T
- Status
M
mgreen77
Guest
Well, I guess I’m guilty as charged then
But I’d never try to “convince” a Muslim. I’ve had my oh-so-solid reasons, my rationales ripped out from under me soooo many times, I just don’t… well… have faith in reason anymore, lol.
Someone skilled at “spin” can convince anyone of anything… temporarily. Sooner or later, a better spinner comes along and “convinces” them otherwise. And another. And…
Look at your own lives. How many of you have wandered from Catholicism as a child, “convinced” that aetheism was true, then convinced paganism was true, then convinced buddhism had it right, then…
They’re always at the mercy of their reason, the reflections of their self. But it’s not faith, not true belief, it’s actually an avoidance of responsibility for one’s beliefs, always afraid to make that leap into the abyss with nothing under you, nothing to support you, no one to blame.
T
tonyrey
Guest
- How do you obtain responsibility from an abyss with nothing under you, nothing to support you, no one to blame?
- What makes you so convinced your beliefs are true beliefs?
- Why do you think rejecting the beliefs of others ensures that you are taking responsibility?
M
mgreen77
Guest
My apologies, I worded that poorly it seems…
To me, life IS a wilful delusion. And that doesn’t mean it’s not “true” though. It’s a work of art, painted by belief. For me, God’s hand, God’s guidance, is to help paint with Love, to not be afraid to make those bold, creative strokes so we can step back and say, “whoa…”
I’m saying that I take responsibilty for what I believe. I choose to believe what I believe, or at least I try to. Not because someone convinced me, or because I have evidence, but because I simply choose to. I choose to Love. I choose to Trust. I choose to Believe. I don’t love only people who love me. I don’t trust only people who “earn” trust. I don’t believe only things which have evidence.
- How do you obtain responsibility from an abyss with nothing under you, nothing to support you, no one to blame?
When I say true belief, I don’t mean my beliefs are true, I mean my believing in them is true, from me, and not resting on evidence or proof or “because…”
- What makes you so convinced your beliefs are true beliefs?
I really don’t think I “reject” anyone’s beliefs. Their beliefs are their beliefs. I may choose to not believe what they believe, but I don’t see that as “rejection.” I’m not saying their beliefs are invalid or not true, just that I’ve chosen to not believe them.
- Why do you think rejecting the beliefs of others ensures that you are taking responsibility?
To me, life IS a wilful delusion. And that doesn’t mean it’s not “true” though. It’s a work of art, painted by belief. For me, God’s hand, God’s guidance, is to help paint with Love, to not be afraid to make those bold, creative strokes so we can step back and say, “whoa…”
T
tonyrey
Guest
If you believe in Love you can’t go far wrong!
A
awatkins69
Guest
I’m not sure where this dichotomy between science and religion is. There’s no dichotomy. It’s not religion versus science, it’s religion versus metaphysical naturalism. Science is simply empirical research of the external world, and formation of inductive laws. I’d like to see a formal contradiction between this and science, and I’d like you to show me.
I’m not being triumphant here. I’m not saying all atheists are atheists because they fail to use logic. But I’m not sure where my claim is laughable. Many people do not learn how to do critical thinking, Dawkins uses a lot of rhetoric, and that persuades them. It’s an empirical fact. As for evidence, 72% of philosophy professors who specialize in philosophy of religion are theists. 19% are atheists/agnostics. The rest are something else. You can draw whatever conclusions (or excuses) you like from that, of course. (You can also see that 75% of them accept scientific realism, 11% scientific anti-realism, and 13% something else.)
I’m not saying there’s no such thing as an intellectually honest atheist. I’m saying that Dawkins followers, generally, have not considered the strongest evidence. Maybe Michael Martin or Quentin Smith followers have.
A
awatkins69
Guest
First off, nobody is saying souls get hungry! But we would say that souls experience things. A soul could very easily experience hunger, because hunger is definitely an experience. You’re saying you couldn’t possibly imagine being hungry without there being a lack of corresponding physical processes (hormone balances, lack of food, etc.)? I’m not asking whether this happens in the world we live in. The point is that you could very easily doubt whether your hunger really corresponds to some actual physical condition. You could not doubt the experience of it however.
And of course, I do think that experiences have an immaterial aspect to them. You can’t measure them in terms of extension (is a feeling of hunger 3 feet in length?), you cannot even theoretically touch them, nor can you conduct experiments on them. And no, it is not the case that some day all-powerful empirical research will be able to “touch” sadness, even if it touches the physical processes which can make it occur. To suggest that is a complete category mistake, not an argument from ignorance.
Well, for one thing, you still haven’t answered my question my friend. At the very least, that seems to constitute an argument from ignoring! Asking if something is plausible is simply asking whether something has a “ring of truth” of sorts. This is a good way of finding truth in my opinion. I tend to only accept premises the truth of which I can feel pretty certain about. Of course, if these premises drive us to conclusions that are necessary and not salutary, we still have to accept them.
My argument corresponds to logical form, so I’m not sure what this “argument from ignorance ‘fallacy’” you keep talking about is. It’s certainly not a formal fallacy. Be sure to explain this to me whenever you reply. Best.
B
BobObob
Guest
An argument from ignorance is a recognized logical fallacy. It’s an informal logical fallacy (an “informal” logical fallacy is an argument whose stated premises fail to support their proposed conclusion). I hope this helps:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Here’s an example of an argument from ignorance: (Senator Joe McCarthy): “I do not have much information on [case 40] except the general statement of the agency…that there is nothing in the files to disprove his Communist connections.” [Source: Richard H. Rovere, *Senator Joe McCarthy (Methuen, 1960), pp. 106-107.]
A
awatkins69
Guest
Well, I do understand that the argument from ignorance is a fallacy. What I’m concerned about is where I commit this fallacy. Does it not follow that, given the definition of the views about reality found in metaphysical naturalism, if that definition does not correspond to reality, metaphysical naturalism is false?
I think maybe what you guys think I’m doing is saying that if naturalism is false, that means theism has not been proven false yet, and it necessarily follows that theism is true? That’s not what I’m saying at all, and I’m sorry if you misunderstood me. I tried to clarify this earlier by agreeing that my argument *against *naturalism is not an argument *for *classical theism, or anything like that. So, with that understood, I’m not too sure where I commit the fallacy.
Thanks again and all the best.
I think maybe what you guys think I’m doing is saying that if naturalism is false, that means theism has not been proven false yet, and it necessarily follows that theism is true? That’s not what I’m saying at all, and I’m sorry if you misunderstood me. I tried to clarify this earlier by agreeing that my argument *against *naturalism is not an argument *for *classical theism, or anything like that. So, with that understood, I’m not too sure where I commit the fallacy.
Thanks again and all the best.
T
TarkanAttila
Guest
I’m sure you’re not a nut job, but you make me think of Stanford Nutting.
youtube.com/watch?v=DBCwYJU5IMg
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
What is the name of the fallacy that says, “If you can’t prove scientifically or logically that God exists, then it is reasonable to infer that God does not exist”?
Isn’t that a non-sequitur?
Isn’t that a non-sequitur?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Wanstronian
Your opinion that some people become atheists ostensibly due to a lack of education in formal logic or philosophy is laughable, and I’d be interested to see your rationale for such a statement. If you can explain how such an education makes up for a total lack of evidence for theistic claims, then I’ll be amazed.
There is a total lack of evidence that abiogenesis happened by chance. That doesn’t seem to stop atheists from arguing that abiogenesis** did** happen by chance, and certainly not by intelligent design, though intelligent design seems the more probable solution.
Your opinion that some people become atheists ostensibly due to a lack of education in formal logic or philosophy is laughable, and I’d be interested to see your rationale for such a statement. If you can explain how such an education makes up for a total lack of evidence for theistic claims, then I’ll be amazed.
There is a total lack of evidence that abiogenesis happened by chance. That doesn’t seem to stop atheists from arguing that abiogenesis** did** happen by chance, and certainly not by intelligent design, though intelligent design seems the more probable solution.
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
Great Post!!!To be fair though, no properly informed Catholic actually believes that completely butchered depiction of God anyway, hopefully. To explain how the depiction is butchered, God is not inexplicable, but a necessary being/existence. God is not a superman (I hope I don’t have to explain on a Catholic forum how God is not just some old bearded guy sitting on a cloud with superpowers). Finally, God did not randomly create the universe for no good reason, it was natural for Him given His divine nature, I unfortunately don’t have the theological resources available to me as I’m posting this to explain in proper detail, but as a bottom line God created for creation’s own sake, to share in God’s perfect life.
…You’ll have to forgive that I’ve given a rather butchered explanation of how the previous statement was butchered itself:blush:, the difference being that I’m trying to be a little closer to the Church’s philosophical point of view (as given by St. Thomas)
As for AntiTheist, on your first point, just because you start with the assumption of whether something is true or false does not mean it will be unable to convince you, I’m sorry, that’s just bad logic. It would certainly be difficult, not to mention improbable, but it is not in fact impossible.
Your second point is just uncharitable to Tarkan, based on how you took an obviously metaphorical description of a certain kind of man (with a link to explain what an incubus was to explain said metaphor) to possibly be literal and seemed as if you expected him to be literal. I don’t feel the need to truly address it.
Your third point is…rather pointless. It seems to me by the post that Tarkan does not in fact want an argument, based on the observation (which you yourself also made) that he did not in fact post any argument other than stating what he thought of the book and the refutations of it that he read. Hence, as I said, you presented a pointless point (let’s not go in to the oxymoron here)
In short, I find your comment as a whole to be rather accusatory and nit-picky, please correct me if that was not your intention, but still, as I hopefully implied, I don’t think the point of the post was so much to present the points against Dawkins on the forum but to open up the link to the CAF community and express the thoughts of the original poster.
Now to address your “I don’t read random websites” comment, I’m going to have to call out laziness on your part. Part of the joy of the learning process is reading, and if you’re going to be a participant in a catholic website forum to learn more about catholicism (which I assume is your intention, and not just being a screwtape), then reading reliable sources is essential, and reading non-reliable sources is still encouraged, especially when they are subject of the forum that is one is participating in.
If I were a participant at an atheist forum, looking to argue and seek truth, then I feel that I’d be obligated to read the “random websites” and book recommendations as presented on a topic instead of just “shooting the messenger,” it seems to be the more polite and charitable thing to do, which I think would be required of an atheist if he/she seeks to argue against Christianity.
On a side note I mean not to intellectually offend either of the people I’ve addressed, these are observations on my part, and if I’ve addressed something which incorrectly assessed your intentions then my bad. Also, I’m rather new, and it looks like I have to work on my long-windedness, so thanks for bearing with me
W
wanstronian
Guest
I can’t explain the mechanism or process by which they exist, any more than you can. Yet again you appear to be presenting your staple - the argument from ignorance. “You can’t explain it, therefore my arbitrary answer, despite having no explanatory power nor supporting evidence, must be correct.”
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Wanstronian
*I can’t explain the mechanism or process by which they exist, any more than you can. Yet again you appear to be presenting your staple - the argument from ignorance. “You can’t explain it, therefore my arbitrary answer, despite having no explanatory power nor supporting evidence, must be correct.” *
Personally, I would say could be correct. But the atheist says, without offering proof, can’t be correct. Again, non sequitur.
Genesis, 1000 B.C. : God says, “Let there be light.”
Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.
“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”
*I can’t explain the mechanism or process by which they exist, any more than you can. Yet again you appear to be presenting your staple - the argument from ignorance. “You can’t explain it, therefore my arbitrary answer, despite having no explanatory power nor supporting evidence, must be correct.” *
Personally, I would say could be correct. But the atheist says, without offering proof, can’t be correct. Again, non sequitur.
Genesis, 1000 B.C. : God says, “Let there be light.”
Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.
“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”
E
Elijah_Baley
Guest
Ah. So you’re a dogmatist. Quoth Chesterton:
"Somehow or other the extraordinary idea has arisen that the disbelievers in miracles consider them coldly and fairly, while believers in miracles accept them only in connection with some dogma. The fact is quite the other way. The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them.
"The open, obvious, democratic thing is to believe an old apple-woman when she bears testimony to a miracle, just as you believe an old apple-woman when she bears testimony to a murder. The plain, popular course is to trust the peasant’s word about the ghost exactly as far as you trust the peasant’s word about the landlord. Being a peasant he will probably have a great deal of healthy agnosticism about both. Still you could fill the British Museum with evidence uttered by the peasant, and given in favour of the ghost.
"If it comes to human testimony there is a choking cataract of human testimony in favour of the supernatural. If you reject it, you can only mean one of two things. You reject the peasant’s story about the ghost either because the man is a peasant or because the story is a ghost story. That is, you either deny the main principle of democracy, or you affirm the main principle of materialism–the abstract impossibility of miracle. You have a perfect right to do so; but in that case you are a dogmatist.
“It is we Christians who accept all actual evidence–it is you rationalists who refuse actual evidence being constrained to do so by your creed. But I am not constrained by any creed in the matter, and looking impartially into certain miracles of mediaeval and modern times, I have come to the conclusion that they occurred.”
Yep. Definitely a dogmatist.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Another one from Chesterton on secular Dogma:
“For the modern world will accept no dogma upon any authority; but it will accept any dogma upon no authority. Say that a thing is so, according to the Pope or the Bible, and it will dismissed as superstition without examination. But preface your remarks with ‘they say’ or ‘don’t you know that?’ or try (and fail) to remember the name of some professor mentioned in some newspaper; and the keen rationalism of the modern mind will accept every word you say.”
“For the modern world will accept no dogma upon any authority; but it will accept any dogma upon no authority. Say that a thing is so, according to the Pope or the Bible, and it will dismissed as superstition without examination. But preface your remarks with ‘they say’ or ‘don’t you know that?’ or try (and fail) to remember the name of some professor mentioned in some newspaper; and the keen rationalism of the modern mind will accept every word you say.”
T
tonyrey
Guest
W
wanstronian
Guest
But there’s no evidence at all that the ‘experience’ of hunger is any more than the brain’s interpretation of the rest of the body’s signals of a particular physical need.
The fact that something can be experienced but not held in the hand or photographed, does not make it non-physical in origin or process.
The sense of self, and our ability to have experiences and feel emotions, is in no way an objective indicator that anything extra-corporeal is occurring.
I don’t think there is a real answer to your question. You haven’t defined ‘person.’ Anecdotally, it seems that our physical atomic composition is very different, but that doesn’t mean our personality is massively different. It usually is, of course, but there could be a variety of reasons for that.
I see no reason that a (relatively) gradual replacement of cells should lead to a massive difference in persona. But admittedly it’s an unanswered question. I don’t personally see why unanswered questions should be taken as confirmation of the existence of the supernatural, as so often happens.
Think this has already happened now.
W
wanstronian
Guest
I don’t think so, I think it’s common sense.What is the name of the fallacy that says, “If you can’t prove scientifically or logically that God exists, then it is reasonable to infer that God does not exist”?
Isn’t that a non-sequitur?
I’m not sure you can draw a non-sequitur positive conclusion from a negative premise in this way.
To draw an analogy, the existence of Batman has never been proved scientifically or logically. I don’t believe in Batman, but it’s not because he’s never been proved. In fact, my disbelief is completely unconnected to whether an attempt has been made to prove his existence. If such an attempt was made and was successful, then it would cause me to re-think. But the difference between a failed attempt at proof, and no attempt at all, makes not a jot of difference to my disbelief.
- Status