I beg for a question
Mar. 2nd, 2005 05:19 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kleenexwomanCan you go insane from cognitive dissonance?
I shouldn't have tried to take Logic and Sociology in the same semester. Trying to reconcile what I've learned in both classes is making me crazy.
One of the things that Sheptoski is trying to get us to realize is that there is no objective position on a lot of things. This idea really bugs me. I am intellectually motivated by the desire to be right. Not in a "I cannot ever be wrong, so whatever I say goes" way, but in a "OMG, am I wrong? Tell me how I'm wrong please" way. I'm trying to push my worldview ever closer to a completely objective reality, and I can't do that if there is no objective reality. I don't want to be wrong, and if there's no objective reality, then there is no way I can be right.
Unfortunately, the only thing I have applied the previous statement to is the difference between my Logic class and my Sociology class.
Logic today was pure logical process. We've started getting into the use of mathematical symbols for logical statements, and it's actually a lot of fun--I get to use my high school algebra to demonstrate my amazing knowledge of parentheses. We did truth tables today, which concentrate on assigning truth values to letters and working out the validity of a statement mathematically from matrices. Very little real-life application here (who takes the time to assign letters to statements in a debate and then make a graph out of it, besides incorrigible math nerds?), but enjoyable as a puzzle. I like Logic; everything fits into place. It's either true or it isn't, and there's no Why or How or What If, just pure, smooth conclusion.
Sociology today was a discussion of why humans aren't rational. The arguments given:
A) We don't have all the facts, or we don't have accurate information, in any given situation.
B) We don't have unlimited cognitive powers or time.
Just having come from Logic class, I was still thinking in terms of thought processes. I suggested that these in and of themselves weren't indications of humans being irrational, but rather indications of limitations on the possiblity of rational thought. One of the other things we'd been discussing was the tendency of humans to ignore information that might undermine their worldview, which is something I can't reconcile with rational thought; the desire to be rational was, to me, the desire to have a realistic and therefore objective worldview, which cannot be achieved by ignoring information.
Apparently this is incorrect, and process, in ration, means little if you don't have the right information and accurate conclusions. No points for effort. So ration is the real-life version of logic, where one must work with facts and rules about the real world, and not logic, to arrive at an accurate conclusion.
This implies that the real world is not, in fact, logical, since logic doesn't always work in it.
This is the best argument for the existence of God that I have ever heard.
My oversimplified views on religion in general: God is not logical. If the universe is logical and mechanistic, there is no need for God to keep it running. If God exists, then there is no need for the universe to be logical and mechanistic in order to keep running. Boiled down to terms which would earn me points on a quiz:
A) If God exists, the universe is not logical.
B) If the universe is logical, God does not exist.
It has been proven that the universe is not logical, since logic does not work in the universe. Therefore, God exists.
I am not happy about this conclusion. Is there a religion that believes in God but is really pissed off about God's existence?
ETA: This argument is logical but may not be rational, as I may have been misinterpreting his comment. He may have meant that the reality defined by humans is not logical, as humans are not logical beings. Since he is a sociologist and not a cosmologist, this is the most likely interpretation.
In this case, I can go on believing that the rest of the universe is perfectly logical and that it's only humans that screw everything up with their crazy emotions and beliefs.
I shouldn't have tried to take Logic and Sociology in the same semester. Trying to reconcile what I've learned in both classes is making me crazy.
One of the things that Sheptoski is trying to get us to realize is that there is no objective position on a lot of things. This idea really bugs me. I am intellectually motivated by the desire to be right. Not in a "I cannot ever be wrong, so whatever I say goes" way, but in a "OMG, am I wrong? Tell me how I'm wrong please" way. I'm trying to push my worldview ever closer to a completely objective reality, and I can't do that if there is no objective reality. I don't want to be wrong, and if there's no objective reality, then there is no way I can be right.
Unfortunately, the only thing I have applied the previous statement to is the difference between my Logic class and my Sociology class.
Logic today was pure logical process. We've started getting into the use of mathematical symbols for logical statements, and it's actually a lot of fun--I get to use my high school algebra to demonstrate my amazing knowledge of parentheses. We did truth tables today, which concentrate on assigning truth values to letters and working out the validity of a statement mathematically from matrices. Very little real-life application here (who takes the time to assign letters to statements in a debate and then make a graph out of it, besides incorrigible math nerds?), but enjoyable as a puzzle. I like Logic; everything fits into place. It's either true or it isn't, and there's no Why or How or What If, just pure, smooth conclusion.
Sociology today was a discussion of why humans aren't rational. The arguments given:
A) We don't have all the facts, or we don't have accurate information, in any given situation.
B) We don't have unlimited cognitive powers or time.
Just having come from Logic class, I was still thinking in terms of thought processes. I suggested that these in and of themselves weren't indications of humans being irrational, but rather indications of limitations on the possiblity of rational thought. One of the other things we'd been discussing was the tendency of humans to ignore information that might undermine their worldview, which is something I can't reconcile with rational thought; the desire to be rational was, to me, the desire to have a realistic and therefore objective worldview, which cannot be achieved by ignoring information.
Apparently this is incorrect, and process, in ration, means little if you don't have the right information and accurate conclusions. No points for effort. So ration is the real-life version of logic, where one must work with facts and rules about the real world, and not logic, to arrive at an accurate conclusion.
This implies that the real world is not, in fact, logical, since logic doesn't always work in it.
This is the best argument for the existence of God that I have ever heard.
My oversimplified views on religion in general: God is not logical. If the universe is logical and mechanistic, there is no need for God to keep it running. If God exists, then there is no need for the universe to be logical and mechanistic in order to keep running. Boiled down to terms which would earn me points on a quiz:
A) If God exists, the universe is not logical.
B) If the universe is logical, God does not exist.
It has been proven that the universe is not logical, since logic does not work in the universe. Therefore, God exists.
I am not happy about this conclusion. Is there a religion that believes in God but is really pissed off about God's existence?
ETA: This argument is logical but may not be rational, as I may have been misinterpreting his comment. He may have meant that the reality defined by humans is not logical, as humans are not logical beings. Since he is a sociologist and not a cosmologist, this is the most likely interpretation.
In this case, I can go on believing that the rest of the universe is perfectly logical and that it's only humans that screw everything up with their crazy emotions and beliefs.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-03 12:04 am (UTC)So, I'd say humans are the illogical ones (or irrational... i forgot which meant what already). There are simply limits on what scope we can interpret the Universe we inhabit. I don't know if this means there's a god or not, but I do know that our reality is based entirely on our perceptions, which are caused by chemical reactions and the whole mess of filters stimuli have to pass through to be interpreted by the brain. Inherently, human perception is flawed, since perception is an interpretation (not a pure observation) of reality (which, i think, is the point you made anyway, so I don't know why I just said that).
I think there's truth out there, but humans can never observe it. We can come pretty close, as far as animals are concerned, but I don't think we can ever get there. Does this mean there's a god? Does it mean there's some kind of soul or spirit or life force in everything in this universe? I don't know, maybe. As an agnostic I guess I'm not likely to make any assumptions I'd never be able to prove. I will say that the pursuit of truth is a worthy endeavor, but enlightenment doesn't come easy.
This is why I entertain my brain by imagining what it'd be like to perceive the world as a different organism. For instance, how do trees perceive the world? Am I insane for seriously thinking about that?
Anyway, interesting post, and I'm sorry I hijacked it. I took a SOC course as a freshman, too, so I kind of understand where you're coming from.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-03 04:09 pm (UTC)Or maybe it's a spectrum thing, and the higher you get up the evolutionary ladder, the more complex you are, the more you think...
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-03 12:30 am (UTC)You're using logic. If the universe isn't logical, this shouldn't work.
On that topic, check this out: Use your favourite logical fallacy to prove it's the best one. (http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?s=1d247532e03db1ddd4780683636e369f&threadid=1479989)
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-03 01:45 am (UTC)My answer to your question is, the closest you can find to a religion who believes in God but who hates him is Christianity. God isn't dead, no, but we hate him. If you are into Anne Rice you should read "Memnoch the Devil". I know it sounds silly, but she talks about that in the book.
I had an equally hard time last semester...I am a Religious Studies student and I was also doing a couple of Sociology Papers on top of my Judaism, Islam and Christianity class. I tend to pick courses that don't go together. This semester I'm doing an Analysis of the Old Testament course as well as Intro to Womens Studies. Not surprising, teh two contradict each other.
Sounds like we have a lot in common!
