I really want to ask an open ended question that I really don't have an answer to myself, but here goes. Do you think that there may be some questions that cannot be answered deductively and can only be answered inductively? We briefly touched upon this in class, and what was said is that our knowledge may be limited, and therefore our arguments are only inductive under lack of sufficient evidence.
However, I have another example--the Judeo/Christian god. Some, such as Anselm and Aquinas would argue that the existence of God can be proved deductively. However, what if this isn't the case? If this god exists (and I'm not making the claim one way or the other) wouldn't the role of faith be important, and therefore the use of deductive logic would be moot since God would be unknowable without faith? I'm not sure as to an answer, but I find it interesting indeed.
No answers, just more confusion. I used to think I could prove there was no God, at least not as I was taught about God. There's been some major shifts in my life and thinking that have yet to be logically explained by anything other than spiritual answers.
ReplyDeleteFaith can come even to those who don't think they want it.
An ancient criticism of the Scholastic attempts to prove God's existence is that, even if they succeeded, they would only demonstrate a "god of the philosophers," not the God that people trust, rely on, pray to, etc. For this personal God and the sprirtual/psychological role that he/she/it plays in people's lives, the philosopher's arguments may be completely irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteOf course, this position comes as a cost, since it abdicates any objective referent of 'God,' who becomes rather difficult to distinguish from an imaginary friend.
I think that an attempt to inductively prove a "god of the philosphers" would likely be more appealing than a deductive one. I feel like the idea that god is "likely" to exist will always be stronger than a hard "god exists" argument, since there are so many inherent holes in such an argument, such as the brain in the vat possibility (there is no creator, since reality is a simulation). While these counterarguments are neither provable nor disprovable, they are still made, and will probably always weaken a deductive argument for the existence of god.
ReplyDeleteGood thought. However, if you go the inductive route, you have to rely on evidence to build a case for probability. And since the evidence is almost completely lacking for a supreme being, you're rather up a creek.
ReplyDelete