Forums → WEPR → The Supremity of Logic
| 16 | 11735 |
Foreword:
[intentionally bombastic, in keeping with tradition]
Lo! On this, the eleventh day of February, in the year of our mutual consensus 2014, a deism of Truth and Reason is herewith revealed to the good citizens of the AG community who happen to be reading the forum this afternoon.
Let it be known that this is no mere jest or parody, the like of which exist only to ridicule organized religion. This is the ascension of Logic into divine realization.
To those who might object to Its authority, who might question Its teachings, who might challenge Its veracity, they are welcome to do so. Nay; encouraged, for such is the way of Logic.
________
Now that the minimum required Old English preachiness is over with, I'd like to discuss (by which I mean "assemble an impenetrable fortification of hyper-rational thinking which will render any and all possible counter-arguments baseless by default" the deification of Logic and its implications upon faith. Here's how it works:
The Order of Logic upholds the virtues of truth, reason, and understanding. Its sacred text is a compilation of all information that is absolutely and unerringly true, known as the Immutable Omnexicon. There can be no truth beyond its scope, and there is no falsehood within.
The Order of Logic is a pantheistic religion which promotes the rejection of traditional theology in favour of rational thinking and skepticism. As such, it does not oppose belief in other deities, but will oppose any who attempt to force such beliefs upon others.
Questions and comments are welcome, as well as suggestions, criticism, ridicule, expressions of dismay, threats, concerns, religious propaganda, pseudoscience, and moderate amounts of gratuitous praise.
- 16 Replies
I am skeptic that either one could hold the weight of truth. Mostly because of the problem being that as living creatures with are influenced as much as by our experience of body and not just the experience of mind. That is the act of a thought must reside in both domains.
This is less a matter of how we obtain knowledge and more one of how we verify it. Empiricism is not really relevant to the topic, because it relates only to observation. The only empirical knowledge we can have is that we observe our observations to be whatever we observe.
How do you acquire what you know? how do you determine what is truth?
There are facts which must be correct by default (primary or basic beliefs), and facts which are deduced from those facts (secondary beliefs). Any conclusion can be tested by finding whether it is a necessary result of one or more of these facts. Those that are necessary are true.
I find myself lost upon then vernacular and jargon that some present. I find it easier to understand things by stating things plainly and not entrenching it in such forms, [...]
This perplexes me, considering how convoluted and indecipherable the rest of your commentary is. It is poetic, but, as near as I can tell, meaningless.
You must be logged in to post a reply!