Was religion invented by man?

[PRmerger]

No it wasn’t. Go back and read post #44

Suffice it to say I’m satisfied you won’t ever make the mistake again of asking “What is the question?” when someone asserts, “You’re begging the question, Lion.”

 

[Lion_IRC]

…Now, you can continue to demand some form of question, despite the fact that word “question” arose from a mistranslation, but you would sound like the man who continues to demand that his neighbor explain how to put gasoline in an electric car.

You’re just repeating your unsubstantiated claim that a question begging fallacy had been committed without showing same.
And continuously posting Wikipedia links doesn’t tell me anything I don’t already know.
…and yet you keep doing it.

It’s more like the man who says you can’t put petrol in an electric car and I say, yes, I already know that. But the man just keeps on saying no you don’t understand and goes on posting the same wiki articles about the meaning of the word ‘petrol’.

Here’s a pro-tip.
If you insist that the term ‘begging the question’ is wrong, because circular, self-referential arguments (according to you) DONT leave an unanswered question with respect to the premise/conclusion, perhaps you should stop using that;

*badly translated,
*completely irrelevant,
*misleading,
*nothing_to_do_with_questions

…term called “begging the question”.

Unlike you, I actually DO think the term “begging the question” is appropriate (assuming an actual logical fallacy of this type has been committed) because an argument sets out to establish a proposition - and in this sense, it (the argument) does seek to resolve a question one way or the other.

Is Socrates mortal? Well if I present a logically fallacious (circular) argument I have NOT answered the question.

If I argue P therefore P, clearly it begs the question, “what have you concluded” by saying that?

But if you insist that the accusation “begging the question” is a misnomer, and all you really meant was…'I accuse you of circular reasoning" then I shall nonetheless still ask you to kindly justify your accusation by showing where Charlemange III actually proposed P therefore P

 

[goout]

No* harm?*

It’s not so win-win for the people who were burned alive as witches or punished and condemnd as heretics…or the people who love someone but can not/could not marry him/her…or the Jihads/Holy Wars sparked by religion that killed millions…or the millions of girls who have been genitally mutilated…or the millions of humans sacrificed to their gods…etc, etc…

Not so “win-win for everyone, no matter what.”

.

People can be very cruel to one another.
Organized religious practice is not exactly a requirement for cruelty or demonstrated cause of it, given that atheists have also proven to be very efficient and cruel murderers.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Here’s a pro-tip.
If you insist that the term ‘begging the question’ is wrong, because circular, self-referential arguments (according to you) DONT leave an unanswered question with respect to the premise/conclusion, perhaps you should stop using that

“Begging the question” is an idiom with a specific meaning when applied to philosophical argumentation. We could call it “oogying the boogy” if you prefer. The point is that it does not require a question, it requires an argument with a certain structure. The fact that you’re confused about this point suggests to me that you might have something to learn from that wikipedia article after all.

You’re just repeating your unsubstantiated claim that a question begging fallacy had been committed without showing same…
But if you insist that the accusation “begging the question” is a misnomer, and all you really meant was…'I accuse you of circular reasoning" then I shall nonetheless still ask you to kindly justify your accusation by showing where Charlemange III actually proposed P therefore P

I did. Very explicitly. Right there in the post quoted below, which you can read in its entirety by clicking on the little blue arrow:

Ah, I thought this was obvious. The issue being discussed is “Was religion invented by man?” Therefore, if any premises require that a purely religious teaching be valid, we have “begged the question” by requiring that religion not be a fabrication.

Charlemagne did this when he said:

Because he is assuming the validity of a particular religious account of the origin of religion.

Therefore, before you continue your semantic crusade, please explain how the post I made FAILS to demonstrate that C3 begged the question (or oogied the boogy, if the phrase begging the question is too abhorrent to you.)

 

[PRmerger]

In order to actually make an argument of the form point #1 and point # 2, therefore point #3, you need to do some additional leg work beyond simply establishing that the “main events” of the NT probably happened.

You are correct.

One way you might do this would be to establish the capability of the authors of the NT to accurately assess “divinity,” as well as their honesty. In other words, you shouldn’t join a pyramid scheme just because someone honest tells you to; if that person has been hoodwinked, they might honestly be convinced the scheme is a good investment. That is why we need both “capability to assess” alongside “honesty.”

A second way you might do this is independently argue that the religious explanation of the historical events in the NT is the best of all possible explanations. This would essentially replace point #2 with a new proposition: “the religious claims in the NT are objectively the best explanation for the historical events in #1.”

So: which way will you proceed?

I think both ways are great approaches.

