Can't we just get along?

[Moontanman]

At the risk of bringing down a reign of abuse on my head...

 

I find it interesting. When discussing science, logical fallacies are consistently called out. People are very pedantic. Yet when it comes to criticizing religion the rules of argument seem to relax considerably. I think it only fair that criticism of the logic of theists be logical. The following are some examples of what I am talking about. Am I mistaken or does there seem to be a double standard? I'm happy for you to point out why I am wrong if I am. Maybe I'm just misunderstading.

 

 

Ridicule?

 

 

A real God? True Scotsman?

 

How does God not alleviating suffering prove he does not exist? If you are confident he does not exist, then how can he be defined as evil or sadistic?

 

 

Pot calling the kettle black?

 

 

Strawman?

 

 

Always? Is that a bit of an exaggeration?

 

 

Strawman?

 

Sorry if I called it a logical fallacy when it was not, or used the wrong name. I'm working on learning logic more formally but am relatively new at it. The arguments did seem weak though. Like I said, I'm happy to hear why I'm wrong. I'm not trying to stir things up, it just appears to me that a double standard is being followed.

 

 

Much if not most of this depends on how you define god. If you define god as the power that created the universe but that's it, then saying he cannot exist because of evil in the world, it's a bit of a stretch to show that. If you define god as most religions of the world do then it depends on who suffered and whether or not you think that god thinks those people deserved it. then there is the concept of the devil, if you believe all evil comes from the devil then god is scott free and all the bad stuff is due to the devil. But then that seems to put some limits on gods power or his benevolence at least. I think iNow is correct, define god then we can talk....

[Tres Juicy]

Argue logically that I don't have a magical fairy in my pocket that only I can perceive in any way

[John Cuthber]

"When discussing science, logical fallacies are consistently called out. People are very pedantic. Yet when it comes to criticizing religion the rules of argument seem to relax considerably. "

Since religion is pretty much independent of logic it is no shock that logic gets "blurred" when talking about religion.

 

Also, the New Testament is different from the old one.

If the new one is right then the old one was wrong.

But both are claimed to be the "Word of God" so He must have got His Word wrong on at least one occasion.

It's not a straw man.

It's not a logical fallacy.

The only possible get out is that right and wrong changed.

 

"An eye for an eye" may be right "turn the other cheek" might be right; but you can't do both.

Edited January 19, 2012 by John Cuthber

[zapatos]

Much if not most of this depends on how you define god. If you define god as the power that created the universe but that's it, then saying he cannot exist because of evil in the world, it's a bit of a stretch to show that. If you define god as most religions of the world do then it depends on who suffered and whether or not you think that god thinks those people deserved it. then there is the concept of the devil, if you believe all evil comes from the devil then god is scott free and all the bad stuff is due to the devil. But then that seems to put some limits on gods power or his benevolence at least. I think iNow is correct, define god then we can talk....

Ok. So it sounds like if we don't have a good understanding of what we are arguing, and there are few facts to refer to, then no argument is going to be very satisfying. That makes sense.

 

Argue logically that I don't have a magical fairy in my pocket that only I can perceive in any way

While I cannot prove you don't have a magical fairy in your pocket, I am certain that it can be logically argued that there is no reason for me to believe there is a magical fairy in your pocket. I think if you cannot make a logical argument that something is true, then rather than make an illogical argument, it would be better to make no argument at all.

[Tres Juicy]

Ok. So it sounds like if we don't have a good understanding of what we are arguing, and there are few facts to refer to, then no argument is going to be very satisfying. That makes sense.

 

 

While I cannot prove you don't have a magical fairy in your pocket, I am certain that it can be logically argued that there is no reason for me to believe there is a magical fairy in your pocket. I think if you cannot make a logical argument that something is true, then rather than make an illogical argument, it would be better to make no argument at all.

 

And there is the point. To quote you "there is no reason to believe"

 

Why would my magical fairy be any less likely than god?

[zapatos]

"When discussing science, logical fallacies are consistently called out. People are very pedantic. Yet when it comes to criticizing religion the rules of argument seem to relax considerably. "

Since religion is pretty much independent of logic it is no shock that logic gets "blurred" when talking about religion.

I don't get that. If a crackpot shows up in Speculations the critics don't seem to lose their logic just because the crackpot is illogical. Why would logic get blurred by the critics just because the topic is religion and those arguing for it are illogical?

 

Also, the New Testament is different from the old one.

If the new one is right then the old one was wrong.

