by Scott Cherry
Back to example 2. If A (listening for radio signals from outer space in order to make contact with extra-terrestrial life) presupposes B (that such life is possible), Martin is right that it does not make it true that there is extra-terrestrial life. But again, that is a red herring. Because if we do pick up radio signals that truly come from outer space (A) then it follows necessarily that there is extra-terrestrial life (B). We will call these “cosmic” radio signals. A presupposes B and it follows that B is true. Here is what this notion should NOT look like as a syllogism because it P1 is obviously not true:
Syllogism 2c
P1. Scientists listening for cosmic radio signals = the existence of extra-terrestrial life. (False)
P2. Scientists do listen for cosmic radio signals. (True)
___________________________________________
C. Extra-terrestrial life exists. (Valid but obviously false)
*I think it is important to distinguish between premises that are reasonably false or obviously false. The technical validity of an argument is hardly relevant in light of the obvious falsity of a major premise. The effect of such an argument is to draw attention of away from the more important idea.
Here is what the notion should more properly look like the way I think Martin intends it:
Syllogism 2d
P1. Listening for cosmic radio signals = the belief in the possibility of extra-terrestrial life. (True)
P2. Scientists do listen for cosmic signals. (True)
___________________________________________
C. Some scientists believe in the possibility of ET life. (Valid and true)
But this is only a distraction—a red herring. He mixes syllogism 2a with 2b to erect the obviously false notion that some people believe listening for something proves its existence, which is also a straw man argument. It is technically valid but ridiculous. Another effect Martin’s reason has is to make a false association between notions that are valid/reasonable and valid/obviously unreasonable.
Here is what the notion should properly look like the only way I think it really matters:
Syllogism 2e
P1. The reception of [intelligible] cosmic radio signals = the existence of ET life. (True)
P2. Scientists not only listen for but actually receive such cosmic radio signals. (True)
_______________________________________________
C. ET life exists. (Valid and true)
Of course only the first part of P2 is true, that scientists do indeed listen for cosmic radio signals. To my knowledge none have been received to-date, at least none that can be confirmed as such. So the above syllogism above is only hypothetically true. But again, the truly fascinating prospect is the hypothetical conclusion that would be inescapable if they had or ever do: Aliens exist. It would be inescapable based on the very definition of cosmic radio signals and by the nature of the argument. I have to say, this is why I love Martin’s second example so much, because it is analogous to my own.
The all-important presupposition of it is not whether someone believes in extra-terrestrial life; it is that there can be only one reasonable explanation for radio signals that actually come from outer space: aliens. Intelligent ones. Of course there must always be evidence, but the presupposition forces the interpretation of the facts. If all terrestrial sources of the radio signals can be ruled out, then there ARE aliens out there. But what is it that is really being presupposed here?
Yes, intelligence.
You see, if there are radio signals coming from outer space, then 1) They must have meaning; 2) They must constitute a language; 3) There must be or have been an intelligent source, a user and sender of this language, 4) There must be or have been an ET community of beings, because only beings use language and that is the purposeful context of language (i.e. intelligibility); 5) They must be, or must have been, beings of a high intelligence because only highly intelligent beings use radio devices capable of transmitting intelligible language codes through space. So again, Martin’s second example, if it may be restructured, lends itself perfectly to my argument, that logic is analogous to cosmic radio signals. If it is analogous then a similar conclusion necessarily follows with respect to theism: A “Super-Alien” exists that we can call God.
Thus we should conclude from Martin’s example that properly understood, B does presuppose A. Therefore I ask: If the detection of cosmic radio signals correctly presupposes the existence of intelligent aliens, why wouldn’t the existence of logic presuppose such a Super-Alien?
Yes, the actual properties of logic are a lot like the expected properties of cosmic radio signals and the information-rich communication that flows from speaker to audience. If A = logic can only come from an Intelligent Metaphysical Being, and B = logic exists, then B actually proves A, because it presupposes it. That syllogism could look like this:
Syllogism 3a
P1. Logic/Reason could only come from an Intelligent Metaphysical Being (A). (??)
P2. Logic/Reason exist (B). (True)
___________________________________________
C. An Intelligent Metaphysical Being exists. (Valid and ??)
This argument is valid. As for its premises, nearly everyone believes P2 is true, which is interesting enough. P1 has less agreement but it is by no means obviously false. Rather, there is a very strong consensus in its favor. Although it is valid, that only gets it through one door to the threshold of the next—the door of truth—which hangs entirely on the truthfulness of P1. It may be impossible to prove (or disprove) empirically, but circumstantial evidence can be every bit as conclusive as empirical, and we make a great many decisions based on it. I assert there is very strong circumstantial evidence that can’t easily be brushed off, which is the trajectory of this discussion. But before that, consider that there are a dozen of other ways the syllogism could be formulated such as the following:
Syllogism 3b
P1. All laws require intelligent legislators as well as the power
to enforce them. (??)
