| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/31/2009 04:59:19 PM · #3501 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Louis:
Johnny, PS: your use of the word "logic" is vernacular. You aren't using it properly at all. Much like the word "theory", "logic" has a very specific meaning, and in relation to argument, its use must be restricted very specifically. |
That's funny, that's the same point I was making with regards to "free will", and that didn't seem to faze y'all one bit :-) |
Er, I wasn't having that conversation. |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 05:09:22 PM · #3502 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Johnny, PS: your use of the word "logic" is vernacular. You aren't using it properly at all. Much like the word "theory", "logic" has a very specific meaning, and in relation to argument, its use must be restricted very specifically. When you use the word "logic" to describe the contents of the bible, or when you use the word "theory" to describe an opinion, you are redefining purposed terms and scuttling the debate solely to benefit your position. It's extremely bad form, and anything you propose from such a position is essentially worthless.
Instead, you should offer the facts: you find the bible to be the inspiration of your faith, and that inspiration is better than logic. Here, the terms are defined correctly, and we needn't continue, because your position is clear (and unassailable, making discussion pointless). |
I'm sorry Louis, philosophy wasn't my favorite subject in college. I suppose that the term I should have been using instead of logic is "reasoning". I will admit that I unknowingly misused the word "logic".
So, I will correct myself and say this: I believe that human reasoning is less compelling than what I believe is Biblical truth.
The problem in this thread, and in the secular world, is that people believe the Bible is incompatible with logic and reasoning. That's not true. Any Christian with sound reasoning and a solid faith will tell you that the Bible is %100 compatible with logic and reasoning. Logic and reasoning are two of the greatest deterrents of Christianity, and as such, when a person becomes a faithful Christian, it is essential to that person that logic and reasoning are compatible with their faith. If Christianity was as incongruous with logic and reasoning as some of you claim it is, then I doubt there would not be as many Christians in the world as there are.
Message edited by author 2009-12-31 17:11:41. |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 05:26:04 PM · #3503 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I suppose that the term I should have been using instead of logic is "reasoning". |
Logic is the formal study of reason. You're saying the same thing.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
The problem in this thread, and in the secular world, is that people believe the Bible is incompatible with logic and reasoning. That's not true. |
Stop saying so, and prove it.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Logic and reasoning are two of the greatest deterrents of Christianity... |
Agreed.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
... and as such, when a person becomes a faithful Christian, it is essential to that person that logic and reasoning are compatible with their faith. |
In the 1930s, the fascist government of Germany sought to control every aspect of the life of its citizens, from their political views to their recreational activity to their religion. They implemented a policy of "Gleichschaltung", or "coordination", which aligned every sphere of life with the social and political outlook of the Party. It didn't matter how far-fetched the relationship between, say, a bowling club and the philosophy of the Party was, or how a high school debating team could best be used as a mouthpiece for the propaganda of the government; it only mattered that every aspect of an individual's life was defined by the ideals of the Party. In this way, the most outrageous violations of reason could be explained away through "coordination". Every square peg in life found its round hole, and was rammed in without regard to the consequences, however catastrophic they might be. |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 05:33:26 PM · #3504 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
The problem in this thread, and in the secular world, is that people believe the Bible is incompatible with logic and reasoning. |
The problem that I have is that most people who support the Bible are unwillimng to acknowledge either the blatant misconceptions, falsehoods, and that much of life as we know it has changed over the last two thousand years.
It simply is not logical or reasonable from a practical standpoint to *try* to rigidly adhere to it.
And to condemn others because they don't choose to see life through your biblical eyes is certainly not reasonable.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
That's not true. Any Christian with sound reasoning and a solid faith will tell you that the Bible is %100 compatible with logic and reasoning. |
Of course Christians will say that. Otherwise it would call it into question. And you cannot question "The Word", right?
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Logic and reasoning are two of the greatest deterrents of Christianity, |
It would probably make more sense to say that logic and reason are two of the greatest deterrents *TO* Christianity.
You cannot use logic and reason to arrive at Christianity. It's a matter of faith. Surely you understand that.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
and as such, when a person becomes a faithful Christian, it is essential to that person that logic and reasoning are compatible with their faith. |
You're mixing things together that don't mix. You can use logic and reason, *or* have faith; you can use logic and reason, *and* have faith; but you certainly cannot use logic and reason *to* have faith.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
If Christianity was as incongruous with logic and reasoning as some of you claim it is, then I doubt there would not be as many Christians in the world as there are. |
Read that to yourself and tell me that makes sense.
