Logic and Belief (A Response to Matt Dillahunty)

Matt Dillahunty made a gross oversimplification about the nature of logic and how that applies to belief. I try to correct him by explaining the nature of multi-valued logics and why they serve much better in many circumstances, such as modeling the complexity of human theological beliefs.

Video I'm responding to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz1eAnOV6Ds

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• Atheism
• theism
• agnosticism
• logic
• Aristotle
• fuzzy-logic
• Matt
• Hillahunty
• the
• Atheist
• Experience
• belief
• truth
• unc

[ToraJutsu01]

Agnosticism is a stance on knowledge, not belief. It is separate from the atheist/theist quality despite the fact that it is now used as a midway point of weak atheism. While i do agree that multi-valued logic is necessary for understanding in many aspects of argument, i do not think it applies to what Dilahunty was speaking of. The state of possessing a belief, not possessing a belief and not being certain either way, is fine, but to possess both extremes seems perfectly contradictory.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@ForYeensSake It depends what you're interested in. I'll tell you this, though: the book that first got me interested in philosophy was Robert Pirsig's "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". Still a favorite, one I reread every few years, and think philosophers today could gain a lot from taking more seriously. In ethics I think Peter Singer's "Practical Ethics" is a great intro. And for general awesomeness, Dostoevsky's "The Brother's Karamazov" can't be beat.

[gigiopp]

The "not true" value can be used instead of "false" and "false" value can be eliminated as well. At last instead of the "true" value you can give a nod for example

[gigiopp]

Hi

1) The principle of bivalence (a two-valued logic) dates back to Chrysippus, not Aristotle as Aristotle conceded the sentenses being neither true nor false (i.e. sentenses about future randomized events).

2) Any number of truth values can be reduced to only one thuth value and even that one can be eliminated from the language. I.e., if you have 3 values: "true", "false", "unknown". The last one ('unknown') can be determined as "Not true and not false" and as such can be eliminated

[WSilva832]

I understood what was said about multi-valued logic but I still sympathize with Matt Dillahunty. Regardless of just what a wretchedly confused individual one is about the existence of God(s), clasped in prayer one day and agreeing completely with a Richard Dawkins rant the next, it's still nonsense to both believe and not believe in God(s) in one single and precise moment in time. The existence of God is a binary proposition and whether our brains falter on the question changes nothing.

[ummmerrrrummm]

@SisyphusRedeemed Eloquently put. I have just experienced the heated debate over atheism and agnosticism on youtube - knowledge-belief.

The argument is that either you are a theist or an atheist. I have been trying to conclude over the issue. It is insufficient to categorise such a spectrum of possibility in such a binary way. It can be argued in one sense, but the reason for the debate, is that one adjective or noun is insufficient to be all inclusive when trying to portray this understanding.

[Mathenaut]

This is an objection to Matt Dillahunty not using multivalue logic in the context of ascribing logic to belief. Okay, that's legitimate.

Though, I think that you exaggerated a bit much at the beginning of the video, and I didn't quite see the 'punch' that you were winding up for.

[qarohc]

@zarkoff45

"You can change your mind, but simultaneously holding opposing beliefs? Sounds like a mental disorder."

[ginganz13]

This argument fails because it does not address what kind of logic Matt was talking about - it only makes assertions and rhetorical reference.

You might also want to consider that the other logical systems have been applied in their most powerful practical applications based at root on binary.

[zarkoff45]

@qarohc "how can you believe something and not believe it at the same time?"

That actually happens in the real world:

watch?v=gcEV_HsIdBI

The idea that we have unified minds is an illusion.

[qarohc]

ps thanks for the video thought provoking as usual.