The desperation of christian 'logic'

[Dawkinsrocks]

Good point well made.

Also, it is naive of me to expect them to respond as they don't let fact or reason get in the way of their views.

If they can overlook the massive holes in their story they can easily overlook the views of an individual truth teller like your humble narrator.

 

[Plainspeaker]

I have read your opening post and have to say that it does some up the arguments of christians who try to use logic to defend their beliefs.

It does not address their claim to have had personal experience of god however and I would be interested in your views on that. My guess is that you will dismiss it as a form of madness but I would like to hear them anyway as you seem to be a very clear thinker

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I have read your opening post and have to say that it does some up the arguments of christians who try to use logic to defend their beliefs.

It does not address their claim to have had personal experience of god however and I would be interested in your views on that. My guess is that you will dismiss it as a form of madness but I would like to hear them anyway as you seem to be a very clear thinker

Please allow me to weigh in on this subject too. Personal experiences are just that, "personal experiences", epiphanies cannot be shared, by definition it is an internal process that perhaps you can tell someone about, but cannot truly share with them--they have to have the experience themselves.

The problem, as I see it, is when people try to apply their own experiences to the lives of others. Revelation is not a wholesale experience, it comes from God (or whatever you conceive the Force to be) to you individually, revelation as is claimed for the Bible is a contradiction in terms.

Sadly, there are a lot of people in many different religions who feel that their personal revelations can and should be forced onto others--even with violence if necessary. My own life is guided by my epiphanies or revelations from the Creative Force, but I don't require others to live by my lights because they are children of Creation no less than I and have their own relationship with God.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

Please allow me to weigh in on this subject too. Personal experiences are just that, "personal experiences", epiphanies cannot be shared, by definition it is an internal process that perhaps you can tell someone about, but cannot truly share with them--they have to have the experience themselves.

Hi there Mare! Haven't crossed paths with you in quite some time...

You are very correct in your characterization of personal experience. Although it's not an altogether personal experience in the sense of being one of a kind. Just as in any group or organization, a personal experience or situation, when shared with others who have been there takes the whole thing to a group experience.

Grief is a great example, and let's use losing a child to a drunk driver. The shared experience of the loss leads to a shared sense of community, which leads to a shared objective and/or goal.

Hence, MADD comes into existence. It grows as like-minded people come into the group, their primary purpose to support their fellow members based on their shared experience. They grow in determination towards a secondary goal - to share their experiences with those who have not had the same experience, eliciting a support system of people who do not share the experience.

These supporters do not in any way claim to share the experience itself, but respect that these people have had this experience. The physical loss of a child is tangible to anyone involved, but it is an abstract situation for those did not experience it or know the family or the child at the time of the loss.

They see the legitimacy of the experience, it's resulting grief, and the end product of the "cause" of spreading the message. So they respectfully work alongside, or at least do not interfere, with the MADD group making their voice be heard, and effecting public perception and/or laws.

Christians share a life-changing experience, to one degree or another. Because of their personal conviction to the validity of the idea that they are sinners saved by grace, and carries no cost to those who choose to receive the same, they want to share it. They know their own joy, and want others to share that.

The problem, as I see it, is when people try to apply their own experiences to the lives of others. Revelation is not a wholesale experience, it comes from God (or whatever you conceive the Force to be) to you individually, revelation as is claimed for the Bible is a contradiction in terms.

As a Christian, I cannot apply my experiences to your life, and most Christians I've ever known, from the most Fundamentalist to the most liberal would never wish to try to do so. In a sense, it is indeed a wholesale experience. It does indeed come from God, but it is also an experience he shares with any who wish it.

I'm not sure what you mean with "revelation as is claimed for the Bible is a contradiction in terms."

Sadly, there are a lot of people in many different religions who feel that their personal revelations can and should be forced onto others--even with violence if necessary. My own life is guided by my epiphanies or revelations from the Creative Force, but I don't require others to live by my lights because they are children of Creation no less than I and have their own relationship with God.

There are many religions that do feel their beliefs, or personal revelations as you put it, should be forced onto others. There have been periods throughout history where groups and causes haven risen up under the label of Christianity and done so as well. But that is totally contradictory to the tenets of Christian faith. To do so is heretical.

