[Vision2020] News Article, Mental Illness, Fixation of Belief Discussion

[Art Deco]

Re: Douglas Jones' problem with logic


The so-called laws of logic which Mr. Jones eschews are properties of
language needed for successful communication.  Contradictions, truth,
falsity, etc. do not exist in objects but in the language used to describe
them.  Without the use of these linguistic laws effective, truthful
communication about objects of any kind seems improbable.  We do not
understand or take seriously those who contradict themselves.

Although Mr. Jones attempts to deride the use of logic as Neanderthal, we
notice that he attempts to logic  it in his replies to his detractors -- a
hypocrisy not rare among the professionally, zealously religious and other
charlatans.

I will freely admit that those who do not believe that logical consistency
is the most basic touchstone for a system of beliefs are beyond the pale of
defending their beliefs rationally (as the reply below of Mr. Jones nicely
demonstrates).  This illogical method of fixing belief was termed the
"Method of Tenacity" by C. S. Pierce.  Freud speaks of it when discussing
intense religious belief as a serious pathological condition (based on a
hungering for an authoritative, kindly, forgiving father figure according to
Freud -- (are you listening Douglas Wilson?))

I can understand that Mr. Jones does not want to be bound by logic.  Almost
all of his supernatural beliefs vanish under the criteria of logical
consistency, e.g. the problem of evil, the problem of Jesus' lineage, the
problem of Jesus' condemning (as a major part of his reform ideas) but
endorsing the old Jewish laws, the problems of biblical inconsistency (of
which Ralph Nielson is such a master at pointing out), etc.

Not believing in logic also excuses Mr. Jones from addressing the problem
that the multiplicity of contradictory but intensely held religious creeds
creates for believers in any one of them.  How convenient!

When Mr. Jones stops using logic to argue and to his positions, then I will
believe that he really means when he says that logic is not applicable to
his beliefs.

However, he is on the horns of a interesting dilemma.  If Mr. Jones truly
renounces logic, he is in very serious need of therapy.  Those who do such
in the secular world are many times committed; if not they are looked at as
quite troubled individuals.  If Mr. Jones doesn't renounce logic, but
continues to ignore contradictions, he is also in need of therapy.  There is
hope in this case, however.  Overuse of fantasy, compartmentalization,
repression, etc. can sometimes be treated successfully.  Reality therapists
are especially successful at this.  I think there is one in Pullman.


Wayne Fox

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Doug Jones" <credenda@moscow.com>
To: "'Vision 20/20'"
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 9:01 AM
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] News Article, Mental Illness, Fixation of Belief
Discussion


> Wayne Fox rewrote:
>
> > In the meantime, Mr. Jones, calling me a secularist, while apparently
> a
> > dirty word among the cult, does not address the arguments that I
> previously
> > made and rewrote here.
> >
> >Unfortunately, there is no unequivocal method (short of examining each
> belief for >logical consistency***) to test which set of religious
> beliefs, if any, is true.
>
>
> Actually, I did address Wayne's remarks at a deeper level than he's
> apparently willing to go. He continues to insist that we all use HIS
> worldview's rules to adjudicate every view, and I have been challenging
> the legitimacy of that. Why must we obey his god? Consistency,
> contradiction, proof, evidence, etc. are not neutral things. They
> involve giant ontological commitments, and the "consistency" he burns
> incense before grew out of ancient Greek philosophy. Why should I give
> up my religion for his?
>
>
> > It is difficult to take seriously non-mathematical or non-logical
> systems of
> > belief which contain as their unproven premises the positing without
> > question of the existence of objects and/or beings.  The assertion of
> the
> > existence of any non-mathematical or non-logical object or being seems
> to me
> > to require empirical and verifiable proof -- especially, if
> conclusions of
> > great consequences are to be drawn from such assertions.
>
> Exactly. And Wayne needs to answer the same questions. Why should we
> agree to only "take seriously" his logico-mathematical gods? They
> involve tremendous claims about the nature of reality, and we need proof
> that they are worthy to play the part of supreme gods too.
>
>
> > >From the secular point of view, knowledge is always subject to
> correction
> > and to revision in the light of new evidence
>
> Apparently not, though. Wayne apparently still holds to an ancient
> cosmology (cult?) in which the laws of logic are eternal, impersonal,
> unchanging standards of truth applicable universally. The Darwinian
> cosmology certainly counted against Wayne's brand of Platonism (i.e., an
> evolutionary cosmos has no place for eternal rules of logic), yet Wayne
> still holds to the old gods.
>
> So again, Wayne, what sort of evidence would count against the existence
> of your logico-mathematical gods and what evidence counts in favor of
> them? We all have to answer the same questions. Don't pretend you aren't
> making colossal claims about the nature of reality.
>
> As for Wayne's "scientific" sociological claims, he just needs to be
> less gullible. Given how scientific claims can change so wildly even
> over a decade, we should be more agnostic and careful. Since much of the
> science of fifty and a hundred years ago is now considered a joke by
> scientists (i.e., they couldn't now republish journal articles even from
> the 1940s), we should all wait, say, a good five hundred years before
> climbing on board any scientific claim. The track record shows that
> anything less is sure to be disproven.
>
>
> Doug Jones
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>
>