Logic vs Religion

[andys]

MoonWater
Your accurate comment is not a legitimate accusation of my position; you retort "...just because a person believes in God does not mean they are irrational..."
I never made this claim. Stealing a candy bar is immoral, but that doesn't mean that the person committing the immoral act is immoral (although they may well be immoral).

Similarly, believing in Santa Clause (or a god) is childish and irrational, but the believer may, in every other respect, be a considerably rational person. I don't need to resort to ad hominems to get a rise out of a believer. All that is necessary is to ask them to offer a grain of evidence to prove their childish beliefs. The predictable response is to attack me (ad hominem?).

Now, where were we? Oh yes, I'm still waiting for Dunemeister (or anyone!) to cough up a glimmer of evidence for their claim that a god exists (preferably not a tired standby like "the world is so well designed there must be a designer".

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Now, where were we? Oh yes, I'm still waiting ...

... and whining.

 

[MoonWater]

MoonWater
Your accurate comment is not a legitimate accusation of my position; you retort "...just because a person believes in God does not mean they are irrational..."
I never made this claim. Stealing a candy bar is immoral, but that doesn't mean that the person committing the immoral act is immoral (although they may well be immoral).

Similarly, believing in Santa Clause (or a god) is childish and irrational, but the believer may, in every other respect, be a considerably rational person. I don't need to resort to ad hominems to get a rise out of a believer. All that is necessary is to ask them to offer a grain of evidence to prove their childish beliefs. The predictable response is to attack me (ad hominem?).

Now, where were we? Oh yes, I'm still waiting for Dunemeister (or anyone!) to cough up a glimmer of evidence for their claim that a god exists (preferably not a tired standby like "the world is so well designed there must be a designer".

I believe you stated earlier in this thread that in order to believe in God one must "abandon reason". Would that not make someone irrational? But whatever I'm not going to run in circles with you. By the way, when are you going to provide evidence for your earlier claim that evidence is the downfall of religion. Also do you have any evidence to back up your claim that belief in a god is "childish and irrational"? The burden of proof applies to anyone who makes a positive claim, including you, being an atheist does not exempt you from the burden of proof PERIOD it only exempts from the burden of proof in terms of whether or not God exists.

 

[andys]

Jay joins in with the same retort,
"It's a childish comparison." [Belief in Santa Clause and a god.]

Then he inserts the usual ad hominem,
"It also requires a particularly adolescent admixture of arrogance and ignorance to equate the theology of a Spinoza or Whitehead or Henry Nelson Wieman or Harold Kushner with the belief in Santa Clause."

(An aside: I think Wieman, Kushner and even Whitehead would be flattered to be named alongside Spinoza in your list of admired philosophers. But even the great Spinoza was at odds with traditional religion, particularly Judaism, which excommunicated him. For Spinoza believed that the philosophically enlightened man cannot accept or treat the Old Testament as a literal truth. These and other reputable religious thinkers were not childish either. Nevertheless, their beliefs are as unsubstantiated as a three year old's belief in Mr. Clause. Perhaps you have found a way to resurrect one or more of these philosophers' arguments?)

 

[GadFly]

I'm certainly not embarrassed by it. I take no issue with preaching. I just think that there are times and places. Paul was INVITED to speak at Mars Hill. But of course, he made the most of opportunities. He preached in public squares. However, that sort of activity was expected at public squares. So although Paul was zealous, and we ought to follow his example, I see him using lots of restraint, restraint based on a respect for the society he was working in. A respect he held despite his desire to convert it.

And despite my Anglican affiliation, I'm fully orthodox in belief and practice. Anglicans are an unruly bunch!

We were invited to speak our opinions on this forum so that sort of activity is expected and welcomed here. As to conversion of sinners, I have yet invited any one here to accept my religious faith. How about Peter and other Christians, did they not use enough restraint to please you? You failed to mention them in your rebuff to me. You know well that the biblical and Christian principle is not to hold back in telling the truth about God but to speak it often.

I agree with you, there are times and places for preaching but you are not the one to point out these times and places. You were not being completely honest twisting the Scripture to say that I was incorrect saying a Christian's belief was to speak often about our Lord. That seemed to be what embarrassed you. The GadFly is sly enough to know when he dodges a swat. Know the Scriptures well, if you are going to twist the Scriptures to embarrass or rebuff others.

