The God Delusion

[Eomer]

(I.e. planets and moons spinning in opposite directions),

Yeah, capturing a stray asteroid/object couldn't possibly explain that. God must have gone around the solar system (and by extension the universe) and handpicked certain objects to orbit/rotate in retrograde. It's all part of the master plan.

Actually, that just made me think of something: we've all heard about that big huge book of psychological disorders right? The one that used to have homosexuality as one but no longer does, and has added any number of "new age" disorders in the past few decades that drug companies have dreamed up and come up with medications for. Anyone else think that those who are so devout that they can find "god" in something as ridiculous as moons orbiting in retrograde, are suffering from some sort of psychological condition? I mean, if a skeleton can look in the mirror and see a fat person and that is considered a medical condition, why not someone who looks at a orbiting moon and sees god?

[Tirinal]

To be fair, Creationism remains the only worldview able to explain Bono as a sex symbol. I'm just saying.

[Grooverider]

Ouch, Tad10 just got hit by a philosophical h-bomb.

[tad10]

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.

[tad10]

Shutdown my machine when a simpler way to look at it occured to me:

Tea-Dude look at it this way:

Anything you can do [with logic], I can do. Anything I can do, you can do. What I can't do, you can't do. And what you can't do, I can't do.

You can define faith/rational behavior in a way to support your argument.
I can define faith/rational behavior in a way to support my argument.

I can't prove my definitions (or rather my axioms) are better than yours and you can't prove your definitions (or rather your axioms) are better than mine.

Now you can try as hard as you want to prove your point -- but ultimately you'll be relying on axioms that are unprovable.

That's the nature of logic and thats why logic can't be used to prove or disprove the existence of God or whether or not it is more or less rational to believe in God.

Note that I'm not trying to convine you one way or the other -- your belief or atheism is your business -- I am just disabusing you of the notion that one is logiciallly right and the other wrong.

Cheers

[Tirinal]

He's not saying athiesm is logically right. He's saying that athiesm is logically sound. Faith isn't, in whatever "definition" you care to give it, because any faith a person adopts is done so through morality and not logic.

Athiesm isn't a position that requires proof, it's a tabula rasa deduced from sensory input. It's basically saying "I don't really know what the hell is going on because of my limits, but if I had to pick a worldview this is it and maybe the rest will crystallize as we learn more." It's what you default to if you're not exposed to religious indoctrination and don't feel like starting your own. It's entirely possible to arrive at a state of faith from a state of skepticism, but it requires a perfection of mind that neither you nor I possess.

The point is that the core precepts of faith can't evolve due to sensory input because it puts certain facts above others. If I show a Christian of any stripe geological data that infers the Earth is older than is claimed in holy texts, his answer is always some version of "I don't have anything to offer in the way of sensory data, but because my God is greater than external data anything you invent contrary to God is wrong." Which is perfectly logical. But because you arrived initially at that state of belief through a moral process of deciding whether or not to accept developed religion in totality at face value despite your personal imperfection, you forfeit the right to then defend your position on the grounds of logic. While you can logically use the position that some facts are inherently "purer" than others, you can't logically arrive at that position. That's faith.

[tad10]

Originally Posted by Tirinal

Athiesm isn't a position that requires proof, it's a tabula rasa deduced from sensory input.

So atheism doesn't require proof to be true but faith does. Mmm'kay.

The point is that the core precepts of faith can't evolve due to sensory input because it puts certain facts above others.

This doesn't make any sense--last time I checked cave-men had faith, Egyptians had faith, ancient druids had faith, Vikings had faith, blind people have faith, crippled people have faith, 80% of the US has faith. Feel free to elaborate in another post.

But because you arrived initially at that state of belief through a moral process of deciding whether or not to accept developed religion in totality at face value despite your personal imperfection, you forfeit the right to then defend your position on the grounds of logic. While you can logically use the position that some facts are inherently "purer" than others, you can't logically arrive at that position. That's faith.

So if I understand this correctly -- you as an atheist get to use logic, I as a Christian have "forfeit[ed] the right to...defend [my] position on the grounds of logic." Another Mmmm'kay.

You prove my point -- you can't disprove my argument so now you're telling me I don't get to try and prove my point and you don't have to prove your point. Cheating is the only way you can win ;-)

But of course you can not prove anything that you've written. You can say them -- you can even shout them -- but you can't prove them.

Edited to be slightly less snarky:

You can believe what you want -- free will, free country and etc. -- and you may have found the right answer for you-- but don't delude yourself into thinking you've got the right answer for everybody.

[Tirinal]

You prove my point -- you can't disprove my argument so now you're telling me I don't get to try and prove my point and you don't have to prove your point. Cheating is the only way you can win ;-)

ToT's position (1): Reason says you can't prove omnipotence with the tools of reason as logic is too limited, and thus any conversion to a belief in omnipotent direction is one of faith.