That does not mitigate the worthwhile desire to share the information about our "revelation", which we feel is from God, and that he desires to share with others. An old adage on this describes it as seeing someone who is going to step into traffic. Are you going to try to stop them? Yes. You are going to try to, at least. But if the person, in spite of what you have to say is determined to step out, that is ultimately their choice. That's not forcing your will on them, but on trying to dissuade them from their current path.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Hi there Mare! Haven't crossed paths with you in quite some time...

You are very correct in your characterization of personal experience. Although it's not an altogether personal experience in the sense of being one of a kind. Just as in any group or organization, a personal experience or situation, when shared with others who have been there takes the whole thing to a group experience.

Grief is a great example, and let's use losing a child to a drunk driver. The shared experience of the loss leads to a shared sense of community, which leads to a shared objective and/or goal.

Hence, MADD comes into existence. It grows as like-minded people come into the group, their primary purpose to support their fellow members based on their shared experience. They grow in determination towards a secondary goal - to share their experiences with those who have not had the same experience, eliciting a support system of people who do not share the experience.

These supporters do not in any way claim to share the experience itself, but respect that these people have had this experience. The physical loss of a child is tangible to anyone involved, but it is an abstract situation for those did not experience it or know the family or the child at the time of the loss.

I was discussing revelation as in "revelation from God". Grief can be a shared experience in some senses, but if you have never lost a child you cannot truly know what that loss feels like. Revelation from God is unique, an experience that happens inside you, no one else can feel it happening nor feel what you feel inside yourself. Others can have revelations and you can talk to them, but neither you nor they will ever be able to actually experience each other's revelation.

My comment about the Bible is that it is claimed to be "revealed" information, yet it cannot be because revelation is personal and not something that somebody tells you or writes in a book. Revelation is NEVER hearsay, if it is second hand, then it is not revelation.

They see the legitimacy of the experience, it's resulting grief, and the end product of the "cause" of spreading the message. So they respectfully work alongside, or at least do not interfere, with the MADD group making their voice be heard, and effecting public perception and/or laws.

Christians share a life-changing experience, to one degree or another. Because of their personal conviction to the validity of the idea that they are sinners saved by grace, and carries no cost to those who choose to receive the same, they want to share it. They know their own joy, and want others to share that.

As a Christian, I cannot apply my experiences to your life, and most Christians I've ever known, from the most Fundamentalist to the most liberal would never wish to try to do so. In a sense, it is indeed a wholesale experience. It does indeed come from God, but it is also an experience he shares with any who wish it.

No, revelation is not a "wholesale" experience. If it was there would be ONE
Christian church instead of more than 3000 competing churches all claiming to have God's Truth.

I'm not sure what you mean with "revelation as is claimed for the Bible is a contradiction in terms."

Somebody wrote some stuff in a book, you don't know who, you don't know when, you don't know why, there are how many different versions of the Bible now? In the Council of Nicea they voted on what was going to be accepted as God's Word in the official Scripture. Hello? Revelation is not voted upon, it is a personal message to you from God, a person to person phone call from God.

There are many religions that do feel their beliefs, or personal revelations as you put it, should be forced onto others. There have been periods throughout history where groups and causes haven risen up under the label of Christianity and done so as well. But that is totally contradictory to the tenets of Christian faith. To do so is heretical.

That does not mitigate the worthwhile desire to share the information about our "revelation", which we feel is from God, and that he desires to share with others. An old adage on this describes it as seeing someone who is going to step into traffic. Are you going to try to stop them? Yes. You are going to try to, at least. But if the person, in spite of what you have to say is determined to step out, that is ultimately their choice. That's not forcing your will on them, but on trying to dissuade them from their current path.

The danger of stepping in front of a fast-moving car is very perceptible to all, persecuting gay people, enslaving black people, subjugating women, consigning unpopular people to legal disenfranchisement based on one of the interpretations of one of the dozens of translations of an eclectic conglomeration of writings thousands of years old that they voted to call the "Word of God" is the antithesis of revelation. Sharing your good feelings with others is very different from passing laws to force others to obey your religious beliefs. There is a very thin line between proselytizing and coercion.

(This is in no sense to be considered a personal attack on you since I don't know you at all, this is a general statement about the misuse of "revelation" and the religious coercion of others.)

 

[TruthAboveAll]

I was discussing revelation as in "revelation from God". Grief can be a shared experience in some senses, but if you have never lost a child you cannot truly know what that loss feels like. Revelation from God is unique, an experience that happens inside you, no one else can feel it happening nor feel what you feel inside yourself. Others can have revelations and you can talk to them, but neither you nor they will ever be able to actually experience each other's revelation.