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-03 04:17 pm (UTC)On the note of religions, it's funny you should say that about Christianity--I'd actually never heard that interpretation before, and it's fascinating. Where (besides Anne Rice) did you pick up the idea?
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-03 06:52 pm (UTC)Actually I originally read that in the Anne Rice book, because I'm a huge fan of hers, but that was a few years ago. I'm a Religious Studies major and I've come across the idea a few times in various courses too. I've yet to find a really good paper on it or book, but I am sure they exist. I'll do some research tonight after I get home from work and see what I can find, if anything!
Take Care
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-03 04:24 am (UTC)The following is supposedly an actual question given on a University of Washington chemistry mid-term. The answer by one student was so "profound" that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well.
Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)? Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.
One student, however, wrote the following:
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they
are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially.
Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.
This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in
Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
So which is it? If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, "it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you, and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number 2 must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over.
The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore,
extinct...leaving only Heaven thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why last night, Teresa kept shouting "Oh my God."
THIS STUDENT RECEIVED THE ONLY "A" IN THE CLASS
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-03 06:26 am (UTC)Yay for finally meeting you in person. :)
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-03 04:09 pm (UTC)Yay for also finally meeting you.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-03 07:07 am (UTC)Anyway, I think one can make a pretty firm case that most if not all mental illness is in some way or another related to cognitive dissonance. That's what I took away from that class. Along with the talk of cognitive misers and mental shortcuts.
I'm going to be a little rough on you here in examining your last argument, but only because I've taken intro to logic with Meixner and this is something I remember from it.
A) If God exists, the universe is not logical.
B) If the universe is logical, God does not exist.
C) The universe is not logical
---
Therefore, God exists
Even assuming C is true, which is a pretty rough case to make, the argument is nonetheless deductively invalid; it affirms the consequent (actually because there are two conditionals, you're affirming the consequent of one and negating the subsequent of another). Formally, what you're doing is this:
If G, Not L
If L, Not G
Not L
Therefore G
It's the same as saying:
If it rains, Quincy will not go outside.
If Quincy goes outside, it is not raining.
Quincy is not outside.
Therefore it is raining.
To be deductively valid, the premises must guarantee the conclusion. Clearly, Quincy could be staying inside for another reason. Maybe he couldn't handle the cognitive dissonance of having been granted the light of reason by a God who doesn't exist but not being able to use it because he is a cognitive miser.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-03 07:09 am (UTC)Same thing, but the latter is a little more recognizable to logic students, I think.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-03 04:14 pm (UTC)Thank you.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-03 05:51 pm (UTC)This reminds me of the problem of theodicy and the infinite good / worldly suffering contradiction. The classic solution for that contradiction is that God gave humans free will, which exists as a good on a higher order than worldly suffering.
That never really worked very well for me, because I think that it implies that you can't have free will without some worldly suffering. If anything is possible through God, though, then why couldn't the laws of the universe be written so that worldly suffering is excluded by, rather than necessary for, free will?
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-03 08:08 pm (UTC)The response that comes immediately to mind is that God is in fact malevolent, or at least imperfect. The imperfect idea is a little more pertinent because it also suggests that God is not entirely omnipotent, but rather subject to higher universal laws. Like the old "Could God make a rock so big even He couldn't lift it?" chestnut. Perhaps logic is higher than God.
Suffering follows from free will, I think, because with free will there is the implication of choice, and with choice comes "right choice" and "wrong choice". And of course nobody's going to choose "right choice" every time.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-04 06:55 am (UTC)Only thing is, I wouldn't exactly say that MOST religions in the world believe non-members are going to hell. Hindus, Buddhists, Baha'i, Sikhs, Hare Krishnas and many others subscribe to theories that are quite the opposite. In fact, out of the five major world religions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, and Buddhism) only three technically believe this, and Christianity is the only one of the three that promotes the theory with any real dedication or fervor.
As Muslims believe that every human being is born Muslim and only denounce Islam when they embrace another religion, it is fair to say that the only people they believe might go to "hell" would be those who are another religion. That does not count humanists, athiests or agnostics. They have not embraced another God, and so therefore they are not against Allah.
Hell in general is a very Christian concept and while *some* other religions do have theories about what happens to non-believers, it tends to be more akin to the "absence of heaven" or the "absence of god/allah, etc" rather than fire and brimstone. Some religions might even suggest that "hell" is in fact, simply living on earth without God.
I drifted way off topic, sorry!