You twisted what the Scriptures teach by what you said about Paul. It makes me wonder if you have studied the Book of Acts and Paul's epistles. These, in fact, teach the opposite of what you said about Paul. One of a Christians best arguments is that unbelievers twist the premises of reality to prove there is no God. What will they think of our arguments, if Christians twist the Scriptures to win an argument over restraint and decorum? One unbelievers biggest complaints is that Christians make the Bible mean anything they want the Bible to say.

I am going to start a new thread for Christians only. Come and join us and we will debate the subject there if you like.
GadFly

 

[Sonic247]

I don't see why it is so illogical to say that a design like this would has a designer. It may be that it is a cliche but if it is a true cliche that doesn't mean it doesn't quilify as evidence. Otherwise if you wait long enough every peice of evidence will be a cliche and you will still demand more. What evidence is there that a one celled organism can come from nonliving matter? But isn't that what many atheist believe?

 

[andys]

MoonWater
You ask me (again and again), "I believe you stated earlier in this thread that in order to believe in God one must "abandon reason". Would that not make someone irrational?"

Well of course one must abandon reason to be unreasonable (irrational). That's true by definition. But, as have I already clearly explained to you, that doesn't mean the person himself is irrational. I'll repeat my analogy: If a person abandons one's sense of morality to steal a candy, that doesn't make the person immoral. Can you not get this through your head?

You write "...I'm not going to run in circles with you."

But in your very next breath you ask me the same question that I have already answered three or four times. You ask, "By the way, when are you going to provide evidence for your earlier claim that evidence is the downfall of religion".

Finally, you ask me, "Also do you have any evidence to back up your claim that belief in a god is 'childish and irrational'?

Well that's just another way of asking the same question over again. I've just answered that it is true by definition. Let's see if you understand what it means to be rational. I'll go to an objective source which you can access easily:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

"Rationality as a term is related to the idea of reason, a word which following Webster's may be derived as much from older terms referring to thinking itself, as from giving an account or an explanation. This lends the term a dual aspect. One aspect associates it with comprehension, intelligence, or inference, particularly when an inference is drawn in ordered ways (thus a syllogism is a rational argument in this sense). The other part associates rationality with explanation, understanding or justification, particularly if it provides a ground or a motive. 'Irrational', therefore, is defined as that which is not endowed with reason or understanding".

That's not a bad little definition of "rationality". I think you'll agree it captures the concept adequately. It would seem, therefore, that any assertion such as "there is a god' with nothing "rational" to support this assertion—no rational argument or justification—is, by definition, irrational. No less irrational (and childish) than asserting "Santa exists".

Now, can we get back to the question everybody is trying admirably to escape answering, namely "Can anybody give me a (rational) grain of evidence that a god exists?"

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Now, can we get back to the question everybody is trying admirably to escape answering, namely "Can anybody give me a (rational) grain of evidence that a god exists?"

That there is something rather than nothing, and that this 'something' demonstrates the persistent quality of emergence.

 

[Dunemeister]

Christian belief is not irrational, period. Quite the contrary. Atheists, who may otherwise be quite rational, have completely let go of their rational faculties, at least with respect to their nonbelief in God. It's a shame, really.

There, I said it. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If the atheist can make the charge, then so can we. <Taps foot waiting for the atheist to give a logical account of their belief....>

Shall we get past this rather childish game?

 

[Starfish]

Christian belief is not irrational, period. Quite the contrary. Atheists, who may otherwise be quite rational, have completely let go of their rational faculties, at least with respect to their nonbelief in God. It's a shame, really.

There, I said it. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If the atheist can make the charge, then so can we. <Taps foot waiting for the atheist to give a logical account of their belief....>

Shall we get past this rather childish game?

What is the atheist's logical explanation of how we came to be? Sorry, the "Big Bang" doesn't cut it either.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What is the atheist's logical explanation of how we came to be?

There is nothing illogical in acknowledging that the answer is unknown. Nor is it true (logical) that this lack of knowledge in any way validates the answer proffered by someone else.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

"Logic vs Religion" is a false dichotomy.

 

[Magic Man]

What is the atheist's logical explanation of how we came to be? Sorry, the "Big Bang" doesn't cut it either.

Well, I, for one, don't have the perfect answer. How did the universe begin? I don't know. I don't need to have an explanation. Some questions don't have answers, and some don't have answers yet. I see no logical reason to believe in any God I've come across in any organized religion. So, at this point, I can confidently say that there is no god, in my opinion. What some theists fail to realize is that we atheists don't claim to have all of the answers. What we do say, in general, is that we aren't going to insert an answer just to have one. We generally like to wait until there is evidence sufficient to support the answer. In this case, the evidence does not support the answer "God", at least to us.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I see no logical reason to believe in any God I've come across in any organized religion. So, at this point, I can confidently say that there is no god, in my opinion.

