S
Shaolen
Guest
An atheist I know states “Since it is inconceivable that all religions are right, the most reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong.” What would you say to him?
- Status
D
davidv
Guest
I don’t know. What can one say to someone who is using faulty logic?
Maybe, “Care to talk about something else?”
B
Bradski
Guest
Faulty?
I have ten propositions. Only one can possiblly be true. Logic dictates that either:
A: One of them is true.
B: All of them are false.
B
Bahman
Guest
I had a long thread on this very topic. I would say that all religions are wrong since if there exist a true religion, God made, then God could convince the believers of other religions about the truth and release people from confusion. I can put it in formal logic too:
- There exists a true religion
- The main purpose of a true religion is to tell the truth
- There exist many religions with the followers who believe they are following the truth
- From (1) and (2) we can conclude that all other religions must be false
- From (4) we can deduce that there should not exist any false religions since their followers can know about the faulty of their religions
- From (3) and (5) we can deduce that there exist not any true relgion
C
captainrick
Guest
Yes… but considering this atheist’s apparent thought processes, try to avoid subjects that require thinking.
C
Crusaderbear
Guest
When humans are involved NOTHING will be 100% right. maybe your friend might be willing to accept some are ‘righter’ than others? It’s a foot in the door at least!
T
Tomdstone
Guest
It is possible that only one is right.
But it is disturbing to me that there are so many different religions with each one claiming to be true and the others not. This is not the case with Euclidean geometry where everyone agrees that the base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal. And for almost each different religion there are people who hold on to their beliefs quite strongly, insisting that they are correct, and they do not yield to arguments against them. Take for example, the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholics. Each one claims that his method of dating Easter is the correct one. You would think that after hundreds of years of arguing about which method for dating Easter is correct, that this could have been resolved. I see the Pope and Patriarch in very friendly embrace, but still they don’t agree on the date for Easter even after many discussions, studies and attempts to resolve the difference. Each side claims that his method is correct and nothing has been changed for how long now?
T
Tomdstone
Guest
I don’t think that this is true at all. There is 100% agreement by humans on many things.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
That he isn’t using reason at all.
First, what does he define ‘religion’ as?
Second, what about the fact that virtually all religions share much more than they ‘differ’? Does he really mean that because virtually all religions teach a variant of the “Golden Rule” as a part of their religious tenets --you know, ‘do unto others as you wish to have done unto you’ --that this is **wrong?
**
It sounds like your friend is in to what I call memes philosophy --cherry picking aphorisms and trying to ‘quip’ his way out of actually investigating anything beyond his own comfortable beliefs or lack thereof.
What’s funny is that it’s usually BELIEVERS who are accused of being intolerant of others’ beliefs and intellectually lazy. .but it’s remarks like those from the atheist above that really smack of intellectual laziness and smug intolerance. . .
H
Hans_W
Guest
I see Christianity as one way of seeking God. It happens to be my way because I was born in a Christian country. If I had been born in a different country, or if I had been born 3000 years ago, I wouldn’t be a Christian.
I can’t see my religion as being the only way. I believe that God is so far beyond our limited human understanding that we can only make tiny steps towards the infinite.
I can’t see my religion as being the only way. I believe that God is so far beyond our limited human understanding that we can only make tiny steps towards the infinite.
M
Mumbles140
Guest
Could you please link to that thread, because I have a hard time seeing how 4 is the inevitable conclusion of 1 and 2. I also disagree with 3 (goes against the idea of Ecumenism). I also believe 5 is flawed because even if there was only 1 true religion in the world, you could start your own religion based on whatever you wanted it to be based on. That is because you are human and have free will. But, because you choose to start your own religion, that makes all other religions false, and therefore yours as well? Lastly, I don’t know how a single premise can inevitably lead to a conclusion (as 4 does to 5). However, I would like to see the full context of your argument, as I am sure that a lot of the detail got left out in your attempt to simplify in logical form.
B
Bradski
Guest
Way to go, Tantum. Nailed that guy!
N
NovusFidem
Guest
I was going to make a separate post, but I’d rather make use of your example of faulty logic.
By (6) you determine that “No true religion exists”. Your reasoning is that since “There are many religions whose followers believe to be true”, then either all of them must be true or all of them false.
What you fail to take into account, is that just because people believe it to be True, doesn’t make it so.
That is the faulty logic we are considering.
Let’s make this easy, but using an example.
You have two people dressed in Red, and one dressed in Green. Whoever is dressed in Green can ONLY speak the Truth, and will never lie. Whoever is dressed in Red can say lies.
Going by your logic:
- There exists one person dressed in Green;
- The person in Green can only speak the truth;
- There are 3 people who believe they are dressed in Green;
- From (1) and (2) we can conclude that all other people must be lying;
- From (4) we can deduce that there should not exist any person lying about their dress color since they can know about the color of their dress; (error is here!)
- From (3) and (5) we can deduce that everyone is lying about wearing green.
Let’s say I am in Red. Just because I am dressed in Red, what is stopping me from lying about my dress color?
What if I truly believe to be wearing Green? What if I have nothing else to compare the color of my dress with? What if I am color-blind??
Whoever gave us these dresses said that the **Green would always speak the truth **… but they **NEVER **said the Red would never be able to speak falsehoods! In fact, I am pretty sure he said some people would come by to confuse them with the color of their dresses…
If the Christian God is to be believed (and He must be, for the sake of discussion, as this is a Catholic forum, so we start from the premise that "if there is a God, He is the Judeo-Christian God)), He gave us free will so that we could make decisions. False religions are, as a result of free will, necessary - we MUST have the choice, or else we don’t have free will.
Yeah… that’s basically it
Hope you can see where the faulty logic is. If not, hopefully someone else can explain it better than I 
D
davidv
Guest
Yes, faulty. Your syllogism does not equate to the OP.
The correct formulation in the OP is:
A: All cannot be right
Therefore all are wrong.
This a fallacy - non sequitur.
N
NovusFidem
Guest
Of course, the logic is faulty by the Point of View of a Catholic, as we were told by Holy Scripture that there would be false prophets…
If there is a religion that claims to be the True Religion of the “Creator”, and says that the “Creator” would make it impossible for false religions to claim the same… they have basically hung themselves with their own beliefs, as they are either spewing lies, or… yeah. That’s the only reasonable conclusion.
If there is a religion that claims to be the True Religion of the “Creator”, and says that the “Creator” would make it impossible for false religions to claim the same… they have basically hung themselves with their own beliefs, as they are either spewing lies, or… yeah. That’s the only reasonable conclusion.
D
davidv
Guest
One does not need the Catholic point view to see the faulty logic.Of course, the logic is faulty by the Point of View of a Catholic, as we were told by Holy Scripture that there would be false prophets…
If there is a religion that claims to be the True Religion of the “Creator”, and says that the “Creator” would make it impossible for false religions to claim the same… they have basically hung themselves with their own beliefs, as they are either spewing lies, or… yeah. That’s the only reasonable conclusion.
M
minkymurph
Guest
I would ask your atheist friend to define ‘right’ and ‘wrong.’ Also, disagreement is not in itself proof anyone who states anything in regard to particular topic is wrong. Jury’s do not always reach a unanimous verdict. This does not mean a crime was not committed. It means there is insufficient evidence for a conviction, but many jurors may believe a crime was committed and be right in the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
‘Right’ in regard to what and 'wrong in regard to what? It is true different religions have different teachings, but a common thread runs through all. Disagreement amounts to they different interpretations of those common threads. For example, many religions teach baptism or water ablutions, but have different interpretations as to the meaning.
I would also say religion is a matter of faith. We do not practice our faith simply because we think it is ‘right.’ We practice our faith because we believe, and belief is not about proof in the scientific sense. Must we have irrevocable evidence before believing anything? Faith is about enriching our lives now. If we believe our faith enriches our lives now, the chances are it does. If the atheist desires to take this away they must replace it with something equal or better if they desire to enrich our lives to a greater extent…
Atheists put faith in science and science is about establishing facts. It is not a way to live as in day to day life facts are not of much use. Facts are useful in many ways but facts do not enrich the lives of individuals. We cannot argue we can prove irrevocably God exists in a manner determined by an atheist, but if the atheist has an honest desire to enrich our lives to a greater extent through not believing in God, it is up to the atheist to provide a persuasive argument to this effect.
N
NovusFidem
Guest
I said that because, on his original post, he did say:
Indeed. If God said or would or was required to prevent false religions from arising, then sure, either all religions were true or… yeah.
Still a flimsy logic, but would make a bit better sense, I guess…
B
Bahman
Guest
Please find the thread in ["]here]("
I am so sorry, I miss to include (3). So 4) From (1), (2) and (3) we can conclude that all other religions must be false.
(3) is correct as a matter of fact: We observe too many religions. I have no idea how the fact that there many religions is related to Ecumenism.
That is what people have been doing all the time, namely start a religion based on whatever. Non of them had any consistent set of facts that they could strive with otherwise we didn’t have too many religions in our packets right now. I cannot possibly start with whatever to build a religion since I need a set of facts which their complicatedness is tested with divine justice, which I don’t have it in my disposal.
Belief has nothing with free will at all when there exist set of facts which they can convince you. You can deny even one single fact because you have free will!
We cannot possibly make up a religion when we consider the very fact that we are responsible about other people if we mislead them. Please also read forth comment.
Well, the truth by definition is set of indisputable facts, which could be understood by human being. You cannot possibly resist any fact if you are mislead hence no false religion can possibly exist if there is a true one since the true one is based on indisputable facts.
N
NovusFidem
Guest
Well, that is what Theology and Philosophy works with. I’m not saying that EVERY religion works on a set of consistent teachings and facts, but the more serious ones do, or try to at least. Even if a teaching hasn’t reached total consensus, doesn’t mean it never will. Just as happens with science: we evolve. Sooner or later the Truth will be revealed.
Can’t we? I find it very kind of you to believe we can’t, but you seem to forget that we, as humans, are capable of very serious crimes. Malicious people DO exist: they do not believe what they preach, but keep on preaching just to lure naive people into traps.
If one does not believe in God, why should they fear “divine judgement”? Even those who DO believe in God, it was said that judgement would come after our deaths only; why should we fear God right now?
In that case, what is stopping me from committing sins right now?
Yes, we can resist facts. We do so all the time, mostly due to ignorance. We also can do it out of malice.
For years, people resisted the fact that the Earth was round. They did it out of ignorance, they didn’t know any better.
Even now, with reasonable proof, people resist evolution. They do so out of fear (that it may invalidate their religions - pure nonsense IMO). Out of ignorance (they hear so many opinions, they don’t know who is right, and rightly so). Out of malice (they need to keep people in the dark in order to manipulate them).
We can ignore facts. We can refuse facts.** It doesn’t make the facts false** just because the majority ignores its existence.
That said, maybe the majority is resisting some moral facts, some moral laws… out of ignorance. Just because no proof was presented yet, they are ignoring something that might, one day, prove to be Truth.
Happens all the time.
- Status