But both are claimed to be the "Word of God" so He must have got His Word wrong on at least one occasion.

It's not a straw man.

It's not a logical fallacy.

The only possible get out is that right and wrong changed.

 

"An eye for an eye" may be right "turn the other cheek" might be right; but you can't do both.

Maybe 'An eye for an eye' is in conflict with 'turn the other cheek', but I don't see how that invalidates the whole testament.

I'll accept it not being a logical fallacy, but it still feels weak to me.

[John Cuthber]

"Maybe 'An eye for an eye' is in conflict with 'turn the other cheek', but I don't see how that invalidates the whole testament."

It invalidates it because the whole testament is meant to be the Word of God yet at least some bits of it are plain wrong.

 

"I'll accept it not being a logical fallacy, but it still feels weak to me. "

What? you are not bothered that it's trivial to prove that God got it wrong?

If that's "weak" what would count as strong?

[Tres Juicy]

I don't get that. If a crackpot shows up in Speculations the critics don't seem to lose their logic just because the crackpot is illogical. Why would logic get blurred by the critics just because the topic is religion and those arguing for it are illogical?

 

 

Maybe 'An eye for an eye' is in conflict with 'turn the other cheek', but I don't see how that invalidates the whole testament.

I'll accept it not being a logical fallacy, but it still feels weak to me.

 

How do you counter an argument that can answer anything with "magic" logically?

 

 

Sometimes you resort to a strawman to point out the ridiculousness of the other persons argument

Edited January 19, 2012 by Tres Juicy

[zapatos]

And there is the point. To quote you "there is no reason to believe"

 

Why would my magical fairy be any less likely than god?

I am not arguing that your magical fairy is any less likely than God.

I am suggesting that arguments made against religion are weaker and more fallacy laden than arguments against science.

For example, you said:

Religion has always held science back - look at history

(my bold)

I am guessing that you would be hard pressed to back up that claim, and I am also guessing that if you were on a science topic you would not have made such a bold statement.

 

My point is that very logical people tend to be less logical when discussing religion. I am wondering why. Or based on some of the responses to this statement, I am wondering why it appears that way to me but not to others.

 

This may be too much off topic, but it seemed to me to be at least part of the reason why it seems as if people sometimes don't get along.

 

"Maybe 'An eye for an eye' is in conflict with 'turn the other cheek', but I don't see how that invalidates the whole testament."

It invalidates it because the whole testament is meant to be the Word of God yet at least some bits of it are plain wrong.

 

"I'll accept it not being a logical fallacy, but it still feels weak to me. "

What? you are not bothered that it's trivial to prove that God got it wrong?

If that's "weak" what would count as strong?

What I am bothered by is that you claim the old testament is completely wrong because there is conflict between the old and new testament.

Was Newton wrong because of GR? If not, how is that different than this case? Is it because the testaments had the same author? If so, then would Newton's original theories have been wrong if he then developed GR?

 

If that's "weak" what would count as strong?

It's a sliding scale. Weak if it's only one line wrong. Strong if you could show why essentially the entire text is wrong.

[Tres Juicy]

I am not arguing that your magical fairy is any less likely than God.

I am suggesting that arguments made against religion are weaker and more fallacy laden than arguments against science.

For example, you said:

 

(my bold)

I am guessing that you would be hard pressed to back up that claim, and I am also guessing that if you were on a science topic you would not have made such a bold statement.

 

My point is that very logical people tend to be less logical when discussing religion. I am wondering why. Or based on some of the responses to this statement, I am wondering why it appears that way to me but not to others.

 

This may be too much off topic, but it seemed to me to be at least part of the reason why it seems as if people sometimes don't get along.

 

 

You are probably right, people do let their arguments slip a little, and I think it's a combination of all of the above and the fact that they know that the other person will want to preach not listen

[zapatos]

How do you counter an argument that can answer anything with "magic" logically?

 

 

Sometimes you resort to a strawman to point out the ridiculousness of the other persons argument

Are you suggesting that it is ok to be illogical if your opponent is illogical?

[Tres Juicy]

Are you suggesting that it is ok to be illogical if your opponent is illogical?

 

 

Not at all, I'm saying sometimes in order to point out a flaw in someones logic it is easier to demonstrate with a strawman

[zapatos]

You are probably right, people do let their arguments slip a little, and I think it's a combination of all of the above and the fact that they know that the other person will want to preach not listen

And of course slipping is completely understandable when under stress from somone who isn't playing fair.

