[Vision2020] Religious Diversity Education

[Ted Moffett]

Luke et. al.

>
> > Self referential statements of various kinds can lead to
> > contradictions like the ones above, exposing logical flaws in the rules 
>of
> > structure in language.   If language were logically perfect, such
>statements
> > would not be allowed as well formed grammatical sentences.
>

Luke wrote:

>     I don't think you've quite got it here. Part of logic is negation, and
>double negation. That does not make logic false, or language false. If I
>say, "This is black and not black," the statement negates and cancels
>itself, but it in no way ruins grammar and reason.
>     So when your basic belief is a self-contradiction, it is completely
>false, yet without making all truth false. It simply makes your tenet 
>false.
>If a tent collapses on itself, it doesn't knock over all the tents near it.
>

You are too easily brushing aside very serious problems with language and 
logic.
The history of modern logic demonstrates in fact that the tools of ordinary 
language were found to be lacking in their capacity to express logical 
propositions precisely and without unintended contradictions.  Study the 
theory of types developed by Bertrand Russell, which is an attempt to avoid 
certain kinds of self referential contradictions in logic.  The example you 
gave, "black and not black," is not the kind of self referential statement 
in question here.  This web site provides background and explanations:


http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-paradox/

> > My position is that human knowledge and thinking is so flawed, and the
> > possibilities so numerous, that to claim to have solved the important
> > spiritual questions that humanity has been posing for thousands of 
>years,
> > with no doubt remaining about these questions, appears to be aimed more 
>at
> > satisfying the emotional need for absolute spiritual belief, than at
>really
> > answering these questions based on evidence.

>
> > You are right, Luke, I sometimes do contradict myself.  And I 
>acknowledge
> > that with the limited tools of human thought, it is nearly impossible to
> > think about complex belief systems without contradiction in some way.
> > Will you do the same?  Or are you going to claim that your thinking and
> > logic is so perfect that you have not make any significant mistakes 
>about
> > religion, such as in your interpretations of Biblical scholarship?
>

Luke wrote:


>     Neither. "Significant mistakes" would, I think, refer to something
>heretical. But God's logic is so perfect and His truths so clear that even
>my 2-cylinder brain can grasp the basic truths. My surety does not come 
>from
>my logic, but from God's.


You are not answering the questions posed in this dilemma.  If your thinking 
is flawed and limited, how can you be certain you understand God's truths 
correctly?  How do you know you are not deceiving yourself or making a 
significant mistake?  How do you get outside the limitations of a flawed 
limited human mind to this perfect logic of God?  I have never heard an 
answer to this problem that solves the dilemma.  You can argue from direct 
inspiration from God or from revelation to a document, such as the Bible, 
but still you cannot escape the fact that the filtering and interpretation 
of the information is through a flawed limited mistake prone human mind.

I think it is clear that there is reasonable doubt about these spiritual 
issues, and people of faith believe what they do based on faith.  But then 
this position of religious belief leads us to the view I am advocating, a 
respect for other religions based on a humble realization that the 
intentions and thoughts of God may not conform just to one religions 
interpretations.

Ted

_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail