Posts Tagged ‘logic’

h1

Inventing Multiple-choice Lite Brites?!

19 February 2010

The gospel according to Christopher Hitchens:

“Since it is obviously inconceivable that all religions can be right, the most reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong.”

That’s Brilliant.
That’s “Brite.”

This is a term coined by some within the ranks of militant atheism. It seems to me that most thoughtful atheists either have to grin and bear the likes of Mr. Hitchens, roll their eyes, checkout their minds, and invite the Unwanted Uncle to the picnic of thoughtful interaction on this subject.

Who invited him? He is just here because he is part of the family. Most of what this crotchety, old man has to say can be portrayed as the repainting of relatively good people who are involved in some religious aspirations as the blight and plague of human civilization. Give him a few more drinks and the show will begin as he paints the other side with caricatures and vitriolic language.

Those who listen are somewhat amused.

But mostly embarrassed.

And I get this vague impression from reading his words in his books or others that the working pictures of his opponents are shining out of one of those children toys that has a bunch of colored pegs in which you press into a grid-work of holes in a box that contains a light of some sort. It makes a picture. Sort of.

The picture radiates in the light. You can almost make out a sort of argument in the portrait and its really bright and beautiful.

That’s “Brite.”
That’s “Lite Brite.”

You can almost make out some sort of argument in the midst of the ranting and raving of an uncle that has lost his mind, his marbles, but unfortunately not his speech. You can almost see the picture and its real pretty if you turn off the lights.

“Since it is obviously inconceivable that all religions can be right, the most reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong.”

It sounds good. It quite pretty. But if this reasoning were applied to a multiple-choice test would the results demonstrate the robust nature of this statement?

A: Animism.
B: Buddhism.
C: Christianity.

D: Do include all the other major and minor Belief Systems.

Since it is obviously inconceivable that all answers can be right, the the most reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong.

It seems to me that one ought to consider the merits of each answer to make an educated guess with respect to belief systems. To consider that all the answers can not be right—being quite obvious—and conclude that all answers must be wrong—being quite dubious—seems to be a nice way of trying to argue to a conclusion that one already believes to be true.

E: None of the above.

Perhaps that makes great sense to binge-drinkers in universities everywhere. But it stands to reason that if they are using such a rationale it is being reflected in their grand achievements of entering the workforce earlier than planned.

Perhaps, this is the correct answer to the multiple-choice question, but if the question was asked in a Logic 101 and required an essay to give reason for the answer chosen, then something tells me the results would be just as grand.

And there might be a chance that you could get a job on the ground floor of a manufacturing plant producing Multiple-choice Lite Brites.

h1

If true, then can it be said to be true?

12 July 2008

Picture of Mrs. Konner

The gospel according to Joan Konner:

“The reason there are so many opinions is that no one knows the Truth.”

Is this one of those “truths” that you have to have an opinion on?

By this I must point out that this is somewhat of a self-refuting or self-defeating statement. Since no one knows the truth, then how can a true statement be made on anything. Either this statement is true which means that we really can’t know if it is indeed true, or this statement is false which means that its irrelevant.

If true, then it refutes and defeats itself.

If not true, then it doesn’t matter.

If no one knows the truth, then by what reason or reasons can a statement of this nature be made? Do you follow? Is this not a reasonable and rational response to the claim being made? How can a thought that claims that truth can not be known be considered a truth?

This statement is quite dogmatic in its expression of relativism.

Interestingly enough, the very fact that there are so many opinions would prove this statement inaccurate. Please allow me to explain. People have opinions and share such opinions on account of thinking them to be true. They consider their opinion to be a valid and better reflection of whatever they happen to be thinking about. They believe their opinion to be more accurate than another opinion that stands in opposition.

This quote is thought to be true by the one who pressed the letters that communicated the opinion regarding Truth.

It is thought to be true.

It isn’t.

With all that said, I must say that this thought does reveal at least the following notions:

If Truth were accessible, then it would be challenging to understand and even more so to communicate. If Reason were able to distinguish between truth and fiction, logic and illogic, accurate and inaccurate reflections of reality, then it would also be a challenge. But a challenge well worth the effort as some sense of reality comes into view.

If these ideas are not true, then what isn’t self-refuting and self-defeating?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.