Applicability of Logic

[Mike Richards]

The current discussion on God's omniscience is one I've had in my mind a number of times. I read Blake Ostler's "Exploring Mormon Thought, vol 1" and was very persuaded that God didn't know the exactly what I'd do in the future. However, I have since read Henry Eyring's "Reflections of a Scientist" and his discussion about applying postulates to circumstances where they don't apply made me reconsider that position. (Eyring, President Eyring's father, talked about how we all know that parallel lines never intercept. However, if two people start on the equator and walk directly North, even though they are on parallel lines, they will eventually meet at the North Pole. He pointed out that the postulate--that two parallel lines never intersect--is true only for euclidean geometry, but doesn't work well with curved surfaces.) If it's reasonable to suppose that God exists in dimensions beyond our own and that those dimensions are beyond our comprehension, are we ever in a position to apply logic or reason to things that deal with him since our postulate might be ill-suited to his existence?

[CV75]

If it's reasonable to suppose that God exists in dimensions beyond our own and that those dimensions are beyond our comprehension, are we ever in a position to apply logic or reason to things that deal with him since our postulate might be ill-suited to his existence?

We are never entirely in such a position, and when we approach it, it is only to the lesser extents except we are quickened. As two intermediary steps to help us obtain and apply the right rules for the right conditions, 1) He has condescended into our existence where we can deal with the things that deal with Him on a plane that can be shared in mortality, and 2) the Spirit helps us through mortality and prepares us for the next step(s). Even in this existence there are gradients of ignorance and understanding, ideally bridged by faith and realized through obedience, grace for grace.

[SkepticTheist]

Logic is ill suited to anything if one's assumptions are wrong. The logic can only be as correct as the underlying assumptions.

Not to derail your newly created thread, but just to illustrate, evolution is an example of possible bad assumptions because of a multitude of possibilities that complicate the matter. For example, evolution of all species is good, simple logic that seems to hold up in the box of science unencumbered by outside concerns. It even follows predictable patterns where we know that there is change within species. But just how far does it go? The applicability of the generalized assumptions of evolution to a family tree of all life might be flawed on fundamental levels. Does shared genes truly imply common descent of two species? What about horizontal gene transfer, where organisms swap in and out genes. One species of human gut bacteria has a human gene now because some odd thing happened by chance, and the gene made its way from a human cell into a bacterium. Doesn't that make that bacterium a human relative? The human genome has viral DNA in it that has taken on actual functionality in the human body over time. Doesn't that make that particular virus one of our ancestors? The sea squirt is a hybrid of a sea urchin ancestor and a chordate, two unrelated species, but a freak accident made a viable hybrid out of the two unrelated species. So when species share DNA with other species, why not some kind of horizontal gene transfer rather than an actual tree? Why not a big bush with branches that go every which way?

Why should life on this planet not come from a primordial soup several times, and not just once? What if new life is constantly being created in the deep ocean vents from complex chemical reactions? What if there are many trees of life unrelated to each other that constantly swap genes? But then why not also panspermia. What if it is both? What if the human species is a hybrid of several unrelated species? It is already a hybrid with viral DNA.

My point is not to turn your thread into a thread on evolution, so if it does, let's take it to another thread. I mean to say, if it weren't for a great many other issues at hand in the genomes of many species with observable phenomena of horizontal gene transfer and so forth, it would be a simple thing for me to believe in classic, simple evolution. But I remain unconvinced that a great many species are not spliced together in wild ways without a clear tree of descent. I see bacteria constantly swapping genes with each other. I see how viruses cause mutations. Why should evolution not be mostly entirely driven by horizontal gene transfer rather than classic mutations? So where then is the actual descent and the actual family tree of organisms?

If we take this same kind of thinking and apply it to your original idea of God's existence in multiple dimensions and so forth, are we able to apply Occam's razor to that, or are we going to face a multitude of factors that we haven't begun to consider that actually shapes the reality of the situation that we cannot predict?

The current discussion on God's omniscience is one I've had in my mind a number of times. I read Blake Ostler's "Exploring Mormon Thought, vol 1" and was very persuaded that God didn't know the exactly what I'd do in the future. However, I have since read Henry Eyring's "Reflections of a Scientist" and his discussion about applying postulates to circumstances where they don't apply made me reconsider that position. (Eyring, President Eyring's father, talked about how we all know that parallel lines never intercept. However, if two people start on the equator and walk directly North, even though they are on parallel lines, they will eventually meet at the North Pole. He pointed out that the postulate--that two parallel lines never intersect--is true only for euclidean geometry, but doesn't work well with curved surfaces.) If it's reasonable to suppose that God exists in dimensions beyond our own and that those dimensions are beyond our comprehension, are we ever in a position to apply logic or reason to things that deal with him since our postulate might be ill-suited to his existence?