Re #1) Establishing the capability of the authors of the NT to accurately assess “divinity”–I think dying and rising from the dead seals the deal. If you say you’re going to die and rise from the dead, (and predict the amount of time it will take for this to happen, to boot!), then this seems to be pretty indicative of divinity, no?

The possibility that they were “hoodwinked”? How could that occur? Do you believe in mass hallucinations, JK?

As far as “honesty”–can you please explain why these men would lie about seeing Christ resurrected? Why wouldn’t they just go home and find another messiah, like every other sect did in history whose putative savior had been killed?

And what did these men get for promoting their lie? Riches? Power? Throngs of women throwing themselves at their feet?

Oh, wait. They got tortured and died horrific deaths while still proclaiming the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Does that sound consonant with human nature to you, JK? Do people die horrendous deaths knowing that they lied?

 

[PRmerger]

You are correct.

I think both ways are great approaches.

Re #1) Establishing the capability of the authors of the NT to accurately assess “divinity”–I think dying and rising from the dead seals the deal. If you say you’re going to die and rise from the dead, (and predict the amount of time it will take for this to happen, to boot!), then this seems to be pretty indicative of divinity, no?

The possibility that they were “hoodwinked”? How could that occur? Do you believe in mass hallucinations, JK?

As far as “honesty”–can you please explain why these men would lie about seeing Christ resurrected? Why wouldn’t they just go home and find another messiah, like every other sect did in history whose putative savior had been killed?

And what did these men get for promoting their lie? Riches? Power? Throngs of women throwing themselves at their feet?

Oh, wait. They got tortured and died horrific deaths while still proclaiming the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Does that sound consonant with human nature to you, JK? Do people die horrendous deaths knowing that they lied?

Re: #2–

Firstly, I take issue with it “replacing” #1. Not sure why you would assert that it would?

Secondly, yes, the explanation that Jesus died and rose from the dead is the best explanation for the empty tomb, the conversion of the hearts and minds of folks.

I suppose some other explanations might be:

-he was an alien.

-there was a magic spell that was placed upon all of Jerusalem

-the bones of Jesus were found but, inexplicably, hidden from the public eye in order to be presented in the future in order to establish world domination. There’s an esoteric sect of folks who know where these bones are and are waiting for the perfect moment to say, “Voila! You Christians have been duped! You think your Jesus rose from the dead? Here’s proof he did not! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAaaaaaaa!”

What seems more likely? The disciples were telling the truth, or the above alternative explanations?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If religion had ever been the opiate of the people, drugs and sex has certainly taken its place.

And with a lot more consequential deaths.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

That is fine as far as arguments go, but I would say that you could have made that argument much clearer if you hadn’t made it by awkwardly butting into the detailed and specific discussion Charlemagne and I were having.

That being said, lets get started.

It seems to me that your argument so far has included (or is likely to include) the following points:

1. The NT is historically accurate.
2. The NT claims that Jesus is divine.
3. The religious claims in the NT were not invented by men.

But you will need to do some extra work to actually tie those together. For example, consider the old native american tale about a magic thunderbird and whale. Because of a variety of other info, we know that this tale is likely “historically accurate” in the sense that there was an actual earthquake along the Cascadia fault that dramatically affected the native Americans in the vicinity. However, just because the main event was real does not mean that their creative interpretation of that event was correct (e.g. that the villages in the area had been displeasing to the gods, or that the earthquake was caused by religious entities.)

In order to actually make an argument of the form point #1 and point # 2, therefore point #3, you need to do some additional leg work beyond simply establishing that the “main events” of the NT probably happened.

One way you might do this would be to establish the capability of the authors of the NT to accurately assess “divinity,” as well as their honesty. In other words, you shouldn’t join a pyramid scheme just because someone honest tells you to; if that person has been hoodwinked, they might honestly be convinced the scheme is a good investment. That is why we need both “capability to assess” alongside “honesty.”

A second way you might do this is independently argue that the religious explanation of the historical events in the NT is the best of all possible explanations. This would essentially replace point #2 with a new proposition: “the religious claims in the NT are objectively the best explanation for the historical events in #1.”

So: which way will you proceed?

All this is wildly off base.

Reference to the OT or NT is the offering of evidence that religion was held, lost, and found again. It is not begging the question, because the evidence belongs to the order of faith, not to the order of scientific demonstration.

Now, when the atheist says religion was invented, what proof does he have to offer?

If he has no proof, he is assuming the truth of the statement, or begging the question.

Sheesh!

 

[Lion_IRC]

I think the experience of thirstiness is evidence for the existence of water.
And I think the sensation of hunger is evidence for the existence of food.

Now, is there any circular reasoning or question begging going on here JappaneseKappa?
Have I ‘invented’ hunger? Is my thirst imaginary like the imaginary water in my head?..

 

[Lion_IRC]

“Begging the question” is an idiom with a specific meaning when applied to philosophical argumentation. We could call it “oogying the boogy” if you prefer. The point is that it does not require a question, it requires an argument with a certain structure. The fact that you’re confused about this point suggests to me that you might have something to learn from that wikipedia article after all.

You’ve just completely ignored my earlier explanation as to why it’s called begging the question.

An argument sets out to establish a proposition - and in this sense, it (the argument) does seek to resolve a disputed question one way or the other.

Is Socrates mortal? That is the central issue of a well known syllogism.
And if I present a logically fallacious (circular) argument I have NOT answered the question.

If I argue P therefore P, clearly it begs the question, “what have you concluded” by saying that? Nothing. You haven’t anwered a question - you have answered an “answer”.

If the conclusion is already provided in one of the premisses it would be perfectly legitimate to say…you haven’t resolved anything yet.

“Socrates is mortal because mortal people die THEREFORE Socrates is mortal”
This type of logical fallacy clearly attempts to show the answer to whether Socrates is mortal but the premise already presumes that he is!

This clearly begs the question…YES but why should we believe Socrates is mortal when there is no necessary inference contained in this circular argument?

I don’t understand your stubborn insistence that the rhetorical “begging the question” has nothing to do with unanswered unresolved questions arising from a circular argument. It seems as though you are telling thousands of years of ancient philosophy that they ought not to have coined such a phrase.

…Therefore, before you continue your semantic crusade, please explain how the post I made FAILS to demonstrate that C3 begged the question (or oogied the boogy, if the phrase begging the question is too abhorrent to you.)

See, now you are just misrepresenting me. I do not find it “abhorrent”.
In point of fact I wrote;

Unlike you, I actually DO think the term “begging the question” is appropriate…

 

[Lion_IRC]

I had earlier asked JappaneseKappa to substantiate the accusation that Charlemange III was “begging the question”

To which PRmerger replied directly to me;

Er…This was answered in post #56.

But I’m confused by this comment made to JappaneseKappa;

…You proposed that C3 was begging the question (which, incidentally, he was not, but I did not wish to pursue that tributary.)

It seemed as though PRmerger was at first agreeing that JapaneseKappa had substantiated his accusation of question begging. But now I’m not sure. Could you please clarify PRmerger?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Re #1) Establishing the capability of the authors of the NT to accurately assess “divinity”–I think dying and rising from the dead seals the deal. If you say you’re going to die and rise from the dead, (and predict the amount of time it will take for this to happen, to boot!), then this seems to be pretty indicative of divinity, no?

No. Even if we grant that the events occurred as you described them, they are inadequate to establish divinity. Possible other scenarios include:

Jesus was actually supernatural, but was not God. For example, he could have been an angel, lich, or a yōkai like me.
Jesus was resurrected via natural means (e.g. via advanced technology.)

The possibility that they were “hoodwinked”? How could that occur? Do you believe in mass hallucinations, JK?

Deliberate deception by a third party is a possibility. Mental illness is a possibility. Use of hallucinogenic substances is a possibility.

As far as “honesty”–can you please explain why these men would lie about seeing Christ resurrected? Why wouldn’t they just go home and find another messiah, like every other sect did in history whose putative savior had been killed?

And what did these men get for promoting their lie? Riches? Power? Throngs of women throwing themselves at their feet?

Oh, wait. They got tortured and died horrific deaths while still proclaiming the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Does that sound consonant with human nature to you, JK? Do people die horrendous deaths knowing that they lied?

It seems that we’ve ventured outside the NT in our argument now. The NT only describes the death of one apostle, not counting Judas. Second, we care about the honesty of the authors of the NT, which are not necessarily the people described in the NT. However, if the author’s only knowledge of the events came via the people described in the NT, then we need to establish the honesty and capabilities of both sets of people.

 

[Lion_IRC]

I suspect that if someone cannot see the question or questions which remain unanswered (begged) following that particular logical fallacy then they might have jumped the gun* in automatically labelling what their opponent said as “begging the question”.

There’s a difference between saying;

…I’m sorry, I can’t think of any question the flawed logic failed to resolve.
and…
…No Lion IRC, there is never any question being begged when one’s opponent is “begging the question.”

And perhaps those who assert that question begging doesn’t involve actual “questions” are mistaken in their reading of what they see as a logical fallacy.

All things which come into existence have a cause.
The universe came into existence.
Therefore the universe had a cause. (A cause such as God for example)

To this someone might argue that it is circular because it begs the question…well in that case, what caused God? But that would be a misreading of the argument because it only applies to things which come into existence - contingent.

*Disclaimer. “Jumped the gun” doesn’t mean track and field event where people jump over guns of varying size.

 

[PRmerger]

It seemed as though PRmerger was at first agreeing that JapaneseKappa had substantiated his accusation of question begging. But now I’m not sure. Could you please clarify PRmerger?

I do not believe C3 was question begging.

I was simply pointing out that you did not understand what “begging the question” means.

It’s kind of like someone saying, “…at the drop of a hat”…and you saying, “Where’s the hat? What hat? Why is there a hat in this discussion?”

 

[PRmerger]

No. Even if we grant that the events occurred as you described them, they are inadequate to establish divinity. Possible other scenarios include:

Jesus was actually supernatural, but was not God. For example, he could have been an angel, lich, or a yōkai like me.

Well, that still means that the supernatural world exists.

Jesus was resurrected via natural means (e.g. via advanced technology.)

LOL!

Really?

You are an atheist yet you believe…this?

I can’t even.

#nowords

 

[Lion_IRC]

…It’s kind of like someone saying, “…at the drop of a hat”…and you saying, “Where’s the hat? What hat? Why is there a hat in this discussion?”

Well, see there’s your problem.
You’re conflating the idiomatic use of certain modern phrases with the very specific context in which “begging the question” is used in relation to philosophic argument.

I agree that many people have misappropriated the term “begging the question” and used it OUTSIDE OF the realm of philosophic disputation.

But to claim that this term only ever applies to modern idioms and vernacular is itself a logical fallacy. And wouldnt that be ironic.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, see there’s your problem.
You’re conflating the idiomatic use of certain modern phrases with the very specific context in which “begging the question” is used in relation to philosophic argument.

I agree that many people have misappropriated the term “begging the question” and used it OUTSIDE OF the realm of philosophic disputation.

But to claim that this term only ever applies to modern idioms and vernacular is itself a logical fallacy. And wouldnt that be ironic.

I’m done with this discussion.

It was pointed out to you where you misspoke.

It will be heartening to see you never refer to a “question” when someone points out the fallacy of “begging the question” in future threads.

However, if you choose to continue down that wrong avenue and demonstrate a misunderstanding of that phrase, well, that won’t be my problem. Others will simply see it as an uneducated question.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Well, that still means that the supernatural world exists.

LOL!

Really?

You are an atheist yet you believe…this?

I can’t even.

#nowords

Very well. From here on out, I will be defending the idea that events of the NT were part of a hoax perpetrated by aliens. I do not believe you will be able to demonstrate that the authors of the NT would be capable of discerning the difference between an alien hoax and an the actions of a real divine being. Because of this, your only recourse will be to ridicule the idea. If I press you on this point, you will depart from the first method I described, and opt instead to tackle the second, that is to say you will argue that the religious explanation of events is stronger than the alien one.

One way you might do this would be to establish the capability of the authors of the NT to accurately assess “divinity,” as well as their honesty…

A second way you might do this is independently argue that the religious explanation of the historical events in the NT is the best of all possible explanations.

That premature departure from the first method would represent the first half-argument I predicted earlier:

Here is the way I anticipate the arguments will go. PRmerger will attempt to tackle both approaches simultaneously, and argue for one half of each one. He will then attempt to claim that the two half-arguments add up to a complete argument for the validity of the NT. This is not a valid approach; since the arguments are independent of each other, the partial success of one is not an endorsement of the other.

 

[PRmerger]

Deliberate deception by a third party is a possibility. Mental illness is a possibility. Use of hallucinogenic substances is a possibility.

Evidence for this, please.

Also, who did the deceiving? And why? To what end?

And how was this deception undertaken?

It seems that we’ve ventured outside the NT in our argument now. The NT only describes the death of one apostle, not counting Judas.

Sure. We’re talking historical narratives.

Second, we care about the honesty of the authors of the NT, which are not necessarily the people described in the NT. However, if the author’s only knowledge of the events came via the people described in the NT, then we need to establish the honesty and capabilities of both sets of people.

Fair enough.

So you’ll have to establish a reason why this deception occurred, and how it began and came to fruition.

And, of course, provide evidence for this deception.

It needs to include an explanation for the empty tomb, too, ok?

 

[PRmerger]

Very well. From here on out, I will be defending the idea that events of the NT were part of a hoax perpetrated by aliens.

Sorry. I don’t dialogue with these folks:
-6000 year old earthers
-Holocaust deniers
-folks who think we didn’t land on the moon.

And I’ll add:
-folks who consider the idea that aliens are responsible for a hoax on Christendom.

Aliens. sigh.

I will add that it’s curious that this is what it takes to refute the very, very air-tight case for Christianity–“Hey! Maybe aliens did it!”

One has to wonder why it is someone would defend this, rather than accept the Christian explanation?