The Logic Of Surak:  Axioms

None of the belief systems in vogue today can prove their allegations; i.e., none can prove that one or more Supreme Being(s) exist, nor that their "holy texts" were written by these unprovable Supreme Beings.  Let's look at some examples.

In Judaism, no one can prove that God gave the commandments to Moses on Sinai.

In Christianity, no one can prove that Jesus lived, let alone prove that he rose from the dead.

In Islam, no one can prove that Mohammed ever existed.

In Buddhism, no one can prove that reincarnation takes place.

None of the Shinto deities can be proven to have ever existed.

In Hinduism, the belief that the soul can be united with the ultimate truth through contemplation and mediation cannot be proven - indeed, no one has been able to prove that there even is an "ultimate truth".

Taoism cannot even be defined by those who follow it - they simply state that one must "experience" it to believe that it exists, which bears the question:  if it cannot be defined, how does one know that what one is experiencing is Taoism?

Wiccans have recently "defined" their "ages old" religion, which until this newest "definition" was called "paganism", and it can be classfied as monotheistic, polytheistic, duotheistic, and atheistic all at the same time.  Wiccans/Pagans cannot seem to agree on the deities in which they believe, let alone prove them to exist.

Having said all that, do we have to be atheists?  No.  We should be skeptical, and remember that regardless of how much we believe in a given belief system, it is a belief system, and it cannot be proven.  If a given belief system could be proven, and thus their Supreme Being(s) could be proven to exist, we'd all have to convert to that belief system.

If we could interrogate the Supreme Being(s) and ask them for specifics, and get a reliable, proven answer, then the belief system would become reality.  Until such time, the belief system must be classified as axiomatic at best.

Since we cannot prove the existence of a Supreme Being(s), we can now define some axioms regarding belief systems.

1. Who Created Us, Why We Were Created, and What We Should Do
   


1. We do not know who (if anyone) created us nor how we were created.  While some Humans may have one or more beliefs as to who created us, and while we have some evidence of evolution, lacking physical evidence that pinpoints who and how we were created, a precise answer to the question of "who created us and how did they create us?" cannot be determined.
   

Ex:  If one were to attempt to argue that "God created us, and the proof (evidence) of this - and thus the existence of God - is that we exist", that argument would fail as it uses "circular" logic.  The statement, "I exist, therefore I am" is not a logical argument:  it is a "self-defining term" that uses the word "am", which is a conjungation of the verb "to be" to define the state of existence.  The word "exist", however, is a state of "being".  Thus, logically, the statement parses down to (excuse the grammar), "I be, therefore I be".  It is the English equivalent of the equation "1 = 1":  nothing is proven, other than the fact that a number is equal to itself (hence the term "self-defining term").  While this may have applicability in the number theory branch of mathematics, that is outside the scope of logic and thus outside the scope of The Logic Of Surak, and most certainly does not answer the question, "did somebody create us and, if so, how?" The only response to that question available to us at this time is, "we don't know".


2. Because we do not know who created us nor how we were created and because any possible "creators" did not leave a verifiable, provable, unambiguous set of documentation as to why we were created, we do not know why we were created.
   

Ex.:  some people state that their "holy book" is to be followed, either "to the letter" or via interpretation.  These "holy books" are old, their author(s) cannot be definitively ascertained, and therefore the source(s) used by their author(s) cannot be definitively ascertained.  Thus, we do not precisely know and cannot prove "who told who to write what".  Given this condition, obliging Humans to "follow" the precepts stated in "holy books" is illogical.  Certainly any Human has the right to believe, at least in their own mind, whether or not a given "holy book" was written by a "supreme being" (e.g., "God"), whether it was written by Humans under "divine inspiration", or whether it was written by Humans for any combination of an infinite number of different reasons (tribal survival, self-gratifying search for greatness, etc.) Lacking empirical evidence that a "holy book" was written by a "supreme being", it remains a belief system, and is - at best - axiomatic.


3. Because we do not know who created us nor how we were created nor why we were created, we do not know what we should do.  Thus, our lives are our own, and we may live them as we see fit, with one restriction (which will be explained later in this document).
   

Lacking any concrete evidence to disprove the above-stated three axioms, and thus having our lives to live them as we see fit, it can be shown that some Humans will need direction in their lives, in order to avoid entropy (entropy is the tendency to descend into chaos).

To avoid this entropic descent into chaos, Humans have created governments of one form or another to govern their behaviour and thus block any such descent into chaos.  People give their governments authority to guard them, to judge them if they commit crime, and to imprison them if they are found guilty of one or more serious crimes.3  Governments can be very tolerant, e.g., libertarianism, or they can be very intolerant, e.g., communism.  Most democratic governments are based on "rule systems", such as common law, regulatory law, statutory law, and civil law, among others.  Sometimes governments convert from one form to another; e.g., a monarchy (the Shah of Iran) becomes a theocracy (Ayatollah Khomeini).  When governments become "draconian", or simply cease to represent the people's wishes and best interests, an analysis of the failures can be broken down into three main reasons:  (i) the people elect someone who violates their trust and their laws and then implements a new set of rules (military coup, state-based belief systems, "Ruler for life", etc.) that are based on faulty logic or are based on axioms; or (ii) corruption; or (iii) both (i) and (ii).

And thus we can use logic to analyse laws:

1. Laws Cannot Be Based On Axioms
   


1. Axioms must not be a component of Just Laws.  Just Laws that we are instructed to follow by a government or court or other legal entity must only be based on provable logic.  A government whose laws are based on unprovable belief systems is not logical, because the laws it enacts are unprovable.
   

Ex. (actual):  a state passes a law that says that marriage must only be between a man and a woman because the "lawmakers" (quotes intentional) believe that "God only wants a man to be married to a woman"4.

Analysis:  This law is not a Just Law because it was passed by people who based the law on their unprovable belief system, which is axiomatic at best.

Should we then say that anyone could marry anything?  For example, could a man marry a tree?5  There is no logical reason preventing the enactment of a Just Law giving people permission to do this; however, the state of matrimony is designed to be equilateral, i.e., all parties participate equally, and a tree cannot participate as a Human can participate, thus, this idea is foolish.  Logically, Humans can define the word "marriage" any way they want, but to deny the right to enter into a state of marriage - and the legal and financial benefits that accompany the state of marriage - to a portion of Humanity because someone's belief system says that it is wrong to allow some other portion of Humanity to marry is illogical and thus a law limiting marriage to certain Humans based on an axiomatic-at-best belief system is not a Just Law.

Ex. (hypothetical):  a man approaches me and tells me that I should not have written this document, because it is an offense to "God".  Instead, the man tells me that since it is clear that I like to write, I should instead write books telling young people how to live their lives in a more God-like or God-inspired manner.

Analysis:  This man's entire argument is illogical for four reasons:  (a) as previously stated, it cannot be proven that a supreme being created us; (b) as previously stated, there is no way we can know why we were created; (c), as previously stated, we do not know what we should do and that our lives are our own to do with as we see fit; and (d), as previously stated, rule systems that must be followed cannot be based on axioms nor on belief systems.  The man that approaches me and tells me that this document is "an offense to God" has no verifiable proof regarding the existence of "God", has no proof as to how "God" wants me to live my life, and thus has no proof that I have offended "God".  (Indeed, the mere idea that one lone woman working on a PC - even a fast one with DSL - can offend a "supreme being" is beyond comprehension to this logician.) So, using logic, it is easily demonstrable (and provable) that the idea that a Human should write books telling young people how to live their lives based on "what God wants" is illogical on (at least) four different counts.

And while I have never met any such "God", and have no idea what any such "God" is, it would be logical to assume that "God" is logical.  After all, would you want to believe in a "supreme ruler of the universe" that is irrational?

