Logic And Causality

My philosophy brain went to rot years ago, but once upon a time I understood that logic and causality are NOT the same thing. Logic is a discipline of reasoning. It is the foundation of mathematics. It consists largely of deductive reasoning: if-then statements, etc… Causality is, well, a feature of nature. It is a connection between two events in reality. A spark causes a bit of sulfur to burst into flame. As far as I can tell, what usually happens in science and non-philosophical reasoning is that we take a causal relationship and kind of map it onto a logical one. Usually, the causal relationship is transformed into a logical one. Let’s return to the spark and sulfur example. Through experimentation we discover said causal relationship and claim that the spark causes the sulfur to burn. Logically, that breaks down to a two premise argument (followed by a conclusion), something like:

 

If you have a spark, this sulfur will burn;

We have a spark;

Therefore, this sulfur burns.

 

Or something like that. As a general rule, the causal relationship maps to the logical relationship of implication. A causes B becomes A implies B. Logically, if you have A, then B necessarily follows. It’s that necessary part that causes issues. It is my belief that causality is never a necessary relationship (and Quantum Mechanics might agree with me, if I knew enough about it). In logic, the implication relationship is necessary. It NEVER fails. In nature, are we ever really sure that even our most presumed causal connections are necessary? I think most philosophers would say no. And most scientists would ignore them and go about building marvels that suit us fine.

To look at this differently, the logic relationship deals with the meaning of the words or concepts involved. The causal relationship deals with some kind of connection between two events in the real world… I think. Like I said my philosophy brain has gone to rot.

The upshot of all this is that logic connections and causal connections are two different animals. This is usually most apparent when one looks at what is possible and what is impossible according to each. In logic, a contradiction is impossible, but that’s about it: You can’t have a Euclidean round square. In causality, I think contradictions are also impossible, or, at least, we want them to be—otherwise everything falls apart, even though the behavior of photons and subatomic particles might be threatening to the Law of Non-contradiction. I’m not sure: Remember, I only know a few spattering tidbits about Quantum Mechanics—anyway, the more important point is that there are more impossible things in causality than just contradictions (actually, rereading this, I’m not sure of this; it may be that everything in causal analysis is set up to “echo” logical analysis such that events that contradict well-established “Laws” are deemed impossible). Like, ignoring the Law of Gravity is supposed to be impossible. Not so, in logic. The test in logic, as far as I know, is basically imagination. If you can think it, it is logically possible. Not so with causality. A three-headed pink unicorn is logically possible, but, probably, causally impossible. Another, perhaps more certain example, and this may seem strange to some, the claim that “Socrates can jump unassisted to the moon,” is logically possible, but, most probably, causally impossible.

So, why have logic or study it?

I think I answered that already: logic is the basis of mathematics and without mathematics you really can’t do causal analysis (science). Further, if you are looking for certainty in anything, you are going to have to tread through logical analysis. I know I’m not omniscient; beyond that, I’m not certain about much. Anyway, I think I’ve babbled enough.

God Does Not Talk to Me (Usually)

If a prophet is someone who clearly and distinctly hears the voice of God in his head or his heart, I am NOT a prophet. As a general rule, I do NOT hear the voice of God most of the time. I’ve experienced “currents” of thought in my head that seemed to suggest a certain phrase or conclusion, but usually not something decisive and final. With one exception.

There was that one time—which I mentioned in a previous blog post—where God (or what I assume was God) said to me in my mind “Hi, Matt.” As I discussed previously, that was pretty much exactly what I needed to hear at the time and it kind of knocked me out of a dangerous downward psychological spiral. Still, there is a part of me that isn’t sure; I worry that it wasn’t God, but Satan in disguise.

Anyhoo. Why am I bringing this up? Well, for one, I think I’m the antichrist. Although I try to be a good antichrist, I don’t want to mislead people accidentally. After all, if I am the antichrist, I might be kind of sort of special or, rather, unusual. And if I am special/unusual, I might have some kind of access to the Almighty. Well, to make things clear: I don’t. It would be cool if God or Jesus talked to me on a regular basis, but neither one does. Like I said, I heard “God’s” voice once in my head. Jesus’ voice, I’ve heard a couple times—sometimes in my head, and once or twice as a locution into my heart.

Then there’s Satan. I’ve heard him in my head a number of times. In fact, I had a lengthy back and forth conversation with him which consisted largely of me saying, “Satan, I am telling you the truth: You are not God,” and him replying like a stubborn, overgrown child, “Yes, I am.” He even sounded like a baby in my head. And we went back and forth repeating ourselves.