P2. The laws of logic are truly laws that are binding on all rational beings. (??)
___________________________________________
C. Therefore there is an Intelligent Cosmic Legislator who is Omni-God. (Valid and ??)
Whether the first two premises are true or not, of course, is the all-important question. P1 would get universal agreement on the purely human level, no doubt. But whether the “laws” of logic are true laws to be considered in the same category as human laws that we know are generated by intelligent beings is the question.
Still another way it could be formulated is like this:
Syllogism 3c
P1. All languages have coherent and consistent rules that seem to be generated by intelligent beings for other intelligent beings, namely humans. (??)
P2. Logic is a universal thought “language” with rules that govern human reasoning, communication, behaviors and social constructs. (??)
P3. Like math, logic (probably) could not have been produced by humans. (??)
___________________________________________
C. Therefore logic must have an outside, metaphysical source. (Valid and ??)
I realize all the premises above are subject to scrutiny, though I think P1 and P2 would get considerable agreement. P3 would be the most contentious one, to be sure. Indeed, if that premise could readily be proved there would only be the supra-terrestrial option left and the debate would be over. But that’s the rub. Is it true that logic could possibly not have a human origin? Is it even probably true? This is where the analogy between logic and cosmic radio signals breaks down because cosmic radio signals (if they were to be detected) do not come from humans by definition. Logic, on the other hand, has been “detected”, as it were, and it doesn’t require high-tech equipment to detect it. Logic has been with us universally from time immemorial, so much so that we take it for granted. For this reason there is no quest for or debate about its existence as there is fo
r cosmic radio signals. It is self-evident. But this should not imply that its origins are obvious, nor incontrovertibly terrestrial. They are not.
Chapter 10
The Reciprocity of Reason and Logic
The question of the origin of logic is similar to that of the origin of life, and if we know the origin of the one we would know the origin of the other. But my argument is actually more complex than this. It is not merely about the origin of logic, it’s about the complementary nature of it, an idea that I’ll unpack more thoroughly later. For now, consider the basic notion of reciprocity of which there are hundreds or thousands of examples such as procreation or economics or love or the water cycle. There is a from-and-to /give-and-take dynamic to all of life which is complementary in nature, like a lock and key. Reciprocity is one form of complement, an indispensable ingredient in the order of Reality.
Consider the transmission and reception of meaning by way of any language or through a medium such as radio signals. Both languages and radio signals alike are complementary because they are reciprocal. In other words, no language is a one-way thing. Rather, every conceivable language exists for two purposes—for transmitting and receiving meaning. It is reciprocal. Do I know every language? No. But I don’t have to (this is where inductive logic comes in): Every language you and I know of is like that. (Try to imagine a one-way language that only transmits or only receives meaning…isn’t it absurd?) More importantly, all languages are reciprocal by definition, it is implicit in the very notion of language (and radio signals). This is also true of a great many other things in Reality such as meaning and order, and yes, logic itself. Further, when we speak of the reciprocity of language we are really talking about the idea of intelligibility, which is all about transmission and reception. If logic can be considered either as a system of laws or as a proper language akin to math, as I assert, what we have is a universal system of standards to which all people must subscribe, consciously or unconsciously. One cannot unsubscribe.
All of us employ and are constrained by these standards on two complementary, reciprocal levels: First, how we function and communicate with others (transmission) and second, how we interpret the behaviors and communications of others in our sphere of awareness (reception). Indeed, even nature is constrained by these standards, such as the laws of non-contradiction and causality. This is the very fabric of our Reality. It’s governed both physically and metaphysically by the rational principles we call logic. What is logic? It is “the art of non-contradictory identification” in the words of the late Russian philosopher and novelist, Ayn Rand (1905-82). Consider more of the passage where this definition is embedded in her essay, “From the New Intellectual”:
All thinking is a process of identification and integration. Man perceives a blob of color; by integrating the evidence of his sight and his touch, he learns to identify it as a solid object; he learns to identify the object as a table; he learns that the table is made of wood; he learns that the wood consists of cells, that the cells consist of molecules, that the molecules consist of atoms. All through this process, the work of his mind consists of answers to a single question: What is it? His means to establish the truth of his answers is logic, and logic rests on the axiom that existence exists. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality.