 

I've worked in customer service, and we defined stress as 'The body's reaction to the mind's decision not to choke the living shit out of some asshole who desperately needs it!'.

 

Not at all, I'm saying sometimes in order to point out a flaw in someones logic it is easier to demonstrate with a strawman.

 

Ok, I get it.

[seriously disabled]

A real God? True Scotsman?

 

How does God not alleviating suffering prove he does not exist? If you are confident he does not exist, then how can he be defined as evil or sadistic?

 

I don't know fore sure if he exists or not. But it looks kinda weird to me that God just lets innocent children die off from extreme poverty or cureable diseases very early on while bad and selfish white people get to live happy and prosperous lives and get to live up to 120 years of age.

 

My point is: You can't change what someone else believes in because everyone was born to different circumstances and got to live a different life. You can only set a better example but you can't shove your personal beliefs down someone else's throat who doesn't believe in it or doesn't want it.

 

That is what I don't like about evangelists.

Edited January 20, 2012 by seriously disabled

[iNow]

Beside the point - what he said is spot on

I believe his comments were tongue in cheek. No worries.

 

Strawman?

On mine, I'm not sure how. He explicitly said that 6od tried his best to stop us from doing these things. Obviously, we still do these things, so he has failed. My reply? "So, what you're saying then is that gods best isn't good enough? Interesting." Not sure how you would call that a strawman. If anything, it was a request for clarification (hence, the question mark).

 

My point is that very logical people tend to be less logical when discussing religion.

I support your point, but for what it's worth, I think I do pretty well avoiding fallacies (I'm not 100%, nobody is). That said... While I may include ridicule or even occasional hyperbole, I don't use it as the foundation of my argument... I'm not appealing to ridicule, just being blunt and authentic. However, as I said, I agree that strong arguments should come first whenever possible.

Edited January 20, 2012 by iNow

[Tres Juicy]

I believe his comments were tongue in cheek. No worries.

 

Just to be clear on this: Imeant that what You said was spot on, not the video.

 

It's very frustrating to discuss something that has no rules and can seemingly be backed up with "what the bible says" or "what I believe" or even "magic".

 

In these cases, in order to draw attention to and highlight the holes in these arguments it is sometimes necessary to use extreme examples (Hyperbole that some would call strawmanning), like iNow said it can't be the basis of your argument but it can help in getting your point accross.

 

 

In response to Zapatos' earlier post:

 

Religion has always held science back - look at history

 

(my bold)

I am guessing that you would be hard pressed to back up that claim, and I am also guessing that if you were on a science topic you would not have made such a bold statement.

 

Admitedly this is a bold statement, but on the other hand, can anyone think of an example of religion furthering the advancement of science?

 

Like some of the crackpots you see here occasionally, they cannot accept other peoples beliefs and feel the need to force their perceived "truth" on others, all the while justifying it as "gods work"

 

Pot calling the kettle black?

 

I see your point, but I am open to new ideas and will not deny the evidence of observed reallity. Show me evidence for god and I will give it due consideration, something that the crackpots will not do, even for things as fundamental as gravity in some cases.

 

In my opinion you have highlighted the wrong part of the statement, my point was that they force their views on others, which is wrong.

 

You don't see any of us posting on religious forums or standing in the street trying to convert people (science doesn't try to convert people it lets the evidence speak for itself).

 

However, if someone comes here and wants to preach to the scientific comunity, then I believe their arguments should be disputed with science.

 

Again, I will always dispute what I believe to be wrong and I do not pull any punches.

 

People think it's rude to tell someone that their religion is ridiculous, and it would be if I was standing outside a church harassing old ladies with my views on science, but when they come here and try to force it on me it becomes fair game.

 

Not only that, who can resist an argument?

[Keenidiot]

 

Admitedly this is a bold statement, but on the other hand, can anyone think of an example of religion furthering the advancement of science?

 

 

Well, the Church helped provide education to a number of people, so that's worth something. Keep in mind, a number of scientists (in the past, to be sure) had background in religionin some form or another.

 

It's popular to cite the Galileo example of religion holding back scientific progress, but it's worth keeping in mind it had as much to do with Galileo's work presenting the Pope as an idiot.

 

It seems fundamental religion does have a tendency to suppress freethought, but certainly in cases were religion has been more lax science has progressed under it's auspices.

Look at Ancient Greece and Rome, for example.

 

( I say this with full expectation of being soon to be corrected.)

[Tres Juicy]

Well, the Church helped provide education to a number of people, so that's worth something. Keep in mind, a number of scientists (in the past, to be sure) had background in religionin some form or another.

 

The church in general tends to provide education with an agenda that is geared toward religion and not impartial

 

While it is a good thing to educate people, I would would not say that it advances science

 

 

On the other hand, an example of religion holding back science:

 

John Donne's (1572-1631) poem "Upon the Translations of the Psalms by Sir Philip Sidney, and the Countess of Pembroke, His Sister" condemns attempts to find an exact value of pi, or to "square a circle," which Donne views as an attempt to rationalize God:

"Eternal God—for whom who ever dare

Seek new expressions, do the circle square,

And thrust into straight corners of poor wit

Thee, who art cornerless and infinite"

There are many examples:

 

 

"The Earth is firmly fixed; it shall not be moved."

-Psalms 104:5

This bible verse shackled the minds of men for thousands of years, and held back the advancement of science. It was this verse that was used as evidence against Galileo, who argued for the theory of Copernicus, that the earth is not immovable, but rotates around the sun. It was for teaching this that he was called to Rome in 1633, and tried for the crime of heresy.

Edited January 20, 2012 by Tres Juicy

[Santalum]

So, what you're saying then is that gods best isn't good enough? Interesting.

 

 

IF you are saying that it is wrong of us to expect god to be perfect, as far as solving all humanity's suffering, then what is the difference between god and man?

[imatfaal]

IF you are saying that it is wrong of us to expect god to be perfect, as far as solving all humanity's suffering, then what is the difference between god and man?

 

The difference is that man is flawed and no one would dream of entertaining any other notion. However, we are repeatedly told that God is Omnipotent, God is Love, and that His Mercy is everlasting; ie not merely that He loves and is merciful, but that he is mercy, forgiveness and love in essence and perfection. For mortal man to fail is acceptable, nay inevitable, for God to fail seems to contradict the very basis and foundations of His existence. Either God decides not to help or he cannot (or he doesn't exist) - all options are pretty damning

[zapatos]

 

Admitedly this is a bold statement, but on the other hand, can anyone think of an example of religion furthering the advancement of science?

 

 

How about these?

 

The Pontifical Academy of Sciences was founded in 1936 by Pope Pius XI. It is placed under the protection of the reigning Supreme Pontiff (the current Pope). Its aim is to promote the progress of the mathematical, physical and natural sciences and the study of related epistemological problems. The Academy has its origins in the Accademia Pontificia dei Nuovi Lincei ("Pontifical Academy of the New Lynxes"), founded in 1847 intended as a more closely supervised successor to the Accademia dei Lincei ("Academy of Lynxes") established in Rome in 1603, by the learned Roman Prince, Federico Cesi (1585–1630) who was a young botanist and naturalist, and which claimed Galileo Galilei as its president. The Academy has an international membership which includes British physicist Stephen Hawking and Nobel laureates such as U.S. physicist Charles Hard Townes.

 

 

The Vatican Observatory (Specola Vaticana) is an astronomical research and educational institution supported by the Holy See. Originally based in Rome, it now has headquarters and laboratory at the summer residence of the Pope in Castel Gandolfo, Italy, and an observatory at the Mount Graham International Observatory in the United States.[62] The Director of the Observatory is Fr. José Gabriel Funes, SJ. Many distinguished scholars have worked at the Observatory. In 2008, the Templeton Prize was awarded to cosmologist Fr. Michał Heller, a Vatican Observatory Adjunct Scholar. In 2010, the George Van Biesbroeck Prize was awarded to former observatory director Fr. George Coyne, SJ.[

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science

[Tres Juicy]

How about these?

 

http://en.wikipedia....rch_and_science

 

Fair point

[iNow]

The difference is that man is flawed and no one would dream of entertaining any other notion. However, we are repeatedly told that God is Omnipotent, God is Love, and that His Mercy is everlasting; ie not merely that He loves and is merciful, but that he is mercy, forgiveness and love in essence and perfection. For mortal man to fail is acceptable, nay inevitable, for God to fail seems to contradict the very basis and foundations of His existence. Either God decides not to help or he cannot (or he doesn't exist) - all options are pretty damning

 

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?”

 

~ Epicurus ( BC 341-270)

[dimreepr]

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?"

 

~ Epicurus ( BC 341-270)

 

nice one shelly.

[iNow]

...and written more than two thousand three hundred years ago...