[Mike Richards]

We are never entirely in such a position, and when we approach it, it is only to the lesser extents except we are quickened. As two intermediary steps to help us obtain and apply the right rules for the right conditions, 1) He has condescended into our existence where we can deal with the things that deal with Him on a plane that can be shared in mortality, and 2) the Spirit helps us through mortality and prepares us for the next step(s). Even in this existence there are gradients of ignorance and understanding, ideally bridged by faith and realized through obedience, grace for grace.

I had never thought of God's condescension in terms of giving us greater ability to reason about his nature. I think that's a great point.

[Chris Smith]

Blake's logical argument for libertarian free will smuggles the conclusion into the premises. See here for details. There also isn't anything in Mormon theology or scripture that entails a libertarian view of free will.

Personally, I have serious doubts about whether a libertarian view of free will is even tenable. If there is indeterminacy in my future actions, it can only because they do not proceed from my state-of-being. And if they do not proceed from my state-of-being, then they cannot properly be described as "willed". "Free will" in the libertarian sense, then, is an oxymoron.

Of course, this doesn't mean God knows the future. But it does raise serious questions about Blake's arguments to the contrary.

[Mike Richards]

If we take this same kind of thinking and apply it to your original idea of God's existence in multiple dimensions and so forth, are we able to apply Occam's razor to that, or are we going to face a multitude of factors that we haven't begun to consider that actually shapes the reality of the situation that we cannot predict?

I think this is the challenge that I'm also wondering about--and it's not only that we haven't begun to consider certain factors, what if we can't even comprehend them? I've heard of someone's theory that basically says it's not possible to create an internally consistent system with very much complexity. I obviously don't believe that because nature itself doesn't seem to have any contradictions and it is a pretty complex system, but the idea seems to hold true for philosophical and religious systems. For those of us who have faith, however, we expect that every "contradiction" will eventually be resolved--once we have sufficient understanding. Could it be that the paradoxes/mysteries that we have no answer to now are simply the result of our inability to comprehend in greater dimensions than we currently can? And, again, back to the original question, what implications does that have for our use of logic?

Something I think about:

Staying with the idea of geometry and space--if I am a 2 space-dimensional being, pass through a 3rd dimension of time, a sphere will appear to be a circle that starts small, grows big and then goes small again before disappearing. In my two dimensions, I can understand each "slice" of the sphere with which I can interact, but it's unfathomable to me that the different slices are all part of the same thing. For us in a 3 space-dimension passing through a 4th dimension of time, a 4 dimensional sphere would appear to use as a small sphere that grows larger and then shrinks smaller again before disappearing. Again, it doesn't make any sense at all that that sphere is really a 4 dimensional object and that each "slice" of it is really all the same thing. This same game can be played to as many dimensions as we'd like to play it, but our ability to grasp what's happening diminishes with each additional dimension. Think too, what happens when instead of adding an additional space dimension we add an additional time dimension. Or, when we add other dimensions beside space-time, do we have any ability to comprehend those? If God does exist in these higher dimensions, then, going back to CV75's comment, we are certainly fortunate that he condescended to our existence to enable us to comprehend what little we can. We might also recognize that it wasn't simply Christ's advent and participation in this life the demonstrates his condescension, but all communication we receive from him through the spirit and in the form of scripture. It might truly be a challenge and a struggle to explain things to beings on a level that lacks some dimensions.

[Mike Richards]

Blake's logical argument for libertarian free will smuggles the conclusion into the premises. See here for details. There also isn't anything in Mormon theology or scripture that entails a libertarian view of free will.

Personally, I have serious doubts about whether a libertarian view of free will is even tenable. If there is indeterminacy in my future actions, it can only because they do not proceed from my state-of-being. And if they do not proceed from my state-of-being, then they cannot properly be described as "willed". "Free will" in the libertarian sense, then, is an oxymoron.

Of course, this doesn't mean God knows the future. But it does raise serious questions about Blake's arguments to the contrary.

Chris,

Thanks for the links. I don't want to get into it, but I'm not totally convinced by your counter-example with the temperature controlled. What if you replaced "control" throughout your arguments with the "choice"? I certainly would find it odd to say a computer has the choice about the temperature of the reactor. In any case, I am not totally comfortable with the concept of libertarian-free will (by which I mean, I'm not sure I believe in it, not so much that don't understand it), anyway, so if you are completely right, I don't mind that.