My comment about the Bible is that it is claimed to be "revealed" information, yet it cannot be because revelation is personal and not something that somebody tells you or writes in a book. Revelation is NEVER hearsay, if it is second hand, then it is not revelation.

The point on grief was exactly what I was saying: you cannot grasp it unless you have experienced it, yet you can to some point understand and share the grief and pain, if not the depth and intensity of it.

Revelation from God CAN be personal and unique. But it also can be corporate. Revelation from God can be direct, or secondary through an intermediary agent. Throughout the Bible there are examples of angels appearing to communicate a message from God to humans. Revealed information from intermediary sources is not to be confused with hearsay, which is our judicial definition as utilized. Revealed information can be revelation; it can also be inspiration, as when inspired by God.

"Your mother told me to tell you to come home for dinner" would be a direct revelation, or transmittal of information. "I heard your neighbor say that your mother wants you to come home for dinner" would be hearsay.

No, revelation is not a "wholesale" experience. If it was there would be ONE Christian church instead of more than 3000 competing churches all claiming to have God's Truth.

Again, I respectfully disagree. Wholesale in this context refers to a broad based, sweeping experience. It does not necessarily imply 100% results. By the Biblical definition, there is only one Christian church. The New Testament books are written to different churches based on geographic location. The seven churches in the book of Revelation is similar, detailing in concise terms the congregational distinctions.

For the most part, Christian churches are not competing. They often ascribe to doctrinal differences, but those are in the organizational structure. I am a non-denominational evangelistic church member. My neighbor is Lutheran. Another is Catholic. My good friend is Mennonite. My sister is Methodist. My daughter is Baptist. Now when we all get together for tea and crumpets, we are all Christians. We harbor none of the 'conflicts' of our denominations and are not striving to convert one another. Soul, condition, destiny and relationship are our concern. Christian churches SHOULD share the same truth (in simplest concept) - that Christ set things right with God for us because we couldn't.

Somebody wrote some stuff in a book, you don't know who, you don't know when, you don't know why, there are how many different versions of the Bible now? In the Council of Nicea they voted on what was going to be accepted as God's Word in the official Scripture. Hello? Revelation is not voted upon, it is a personal message to you from God, a person to person phone call from God.

This another area where it becomes a matter of faith. I figure that God never says "oops!", so he made sure that the critical information he wanted to convey to us, whoever was the writer of any given book within the Bible, was kept intact and conveyed. Between Greek and Hebrew there are differences, and between the official canon adopted at Nicene and what Jesus, Paul, Peter etc. referred to as the scripture God-inspired and 'profitable for teaching...', the Septuagint. Our Bible as used as standard today is different at certain points, probably due to translation differences. These differences are typically in details rather than substance. Our Bible did not ADD anything; but it certainly has a great deal left out.

The danger of stepping in front of a fast-moving car is very perceptible to all, persecuting gay people, enslaving black people, subjugating women, consigning unpopular people to legal disenfranchisement based on one of the interpretations of one of the dozens of translations of an eclectic conglomeration of writings thousands of years old that they voted to call the "Word of God" is the antithesis of revelation. Sharing your good feelings with others is very different from passing laws to force others to obey your religious beliefs. There is a very thin line between proselytizing and coercion.

(This is in no sense to be considered a personal attack on you since I don't know you at all, this is a general statement about the misuse of "revelation" and the religious coercion of others.)

I didn't take it as a personal attack, and I trust that you don't either. We have a difference in our understanding on these concepts, and it's always a pleasure to have a civil discussion.

Perceptible dangers are another area that can vary by our understanding. I had a young man on a bicycle nearly run into the side of my car today, riding boldly and foolishly. My daughter was in the car with me. She was hit by a car when she was 14, so she has a significantly different perspective on the danger he put himself in than he did.

Cultural ambiguities are not always religious-based. Canon was actually affected earlier than Nicene, by the council of Jamnia, approximately 97 A.D. These were Pharisees, who rejected the Apocrypha. This did not necessarily affect Jewish canon at that point, but as the Pharisees went on to dominate in Judaism, and as result influenced not just Jewish canon but Christian Nicene canon.

I do not see accepting Biblical writings, in general as antithesis of revelation. I DO think it is a good idea for Christians to continue to strive toward assuring Biblical accuracy as much as possible.

