Reading through the comments on this thread on evolution, I am struck by a familiar sense of logical fallacy:
For one, incredible things don’t come nothing. The connections in the human body like the five sense had to have been designed. As humans we are the only species that has control of other species. (We cant even control ourselves). We also have a different hierarchy of needs. For animals it is food, sleep, food, food. For us we have the ability to sit down and argue for hours. That fact right there shows me that there must be some elements of design to this world. That would be my evidence.
Comment by Chad Stroh
…
3) Jesus never existed.
That’s funny considering that nearly all serious historians consider Jesus to be an actual historical person.
Comment by FraudWasteAbuse
The arguments here are all flat. They start with a premise and jump right to the conclusion.
- We are complex.
- We where designed.
- Serious historians consider Jesus to be historical.
- Jesus existed.
Leaving aside the truth value of these statements, the logic employed is bare in the kindest light. Why is the opinion of “serious” historians enough to suggest a certain man existed? Who are these serious historians you speak of? Are they atheists? Are they Christian? Do they have any vested interests? The argument put forth instead of the answers to those questions is one that ought to be familiar, even well worn, to a student of religion: The appeal to authority. The conclusion must be true because some authority says it is.
One might say the appeal to authority argument has a purely rhetorical value. It appears to lend credence to an argument (as authorities are such trustworthy entities). However the design argument carries even less weight. There is no appeal to authority. There is an appeal to a mysterious missing premise that might somehow link the first premise to the second. Why must complex things be designed?
Religious arguments can be made in a logical fashion. Some of the greatest philosophers made profound arguments on the subjects of God, time, ethics, even belief itself. So why do we keep running into these stunted arguments? When made, they only reinforce the view that religion itself is anathema to reason.
The world of apologetics is well known in religious circles. Attempts are made to reconcile set beliefs with the dynamic nature of logic and reality. Sometimes it feels as though the situation is becoming reversed, and proponents of reason itself are resorting to apologetics, only to find that their audience seems deaf to the light of logic.
Reason, science, reality needs no one to apologize for it. One can simply observe, analyze, and debate.
There is no need for religion to be any different. Religion doesn’t need apologists. Religion needs philosophers.
Filed under: Fundamentalism, Logic, Philosophy, Politics, Religion
[...] the justification: “Religious in nature”. So you can argue all you want, but in the end Chris is not changing his mind. His religion tells him what is [...]
Serious historians? How about Josephus, Pliny the younger? Ancient histories with Jewish histories that speak DIRECTLY of a man named Jesus? They are secular sources. research helps.
Your complex arguement is also not based on christian complexity arguements. It goes more like this….
Is an object simple or complex?
If complex does it convey information for a purpose? I.E. human DNA
Is this information relating to something outside itself?, ergo not a self analysis but a building block or a reference?
Human DNA is a building block for further life.
If so is it intelligent? DNA doesnt randomly splurt out cells, it creates a human.
If it is intelligent it required intelligent to create it.
Ergo intelligence first, ie creator, then intellegent creation.
Not the strongest and off memory, but still quite a bit more complex than your simple assumptions.
Zasz,
You just made the argument I wanted FraudWasteAbuse to make. My point was the nature of the argument. Research would have help FWA make that argument more convincingly.
Again, you are offering the missing premise.
It is not my complex argument, but rather a flat argument for design such as that offered by Chad Stroh.
While I do not like arguments from design, my point here was to criticize offering the argument flatly, without the structured logic you provided.
Religion doesn’t need people to yell “Well… Because!” whenever interesting questions and challenges crop up. Logic can, and will suffice. That is my point. It is not to say religion isn’t up to snuff, but rather, religion’s defenders are making incomplete arguments. There are full arguments to be made.
I agree and I takes a truly intelligent person to present religion logically. Honestly I can not critize blind faith, but presenting it in a argument setting is foolish. The fact is that religion isnt without logic, it is meerly a set of conclusions that fit together, just like agnostasism, materialism, or any other explination of the universe. Unfortunately many people present christianity wrongly or without valid basis. Thank you very much, i missed that you were showing he was wrong. Well thanks, and by the way this opportunity to argue has helped me alot! and I love improving my rhetoric. So thanks.
Indeed, religion in and of itself is neither logical or not. It is a set of beliefs that can be presented/tackled/contemplated with a range of methods. And sure thing! Religious philosophy has always been a particular interest, and I enjoy seeing arguments made to their fullest efficacy.
And very much likewise on the opportunity to argue!
I think that Chad Stroh guy is a genius
Heh. Touche Chad!