What I would like to know, since you are educated in philosophy, is what you think of the OP question? What implications are there to our ability to reason about the nature of God or anything associated with his existence if he exists in dimensions to which our standard assumptions don't apply? Is there any value in debating based on (our) logic at that point?

[Brade]

Blake's logical argument for libertarian free will smuggles the conclusion into the premises. See here for details. There also isn't anything in Mormon theology or scripture that entails a libertarian view of free will.

Personally, I have serious doubts about whether a libertarian view of free will is even tenable. If there is indeterminacy in my future actions, it can only because they do not proceed from my state-of-being. And if they do not proceed from my state-of-being, then they cannot properly be described as "willed". "Free will" in the libertarian sense, then, is an oxymoron.

Of course, this doesn't mean God knows the future. But it does raise serious questions about Blake's arguments to the contrary.

You know, I use to think that Mormons ought to be committed to some form of libertarianism about free will, but I've changed my view on that; and I now think that Mormons ought to be committed to some type of compatibilism. I consider myself libertarian, but I'm well aware of that view's problems (I've ultimately adopted a sort of Van-Inwagian view). What I find troubling about most of the discussions that go on here about free will and divine foreknowledge is all the people that claim that God has divine foreknowledge, that humans have libertarian free will, and that there's no contradiction, or even the appearance of a contradiction, in that view. That, I think, is the standard Mormon view. It's also perplexing when people respond by saying something like "well, knowing what somebody will do does not force them to do it". Statements like that, I think, are good evidence that such people are not familiar enough with the issue.

[Chris Smith]

mjr,

The only difference between the kind of control a computer program exercises and the kind of control a human being exercises is that the human being has a self-conscious experience of the process of choosing. If we were to imagine a computer program so advanced that it experiences itself as a self-conscious entity, then I think we could say it exercises "choice" even though its choices are ultimately pre-determined.

As for your question, the answer is probably no. But on the other hand, your scenario would be out of keeping with the traditional LDS concept of God. In LDS theology, God has a physical, human body and is subject to natural law-- presumably the natural law of our own dimension.

Peace,

-Chris

[frankenstein]

The current discussion on God's omniscience is one I've had in my mind a number of times. I read Blake Ostler's "Exploring Mormon Thought, vol 1" and was very persuaded that God didn't know the exactly what I'd do in the future. However, I have since read Henry Eyring's "Reflections of a Scientist" and his discussion about applying postulates to circumstances where they don't apply made me reconsider that position. (Eyring, President Eyring's father, talked about how we all know that parallel lines never intercept. However, if two people start on the equator and walk directly North, even though they are on parallel lines, they will eventually meet at the North Pole. He pointed out that the postulate--that two parallel lines never intersect--is true only for euclidean geometry, but doesn't work well with curved surfaces.) If it's reasonable to suppose that God exists in dimensions beyond our own and that those dimensions are beyond our comprehension, are we ever in a position to apply logic or reason to things that deal with him since our postulate might be ill-suited to his existence?

isnt the 38th parallel, parallel to the equator?

[Brade]

The current discussion on God's omniscience is one I've had in my mind a number of times. I read Blake Ostler's "Exploring Mormon Thought, vol 1" and was very persuaded that God didn't know the exactly what I'd do in the future. However, I have since read Henry Eyring's "Reflections of a Scientist" and his discussion about applying postulates to circumstances where they don't apply made me reconsider that position. (Eyring, President Eyring's father, talked about how we all know that parallel lines never intercept. However, if two people start on the equator and walk directly North, even though they are on parallel lines, they will eventually meet at the North Pole. He pointed out that the postulate--that two parallel lines never intersect--is true only for euclidean geometry, but doesn't work well with curved surfaces.) If it's reasonable to suppose that God exists in dimensions beyond our own and that those dimensions are beyond our comprehension, are we ever in a position to apply logic or reason to things that deal with him since our postulate might be ill-suited to his existence?

I just don't think we are in any other position than to apply logic to things. It seems to me that even when we make decisions based on emotion, or intuition, or whatever, we're still applying logic (even if sometimes we're applying it badly). It's just that in those cases the premises that make up our reasoning get derived from, say, our emotions rather than from scientific findings.

[Mike Richards]

As for your question, the answer is probably no. But on the other hand, your scenario would be out of keeping with the traditional LDS concept of God. In LDS theology, God has a physical, human body and is subject to natural law-- presumably the natural law of our own dimension.

