literal Actual Nichiren index page Apocryphal

Theoretical Proof

Theoretical proof
Is the notion that religious truths should have logical and experiential(also actual proof) validity. This is part of the principle of the "Three Proofs" of "literal,theoretical, and actual proof." These three proofs are a very advanced and modern idea and it is hard to believe that Nichiren advocated them 750 years ago.
Theoretical proof involves answering three questions;
  1. Is the teaching logical (hold together from premise to conclusion)?
  2. Is it deeply profound?
  3. Does the logic hold up against reality

From there one can go to the questions of literal proof and actual proof.

back to index

Discussion/ Faith and Logic

The notion that religion demands theoretical proofs is based on the premise and observation that there are consequences to deluded thinking and bad reasoning. In Buddhism deluded thinking is called "slander of the dharma" because it can take the logic and premises, prescriptions and rules, and turn them on their head. A basic truth of Buddhism and of religion in general is that religion must be logically premised and that it's logic, semantics, and reasoning hold together.

Thus actual proof is part of theoretical proof as good logic is aimed at getting to "actuality" in thinking. The three proofs "proofs" theoretical,actual, and literal make a unity of approach to reality.

Thus those who will take teachings out of context and try to teach that religion be based to an appeal to "faith" over reason are missing the boat. Both must be used. A valid religion must be able to place faith side by side with reason. This is because while "faith" is evidence of things unseen. Those "realities" must be "real" either presently or potentially or the faith is a false faith. Since religious faith involves immagination as well as physical reality this test is also one of the practitioners orientation towards the materials.

Good Logic and Faith

Bad logic not only doesn't meet the tests of theoretical proof it actually leads to errors and misery. But of course few people (except hucksters and charlatans) set out to deceive others. Rather people often simply don't understand how to reason, don't recognize the errors they are making, or simply follow the authority of a trusted person.

Subsequently, what happens is that people tend to accept premises "a priori" or on "false authority". This is expecially true with mystical and imaginative material. In religious reasoning people often confuse the allegorical dream "vehicle" of a message with the intended content. Thus getting themselves in trouble. Good logic depends on good premises, syllogisms that follow from those premises, and not making errors such as confusing general principles with specific examples, drawing general conclusions from limited or faulty data, or emotional errors such as interpreting events whilly nilly.

The theoretical proofs of Buddhism are no less rigorous for involving both esoteric (one on one learned from teachers and friends) notions and exoteric (generally available) notions, and require that we use all the tools of reasoning including inductive and deductive reasoning. Buddhism teaches that the Buddha is like a physician treating a patient with snake-bite or another condition. If he takes time to explain all the theories to the patient before beginning treatment, the patient will be dead before he has a chance to understand anything. Therefor Buddhism is a teaching that must be entered with "faith". Some take that to mean that Buddhism has no logical basis but that is not the case. Buddhism not only doesn't reject logic, but embraces a kind of logic that is fully suited to "modern understandings."

Buddhism progresses from very simple syllogisms, that can be seen to be true to increasingly profound understandings that are harder to comprehend. The reason is that Buddhism, from the beginning, understood the chaotic and immense nature of reality. There is the concept of the "World Elephant" when seeking to understand the "dharmas" (laws) of nature and reality. The analogy is that people are like blind men when it comes to perceiving reality. If we get caught up in sectarian thinking we are like blind fleas trying to understand a giant elephant. Thus throughout history people have attained great insights and shouted "eureka" (I've found it) only to find that the knowledge thereby gained is still "relative and provisional" to the nature of complete understanding (annokutara Sanmyaku Sanbodai). Thus the general principles of Buddhism are very real, very true, and our understanding of them often provisional.

Examples of faulty reasoning in Religion

Probably some of the best examples of faulty logic and resulting lousy theory are found in most of the great religions of the present day. From Zen, with it's wordy explainations of why one can't rely on words, to literalminded people who insist that books were written by God rather than the men who assembled and published them. These "theoretical proofs" grounded on faulty logic are accepted because people think that logic and faith are opposed to one another, or aren't willing to accept that a religious person can think criticially or hold to a "faith" while having criticisms or even doubts about it's literal veracity. All these "theoretical proofs" depend on faulty reasoning more than the texts that they purport to accept or reject. Worse, even the rejections of religious texts have faulty logic underlying them. The best example of that is Marxism, which presumes that evil people will set aside their evil hearts and create an ideal society. Or even worse, Marxist Leninism which created a new class, the "Communist Party" for the sake of doing away with classes. And then was surprised when that new class of people betrayed the principles of communism and became a new yoke to the people.