By your logic and reasoning, all you Christians are mistaken, 'cause there are more Muslims.
|
|
|
|
12/31/2009 05:36:12 PM · #3505 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Louis:
Johnny, PS: your use of the word "logic" is vernacular. You aren't using it properly at all. Much like the word "theory", "logic" has a very specific meaning, and in relation to argument, its use must be restricted very specifically. |
That's funny, that's the same point I was making with regards to "free will", and that didn't seem to faze y'all one bit :-) |
Er, I wasn't having that conversation. |
Sorry, "y'all" was inclusive. It was a while ago. The point was, people were/are trying to redefine "free will" so it is synonymous with making a choice. Takes the argument in a totally different direction, where even ants and bees have free will, which would be true enough if you accepted that definition, but doesn't exactly prove anything in the context of the argument.
Been a whole lot of redefining go on in here, or selective defining, and by no means all of it in the camps of the conservative and the religious...
R. |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 05:40:08 PM · #3506 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The point was, people were/are trying to redefine "free will" so it is synonymous with making a choice. Takes the argument in a totally different direction, where even ants and bees have free will, which would be true enough if you accepted that definition, but doesn't exactly prove anything in the context of the argument. |
Well, can you give us a short, reasonable, working definition?
|
|
|
|
12/31/2009 05:41:07 PM · #3507 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
If Christianity was as incongruous with logic and reasoning as some of you claim it is, then I doubt there would not be as many Christians in the world as there are. |
Read that to yourself and tell me that makes sense.
By your logic and reasoning, all you Christians are mistaken, 'cause there are more Muslims. |
No there aren't
Religious Groups |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 05:48:10 PM · #3508 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I suppose that the term I should have been using instead of logic is "reasoning". |
Originally posted by Louis:
Logic is the formal study of reason. You're saying the same thing. |
Logic and reason are different. I acknowledged the difference and admitted that I should have used the word reasoning rather than the word logic.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
The problem in this thread, and in the secular world, is that people believe the Bible is incompatible with logic and reasoning. That's not true. |
Originally posted by Louis:
Stop saying so, and prove it. |
If that's what you want then I'll give you three choices.
A: I can write another "treatise as long as your leg" and explain every logical argument in support of the existence of God.
B: You can pick some logical arguments that you believe disprove God, and I will attempt to refute them.
C: You could just go read some Christian apologetics like C.S. Lewis or that book by Timothy Keller that I recommended.
Take your pick.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Logic and reasoning are two of the greatest deterrents of Christianity... |
Agreed.
Although, one could make an argument that logic and reasoning are two deterrents of atheism as well. |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 05:57:52 PM · #3509 |
I stand corrected.....but I did look it up somewhere other than Wiki......8>)
|
|
|
|
12/31/2009 06:05:01 PM · #3510 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Stop saying so, and prove it. |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
If that's what you want then I'll give you three choices.
A: I can write another "treatise as long as your leg" and explain every logical argument in support of the existence of God. |
He simply asking you to prove it, not explain your "logical" argument.
I'm pretty sure that you're not going to throw anything at Louis that he won't be able to easily refute.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
B: You can pick some logical arguments that you believe disprove God, and I will attempt to refute them. |
But this is not the point.......it's not on him to disprove God, it's on YOU to prove his existence.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
C: You could just go read some Christian apologetics like C.S. Lewis or that book by Timothy Keller that I recommended. |
I got ten bucks says Louis has read so much more than what you have, and with a more rounded perspective than you could even imagine.
I know that what I'm most interested in hearing is your actual thoughts rather than how many quotes and links you can reference and paraphrase.
It really seems like you don't actually think or have opinions, you just go to some source that you think best fits the particular topic.
|
|
|
|
12/31/2009 06:09:55 PM · #3511 |
| Time to lock this thread too? |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 06:16:10 PM · #3512 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
It simply is not logical or reasonable from a practical standpoint to *try* to rigidly adhere to it. |
Millions of religious people around the world who try to rigidly adhere to there faith would disagree.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
And to condemn others because they don't choose to see life through your biblical eyes is certainly not reasonable. |
I agree. And I would argue that people who call themselves Christians, while condemning others for not being Christian, are actually not Christian at all as the Bible defines it (they might still be considered Christians as society defines it, but I would also argue that the true definition of Christianity is found in the Bible and not in society).
