Comment Re:Religion is not Logical (Score 2, Insightful) 6
i.e. either "God exists or he doesn't exist." I guess what I mean by unlogical is "overly axiomatic."
Honestly, all I wanted to do was to demonstrate his logical flaw. I will admit that I was motivated by the fact that I found his conclusion to be particularly odious. But whether it was distasteful or not, it's invalid.
But... as long as we're on the subject... Starting an argument with either "God exists or he doesn't exist" may or may not be "overly axiomatic" depending on where you're going. If you're making a case to an atheist, it's probably not a good place to start since he/she doesn't accept the axiom. If two Christians are discussing something, starting with one of these axioms may be appropriate.
If you have a sufficiently detailed definition of God, then I would say that "God exists or he doesn't exist" is a tautology. For example, the God of the Catechism of the Catholic Church either exists or he doesn't. I'm aware that some statements can be, apparently, both true and false (Russell's Paradox, etc) but I don't think this is one of them.
If you want to be completely logical, you have to logically question those axioms and develop the conversation to its full depth.
Can't argue with that. Except perhaps to say that no one lives long enough to go to the full depths. Philosophy is inexhaustible. There's always more to say.
I'm impressed by the authors/philosophers you list in your journal. I'm reminded of my own introduction to philosophy years ago. I've heard it said, and learned it to be true, that you can convince any neutral person to be either a theist or atheist if only you can control what they read for six months in college. I was blown away by the towering intellect of some of the authors you mention. They were so much more sophisticated than the "primitive" religion that I learned in childhood. It took me no time at all to become an avowed skeptic.
It took me years to realize that my bookshelf was very "one sided." I had no shortage of Hume and Nietzsche. But where was the Thomas Aquinas and G.K. Chesterton? In my case, it wasn't until I included authors such as these that I really began to consider ALL the "possible origins and meaning of religion."
Thanks for the conversation. I'll let you have the last word, if you care to reply. Unless... there's something specific you want me to reply to. If so, just let me know.
Honestly, all I wanted to do was to demonstrate his logical flaw. I will admit that I was motivated by the fact that I found his conclusion to be particularly odious. But whether it was distasteful or not, it's invalid.
But... as long as we're on the subject... Starting an argument with either "God exists or he doesn't exist" may or may not be "overly axiomatic" depending on where you're going. If you're making a case to an atheist, it's probably not a good place to start since he/she doesn't accept the axiom. If two Christians are discussing something, starting with one of these axioms may be appropriate.
If you have a sufficiently detailed definition of God, then I would say that "God exists or he doesn't exist" is a tautology. For example, the God of the Catechism of the Catholic Church either exists or he doesn't. I'm aware that some statements can be, apparently, both true and false (Russell's Paradox, etc) but I don't think this is one of them.
If you want to be completely logical, you have to logically question those axioms and develop the conversation to its full depth.
Can't argue with that. Except perhaps to say that no one lives long enough to go to the full depths. Philosophy is inexhaustible. There's always more to say.
I'm impressed by the authors/philosophers you list in your journal. I'm reminded of my own introduction to philosophy years ago. I've heard it said, and learned it to be true, that you can convince any neutral person to be either a theist or atheist if only you can control what they read for six months in college. I was blown away by the towering intellect of some of the authors you mention. They were so much more sophisticated than the "primitive" religion that I learned in childhood. It took me no time at all to become an avowed skeptic.
It took me years to realize that my bookshelf was very "one sided." I had no shortage of Hume and Nietzsche. But where was the Thomas Aquinas and G.K. Chesterton? In my case, it wasn't until I included authors such as these that I really began to consider ALL the "possible origins and meaning of religion."
Thanks for the conversation. I'll let you have the last word, if you care to reply. Unless... there's something specific you want me to reply to. If so, just let me know.
