Evolutionary Philosophy
  • Home
  • Worldview
    • Epistemology
    • Metaphysics
    • Logic
    • Ethics
    • Politics
    • Aesthetics
  • Applied
    • Know Thyself
    • 10 Tenets
    • Survival of the Fittest Philosophers >
      • Ancient Philosophy (Pre 450 CE)
      • Medieval Philosophy (450-1600 CE)
      • Modern Philosophy (1600-1920 CE)
      • Contemporary Philosophy (Post 1920 CE)
    • 100 Thought Experiments
    • Elsewhere
  • Fiction
    • Draining the Swamp >
      • Further Q&A
    • Short Stories
    • The Vitanauts
  • Blog
  • Store
  • About
    • Purpose
    • My Evolution
    • Evolution 101
    • Philosophy 101

Response to Thought Experiment 24: Squaring the Circle

9/3/2015

4 Comments

 
Picture
I'm in Porto, Portugal all week doing some important "research" about living a philosophically sound life, so it's  probably best if I allow Julian Baggini himself to explain this week's thought experiment. Since he hasn't cited any source for it, it seems he invented the story on his own anyway. First, the experiment:

---------------------------------------------------
     And the Lord spake unto the philosopher, "I am the Lord thy God, and I am all-powerful. There is nothing that you can say that can't be done. It's easy!"
     And the philosopher spake unto the Lord, "OK, your mightiness. Turn everything that is blue red and everything that is red blue."
     The Lord spake, "Let there be colour inversion!" And there was colour inversion, much to the confusion of the flag bearers of Poland and San Marino.
     And the philosopher then spake unto the Lord, "You want to impress me: make a square circle."
     The Lord spake, "Let there be a square circle." And there was.
     But the philosopher protesteth, "That's not a square circle. It's a square."
     The Lord grew angry. "If I say it's a circle, it's a circle. Watch your impertinence or else I shall smite thee very roughly indeed."
     But the philosopher insisteth, "I didn't ask you to change the meaning of the word 'circle' so it just means 'square'. I wanted a genuinely square circle. Admit it - that's one thing you can't do."
     The Lord thought a short while, and then decided to answer by unleashing his mighty vengeance on the philosopher's smart little arse.

Baggini, J., The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten, 2005, p. 70.
---------------------------------------------------

Now, as Baggini explains it,

"The problem with such things as square circles is that they are logically impossible. ... This much rationality demands. So if we are to say that God's omnipotence means he can create shapes such as square circles, then we wave goodbye to rationality. For that reason most religious believers are happy to conclude that God's omnipotence means that he can do all that is logically possible. ... If we accept this concession, however, the door opens to rational scrutiny of the concept of God and the coherence of belief in him. By accepting that belief in God must be in harmony with reason, the religious believer is obliged to take seriously claims that belief in God is irrational. ... It is not good enough to say these are simply matters of faith, if you accept the requirement for faith to be compatible with reason. The alternative route for believers is even more unpalatable: deny that reason has anything to do with it and bank solely on faith instead. What appears contrary to reason is thus dismissed as simply a divine mystery. Such a route is open to us, but to abandon reason so readily in one sphere of life while living as a reasonable person the rest of the time is arguably to live a divided life."

This is a neat bit of rhetoric, but in my own experience, the fear of living "a divided life" is not really a problem for religious believers. They have never claimed the entire universe is rational and logical so they aren't uncomfortable having some divine mystery in their lives. I've already written a lot about the evolution of religion, the arguments for religion that all fail, and my hope for a world without religion, but this passage examining the irrationality of religion seems most appropriate to bring up again when thinking about Baggini's explanation of this thought experiment:

