Proof of logic

Mashuna, with organised religion, I think they have the implicit idea that believers are infallible. Otherwise, how can they say that faith is infallible? Its not only about feeling.

Jond, you say that saying the creator created us in his image is arrogant? You say that thinking that the place of humans in the universe is important- is arrogant? You think that claiming to know the will of the creator is arrogant? Did I get you right?


I said that it is arrogant to criticize organised religion, because it implies you are smarter than all the smart religious people, not because of your reasons.
 
slingblade said:
I used to make that exception--now, I'm not so sure. Even experts in their fields can be wrong.
Click to expand...
Yes, they can be wrong but to not accept any expert testimony is an abuse of skepticism.

Anything is possible. We could be wrong about everything we know. It's unlikely though. I'll accept current understanding provisionally. I'll concede that the experts could be wrong but until then I'm willing to put a degree of trust into what they say.

That said, there is nothing at all wrong with questioning the experts and verifying what they say.
 
JetLeg said:
Jond, you say that saying the creator created us in his image is arrogant? You say that thinking that the place of humans in the universe is important- is arrogant? You think that claiming to know the will of the creator is arrogant? Did I get you right?
Click to expand...
I would agree, very strongly.

I said that it is arrogant to criticize organised religion, because it implies you are smarter than all the smart religious people, not because of your reasons.
Click to expand...
It implies nothing of the sort. I can see the problems inherent in religion regardless of the inteligence of any religious people. You've hit on a great big fallacy.
 
Hm... Is claiming something is arrogant, therefore it is wrong a fallacy?
 
RandFan said:
No. To conclude that one is arrogant because one is criticizing the beliefs of smarter people is a fallacy.
Click to expand...

To be fair, to claim that something is arrogant and therefore wrong is also a fallacy.
 
JetLeg said:
Mashuna, with organised religion, I think they have the implicit idea that believers are infallible. Otherwise, how can they say that faith is infallible? Its not only about feeling.

Jond, you say that saying the creator created us in his image is arrogant? You say that thinking that the place of humans in the universe is important- is arrogant? You think that claiming to know the will of the creator is arrogant? Did I get you right?


I said that it is arrogant to criticize organised religion, because it implies you are smarter than all the smart religious people, not because of your reasons.
Click to expand...

Correct. It is arrogant (IMO) to suggest that humans are somehow special creatures.

Criticizing organized religion has nothing to do with whether or not I'm smarter than they are, only that they're claiming things that they can't back up with evidence. And worse, they're acting on those beliefs which negatively impacts the lives of others who don't belive the same way.
 
JetLeg said:
I do feel that organised religion implicitly implies our infallibilty to recognize that we believe in god and not in something else.
Click to expand...

Well, good for you. Come back when you have a rational argument to defend that "feeling," because just reading it, it strikes me as unbelievably irrelevant to the point of irrationality.

"I do feel that major league baseball implicitly implies our persecution in belleving that Paris is the capital of France and not of Gemany."


And I am still with the argument that it is arrogant to say that organized religion is wrong.
Click to expand...

Good. You've called me arrogant. You've called me a name. But I'm still not wrong -- and organized religions is still not right.

Let's suppose that I'm self-admittedly the most arrogant person in the world (which itself would be further proof of my arrogance). I tell you that I make good pizzas. Does that mean that my pizzas are bad?
 
JetLeg said:
Why ?

:confused:
Click to expand...

Because the argument can lead from a true premise to a false conclusion.

I play trivial pursuit on Wednesday nights with Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Murray Gell-Mann, and Albert Einstein. I'm by far the dumbest player in the room. I always lose. But Albert doesn't get them all right, either. if Albert tells me that he believes that the capital of Colorado is Boulder, and I tell him that it isn't, that doesn't make me arrogant. After all, he's a physicist, not a geographer.
 
drkitten said:
Well, good for you. Come back when you have a rational argument to defend that "feeling," because just reading it, it strikes me as unbelievably irrelevant to the point of irrationality.

"I do feel that major league baseball implicitly implies our persecution in belleving that Paris is the capital of France and not of Gemany."
Click to expand...

Organised religion does imply that when we feel god, we can be sure we do not feel the devil. Morever, it assumes that the only explanation for our feelings is that these feelings are related to god, and that there is no other explanation. I think the latter assumes omniscience implicitly - it assumes that we can be absolutely sure that we are right, and there is no other explanation for our feelings.
 
drkitten said:
if Albert tells me that he believes that the capital of Colorado is Boulder, and I tell him that it isn't, that doesn't make me arrogant. After all, he's a physicist, not a geographer.
Click to expand...

Hm... This example does make sense. Can you give me some more please?
 
Because emotions are subjective. Logic tends to be objective and deal with objective constructs. One can't feel or emote a logical construct.

If A, then B;
A;
Therefore B

doesn't care how you feel about it! It doesn't derive its correctness or incorrectness from my feelings about it. I don't want to commit a fallacy of absolutes, but in general, logic doesn't function emotionally, and emotions don't function logically.

This will probably backfire on me, but let's see how it pans out:

I'm currently taking care of my mother full-time. She's dying. With each passing day, she gets a little worse. Her life expectancy is, at this moment, about 4 months (give or take).

When she does die, what, logically speaking, would you expect her daughter to feel?
 
JetLeg said:
Organised religion does imply that when we feel god, we can be sure we do not feel the devil.
Click to expand...

No, it specifically denies that. Protestantism, in particular, makes a point of telling its followers to check the feelings in our heart against Scripture, because the devil is capable of creating such feelings. Similarly, Buddhism and Hinduism are very sharp about the way that our feelings can get in the way of God, hence the need for medidation and to get past our "feelings" precisely because they are not infallible.

Morever, it assumes that the only explanation for our feelings is that these feelings are related to god, and that there is no other explanation.
Click to expand...

Not only mainstream Christianity does it not assume this, it explicilty denies that -- and provides a specific other explanation (desires that are planted by the Devil). O

So the "factual" basis on which your argument rests is wrong; "organized religion" does not have the attributes you describe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom