and programmed in to the psyche of humanity, they haven’t studied enough about the various cultural norms around the world, for there are places where to steal from an enemy is actually a sign of moral right.

Right is A Subjective Term

There are societies which believe in “might makes right” and the powerful make the rules.  Just watch third world countries who have coups against harsh dictators and you’ll see the next government who promised deliverance from evil repeat against the opposition the atrocities and violence the previous power inacted against them.  They use a form of logic that stems from their paradigm.

In this case we would find it hard to reason with them and beg logic as our trump card, for their logic spurns ours.  This makes it quite hard to negotiate with those who buy into a violent paradigm of living.

When a person says,  “I just want you to see reason” they mean they want you to accept their logic.  It doesn’t matter that your logic is diametrically opposed to theirs, for they will force you by dent of argument, at gun point or through legislation to accept their “logic” as reasonable.  In a country based on religious freedom, we accept that it’s a person’s right not to have a formal religion or not to believe in religious paradigms at all.  Yet you will see the religious fighting the irreligious for supremacy in a country supposedly based on freedom of expression.

I’ve yet to see the logic in an atheist’s claim that the public expression of Christian mores is a direct violation of their rights to disbelieve in Christianity.  Even in the government buildings, where historically the evidence of our heritage beliefs were displayed, they feel a need to rewrite history by eradicating any public display of it.  When I was a boy, even the most hardened “sinner” respected religions and would not be disrespectful of God.  Now it is common as it should be in a free society.

Again, Unity within Diversity

The separation of church and state is a necessary logic, however, without which one would try to control the other.  However, the display of religious artifacts in the governmental buildings is no more a recommendation of that religion or a violation of an atheist’s rights of freedom than the lack of display would be.  If we erase all mention of religion in public places, we’ve just said in effect that religion has no right of public expression or freedom of speech.  Yet if we say that our country must be a Christian nation, all the while claiming freedom of religion and speech, we will oppress those who believe differently.

There is no middle ground where freedom is concerned, unfortunately.  We must allow all forms of thought and expression to be valid as freedoms, though not always as public practices.  Violence against minorities or anyone should be forbidden, not just because they are minorities, but because violence creates an unsafe environment for freedom.  A violent society creates an unsafe environment for all concerned not just those who might be on the prejudicial list.  So violence of any kind except in self-defense is out as practice in a free society.

Theft is a form of disrespecting the right to personal property, therefore it should also be a public rule.  So what if it comes from the Bible in such succinct and overt statement, no one likes losing their possessions or livelihood through someone stealing it from them.  It therefore becomes logical to limit violence and theft in a free society if that society is going to continue the ability for freedom of speech and expression.

We “know” that children are too young for sexual activity because psychological studies show us the harm its introduction into their lives does to them and to our free society.  And so it follows that a free society’s logic must include making sexual expression, overtures or advances to minors a crime.  The logic in this case is based on the wish of the society for a free forum for their children and safe environment for their development.  We can’t say that it is necessarily logical according to the Creator for we don’t know who or what that is in point of fact.  O, we can have our beliefs about the subject for or against one, but since we cannot prove it one way or another, it’s all just conjecture pure and simple.

Yet, rampant porn can be harmful to the development of a child if it is introduced too young into their lives.  Sex is good for the responsible but not for the immature.  To have a child as a child in a situation where the parents can’t supply a stable environment for that child’s development sets the situation up for failure.  The failure POV on this is based on the logic that kids need to develop an understanding of what it means to be a parent and responsible adult before they start to bring other lives into theirs.  It may be that this is not logical according to the actual rules of the universe, but for the purpose of a free society in our understanding, it is logic.

So the logic must necessarily follow the truth believed or it falls short of being a reasonable argument.  Yet this doesn’t make the logic true, for if the universe is based on survival of the fittest, those who seek to preserve the weakest among us are outside of the logic base of our evolutionary paradigm.  I’m not saying that evolution itself supports killing off our weaker members, but that survival of the fittest excuses the attitude ignoring their plight for the sake of a strong race.

If everything in our being rebels at this thought, then either our education, conditioning or culture is wrong, or we have been designed to see every living thing as valuable, which of course, suggests a Creator by logical conclusion.  If we are designed for survival of the fittest, we should not feel any regret at the death of our weaker  and more diseased members.  If we do, however, feel regret, remorse and a sense of unfairness, it should suggest to us that we weren’t programmed for survival of the fittest and that this paradigm of reasoning is faulty by weight of the overwhelming evidence of the human conscience when confronted with it.

That to me is logic.

Tags: anthropology, human nature, logic, origins, reasoning, social norms, society