Let’s start with a hypothetical proposition:
If God exists, I will not see the movie “Catwoman.”
Sounds simple enough! I mean to say that if God exists, He makes certain demands on us with regard to moral behavior. Seeing Halle Berry (proverbially) prowl around the world seeking the ruin of male souls in her Catwoman outfit would be acting contrary to those demands. Her disguise can harldy be called an “outfit” – it’s more like cat ears and three postage stamps. To see this movie would be a near occasion of sin at the very least and in all likelyhood actually sinful. Consequently, I will not see the movie “Catwoman.”
The mixed hypothetical syllogism in standard form, minus the stuff about demands, moral behavior, cat ears, postage stamps, and sin:
If God exists, then I will not see the movie “Catwoman.”
God exists.
I will not see the movie “Catwoman.”
This is a formally valid syllogism. It’s logical form is known as modus ponens, or affirming the antecedent.
God bless you, Sal. I remember seeing Msgr. William Smith on “60 Minutes” talking about priestly celibacy. He commented that he did not go to “R” rated movies as he just couldn’t take it. I know that one comment made me give up alot of movies.
Besides, according to Ebert it’s flat and formulaic.
Of course, you had better never see Catwoman, since by modusl tollens that would prove that God does not exist.
Joel –
Modus tollens is denying the consequent. What you say is affirming the consequent. That’s logically invalid.
http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e10b.htm
-Sal
Dear Sir,
You neglect the most important argument. Halle Berry exists, therefore, there MUST exist a God who could fashion so wonderfully beautiful a creation. I don’t know about Catwoman one way or the other, but Halle’s existence is a daily affirmation of God’s goodness to all the world. And I do mean that in a very respectful way–I don’t mean to offend either you or God.
shalom,
Steven
Am I missing something, Sal? If the consequent is “I will not see ‘Catwoman'”, then how does Joel example (that you would indeed see ‘Catwoman’) affirming the consequent?
RC –
The consequent in my syllogism is “I will not see ‘Catwoman.'”
The consequent in Joel’s is “I WILL see ‘Catwoman.'”
Actually, we’re using different first premises. My begins “if God exists…” and his would have to begin “if God does NOT exist…” That would make his syllogism logically valid, but with his second premise it’s not vaild in my syllogism.
-Sal
Your syllogism is of the form “A implies B”.
Joel correctly concludes that “not B” implies “not A”. This is a new syllogism derived from the first one.
Joel’s premise (that Sal will see ‘Catwoman’) is “not B”.
I saw CATWOMAN. Forget Voltaire and the Lisbon Earthquake. The existence of this film in His universe is irrefutable evidence that a just, loving God does not exist.
It’s actually not that bad … if you go in with low expectations, agree to laugh AT it, and can get with the program of Halle swishing around in skimpy black leather with a whip … CATWOMAN is tolerable. To actually have been *good* or *great* in the sense that SPICE WORLD and EATING RAOUL are good or VALLEY OF THE DOLLS and PINK FLAMINGOS are great, they’d have had to camp it up, trash it up and/or commit some transcendant breach of taste.
That or get Sharon Stone in a chair.
RC –
As the saying goes, “You can’t get there from here.” I’m saying “if p, then q” and Joel is saying, “if p, then q, if q, then p.” His does not follow from mine as mine is stated.
-S
Joel is not saying “if q, then p”. His argument, unpacked, is “Granting Sal’s assertion that ‘p implies q’, then ‘not q implies not p'”. The latter (-q –> -p) is called (at least it was when I went to school) the “contrapositive” of the former (p –> q) and the two are logically equivalent (draw up a truth table and you’ll see).
Ok – I get it. I was confused about what Joel was saying. Thanks, everyone!
There seems to be a number of syllogisms one must go through to go from your first premise. (The various points about demands, sin, and occasion of sin)
However, are these merely “demands” that an arbitrary deity decreed or are the various moral standards that Catholics have based on human nature itself and the rational understanding as to what the human person is and how an observer would rationally understand the proper choices that would befit that person’s nature. Is same-sex relations verboten because they have been decreed to be so, or because they are contrary to the nature and design of the human person? Is demands the proper term for such?