And I do agree that there is a fine line between proselytizing and coercion. It is a line that must be fiercely guarded. Converts by coercion are merely converts of expediency, and not of heart.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The basic difference we have is "revelation", an act of revealing or communicating divine truth. If someone tells me that my Mom wants me to come home I can only take their word for it, I don't know if it's the truth. Revelation is God speaking directly to me and I can know it to be the truth for me. No other source is like that, all other sources have to be taken at face value, you have to have "faith" that others are not lying to you by ommission or commission or through interpretation or misinterpretation.

You are willing to accept "truth" from others in a way that I am not. The still, small voice inside is the only source which I trust. I don't care what anyone else tells me, if it does not coincide with what my relationship with my Creator has told me, then I reject it.

It is the very fact that people accept revelation second or third or ten thousandth-hand that destroys its value because once you accept someone else's word about what God wants, where do you draw the line? I think that if it can be a lie, then it cannot be revelation.

What would you use as an example of corporate revelation?

 

[Plainspeaker]

God has never spoken to me nor to any of my friends which makes the number in my poll around 10 people. They are all very different people but they all share some characteristics most notably intelligence. It will not surprise you, I expect, to hear that that none of us believe in god.

The bible is clearly discredited and whilst there may well be stuff in it which is factual there is so much that is fantastic but essential to christian belief (the resurrection for example) that it does more to undermine christianity than support it.

Dawkins point about quasi-logical arguments for the existence of god is dead on accurate and that combined with the support of a discredited book only serves to make those who claim to have talks with god sound a little whacky.

 

[Hobo1]

The basic difference we have is "revelation", an act of revealing or communicating divine truth. If someone tells me that my Mom wants me to come home I can only take their word for it, I don't know if it's the truth. Revelation is God speaking directly to me and I can know it to be the truth for me. No other source is like that, all other sources have to be taken at face value, you have to have "faith" that others are not lying to you by ommission or commission or through interpretation or misinterpretation.

You are willing to accept "truth" from others in a way that I am not. The still, small voice inside is the only source which I trust. I don't care what anyone else tells me, if it does not coincide with what my relationship with my Creator has told me, then I reject it.

It is the very fact that people accept revelation second or third or ten thousandth-hand that destroys its value because once you accept someone else's word about what God wants, where do you draw the line? I think that if it can be a lie, then it cannot be revelation.

What would you use as an example of corporate revelation?

I am following your logic here.. and agree with you 100%. I also have had experiences where a "higher power" communicates with me - both in words and inner feelings. Like you, I tell very few people because none of what I experienced fits into a mold. The first thing other people want to do is classify it into some preassembled mold of an idea. I resist that because I only know the way I feel, and have no idea of your "revelation" was the same, similar or completely different. In most cases I sense others do not experience what I do. That's all I will say about that.

In a related area of this discussion, I recently read a book entitled, "Before the Dawn" in which the author analyzes a lot of recently developed genetic data to reconstruct how and when our ancestorial Homo Sapiens populated the earth and how their genes changed in response to changing circumstances.

He was able to trace the timeline when the first religious ceremonial artifacts have been discovered at archaeological sites and matched it to the time when individual tribes first started sharing genes with neighboring tribes. The conclusion he draws is that the ability for tribes to peaceably interact with one another (particularly trade) was a great benefit to humans struggling to survive. Early mankind was very much inclined towards warfare - rape, pillage, take slaves as prisoners, etc. The idea of tribes interacting without destroying each other requires a moral code, which is the essence of religion. The author argues that a predisposition or inclination toward religion must have become dominant as genes were passed on to successive generations as trade flourished and the concept of religion spread.

A interesting sidebar of this discovery is that Homo sapiens have become less inclined towards war over the ages. While each century has seen more bloodshed in absolute numbers, each century has also seen a fewer percentage of men die from battle wounds. Evidence suggests that the introduction of religion has indeed made the world more peaceful - regardless of popular belief to the contrary.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

A interesting sidebar of this discovery is that Homo sapiens have become less inclined towards war over the ages. While each century has seen more bloodshed in absolute numbers, each century has also seen a fewer percentage of men die from battle wounds. Evidence suggests that the introduction of religion has indeed made the world more peaceful - regardless of popular belief to the contrary.

I think we need to be careful and make a distiction between spirituality and religion. One does not need to have any religion to be spiritual, religion is no guarantee of goodness or anything else. In the end it often appears that religion is just a way to organize spirituality and control it, to contol people rather than to let them be all that they can be (outside of the Army, that is).