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Of course Christians will say that. Otherwise it would call it into question. And you cannot question "The Word", right? |
Actually most Christians have questioned the word, and I would hope that all Christians question the word. If Christians don't question their beliefs and they just have blind faith, then their faith will be extremely weak. Unfortunately, many Americans have gone down the road of blind faith. That is not the case in Asia and Africa, where Christians are persecuted. When Christianity is persecuted, people quickly realize which Christians have strong faith and which ones have weak faith. That's why Christianity is strong and growing in Asia and Africa even though fewer people claim to be Christian. In American, you can call yourself a Christian and live however you want with little consequence. In Asia and Africa, Christianity is taken much more seriously since identifying yourself as a Christian can mean your death.
It's funny how Christianity is always accused of being so oppressive, discriminatory, and exclusive when if you examine history all the societies that have tried to eliminate religion (namely communist China and the Soviet Union) ended up being more oppressive, cruel, and violent than the religions they were trying to destroy. At least in China and Russia, it seems like Christianity has brought more self-sacrifice, peace, and social justice than atheism.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
It would probably make more sense to say that logic and reason are two of the greatest deterrents *TO* Christianity.
You cannot use logic and reason to arrive at Christianity. It's a matter of faith. Surely you understand that. |
Excuse my mistake. I have a cold today so my head is a bit "stuffy".
This road again... You can use logic and reason to arrive at Christianity just as much as you can use it to arrive at atheism. And atheism is just as much a matter of faith as Christianity.
Faith = believing something that cannot be proven by material evidence.
God cannot be proven by material evidence.
The nonexistence of God cannot be proven by material evidence.
Therefore, believing in the existence of God and believing in the nonexistence of God are both forms of faith.
That's logic.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
You're mixing things together that don't mix. You can use logic and reason, *or* have faith; you can use logic and reason, *and* have faith; but you certainly cannot use logic and reason *to* have faith. |
I believe that a person can use logic and reason to conclude there is a God and come to have faith. I think there are many people in this world that would agree with that statement.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
If Christianity was as incongruous with logic and reasoning as some of you claim it is, then I doubt there would not be as many Christians in the world as there are. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Read that to yourself and tell me that makes sense. |
Sorry for the double negative. Again, I blame the cold :)
|
|
|
|
12/31/2009 06:16:39 PM · #3513 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The point was, people were/are trying to redefine "free will" so it is synonymous with making a choice. Takes the argument in a totally different direction, where even ants and bees have free will, which would be true enough if you accepted that definition, but doesn't exactly prove anything in the context of the argument. |
Well, can you give us a short, reasonable, working definition? |
In the religious context that's germane to this discussion, "free will" and "moral agency" go hand-in-hand. Moral agency, roughly speaking, is a person's responsibility for making moral judgments. You cannot be a "moral agent" if you are incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong. Inasmuch as "free will" is a larger concept than "able to choose a course" (and for many, many people [and for most philosophers] it is), it's not possible for an ant or a bee to exhibit free will; for this you have to be a rational, thinking being.
R. |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 06:21:55 PM · #3514 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...people were/are trying to redefine "free will" so it is synonymous with making a choice. Takes the argument in a totally different direction, where even ants and bees have free will, which would be true enough if you accepted that definition, but doesn't exactly prove anything in the context of the argument. |
It DOES mean the ability to make independent choices, either generally or within the context of human behavior. A check of several dictionaries all yielded similar definitions:
Free Will- noun
1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.
2. Philosophy. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.
If you're referring to a person's capacity for self-determination in the context of moral choices, then that's not free will, it's autonomy. You seem to have a similar misconception about the definition of tolerance. |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 06:23:57 PM · #3515 |
oh, and to put a link to what Jeb had alluded to earlier:
//www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/04marriage.html |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 06:24:32 PM · #3516 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Inasmuch as "free will" is a larger concept than "able to choose a course" (and for many, many people [and for most philosophers] it is), it's not possible for an ant or a bee to exhibit free will; for this you have to be a rational, thinking being. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
so perhaps you can explain what makes "free will" different from a monkey deciding to refuse rewards if it perceives unfairness or a wounded mother orangutan choosing to bring her baby to the gunman before dying... |
|
|
|
|
12/31/2009 06:26:46 PM · #3517 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
It really seems like you don't actually think or have opinions, you just go to some source that you think best fits the particular topic. |
You're right Jeb... I don't think at all. I just chew up other peoples ideas and spit them back out...
There, I said it. Are you happy?
C'mon... if we required everyone in this thread to post only their own genuine ideas then the thread would be 10 posts long instead of 3,500. |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 06:29:45 PM · #3518 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
...C'mon... if we required everyone in this thread to post only their own genuine ideas then the thread would be 10 posts long instead of 3,500. |
Paradise. |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 06:33:54 PM · #3519 |
by the dashboard light...