Another way to examine the issue of atheism vs. religion is through the idea that rational thought is a societal system for decision-making. Irrational thought cheats this system. Faith, by definition, is irrational, and as soon as one irrational belief is permitted, all irrational beliefs are allowed. If irrational thought is allowed to win arguments, then the system of rational thought is no longer evolutionarily stable. But clearly, we cannot allow irrational thought to become the norm - that leads to ignorance and the destruction of the species. Irrational thought must not be allowed to win. And yet, irrational thought does win, because it isn't playing the same game. By its own declaration, irrational thought cannot rationally lose an argument. In this way, irrational thought can never be entirely defeated through reason. Perhaps the best we can do in the short term is to stop societal decisions based on irrational beliefs. In the long term, the teaching of rational thought and the benefits of rational thought must be shown to be more attractive to individuals. The tangible, emotional benefits to shedding irrational beliefs must be improved and made better known. Control over one’s emotions, membership in beneficial social groups, better job opportunities, cooperative grants, happiness with life, lasting love - these are all areas where rational thinkers can and must outcompete irrational believers.

And with that, I'll get back to living the good life in Porto as a fine example of what life without gods can look like. Please do more of the same yourself. Obrigado!
4 Comments
atthatmatt link
9/4/2015 05:33:32 pm

Two thoughts. The first is that the typical definition of the monotheistic God is that they are the source of everything. Nothing prexisted God. God directly created everything, including God. That means that God also created logic. So, since God is bigger than logic, it makes no sense to say that God is limited by logic. God is not limited by anything. God can contradict God without contradiction, because contradiction is not relevant to God. It makes talking about God kinda boring.

My other thought I'd that rational/irrational in the context isn't a binary, it's a continuum. It's not fair to accuse someone else of plain irrationality. It's more nuanced than that.

Reply
@EdGibney link
9/7/2015 11:57:55 am

I agree that talking about god is pretty boring at this point. Hopefully there won't be too many more thought experiments on this subject. It seems to me that even if god is the source of everything, s/he would be handcuffed by the logic that exists in this material universe, but who knows what a belief in an imaginary being can imagine about this.

That's a good reminder about the rational/irrational continuum, which encourages us to slide people along it rather than try to "flip their switch," which is likely not a welcome characterisation. As David Hume said, "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence", which makes a good definition for being rational too. So unless our beliefs are perfectly calibrated, we're probably all a little irrational somewhere. I do think a rational->irrational threshold is crossed where beliefs exist based on *zero* evidence, but there is enough argument about what constitutes evidence to agree that religious folk may not always be irrational. At least, they don't see themselves that way.

Reply
Richard A Martin link
1/23/2023 12:32:28 pm

Asun's squaring the circle (and other maddening puzzles -)

Take any perfect circle that has a measured circumference that is a even whole number - (Say 2 inches 4, inches -8 inches 16 inches.

For ease of example and demonstration, lets use a circle with a 16 inch circumference.

(Use circles with whole number circumferences So we do not drive ourselves insane with details of division of fractional and or irrational numbers. )

Cut the circle at any point and lay it out in a straight line (***for a string) and you will have a 16 inch line. Fold this line in half and you now have two 8 inch lines. (This id dividing 16 by two (16 /2 =8) Fold the 8 inch line (or string) again and you now have 4ea 4 inch lines or strings and you can now construct a perfect rectangle with four equal 4 inch sides. Now calculate the area.

**** If you take a string and wrap it around a pipe with a 16 inch circumference you can make a good mock up of this idea and prove it.

Copyrighted 01-23-2023 by Alferi [email protected] USA so maybe for once i will get some due credit

Em

Reply
Ed Gibney link
1/23/2023 03:17:32 pm

But a circumference, divided into four, and constrained into the shape of a square, is not the same thing as a circle. The areas aren't the same. Perhaps I'm missing your point but you haven't squared a circle with this.

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Subscribe to Help Shape This Evolution

    SUBSCRIBE

    Blog Philosophy

    This is where ideas mate to form new and better ones. Please share yours respectfully...or they will suffer the fate of extinction!


    Archives

    February 2025
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    April 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    January 2023
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    August 2021
    June 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    May 2019
    March 2019
    December 2018
    July 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    April 2012

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.