Is it a good idea for someone to write books giving young people instruction on how to live their lives?  Yes, of course; young people typically need more instruction on how to evolve and improve themselves than older people.  It is illogical, however, to qualify this advice as being "what God wants", as I have shown above.  In all probability, the man stating "what God wants" is really stating what the man doing the complaining wants (or, in the case of some "organized religions", to have more financial contributors).  He is simply using the idea of a "God" and his axiomatic at best belief that he "knows what God wants me to do" to buttress his argument.  Since his "God" is axiomatic at best, his belief in his "God" is axiomatic at best, and thus his argument is axiomatic at best.  He cannot prove his argument.  He can believe in it with all his faith, and I would not ask nor instruct him to not do so because he can live his life as he sees fit, and he can believe in any belief system he chooses.  However, we have shown above that attempting to force people to follow a rule system based on a belief system is illogical.  Because he cannot prove the existence of his supreme being(s), and because we do not know what any such supreme being(s) want us to do, his demand that this document is "an offense to 'God'" is illogical, and thus for these same reasons, basing a Just Law that people are obligated to follow on an unprovable belief system is illogical.

Some Humans believe very strongly in their belief systems.  Logic accomodates any degree of fervency which Humans may wish to apply to their belief systems.  However, a conflict can arise between the dogma of the belief systems and combination of:  (a) the Fundamental Rights of Humans; and (b) the set of Just Laws that the Humans have enacted via their government to govern their behaviour.  The belief system dogma must take a subservient role in any such conflict with the combination of Fundamental Rights and Just Laws; to do otherwise would be illogical.


2. When our belief systems either require us to violate another Human's Fundamental Rights or require us to break a Just Law which we are legally obligated to follow, we may, as individuals, choose to violate another Human's Fundamental Rights or we may, as individuals, choose to follow our belief systems and break one or more Just Laws; i.e., we may become war protestors, tax protestors, thieves, trespassers, etc.  We may follow some strict dogma that claims to be "the only true law(s)" and also claims that the "laws of the land and non-believer's rights" are inferior to "their true laws" and to "their believer's rights".  When we choose to violate other Human's Fundamental Rights or disobey the Just Law(s) for any reason, we may commit a crime or incur a civil infraction, and we have voluntarily placed ourselves in the hands of the criminal justice system or voluntarily subjected ourselves to fines.  If we had proof that a "supreme being" existed and required us to behave in a manner that would violate one or more Just Laws, or if we had proof that a "supreme being" existed and gave its "believers" rights superior to those of "non-believers", then we could prove logical behaviour and thus take steps to amend/correct/rectify the Just Laws and the set of Human Fundamental Rights.  However, as I have clearly demonstrated earlier, we cannot prove this, and thus anyone taking risks such as these is behaving illogically.
   

Ex.:  a person follows a strict belief system dogma which states that they must commit an animal sacrifice.  The person's belief system tells them that failing to commit this animal sacrifice is a "sin" and there are harsh penalties that will follow, both to themselves and their fellow believers.  The person's government, however, does not permit animal sacrifice.  In this example, should the person choose to follow the dogma of their belief system - which does not conform to the set of Just Laws of the government - the person is committing a crime, and will have to weigh that crime against their belief system's punishment.  While the belief system is axiomatic at best, the Just Laws of the government actually exist.  So in the question, "do I commit animal sacrifice or do I sin?", one is weighing a crime against a living being - which exists - versus a crime against a belief system - which is axiomatic at best.  Thus, in this example, to commit animal sacrifice is illogical.  (And it's horrible for the animal in question, in my opinion.) One can also logically analyze the questions, "what kind of a belief system requires me to sacrifice a living being?", and "for what reason must I sacrifice the life of a living being, which - according to the belief system - was created by the supreme being(s) who wrote the belief system?"6