(This isn't a word association thread?) |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 06:36:43 PM · #3520 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
by the dashboard light...
(This isn't a word association thread?) |
I think it's becoming one... |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 06:36:44 PM · #3521 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Inasmuch as "free will" is a larger concept than "able to choose a course" (and for many, many people [and for most philosophers] it is), it's not possible for an ant or a bee to exhibit free will; for this you have to be a rational, thinking being. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
so perhaps you can explain what makes "free will" different from a monkey deciding to refuse rewards if it perceives unfairness or a wounded mother orangutan choosing to bring her baby to the gunman before dying... |
|
I never said (I don't think I did, anyway) that the referenced monkey and orangutan were not exhibiting free will, or, more explicitly, acting in a "moral" way. I am open to the possibility that our more highly-evolved co-habitants of the earth are, by any reasonable definition, "rational beings". I explicitly believe this about dolphins and whales, and tend to believe it about gorillas and orangutans, for example.
What caused this whole digression on my part is that I resist using any definition of "free will" that is synonymous with "choice", because in that sense the term has no real meaning at all, and to a philosopher it carries more meaning than that.
Now you can try to pick me apart on this all you want, but you and I are wasting our energy on a semantic argument. For me, the argument becomes more than semantic when literalists try to use the supposed "free will" of insect species to debunk morally-based arguments, and i still think that's BS, but carry on, OK?
R. |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 06:44:26 PM · #3522 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Logic and reason are different. |
Logic, being the formal study of reason, encompasses it. When you say "I don't like logic" and "I don't like reason", you are essentially saying the same thing. Let's assume you get to pick whatever definitions for words you like, however. In that case, everything you've said in relation to logic, where I've replied affronted and shocked, goes for reason as well.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
If that's what you want then I'll give you three choices. |
I have a feeling that "A" will simply read like proselytizing apologetics. "B" assumes it is incumbent on me to disprove the existence of gods, when it is incumbent on you to prove it (you can't "prove a negative"), and as far as "C" is concerned, I've read Lewis until I couldn't take his whiny, homophobic reason-bending apologetics anymore. Though I haven't read this Keller fellow, I don't feel a need to. I understand Christian apologetics. I am not impressed.
May I suggest the pithy latter-day atheist canons to you: Hitchens' God is not Great, Baginni's Atheism: A Very Short Introduction (at 100 pages, it's a quick and enlightening read) or, my favourite, Harris' The End of Faith.
If you want to discuss the "logic" of your position at length, may I suggest you start another thread, where I may or may not respond.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Although, one could make an argument that logic and reasoning are two deterrents of atheism as well. |
Oh yeah? How exactly would that argument be made?
You see, it isn't enough for you to throw out remarks like that as though they mean something. You actually have to offer the argument itself. Otherwise, you're just full of hot air. |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 06:49:51 PM · #3523 |
| Since this thread has strayed from the initial purpose, more than once, can I add another deviation and ask how it is that Lewis and Tolkein were such good friends? |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 06:50:50 PM · #3524 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I resist using any definition of "free will" that is synonymous with "choice", because in that sense the term has no real meaning at all, and to a philosopher it carries more meaning than that. |
Like it or not, that IS the definition, but I also offered the simian examples because the point of the question was not specific to insects. Predictably, Jason didn't think [his own] definition of free will applied to higher animals such as apes either, so he avoided the question.
Message edited by author 2009-12-31 18:51:01. |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 06:59:24 PM · #3525 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
God cannot be proven by material evidence.
The nonexistence of God cannot be proven by material evidence.
Therefore, believing in the existence of God and believing in the nonexistence of God are both forms of faith. |
What kind of nonsense is this? Sorry, brother, but that's specious reasoning. It is not logic. Simply throwing something up that has a syllogistic form doesn't make it sound. Whereas your "A" is true, your "B" encompasses a logical fallacy -- the "argument from ignorance", or "negative evidence" fallacy. Your proposition fails on that point, and is easily dismissed. To wit:
You can't prove dragons don't exist by material evidence. You can't prove leprechauns don't exist. You can't prove Zeus doesn't exist. You can't prove a teapot doesn't circumnavigate the globe in a geostationary orbit every twelve hours. You can't prove the pope is not a robot, or that an elephant does not live in my fridge. You can't prove the earth will not end in the next twenty seconds. You can't prove you are not dreaming right now. And so forth. |
|
