Why logic is asinine

Ok, so I may brand myself forever as a nerd with this post, but that's fine with me. I've spent most of Sunday afternoon laughing about a "logical" argument I saw on T.V.

I suppose a better name for this post would be "why one person's 'scientific' logic is asinine" but to be blunt, it's not quite as catchy as the one I have.

I was watching a PBS special Sunday entitled "The Search for God: C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud". Why this brands me as a nerd is that I was so excited about this special, I put off grocery shopping until tomorrow, so I could be sure that I was home in time to watch this. The special was very intriguing and thought provoking. The main point is to tell C.S. Lewis' and Sigmund Freud's views on God and religion and then show a "round table" discussion of some prominent American thinkers talking about their beliefs and who they agreed with. For those of my readers who don't know: Lewis was a very vocal Christian and Freud a very vocal atheist.

While the whole program was interesting (and I'm exceptionally excited for the second half next week) there is one thought, one bit of "logic" that was presented that I would love to share with all my readers.

One man who was part of the discussion of theism vs. Atheism, and I apologize but I forgot his name, was arguing against the existence of God. As I understood his argument is presented as follows in my own words.

If God really exists, then why doesn't everybody believe in Him? If God is real, than it should be plain as day, and there wouldn't be any question, any "leap of faith" regarding His presence, authority and/or deity. However, since there are questions and not everybody has come to the same conclusion about God, He must therefore not exist and Scientific Rationality (this man's personal philosophy) must be true.

Silly, silly man!!! I don't think that he realizes his argument is moot. Say that his logic is true. Say that infallible proof and universal belief are the only way to distinguish what is and is not True. Than the converse of his argument is also in jeopardy. Not everyone agrees with Science. Not everyone comes to the same conclusion in Scientific arguments. In fact, the majority of my generation holds a Post Modern Philosophy: Science is dead. Therefore, if not everyone believes in Science, if, philosophically, Science has been disproved, than Science is not True. And we are left with a void. Now, before I go on, I should probably state why Science has been officially philosophically disproved. I refer to C.S. Lewis' book Miracles: a preliminary study as the basis for my ideas, mainly because Lewis is one of my favorite authors and he is one of the most logical people I have ever read.

"All possible knowledge, then, depends upon the validity of reasoning. If the feeling of certainty we express by words like must be and therefore and since is a real perception of how things outside our own minds 'must' be, well and good. But if this certainty is merely a feeling in our own minds and not a genuine insight into realities beyond them - if it merely represents the way our minds happens to work - then we can have no knowledge. Unless Human reasoning is valid no science can be true" (pg. 20).

Lewis goes on to discuss rational vs. irrational thought. Rational thought (thought based upon facts) we listen to. Irrational thought (thought based upon emotions with no facts) we ignore, we consider valueless. Therefore, the next logical conclusion is that Reason (the collective human thought) is equally valueless IF based upon a belief that it is the result of irrational causes.

Now, most modern scientists believe that the world just happened. We are the result of chance. There is no supernatural power, no Being outside of nature that caused us, we just are. And this is what we call Evolution. The theory that people believe in because they cannot admit there might be a God. And here is the kicker (I've been laughing at this all Sunday!): "The mind, like every other particular thing or event, is supposed to be simply the product of the Total System [Evolution]. It is supposed to be that and nothing more, have no power whatever of 'going on its own accord.' And the Total System is not supposed to be rational. All thoughts whatever are therefore the results of irrational causes , and nothing more than that. The finest piece of scientific reasoning is caused in just the same irrational way as the thoughts a man has because a bit of bone is pressing on his brain... The Naturalist cannot condemn other people's throughout because they have irrational causes and continue to believe his won which have (if Naturalism is true) equally irrational causes" (pg. 22).

Or as Professor J.B.S. Haldane put it in Possible Worlds "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms" (pg. 209). (Lewis also uses this quote in his book... Marvelous!)

And all that was to say, the argument presented by some atheist on a discussion panel about why God does not logically exist was asinine. And that is why his scientific logic was silly. I wonder if people really think about what they are saying?