To my understanding Rand was an atheist. Yet she agrees that Reality is so structured and permeated with the laws of logic that it is impossible to avoid using it. According to Rand, every waking thought relies on axioms that are so fundamental that Reality as we know it would be impossible without them. Even Michael Martin admits this in his essay that we have already analyzed:
…It is difficult to see how logic could not apply to the world. To suppose that God brings about an otherwise inexplicable congruence between logic and the world suggests that we can imagine what it would be like if the world did not correspond to logic. But with respect to deductive validity this is impossible to do. What would the world be like if deductive validity did not apply? That a deductively valid argument with true premises has a false conclusion? However, this makes no sense.
For the most part I agree with Martin. “It is impossible to do” and “it makes no sense”. We cannot imagine a world in which deductive validity—and all the rest of the laws of logic—do not work. It seems mostly unimaginable. Not only are our thoughts about reality bound by logic and reason, even our imaginations are bound by them. One cannot imagine something that both exists and doesn’t exist, or something that is both A and also non-A. This is the point exactly. Within the rational order that constrains us we both agree it is nonsensical, but Martin does not explain why, so the burden is on me. I assert that we can somewhat imagine a world without reason. It would be like a world without natural laws. We can imagine what it would be like without gravity, for example, because it is a law that is external to our minds. But rational laws are internal to our minds, so it’s more difficult but maybe not impossible. Certainly this makes it absurd to think about the absence of them without also employing them in the process.
Still, as I sit here pondering this I find that I actually can imagine a world in which there are no rational laws and no rational order, a world in which nothing makes sense. But in that imagined world we could be nothing more than animals or worse and life as we know it would be impossible. What’s harder for me is to imagine is that such a world would exist. On the other hand, why isn’t the world like that and why shouldn’t it be? Indeed if we could agree that in our current state rationality is a ‘thing of the mind’—i.e. proceeding from intelligent minds to other minds and for all collective minds—isn’t it reasonable, if not inescapable, to consider that rationality itself proceeded from an original mind that preceded ours? The alternative, of course, would be to show that rationality can arise from non-rationality, i.e. from non-rational matter. This is impossible in the world we know.
In a New Yorker article entitled “Thomas Nagel: Thoughts are Real” writer Paige-Turner reviews philosopher Thomas Nagel’s book, Mind and Cosmos (for short). Here’s what he/she contributes to this subject:
Since neither physics nor Darwinian biology—the concept of evolution—can account for the emergence of a mental world from a physical one, Nagel contends that the mental side of existence must somehow have been present in creation from the very start. But then he goes further, into strange and visionary territory. He argues that the faculty of reason is different from perception and, in effect, prior to it—“an irreducible faculty.” He suggests that any theory of the universe, any comprehensive mesh of physics and biology, will need to succeed in “showing how the natural order is disposed to generate beings capable of comprehending it.” (Underscore mine)
Thomas Nagel, by the way, is an atheist or an agnostic. I will break this down into two categories: First, Nagel is saying that there is no sound construct for explaining how nature could generate mind, i.e. rationality, beings that think and utilize rational laws. On top of that, there is no sound construct for intelligibility. I say “sound” because there is yet one unsound one that I will present.
Reality is this way, but why? Why is it so pervasive, so systemic? Is it merely accidental? I don’t think so. Logic is a kind of language, which is a system. All systems are both complementary and reciprocal, and by definition they are purposeful. They are ordered and are neither random nor arbitrary. It should not be surprising that humans value, pursue and develop systems. This is a hallmark of our rationality. We generally disdain things that are random and arbitrary, and endeavor to reduce or eliminate both, which is especially true in the
hard sciences. Something that is not ordered is not a system at all, by definition. Further, a true system is always evidence of rational intelligence. Not sometimes, but always.
Under most circumstances if we discover a system we attribute it to a rationally intelligent source as readily as we would if we detected cosmic radio signals. (The dubious exception to this is when it comes to systems in nature for which strict naturalists presuppose that there cannot be one.) Logic is a system because it meets all the criteria for one. There is no terrestrial or naturalistic explanation for logic, although Martin and others attempt to ascribe one to it. To put an even finer point to it, there cannot be a naturalistic explanation for logic, by definition (although this is the crux of our debate). Therefore logic should be attributed to a rationally intelligent, supra-terrestrial source. With all these defining attributes in mind, a syllogism for the logic of logic might look like this: