Much Ado about Nothing: Problems with Logical Reasoning in Theism-Atheism Debate

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I found the argument of the manuscript to be intriguing but unconvincing.  The primary issue lies in the use of the term "reason."  Is the author using "reason" to indicate the faculty to think, identifying the cause of something, or both?  Based on my reading, the author moves between both.  Sometimes "logical reasoning" is used.  Reason and logical reason are not identical terms.  The same issue arises with "belief."  Human belief and religious belief are not identical, and this needs to be communicated.

I would also call attention to the contradiction whereby the author attempts to make a "reasonable" argument but proceeds by attempting to demonstrate the limits of reason.

I would suggest that argument is a bit overstated.  The observation regarding independence and dependence needs to be emphasized more clearly.  I would suggest a more balanced view would be to argue that faith and reason are more like a Venn diagram where the overlap is emphasized to the exclusion of domain and logic proper to each.  

I would also be careful of overstating the relationship of theism with religious belief and atheism with non-belief.  Atheists believe plenty of things and plenty of theists are not religious.  

Author Response

Dear reviewer  

We hope that you are doing well.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to submit a revised draft of my manuscript titled “Much Ado about Nothing: Problems with Logical Reasoning in Theism -Atheism Debate” to Religions. I appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers have spent to offering your useful thoughts on my work. I am grateful to the reviewers for their insightful remarks on my paper. I have been able to integrate improvements to reflect most of the suggestions provided by the reviewers and highlighted the changes inside the document.

Here is a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ remarks and comments.

Comments from Reviewer # 1

1. I found the argument of the manuscript to be intriguing but unconvincing. The primary issue lies in the use of the term "reason."  Is the author using "reason" to indicate the faculty to think, identifying the cause of something, or both?  Based on my reading, the author moves between both.  Sometimes "logical reasoning" is used.  Reason and logical reason are not identical terms.  The same issue arises with "belief."  Human belief and religious belief are not identical, and this needs to be communicated.

Response:

When we say "reason," we mean the ability to think. However, when we say "logical reasoning," we mean the way we think to make a logical argument by using two or more known premises that lead us to an unknown premise. For example, when theists argue about whether or not God exists, they use the same line of reasoning:

1. If there were no God, the rules of logic would just be human conventions. (known premise 1)
2. The laws of logic are not merely human conventions. (Known premise 2)
3. Therefore, God exists (Conclusion)

I looked at all the places where the words "reason" and "logical reasoning" were used and tried to explain them in more simple way.

In the same way, I looked at every time the words "belief," "religious beliefs," and "human beliefs" were used. I agreed with what the reviewer said, so I made the changes he or she suggested.

Comments from Reviewer # 1

2. I would suggest that argument is a bit overstated. The observation regarding independence and dependence needs to be emphasized more clearly.  I would suggest a more balanced view would be to argue that faith and reason are more like a Venn diagram where the overlap is emphasized to the exclusion of domain and logic proper to each. 

Response:

The hypothesis of human dependence or independence is only mentioned in the paper to offer an alternative topic for this debate because the existing topic, which is the existence of God, is so complicated "that can't be argued logically and doesn't seem to be going anywhere soon. I've incorporated a detailed look at the possibility of switching to a different debate topic that both sides could agree on, could be argued logically, and could lead to better conclusions. I focused on other possible topics besides "human dependence" or "independence," such as "future of humanity, Evolution or creation,  Ethics, etc. (Lines: 227-238).

Aside from that, I like how the reviewer suggested using a venn diagram to show how these logical tools differ or overlap. I tried to use the Venn diagram, but it would require a lot of changes to the way the study is set up, and I don't have time to do that right now. I did my best, though, to explain this kind of relationship in many parts of the study.

Comments from Reviewer # 1

I would also be careful of overstating the relationship of theism with religious belief and atheism with non-belief.  Atheists believe plenty of things and plenty of theists are not religious. 

Response:

I share the reviewer's concern and can understand how atheists might still hold certain beliefs. However, when theists and atheists argue, and when we say they believe or don't believe, we are obviously referring to their religious beliefs. I hope the ambiguity is now resolved by the fact that we rephrased "beliefs" as "religious beliefs" in response to the initial feedback.

Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to the honorable reviewer for his competent criticism. I believe that his insightful remarks have improved the academic quality of the article significantly. Meanwhile, let me demonstrate my willingness to make any additional changes to the paper that the reviewer may advise or to reply to any queries you may have about my submission.

Regards

Reviewer 2 Report

I have published extensively on the issue in this paper, and my own positions differ noticeably from the author's.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We hope that you are doing well.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to submit a revised draft of my manuscript titled “Much Ado about Nothing: Problems with Logical Reasoning in Theism -Atheism Debate” to Religions. I appreciate the time and effort that the reviewers have spent to offering their useful thoughts on my work. I am grateful to the reviewers for their insightful remarks on my paper. I have been able to integrate improvements to reflect most of the suggestions provided by the reviewers and highlighted the changes inside the document.

Here is a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ remarks and comments.

Comments from Reviewer # 2

1. The thesis of the paper can be paraphrased (and strengthened) thus:

In arguments between theists and atheists (about whether God ‘‘exists’’ and similar questions) people do not agree about the starting points for any such arguments, and it is in any case logically circular to try to argue to a starting point. We argue only from a starting point, and where there is disagreement about starting points, what happens when people still argue is that each side asserts by presupposition or insinuation its own chosen starting point. (When this becomes apparent, the argument typically turns from logic to other forms of persuasion, not all of them pretty.)

Response:

In light of the above suggestion, I have made the suggested changes and revised the thesis statement. (Lines: 34-39).

Comments from Reviewer # 2

2. The author’s central thesis at this point is to plead for a move from the head to the heart, is order to reason from the heart. The support for this plea is taken largely from the Qur’an. But this is an example of the very pathology the reviewer finds in all such argument: People still disagree about starting points. So why the Qur’an? If the intended readership is Muslim, familiar with the Qur’an, logical circularity is not a problem, because the starting point is already shared.

Response:

No mention is made of switching from head to heart in order to think from the heart in the article. It merely illustrates numerous flaws in the logical argumentation process and demonstrates that it is impossible to prove a theological issue through logical reasoning, leading to the conclusion that a logical argument is impossible without a frame of reference. This claim is supported by evidence from well-known philosophers. The author cites holy scriptures on how to approach the faith issue and discovers that neither the Qur'an nor the Bible deal with the faith issue using logical reasoning; rather, it is viewed as a matter of the heart. Consequently, the Qur'an and Bible are only cited to support the central claim. 

The holy scriptures, as the first and foremost divine sources, cannot be ignored when discussing matters of faith. In the context of faith issues, the thesis emphasizes the limitations of reason and the complexities of logical argumentation, concluding that faith issues should be addressed through other means of persuasion rather than reason. The word "heart" appears 132 times in the Qur'an, always in the context of faith, but it does encourage the use of logic in the debate over God's existence.

Comments from Reviewer # 2

3. For what it is worth, not all Catholic philosophical theologians agree about whether or how God might ‘‘exist.’’ See for example St. John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (trans. S. D. F. Salmond, 19th century; reprinted by Aeterna Press 2016), Part I, chapter 4, in the penultimate paragraph (p. 10). The Greek may be found in Migne, Patrologia Graeca, vol. 94, col. 100, available online at http://patristica.net/graeca. More to the point is Joshua 24, at the great covenant renewal ceremony, where Joshua asks the assembled Israelites, ‘‘which gods will you serve?’’ In other words, you have a choice. It is a confessional commitment, not the result of any kind of inference. That can be said without the Bible, just within the discourse of the sociology of knowledge (see Peter Berger, The Social Construction of Reality and The Sacred Canopy.) Aquinas says something similar in the Summa Theologica, 1.1.8, asking ‘‘Whether Sacred Doctrine is a Matter of Argument?’’ and answering in the body of the article that a shared starting point taken on faith is necessary before there can be any argument.

Response:

As for St. John of Damascus, it's true that he had a monotheistic worldview. Because of this, he knew without a shadow of a doubt that there is only one God. Read essay three from "مئة مقالة   " published by Coptic Books in Beirut, on pages 57-58 to see how he provides numerous rational arguments for God's existence. In the same book, the fifth essay (beginning on page 61) gives a comprehensive explanation of monotheism.

Regarding, Joshua 24:15, Obviously, Joshua had not believed in many Gods. It is just a piece of advice for the Israelites about their commitment to only one Lord because the people of Israel in Joshua's day were serving God halfheartedly. In reality, this means they were serving other gods. Choosing the one true God means giving a total, wholehearted commitment to him alone. This does not imply that Joshua believed in many Gods; he only believed in one God, but because the audiences were not fully following God's commandments, he addressed them by:  ‘‘which gods will you serve?

These kinds of expressions are common in the Holy Qur'an, such as in verse 35:40, where it says:

“Say to them (O Prophet): 'Have you ever seen those of your associates  upon whom you call apart from Allah? Show me what have they created in the earth? Or do they have any partnership (with Allah) in the heavens? Or have We given them a Book so that they have a clear proof (for associating others with Allah in His Divinity)?' Nay, what these wrong-doers promise each other is nothing but delusion.”

One cannot claim that the above verse mentions the possibility of multiple Gods. Because most of the first audiences of the Holy Qur'an were polytheists, the Qur'an only intends to refute polytheism. Polytheism may have existed during the time of Joshua, but this does not imply that Joshua believed in it.

Furthermore, Summa Theologica, 1.1.8, is very helpful in supporting my thesis statement. I'd like to thank the reviewer for providing this useful information.

Comments from Reviewer # 2

5. Something similar has arisen in the philosophy of science, a domain of inquiry much more restricted than philosophy of religion, in the conversations started by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. When scientists change paradigms, it is not by correcting logical errors so much as by a process more like conversion, but there is a logical structure even there: When one paradigm explains another’s successes and failures better than the other itself can, it is rational to prefer the first to the second. I leave details out, as they are easily available elsewhere. I don’t think religious conversion has anything like this alleged neat rationality of scientific paradigm change.

 

Response:

Even though a change in the way people think about religious issues couldn't be dealt with like a change in the way people think about scientific issues, it could still have a big effect on the debate. It is a fact that conversion could provide an alternative basis for research and argumentation, especially when the debate is disorganized and based on different activities and there is no commonly accepted observational basis. The new paradigm explains the observations better and offers a model that is closer to the objective and external reality. Aside from this, logical flaws make it impossible for the debate to go on normally. Because of this, the conversion will completely change how debates are held. Therefore, the  best way to solve different logical problems in the current debate is to use other ways of persuasion instead of logic.

 

 

Comments from Reviewer # 2

6. A comment on the turn to the heart as a way to resolve arguments: The gut also is involved. I once asked as much in the question period after a conference paper, and this produced great merriment, but little interest.

Response:

We talked about the heart (قلب) in the context of the Qur'an and made it clear that the heart is used in the Qur'an as one of the rational faculties, not as a lump of flesh. In this way, the heart is a part of the brain and the cognitive faculties, just like other parts of the brain that help us think.

Many people fail to recognize this and instead argue that the heart is merely a blood pumping machine and therefore cannot be relied upon when making important decisions or finding solutions to problems but the heart is not used in this way in the Qur'an; rather, it is considered an integral part of the brain, as I have shown throughout this paper.

Comments from Reviewer # 2

7. Lines 188-220, culminating in a cursory treatment of apparent conflicts between biological evolution and theology of creation. The author’s sources are Nasir 2019, which is not accessible to me because I don’t read Arabic (or whatever is its language), but I have some familiarity with the English-language debates about creation and evolution, and those debaters for the most part seem to make the following assumption (one that I do not share): The author seems to assume that creation (divine action) can be treated with the same language as biological evolution, that it is possible for the two to conflict or contradict. In other words, this assumption presupposes that creation can be treated in naturalistic terms. I do not share this assumption. Yet not making the assumption that creation and evolution can be treated with the same discourse is unthinkable for those who do make this assumption.

Response:

Nowhere in this article does it say that the idea of creation can be talked about in the same way as biological evaluation. We used the example of biological evaluation to show the different kinds of compromises that are needed to make a logical argument. It is made very clear that in order to make an argument, we often need to use probability, exclusion, and gap filling, and that all of these compromises are made  possible in the light of the World pictures.

 

Comments from Reviewer # 2

8. Comments on particular places in the paper:

Lines 273-275: this is taken as axiomatic (a starting point),

but atheists would just laugh.

Response:

In the same way, atheists might start from different places, and religious people would laugh at them. This is what's wrong with this debate. The arguments have always been about things that can't be proven or disproven with logic. The debate should be about things that both sides can agree on. It shouldn't be about the different starting points and worldviews.

 

Comments from Reviewer # 2

9. Line 68: ‘‘... they advanced the plot ...’’: what plot?

Line 179: ‘‘stop’’: stop, or start?

Lines 69, 83, 125 cite references that are not in the bibliography.

Line 156, "worldview": Does the difference between a Weltanscthauung and a Weltbild

matter for the author?

Line 158: "word picture" or worLd picture?

Line 159: "hypothetical lives" why hypothetical?

 

 

Response:

A thorough proofreading is conducted, taking into account all of the respected reviewer's suggestions.

Comments from Reviewer # 2

10. Line 247: The citation to "Samuel 16.17": There are two books of Samuel, not just one. The author impeaches his/her credibility, revealing that he is not really familiar with the Bible. This whole paragraph is unconvincing to me. A word-study of the series Lev Nephesh-Me’od might help, but the author neither offers nor cites any such study. The author’s thesis about mind and emotions is not central to the Bible in either Testament; the Common Documents are about covenant and election (the Exodus), and the New Testament is modeled on that. There are ideas in the New Testament that go far beyond the instincts of the Platonist-Aristotelian philosophical tradition, but that is not the issue in this paper.

Response:

The changes suggested are made.

Comments from Reviewer # 2

11. 06; citations to the Qur’an need sura numbers, not just page references to Ali. There are many translations, not just Ali’s.

Response:

The author relies on Ali's translation because it is the only authentic translation available to him. In addition, I went over all of the Qur'anic citations again and added the sura numbers as suggested.

Comments from Reviewer # 2

12. To sum up: the paper is not convincing to me, though I cannot quite recommend to the editors that it not be published in Religions. Rather let me say that I would not miss it if it were not published there. It presupposes an Islamic context of inquiry, and perhaps it might make better sense for the Journal of Islamic Studies (the venue of the Idris paper that the author cites). As it stands, it is not really religious studies or philosophy of religion, it is Islamic apologetics.

Response:

In spite of my utmost regard for the reviewer's integrity and the quality of his criticism, here I must respectfully disagree with him. This paper discusses a purely religious topic, citing purely religious sources and figures, and has a clear thesis statement and a proper  investigation strategy. In my opinion the reviewer's claim that the paper assumes an Islamic context of inquiry is not true, since the main point of the paper is about logic and not a pure Islamic topic. The reviewer seems to care more about the verses from the Qur'an that are used as evidence for the theistic point of view. If we can't use the Quran and the Bible as sources for theism, I don't know what to use. For me, the Quran and the Bible are the first and most important sources of religion. These are the only sources that have inspired billions of people all over the world throughout history.

The honorable reviewer suggested that my paper be published in an Islamic Studies journal because I cited a paper (Idris paper)  from an Islamic Studies journal. However, the respected reviewer ignored all of the other religious studies sources I cited in this paper.

Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to the honorable reviewer for his competent criticism. I believe that his insightful remarks have improved the academic quality of the article significantly. Meanwhile, let me demonstrate my willingness to make any additional changes to the paper that the reviewer may advise or to reply to any queries you may have about my submission.

Regards

Author

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf