From: DRAGONFLY           
To: TURTLE              
Subject: relig & logic??
Date & Time: 05/15/91 07:11:02
Message Number 16845

>Semantic quibbling, hairsplitting, and existentialist bullshit aside,
>I think it's accurate to say the differnce between a logical argument
>and a religious argument ios that the latter will always involve some
>sort of leap of faith that is inherently unprovable and therefore not
>subject to rational analysis.
     
   Turtle, do you accept mathematics as rational?  Do you consider math
to be subject to 'rational analysis'?  ALL mathematics -- even 
arithmetic -- depends on "leaps of faith that are inherently
unprovable."  They're termed axioms, and frequently mathematicians
debate whether axioms should or shouldn't be included.  (Different
schools of thought use different axioms... even down to logic!)
    
    My other argument, that logic is NOT based on the validity of the
presuppositions, but is just a 'mechanism' for creating new statements
from old, has been said before.  
   
   Have you ever talked with a true solipsist, or someone who pretended
to be one?  You can't disprove his/her idea that the world is imaginary
because they won't admit any of your assumptions.  After you've talked
with someone like that, you realize that nearly EVERYTHING you say
depends on 'unprovable assumptions' -- even just a shared world-view.
                        //Dragonfly//