Your position (2): Reason says reason can't prove the above to be true, therefore it follows that your position is as much one of "faith" as mine and we are both equally limited.

My position: (1) is saying that any worship of an all-powerful diety is hypocritical because your conversion was done under false pretenses, yourself being too imperfect to commit logically to an entity of perfection. (2) is basically saying that because you can't prove yourself imperfect, there is a slight chance you might be perfect.

Before you turn this around using the same trick, I should point out that athiesm isn't a commitment to the totality of there being no God. It's simply a state of mind in which absent data it's presumed there is no God. For all people, there comes a time to decide whether to convert to a religion. There is never a need to "convert" to athiesm, simply because the first "why?" as newborn child asks is from a state of athiesm.

Also! I am very drunk right now. Yay theological debates.

Edit:

You can believe what you want -- free will, free country and etc. -- and you may have found the right answer for you-- but don't delude yourself into thinking you've got the right answer for everybody.

The internet has proved that nobody changes their opinion about anything, ever. I somehow doubt the FoH forums will be the first to buck the trend. I'm mostly here because I'm bored at work.

Edit2:

The astute reader may have noticed through a close reading of the above that I am both drunk and at work. You may now revel in awe at my greatness.

[Zuuljin]

Originally Posted by tad10

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.

...

Umm, did you not just do what your accusing him of doing? Adding more stuff to twist it into your point? He didnt mention the existance of god, or whether or not god can be proved, he simply stated that faith is illogical by definition.

Literally. Here is the definition of faith, provided by dictionary.com

2. belief that is not based on proof:
3. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence

Faith, BY definition, is illogical. Nowhere does it say that faith cannot be proved, just that to have faith, you dont need to prove it. And since faith is not based on logic, it is not bounded by logic.

Lastly, how is asserting in a proof that god exists/does not exist cheating? Isnt that how you prove or disprove things, by first making an assumption. Proof by contradiction and all that jazz?

[tad10]

Originally Posted by Tirinal

There is never a need to "convert" to athiesm, simply because the first "why?" as newborn child asks is from a state of athiesm.

Also! I am very drunk right now. Yay theological debates.

Hope you're drinking something good.

Anyway -- you suggest that the first "why" is atheist yet there are studies that show that faith is hardwired into the brain--that is that faith is an adaptive trait. Now, I'm not trying to make the point that faith is hardwired -- I'm merely showing that what I'm guessing is the basis of your view on atheism is actually a debatable point. Suggesting that atheism is the default condition of humanity is kinda tricky when the history of our species is pretty clear that the oldest profession was "priest-talking-guy" [and of course the second-oldest profession was....]

This goes back to ToT's argument that there is no rational basis for faith -- of course youu can come up with rational basis for faith beyond Pascal's Wager (which is of course a rational basis for faith) -- their are identifable benefits for having faith here-and-no. People who belong to churches that have confession and who regularly go to confession are on average less stressed out than those who don't belong to such churches -- whatever you think of their faith -- it is certainly a rational decision to belong to do something that makes you less stressed.

Now of course ToT or you may not accept these as the "right" rational reasons -- for much the same reason I don't accept your rational reasons as "right."

But again it just doesn't matter. When it comes to matters of belief -- atheism is really just another belief -- but of the absence as opposed to the presence of God. Logic can't answer these questions -- because any logical systems is suffused with bias.

[Eomer]

Before you turn this around using the same trick, I should point out that athiesm isn't a commitment to the totality of there being no God. It's simply a state of mind in which absent data it's presumed there is no God.

Well actually, that's a debate for another time. I'm of the opinion that "lazy atheists", those that don't actively disbelieve in god, are actually agnostic. To me an atheist is someone who DOES disbelieve in god, and it can be argued that there's an element of faith in there too .

[tad10]

Originally Posted by Zuuljin

Umm, did you not just do what your accusing him of doing? Adding more stuff to twist it into your point? He didnt mention the existance of god, or whether or not god can be proved, he simply stated that faith is illogical by definition.

My point was that atheism is as illogical and or irrational as faith. You can't prove either position. You can not sit down and come up with a logical proof of atheism that can't be torn to shreds. Similiary, you can't sit down and prove God exists without the same thing happening.

Lastly, how is asserting in a proof that god exists/does not exist cheating? Isnt that how you prove or disprove things, by first making an assumption. Proof by contradiction and all that jazz?

The assertion in such a proof that is cheating isn't "God exists", or "God doesn't exist" the cheating would be something like this:

Assume God existed,
If God existed we would live in a perfect world.
We don't live in a perfect world therefore God doesn't exist.

Do you see the cheat? The line "If God existed we would live in a perfect world" -- is an unprovable statement. That's the cheat.

Cheers

[Tirinal]

Originally Posted by tad10

stuff

You're the first person to bring up a rational basis for faith in this thread. ToT was talking about a logical basis for faith. There are reasons aplenty for rational faith. Your boss being both a Christian and the guy who controls your promotion rate, for one.