Anyway, my point is this: you probably shouldn’t listen to me. Don’t take me too seriously. I am NOT infallible; I am a sinner like everyone else; I just had a close encounter with Satan one day long ago. I’m trying to make the most of a bad hand, but only God knows if I will accomplish anything of import, or if my life will simply be wasted by my madness.

Talking Versus Penance

In prior blog entries, I’ve made a big deal about talking. The importance and significance of talking, reaching out and exposing your vulnerable heart to another soul. I believe, at some point, I mentioned that I thought talking was one of the crucial tenets of Jesus of Nazareth’s philosophy. I got this from the scene in the Gospels where Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead and says, “I am only doing this so that you will trust in me.” (emphasis mine) Basically, Jesus is saying that the miracle isn’t as important as getting the apostles to open up and talk to him.

Anyway, having mulled this over for a considerable amount of time, I wonder if there was something I missed. Was Jesus’ message simply for us to trust one another enough to talk to each other, or was there something more? For the longest time growing up, I believed Jesus was all about forgiveness. Hence, it seemed clear to me that sin existed because forgiveness logically implies that one has done something wrong. But did Jesus really believe that? At one point in my “spiritual journey,” I remember reading the new testament where Jesus said, “They (the Pharisees and priests of the Temple) were wrong about sin.” He went further and said, “Now I tell you, you are free.” At the time, it seemed to me that Jesus was saying that sin doesn’t really exist. You are free to do what you want, answerable to no one. Or something to that extent. I still struggle with this. And as I do so, my philosopher’s mind is always throwing up counterexamples. Surely, Jesus doesn’t mean we are free to kill, rape, and plunder? Does he? I don’t know. That seems hard to swallow.

Jesus seemed to integrate forgiveness inseparably into his preaching. But I read somewhere that rabbis of his time period were well known to give two types of messages: one for public consumption; and one for his inner circle. So, I am struck by the possibility that Jesus’ public teaching may have stressed forgiveness to serve some undisclosed end, but his more critical teaching was one which stressed talking things through and abandoning the notion of the sin so one can live in freedom. But I’m the antichrist. Surely, if sin exists it is in the devil’s interest to convince me that it doesn’t and to spread that message around. Great.

Anyhoo, I’m stuck. What is the significance of forgiveness and repentance compared to talking? As a Catholic, I am familiar with the Catholic Confessional where all three are present. We talk to the priest, and that is a cathartic release of psychological pressure and stress. But the priest also claims to offer forgiveness to the contrite of heart.

Hmmm. Even as I write these words, I seem to be closing in on an answer for myself. I think I’m going to say that forgiveness is valuable above and beyond merely talking. Talking is great (I know because I’m terrible at it), but being forgiven for wrongdoing is even better. Since it is better, rolling it in to the Confessional adds value to that sacrament. Of course, the person who goes to Confession can’t prove that God actually forgives them, but if it turns out to be a fiction, it is a pleasant one. And if it is the truth, it makes the sacrament of Confession that much more valuable.

Talking vs. Goal Orientation

That’s a kind of obtuse title to this post: “Talking vs. Goal Orientation.” As I’ve mentioned in other posts, I’ve made a big deal about “talking.” Back when I was in college, a liberal friend of mine pointed out the importance of this amazing ability we have. We can talk with others and empathize with them. By talking we can commiserate and, to a certain extent, alleviate emotional pain.

When I first came to understand this, I think I over-reacted. I came to believe that “talking” was it. The big thing. The ultimate reality, or something like that. Now, I’m not so sure. There was a moment when I believed that this was actually Christ’s most fundamental message. When He said (at the resurrection of Lazarus) “I am only doing this so that you will trust in me,” I thought He was talking to His apostles (a.k.a. His friends) and simply meant He would willingly listen to them if they opened up and just spoke with Him. If they trusted in Him, He would listen. And that was it.

Now, I’m not so sure.

I am convinced that talking is critically important, but I’m not sure that that is all there was to Jesus’ message. What about all those admonitions to “turn the other cheek” and “do unto others what you would have them do unto you”? Was it just smoke obscuring the ultimate truth which was just “talking?” Possibly. But maybe all his admonitions, instructions, and beatitudes are supposed to serve as sort of goals for the spiritual life. We are supposed to keep striving toward them to the best of our ability.

If this is so, then perhaps talking is supposed to serve as the means and the beatitudes (etc…) are supposed to serve as the goal. Christ laid down an arrow pointing in the direction our moral characters should be directed. And we are supposed to “talk” to support each other as we strive for these goals. He knows, and we should to, that we will slip, stumble, and fail along the way, but with help from each other we can draw ever closer to such Christian ideals.

Anyway, this is one of the issues I wrestle with these days: how much of Christ’s message can be summed up in the one word: “talking”?