This is an interesting statement. I know I've heard people say things like this, but does anyone actually believe it? If this were the case, they would be claiming to believe that God is subject to the laws of thermodynamics and is thus not immortal (somehow saying mortal didn't convey the right idea) because he will eventually join the rest of the universe in a cold death. I don't think anyone really believes that. Similarly, if God truly is subject to the same natural laws we are, how does he perform miracles that defy our natural laws? I agree that God is subject to laws, but I don't think they are the same laws that apply to our existence. I'm not sure what they are. What do other people think--are the laws that God is subject to the same as the natural laws of our own dimension? I seem to recall a passage or quote suggesting that God created the laws under which we find ourselves. I'll have to see if I can find it or if I made that up.

[Mike Richards]

I just don't think we are in any other position than to apply logic to things. It seems to me that even when we make decisions based on emotion, or intuition, or whatever, we're still applying logic (even if sometimes we're applying it badly). It's just that in those cases the premises that make up our reasoning get derived from, say, our emotions rather than from scientific findings.

I agree with what you've said here--we don't really have any other option. I guess what I think I'm deciding is that if I have faith that something is true, I shouldn't let logic convince me that it's not--especially if it's possible that the logic I'm using is flawed because I don't have sufficient understanding/depth/breadth/dimensional comprehension to account for all the possibilities in an existence different from my own. Or, to put it another way, I'll try to keep in mind that even if something appears to be incontrovertible from a logical standpoint, I'll try to keep in mind that the postulates that are being used might be perfectly fine from my perspective and be totally false from God's.

[Chris Smith]

I know I've heard people say things like this, but does anyone actually believe it?

The Mormon Transhumanist Association has developed the traditional Mormon concept of God in some pretty sophisticated ways, basically interpreting God as a "posthuman" at a very high level of technology. See here for one example.

[mfbukowski]

Blake's logical argument for libertarian free will smuggles the conclusion into the premises. See here for details. There also isn't anything in Mormon theology or scripture that entails a libertarian view of free will.

Personally, I have serious doubts about whether a libertarian view of free will is even tenable. If there is indeterminacy in my future actions, it can only because they do not proceed from my state-of-being. And if they do not proceed from my state-of-being, then they cannot properly be described as "willed". "Free will" in the libertarian sense, then, is an oxymoron.

Of course, this doesn't mean God knows the future. But it does raise serious questions about Blake's arguments to the contrary.

As a Pragmatist and linguistic constructivist, I see the whole question of free will vs determinism as illusory.

The simple fact is that we make choices, and bear responsibility for our actions.

I think, along with others (see my siggy) that there is a logical category error in confusing first person, subjective perceptions of the fact that we subjectively make choices and the theoretical possibility of a third party observing us who could in principle predict what our actions will be.

The two points of view cannot be reconciled- you observing my brain-state, for example and theoretically predicting what I will do is irrelevant to my subjective experience of making a choice.

[mfbukowski]

The Mormon Transhumanist Association has developed the traditional Mormon concept of God in some pretty sophisticated ways, basically interpreting God as a "posthuman" at a very high level of technology. See here for one example.

Mormonism is completely compatible with humanism; if God is a human, humanism is theology.

Linguistic constructivism holds that "reality" is a cultural construct- that humans in effect "organize" reality.

Sound familiar?

It's not necessary to postulate some kind of technological advance to make us creators- we already are.

[mfbukowski]

If it's reasonable to suppose that God exists in dimensions beyond our own and that those dimensions are beyond our comprehension, are we ever in a position to apply logic or reason to things that deal with him since our postulate might be ill-suited to his existence?

That's very reasonable in my opinion.

[Brade]

I agree with what you've said here--we don't really have any other option. I guess what I think I'm deciding is that if I have faith that something is true, I shouldn't let logic convince me that it's not--especially if it's possible that the logic I'm using is flawed because I don't have sufficient understanding/depth/breadth/dimensional comprehension to account for all the possibilities in an existence different from my own. Or, to put it another way, I'll try to keep in mind that even if something appears to be incontrovertible from a logical standpoint, I'll try to keep in mind that the postulates that are being used might be perfectly fine from my perspective and be totally false from God's.

Hmmm, well, it sounds like you might run into a pretty tight circular problem there. If you're trying to assess your faith and whether it's reasonable or not, or whether you ought to employ reasoning to asses your faith, isn't it question begging to say that you'll retain faith because what looks like possibly bad reasoning on your part might be perfectly good reasoning from God's perspective? Isn't whether God exists at all, and has a perspective part of what's at question in your faith?

[mfbukowski]

As for your question, the answer is probably no. But on the other hand, your scenario would be out of keeping with the traditional LDS concept of God. In LDS theology, God has a physical, human body and is subject to natural law-- presumably the natural law of our own dimension.

Not entirely true. We don't know all "natural laws" yet, including anything about "spirit matter". Remember Mormons are materialists- and in principle believe there is no conflict between science and religion. We just don't know enough science yet to put it all together.

For example, are undiscovered species of animals "real"? I think no one would say that some undiscovered species does not "exist"- yet what do we know about it? Is it a fish or a bird- a flower or a whale?

We do not know what it is because it has not been humanly experienced- it has no "name", or classification. It has not been put into its proper "box" in our cultural experience.

Does it obey natural law? We are sure it does, but we don't know anything about it.

In some ways, that is how I think God is. He is physical like us, must obey natural law, but there are so many things we do not know about how he does anything.

In principle, if we knew all possible natural laws for our dimension and all others, perhaps we would know how he does what he does, but we do not.

[Mike Richards]

Hmmm, well, it sounds like you might run into a pretty tight circular problem there. If you're trying to assess your faith and whether it's reasonable or not, or whether you ought to employ reasoning to asses your faith, isn't it question begging to say that you'll retain faith because what looks like possibly bad reasoning on your part might be perfectly good reasoning from God's perspective? Isn't whether God exists at all, and has a perspective part of what's at question in your faith?

I can see how that is begging the question--if I excuse what appears to be bad reason that God exists because God's existence is "beyond' my ability to reason, then, absolutely I'm begging the question. What's interesting about this is even though drawing such a conclusion is a fallacy, both statements involved in the argument could still be correct.

However, I don't question whether God exists (I accept that on faith), but whether (or how much) I can depend on logic to discover his nature and understand his plan for our existence. As we've already discussed, besides revelation--personal and past--, logic is the best (perhaps the only) tool I have. If we assume all along that our application of logic to theological questions is sound, we could very well be in error as we've discussed.

Another way of saying what I meant to say, is that I will continue to accept those things taught in the scriptures, and I will continue to use logic/reason to try to better understand what they teach, but when my reasoning leads to a conclusion that contradicts something else that scriptures teach, I won't have a hissy-fit about it. I'll pray for guidance from God, continue to consider it and acknowledge that it could be beyond my ability to reason out.

[CV75]

Another way of saying what I meant to say, is that I will continue to accept those things taught in the scriptures, and I will continue to use logic/reason to try to better understand what they teach, but when my reasoning leads to a conclusion that contradicts something else that scriptures teach, I won't have a hissy-fit about it. I'll pray for guidance from God, continue to consider it and acknowledge that it could be beyond my ability to reason out.

As D&C 50; 10-25 show, this is a very effective approach, and especially as a group process.

[Brade]

As D&C 50; 10-25 show, this is a very effective approach, and especially as a group process.

D&C 50: 10-25 doesn't really show, as in demonstrate, that some such method is an effective approach at anything. D&C 50: 10-25 does advance a claim about a certain type of approach. Whether that approach is good, or valid, or the claims made about it are true, isn't something we can deduce merely from reading D&C 50: 10-25.

[mfbukowski]

Another way of saying what I meant to say, is that I will continue to accept those things taught in the scriptures, and I will continue to use logic/reason to try to better understand what they teach, but when my reasoning leads to a conclusion that contradicts something else that scriptures teach, I won't have a hissy-fit about it. I'll pray for guidance from God, continue to consider it and acknowledge that it could be beyond my ability to reason out.

A good strategy.

It also might be beyond your present level of philosophical understanding of what logic can and cannot do and have nothing to do with your reasoning abilities!

[mapman]

I have read Blake Ostler's stuff as well. For a while I was convinced that God doesn't have complete foreknowledge. However, I am not so sure anymore. Lately I've been reading about qauntum physics and relativity, and they have made me wonder if logic even works entirely when you get onto that big or small of a scale. I also am not sure that we know enough about minds and God to use the same logic with them either. I get the feeling that sometimes we build up too many conclusions based on to little information.

[CV75]

D&C 50: 10-25 doesn't really show, as in demonstrate, that some such method is an effective approach at anything. D&C 50: 10-25 does advance a claim about a certain type of approach. Whether that approach is good, or valid, or the claims made about it are true, isn't something we can deduce merely from reading D&C 50: 10-25.

But it does show that God condescends to reason as a man, to help man draw the correct conclusions.