Likewise, you're the first person to suggest faith isn't a natural condition of humanity wired into us. I merely made the point that it is not the state at which we start out. Believing in supernatural forces requires conscious volition. Not believing them does not (note that, again, I am not talking about disproving supernatural forces), because when you're born you have no idea what the 'natural' is to the supernatural. Ultimately, all faiths are learned.

Lastly, whether or not as you said these are the right reasons for belief is a moot point. "Right" has nothing to do with what you're proposing.

The things you brought up have nothing to do with the post you replied to.

Anyway, apologies if I'm coming off as snarky. I'm not on a personal crusade or anything and I don't think you're less of a person. I'm just alt-tabbing a lot between windows and I'm too lazy to use emoticons.

[tad10]

Originally Posted by Tirinal

You're the first person to bring up a rational basis for faith in this thread. ToT was talking about a logical basis for faith. There are reasons aplenty for rational faith.

ToT said faith is not logical because it is not rational. Go back and read his first post.

Likewise, you're the first person to suggest faith isn't a natural condition of humanity wired into us. I merely made the point that it is not the state at which we start out. Believing in supernatural forces requires conscious volition. Not believing them does not (note that, again, I am not talking about disproving supernatural forces), because when you're born you have no idea what the 'natural' is to the supernatural. Ultimately, all faiths are learned.

You can say that that's what you were doing -- but that wasn't what you were doing. You were arging that faith wasn't a natural condition but that atheism was.

The things you brought up have nothing to do with the post you replied to.

Sure they did.

In any event -- you keep arguing that atheism isn't what it is -- you're trying to prove that atheism is a default position -- which you can't because it isn't. I think you'd have a better time arguing that agnosticism is the default position. Atheism is an active disbelief in God -- you can't disbelieve in something that you are not necessarily aware of. Are children aware of God? Many are at a young age. Are they aware of God at the moment of their birth -- got me -- I don't remember having much cognitive ability back then.

MY question to you: is a brick an athiest? a blade of grass? a cow? a chimpanzee?

You are defining atheism in a way to make your point -- but it is not how I or others define it.

Cheers

[Tea on tuesday]

Originally Posted by tad10

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 are, of course, correct. There's no way to combat sophisms.

Originally Posted by tad10

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 might object you trying to turn a simple statement of definitions into axioms, but, again, whatever floats your boat.

Originally Posted by tad10

I'm going to ignore Pascal's Wager as a rebuttal.

Oh that's good...since Pascal's wager concerns only belief in God (specifically Christian), and not faith in a general sense. You might say these are the same, but even then Pascal's wager deals only with the consequences of faith not with what faith itself means.

Originally Posted by tad10

I'm also going to ignore the "benefit here and now regardless of the hereafter" rebuttal.

Oh, whew. Because it's not like that concerns only consequences of faith as well and has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.

Originally Posted by tad10

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?

Shoot.

Originally Posted by tad10

"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?

I would not agree that those are my points. I have to this point made no assertions about God. My point, which seems to have escaped you entirely, is that the definitions of these words were mutually exclusive. Again, I reitterate that if you chose to define these words in a different way then you are not actively arguing against me, but substituting, via equivocation, new words. Those are the accepted definitions (as nearly as I'm willing to approximate on a message board anyway) in both the common and philosophical sense. If you choose to deny those definitions that are commonly held by humanity to represent those particular ideas then any further argument is moot---since again we are not debating the same things.

Originally Posted by tad10

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.

No, I wouldn't for reasons that should be abundantly clear.

Originally Posted by tad10

You have introduced several axioms 1,2 & 3 that you can't prove.

I introduced commonly accepted definitions. You introduced the axioms. I guess I should elaborate here that my definitions cannot be considered axioms since they were not intended for deductive reasoning and were instead simple statements of agreed upon meaning that is necessary for human communication.

Originally Posted by tad10

Statement (2) is similiary flawed. You assume that Faith can not be logically proved. This is another axiom that you can't logically prove.

That doesn't even make sense. "..faith cannot be logically proved," is gibberish.

Originally Posted by tad10

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.

Yeah, you got me. Clearly, banking on previously well established meanings to words is cheating. I AM defining faith in a way that supports my argument, however, that same definition just so happens to be the one agreed upon by nearly everybody. Your's isn't.

Originally Posted by tad10

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.

And now the very crux of it all. You're damn right I consider myself more rational and logical than most Christians. I don't, however, consider myself better than others for it. You could abolutely make the argument that reason cannot be taken as a given and I'd concede the point. But, you didn't do that now did you? No, you took the smug tone that only people with little applicable knowledge to whatever they happen to be debating take. You could say that I'm smug as hell, and arrogant...and you'd be right, but I'm not exactly bound by faith to nurture my humility...am I?

Originally Posted by tad10

Oh and P.S. I like the apple/orange strawman argument.

The funny thing is that as absurd as that argument was...it actually wasn't a strawman.