Now this is a non sequitur. (Actually, two ...) :yes:

 

[Magic Man]

Now this is a non sequitur. (Actually, two ...) :yes:

Then maybe you can explain exactly how it's a non sequitur. (or, two...)

 

[Starfish]

There is nothing illogical in acknowledging that the answer is unknown. Nor is it true (logical) that this lack of knowledge in any way validates the answer proffered by someone else.

One would think being agnostic is more "logical" than atheism. They just claim to not know one way or the other, since neither side has any "proof".

In a sense, couldn't you say that, for some, atheism is anything but a disbelief in God? Because disbelief seems to be their way of punishing God. Getting back at God by refusing to believe in a being who would let all this pain happen. In some, one senses anger at God. How can you be angry at something that doesn't exist?

Well, at least that's how it comes across.

 

[texan1]

There is nothing illogical in acknowledging that the answer is unknown. Nor is it true (logical) that this lack of knowledge in any way validates the answer proffered by someone else.

Yes. Agreed. I like that.

 

[Magic Man]

One would think being agnostic is more "logical" than atheism. They just claim to not know one way or the other, since neither side has any "proof".

In a sense, couldn't you say that, for some, atheism is anything but a disbelief in God? Because disbelief seems to be their way of punishing God. Getting back at God by refusing to believe in a being who would let all this pain happen. In some, one senses anger at God. How can you be angry at something that doesn't exist?

Well, at least that's how it comes across.

I know that a lot of theists see it as a resentment, or revenge kind of thing. I don't know why, though. Do you resent Allah? Or do you just not believe that he is real? I don't resent God or theists, because I don't think God is real. I'm not angry at God. I just see a huge contradiction in the existence of an all-loving, omnipotent God and the existence of evil. It doesn't make logical sense. So, I say it doesn't exist.

I'm not angry at Santa Claus either, but I don't think he exists.

 

[andys]

Sonic247
You write, "I don't see why it is so illogical to say that a design like this [the world] would [have] a designer."

This classic argument (in its looniest form is known as the the Ontological Argument, which is replaced by the slightly less loony Teleological Argument or argument from design, which is closely related to the even less loony Cosmological Argument) You can trace these sad attempts all the way back to Plato and Aristotle about 400 BC. It is (no surprise) a theistic argument with an agenda to establish plan, purpose, intention from design. Personally, I think that design arguments are the most persuasive of all the theistic arguments. For example, recent calculations seem to indicate that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by one part in 10 to the 40th, no stars like our sun would exist. Life would never have been possible.

Still, compelling as these arguments seem to the layman, they don't fly. You certainly don't need a lecture from me. No doubt, lots of information is on the net. But here are some elementary objections: First, there is no "logical" reason to conclude the existence of a designer. In light of the Theory of Evolution, which is as true as true can be on this planet, the intricacy of life is known to be a natural even and owes its "design" to the process of evolution. Again this process is as true as any knowledge can be. Second, there is nothing to imply attributes of a creator, such as benevolence. Indeed the opposite is equally "plausible".

Of course, this is why Creationist have hidden their absurd position under the more "scientific" banner "Intelligent Design" and are succeeding in duping the uninformed with their nonsense, and succeeding in having it poisoning the public education system with it.

Oh, one more thing. You wanted me to answer this question:
"What evidence is there that a one celled organism can come from nonliving matter? But isn't that what many atheists believe?" The answer is twofold:

1) Atheist DO NOT have beliefs, per se. We are not a movement with a dogma or an agenda. We wouldn't dream of making such an assertion that one-celled organisms can evolve from inert matter. We're not Biologists. All we are is a group that is "A-" to "Theism''. Bluntly put, Atheists are not FOR something—we are AGAINST something.

2) We do not claim to know there is NO god; we know only that there is NO REASON for this belief. We're like a jury that finds a man "Not guilty", the jurors do not say he IS innocent; they conclude only that there was insufficient evidence to support the claim "He is guilty". In the same way, the atheist examines the claim "God exists" and concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support it. He must conclude that the claim is "Not true". That is the only reasonable response.

Hope you kept awake. Sorry for the long reply. I just wanted to give you an adequate reply.

 

[GadFly]

The Wandered Off thinks that third-person self-reference may actually enhance piety.

SWAT! Looks like another person infected with the fly disease. Take a shot of pure logic and meditate for an evening and the symptoms will go away.
GadFly