[~ot] why is programming so fun?

[John Reimer]

Hello Chris,

> John Reimer wrote:
> 
>> Hello Bruce,
>> 
>>> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 05:50:05 +0100, Gregor Richards
>>> <Richards at codu.org>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> [snip]
>>> 
>>> While I wouldn't put it quite so vigorously, Hear! Hear!
>>> (why deliberately throw Christians in with Lions? especially when
>>> they
>>> might be in the NRA)
>> The "science" that ascribes to abiogenisis and evolution is very much
>> religious as one can see from the vitriolic outpour of its
>> proponents; it is not science nor is a name-calling debate
>> scientific.  I appreciate the fact that Gregor begs to differ on that
>> statement.  But saying one places his trust in reason alone is rather
>> begging the question: how does this "reason" exist in a random-chance
>> universe; did this abstract ability to reason evolve alongside
>> everything else in random fashion of trial and error or did it also
>> appear from nothing in the big bang; does it continue to evolve,
>> expand, and perfect itself in direct conflict with entropy?  If it
>> does, does that make it imperfect right now?  When will reasoning and
>> reason be perfect?  If it isn't perfect, does that mean our reasoning
>> is greatly flawed still?  Will another million years make it
>> unflawed?  If it was very flawed several million years ago, what
>> effect did that have on macro evolution so many years ago (or vice
>> versa)? How ever does one know his reasoning skills are reasonable in
>> such a universe (sorry, Gregor... that might grate you, but I suppose
>> we'll never see things the same. ;) )  This does require a very
>> /potent/ faith to believe is such improbabilities and that is a faith
>> in "reason" itself.  Should we add a few more billion years to try to
>> resolve it?  Would that help? :)
>> 
> You're asking: how can we trust logic to be accurate?
> 
> Try doing otherwise for a day. You can't. You depend on it to survive.
> 
> If logic is not accurate, and if your memory is not accurate to some
> reasonable degree, you can't guarantee that anything in the universe
> is consistent. You can't reason about anything. You might as well give
> up, crawl in a hole, and die. Though in that case, you might have a
> tough time killing yourself -- logically, you can't live with your
> head separated from your shoulders, but we said we can't trust logic.
> And even if you seem to experience dying, that's no guarantee that you
> won't continue in the same fashion.
> 
> You can't come up with an argument that proves that human logic is
> correct. Arguments require logic; you have to assume logic to argue.
> So if you come up with an argument for logic, you've essentially come
> up with "If logic is accurate, logic is accurate".
> 
> You can come up with an argument that proves that human logic is
> incorrect. Since, in order to argue, you must start with the
> assumption that logic is correct, if you come up with a conclusion
> that logic is incorrect, then you've got a proof by contradiction.
> 
> But if you assume logic is not trustworthy, and act accordingly, you
> simply can't survive.
> 
> I hate these types of philosophical arguments because you might well
> conclude that everyone's deluding themselves, but even if you do, *it
> changes nothing*.
> 


Ah... I must not be making this clear (wouldn't be the first time)... perhaps 
because I fail to emphasize a point with clarity.  I am not trying to disprove 
the existance of reason or logic.  They most certainly do exist (in my worldview, 
at least :) ) and are very necessary for our daily operation.   But what 
I am trying to compare here is the reliability of worldviews:  I am trying 
to show that within a purely materialistic worldview, these abstract ideas 
find no real meaning and would be clearly unreliable... and thus those that 
trust these tools within a worldview that has difficulty defining them are 
rendered subject to a kind of "faith" in them that would seem to be unsound. 
 I believe, though, that their existance must be based in a theistic worldview 
in order for them to be shown why they can work reliability.  

Frequently, people will say "No, but I can reason and logic things so these 
tools do exist", but this is where I'm trying to point out that it's begging 
the question.  If we are trying to go back and show that our worldview  describes 
our universe accurately, we had better try to make a strong argument for 
why we think the tools we use will operate in such a universe.

-JJR