Quote:
Originally Posted by Tea on tuesday  There is no other way to define faith. It must be irrational. Your argument is akin to this.
Me: I have an apple.
You: You only have an apple because you chose to define it in that way. I say it's an orange.
You're essentially advocating a mutable system of symbology that would make communication impossible. To rephrase: I could say your post is wrong because you chose to define "define" in such a matter that convienient to your needs. In fact I could say this about any word in your post. Dawkins defines faith as irrational because faith by definition is irrational. If you chose to define faith as rational then you are no longer accurately describing faith.
To further clarify: Faith is belief without logical proof or material evidence. Rationality is the employment of reason, which is inference and deduction through logic and empirical evidence. They are mutually exclusive by their very definitions. If you chose to define them differently then you aren't arguing against faith and reason at all, but some other new idea that you have defined and labeled as faith and reason.
Your argument is absurd. |
Let me assure you that this is a fight you can not win. But since you want to be bent into a pretzel anyway.
You say
(1) Rationality is the employment of reason, which is inference and deduction through logic an empirical evidence.
(2) Faith is belief without logical proof or empirical evidence.
(3) Therefore Faith is not rational.
I think we can all agree that I have put your argument as fairly as possible -- using your own words -- merely rearranging them into the syllogism you were using.
I'm going to ignore Pascal's Wager as a rebuttal.
I'm also going to ignore the "benefit here and now regardless of the hereafter" rebuttal.
I just want to point out the flaws in your argument:
Statements (1) and (2) are exactly the kind of flawed logic that I'm talking about.
Lets parse it shall we?
"Rationality is the employment of reason" --
Axiom One: God can not be proved through the use of Reason.
"Which is inference and deduction" --
Axiom Two: Inference and deduction can not be used to prove the existence of God.
"Through logic and emprical evidence" --
Axiom three: Logic and empirical evidence can not be used to prove the existence of God.
Would you agree that those are you points?
Now would you agree that you have just done exactly what I said you had to do to make the argument that atheism is rational and religion irrational.
You have introduced several axioms 1,2 & 3 that you can't prove.
Statement (2) is similiary flawed. You assume that Faith can not be logically proved. This is another axiom that you can't logically prove.
Finally, I note that you protest my definitions -- well I protest your definitions. Saying that "Faith is irrational by definition" -- doesn't make your point -- it is cheating. You, like Dawkins, are defining faith in a way to suit your argument. You're just pissed I'm calling you on it.
You may enjoy thinking that as an atheist you're somehow more rational and logical than the crowd -- but you're not. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Oh and P.S. I like the apple/orange strawman argument.