Faulty Logic is based on Attachment

Faulty logic is based on "attachment". That is one becomes attached to ideas and unwilling to really look at them critically. The Buddha expressed this in the term "62 false views." For example he said one should not debate with "Lokayas or anti-Lokayas" (materialists or anti-materialists). Such debates are fruitless, because the effort to debate attaches one to ideas that are erroneous both to accept them or reject them. Good logic doesn't mean rejecting emotion and becoming a Vulcan, nor does it mean becoming a machine. Rather it is a matter of rejecting "falsity" and attachment to any view (true or false) simply out of emotion. When one does that one can appreciate different views. One becomes like "Tevia" and the Scholars. "You are right." "You Are right." and "You are right and wrong in the same time." One learns to make distinctions and see things for what they are. This is what is meant by seeing the "emptiness of all phenomenom." All phenomenom exist only in relationship to other phenomenom

Logical Fallacies

False analogy

-- Generally an analogy (comparing one thing to another) is one of the most difficult types of argument to support. When someone compares two entities that their audience will not find similar, or compares things that are not adequately like one another, this is a false analogy.

False use of authority

--This happens when someone cites as an authority a person or group of people who either have no true expertise in the topic being argued, or else are not recognized by the potential audience as a respectable authority. Often you will see misuse of authority in the form of political ads quoting "experts" to lend an air of authority to a candidate, or a written argument citing another author's work that isn't an adequately related subject.

Either/or reasoning

-- Assuming that there are only two possible alternatives on a given issue. A very simple but classic example would be, "America--love it or leave it." This assumes that all citizens should either be openly patriotic, or else not be citizens at all. That fallacy overlooks the possibilty of someone who is happy being an American citizen but dislikes some government policies, and so on. Many issues of national concern are subject to either/or arguments, but even personal discussions can fall prey to this reasoning flaw.

Burden of proof

-- When someone fails to support their argument and simply makes assertions, they fail to accept the burden of proof. Failing to back up any given statement in an argument shifts the burden of proof to the audience and assumes they will accept it automatically.

Non sequitur

-- This is Latin for "it does not follow". When one statement does not follow another logically, it is a non sequitur statement and does not provide reasonable proof.

Ad hominem

-- Another Latin term, meaning "against the man" or "to the man". Essentially, it consists of any personal attack against someone making an argument, and not the argument itself. This is also known as a character attack. It happens most often in political mudslinging ads and Internet flame wars.

Straw Man

-- Building a straw man involves attacking a particularly weak or easily countered part of someone else's argument while ignoring larger, more difficult points that are harder to counter- argue. This makes the opposing argument seem weaker by only drawing attention to points easiest to knock down, hence the term "straw man".

Red Herring

--Another form of redirecting attention away from difficult issues by inserting an unrelated issue. This avoids confronting an argument directly.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc

-- Also Latin and meaning, "after this, therefore because of this". This is the assumption that because one thing happened before another, it naturally had to be the cause. For example, blaming troubled economic times on a previous government's administration without providing direct proof of poor economic policies would be assuming post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

Appealing to emotion

-- While appeals to emotion can be useful in other areas, they have no place as a form of proof in a logical argument. Appealing to emotion can also be misused, by trying manipulate an audience into feeling frightened or guilty about something. Critics of Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, for example, charge that descriptions of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and their readiness for use was meant to inspire fear in order to support invasion. Another thing to pay attention to is choice of wording; sometimes a particular word or connotation can be deliberately used to get a certain reaction.1

Footnotes

Source: Reading Critically, Writing Well: A Reader and Guide. Second edition. Axelrod, Rise B. and Cooper, Charles R. New York: St. Martin's Press. 1990.
Web source:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SokaGakkaiInternational/message/33009
Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1