All you theists out there, take heed - your beliefs are irrational. I know, it's shocking. I mean, there are so many of you out there that think that you believe for perfectly good reasons, like how you think you've experienced god or how you think we can't exist without god and that you think you've logically gotten to this position. You say, "Hey, there's all these apologists out there telling me my faith is rational, there's philosophers, there's theologians, and they all say the same thing." Well, sorry to have to tell you this, but you can't get to god belief through logical or rational means.
All god belief comes from a breakdown in logic. If you arrive at god belief because of an anthropic argument, then you are guilty of begging the question and god of the gaps thinking. If you arrived through experience, then you are guilty of begging the question and special pleading. There is no logical path that leads to god belief.
Now, of course I fully expect someone to chime in with a cliched, "Well, that's YOUR opinion and only an opinion so I can simply ignore it," but I wonder if anyone who comes to make that statement can present a logical argument for god. So, how about it? Anyone got one?
12 comments:
I'd be happy to consider this with you, if you like. First, though, I'd need to see your argument reproduced in its formal, logical structure in order to evaluate it.
I'm not going to reduce it to a formal, logical structure, because I'm not sure that's possible. Presented with an argument for theism, however, there is always some place where the logic will break down into fallacy.
I will say this, though. Positing god in the first place is begging the question and/or god of the gaps. Anytime we don't know something and we attribute it to god, it's god of the gaps. It's also erroneous because what reason do we have to invent some entity that may or may not exist in order to avoid having to say, "I don't know?" If we don't know, we don't know. Invoking god neither explains the phenomenon in question nor makes sense. And, yes, I'm saying that the god hypothesis (not really a hypothesis) offers no actual explanations.
No worries, then, my friend. But I trust you will release me from evaluating your argument if you will not present it formally.
It's not meant to be a formal argument, but that doesn't mean that it's not to be taken seriously. All theistic thought is irrational. Period.
If I were going to take a stab, I would do something along these lines:
1. Theistic thought posits that some entity exists that has supernatural abilities, powers, existence, etc.
2. There is no evidence for this entity.
3. There is no indicator in this world that leads to this entity.
4. This entity was made up by people struggling to understand the world and fill in the gaps in their knowledge.
5. All theistic thought is hampered by this god of the gaps reasoning and therefore logical flawed.
Or something like that. Note that the difficulty isn't in showing that any theism is logically flawed, it's in showing that all are, because there are so many different theological ideas. Show me two theists - even two from the same church - and I'll tell you that they have two different conceptions of god.
"Show me two theists - even two from the same church - and I'll tell you that they have two different conceptions of god."
How right you are, and how frustrating it is :) I would go even further and say even two from the same pew!
It's OK by me, though to limit the claim to standard, Christian Omni-max conceptions, though. That way you can limit the burden of proof your bearing.
In fairness, however, I am not going to criticize your argument, because, like you said, it's only a "stab". If you want to tighten it up some, we can go forward.
But I would note in passing that there's a real distinction between "logically flawed" and "irrational". They're really two different questions/claims.
"But I would note in passing that there's a real distinction between "logically flawed" and "irrational". They're really two different questions/claims."
Holding onto an argument that is logically flawed is irrational.
Sure, if it's an extended logical, argument with clearly refuted premises, or interior flawed logical connections:
Socrates is a man
all men are pigs
therfore, Socrates is a pig.
I had in mind the distinction between epistemic rationality and logically flawed. It's possible to be rational while believing something untrue, and so much confusion arises on blogs because of this, IMO.
BTW-I have to ask. Am I arguing with you anonymously elsewhere? I don't think so, the voice is different, but....
Quixote,
"Socrates is a pig."
Some people did think that.
"I had in mind the distinction between epistemic rationality and logically flawed. It's possible to be rational while believing something untrue, and so much confusion arises on blogs because of this, IMO."
Yes, one can be rational and believe something untrue. For instance, if god really does exist, that case would hold for me. Believing something that is logically flawed, however, is something different.
"BTW-I have to ask. Am I arguing with you anonymously elsewhere?"
Yes, you are. I actually used to sign my name there, but got tired of it since I was the only one commenting. I understand that you got frustrated with me as I did with you, and we both lashed out. As I said before, it's water under the bridge, and I don't think badly of you, as I hope you don't of me. I do stand by my criticisms of Karla, however, as I believe that she is a liar and only interested in evangelizing, not her stated purpose of answering questions. She also has the nasty habit of ignoring contrary arguments and simply restating herself as if it somehow adds extra weight to her first statement, even when objections to her first statement are obvious and evident.
"As I said before, it's water under the bridge, and I don't think badly of you, as I hope you don't of me."
I don't think badly of you in the least, my friend. We seemed to have gotten off to a bad start at DA intially, but quickly resolved our differences. I harbor no ill feelings toward you at all.
Like I've said in the past, I admire guys who respect the rules of logic as much as you do, and I admire guys who are passionate in their convictions. You are both. You rarely meet folk like that.
Actually, right now I'm grinning--it's kinda funny if you think about it :) Let me apologize once more, though, for harassing you over there. When you get to the bottom of it, it's my fault for instigating it.
I've got real thick skin, so no worries. I sense you do as well, especially after you accepted my blindside joke so graciously at DA.
Too funny. I just told my wife the story, and we're bustin' out over it. And, BTW, neither of us need any practice at this, so if it ever happens again at another site, just clue me in and I'll leave it be--though I should have come around quicker with the "I'd expect better from you, Quixote" comment.
Til next time :)
"When you get to the bottom of it, it's my fault for instigating it."
I'm not assigning blame. You were simply doing what you thought was right, which was to defend Karla.
"I've got real thick skin, so no worries. I sense you do as well, especially after you accepted my blindside joke so graciously at DA."
Actually, I've heard similar versions of the same joke before. It was pretty funny though.
Can one have belief in something if one has empirical evidence of its existence? Can I really and truely believe in the existence of my toaster when it is on the counter in front of me?
"Can one have belief in something if one has empirical evidence of its existence? Can I really and truely believe in the existence of my toaster when it is on the counter in front of me?"
Yes. Sometimes we have enough evidence in order to claim knowledge. That knowledge is itself provisional.
Post a Comment