 

[Hobo1]

I agree that "spirituality" is a more accurate term. However, I am quick to defend all religions as fundamentally a force for good and morality. Within the human population you will find a small percentage of people - both religious and not - that can twist a belief system into an excuse for violence. Religious "fundamentalists" (to use the popular vernacular for those that commit acts of terror in the name of religion) may be very visible in their actions, but comprise a very small minority of any religion.

 

[dahermit]

The idea of tribes interacting without destroying each other requires a moral code, which is the essence of religion. The author argues that a predisposition or inclination toward religion must have become dominant as genes were passed on to successive generations as trade flourished and the concept of religion spread.

Or, it is pragmatisum. Trade cannot exist between waring tribes. Also, "The idea of tribes interacting without destroying each other requires a moral code, which is the essence of religion.", may be a tenent of religion, but in practice, both historical and current, does not seem to be the case.

A interesting sidebar of this discovery is that Homo sapiens have become less inclined towards war over the ages. While each century has seen more bloodshed in absolute numbers, each century has also seen a fewer percentage of men die from battle wounds. Evidence suggests that the introduction of religion has indeed made the world more peaceful - regardless of popular belief to the contrary.

Cite that "Evidence [that] suggests that the introduction of religion has indeed made the world more peaceful", please.

 

[Hobo1]

The book where I got this information is named "Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors" by Nicholas Wade. You will find supporting evidence for what I say plus a lot of very interesting data that may reshape your thinking on many subjects.

 

[dahermit]

The book where I got this information is named "Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors" by Nicholas Wade. You will find supporting evidence for what I say plus a lot of very interesting data that may reshape your thinking on many subjects.

The book where I got my information is: "The Origin of the Species", by Charles Darwin. You will find supporting evidence for what I say plus a lot of very interesting data that may reshape your thinking on many subjects. Also, you may read hundreds of documents written by biologists (scientists) that have been subject to peer review, that may reshape your thinking.

 

[Dr.Who]

Christians like to mix a bit of logic into their arguments until logic sneaks up on them and demolishes the sense of their belief system that is.

Here are their attempts at using logic when it suits them.

Argument 1.

Everything has a cause and this cannot be an infinte regress so there had to be a creator.

Now whilst I don't subscribe to this argument I can see a logic to it so I am prepared to let it go unchallenged.

The next piece of christian syllogistic reasoning is...

So therefore god.

Now I thnk that even those amongst you who are only distantly acquainted with logic can see a leap there of epic proportion.
There are a whole lot of steps missing from the 'there must be a creator' to 'so therefore god'.

(I am using 'god' here as the christians' god of the bible).

There are millions of Christians on the planet and I have no doubt that you could find some that use that logic. They would be in error when they do.

Of course your lumping together of all Christians and all christian thought based on your experience with some is equally absurd.

But let's address the things that are wrong with that argument as well as your analysis of it.

First it assumes that all things have a cause. This is generally our observation of the universe but it is not proven. So much for the empirical method and all of science which is based on it. Without assuming causation nothing can ever be proven. What are we to do? Obviously we must assume this as the first part of the sylogism but we must never forget that it is an assumption. With this assumption we can formulate all the laws of nature and adopt the scientific method and draw conclusions. What we can't do is state our conclusions are 100% firm and when talking about the fringes of human experience, like say the beginning of the universe, or the existence of God or the supernatural, then we can't even say that our conclusions are even remotely firm.

The second assumption is that there cannot be an infinite regress. Logically this is completely without support. There is no logical reason to assume that there cannot be an infinite regress. All of the best observations that we make about the universe lead us to believe that it had a beginning but those too are based on the assumption that everything has a cause. In general, I subscribe to the idea that the universe had a cause and that there is not an infinite regress, as do almost all cosmologists, but I admit there are assumptions involved there.

Now let's put that syllogism together:

If there is causation
and if there is no infinite regress
Then there had to be a creator.

We should all note that the form of a syllogism always includes the assumptions clearly stated and preceded by the word "if". In this case it would be better written if it said "then there had to be a creation."

What that creation was would have to be answered with further evidence or further syllogisms. And as long as we have admitted that empiricism is an assumption then God as creator is just as rational an explanation as any other. Unproven to many but nevertheless a rational explanation that can and should be explored.

Now for me that is not an unproven explanation since I have experienced God. For many others that is also not an unproven explanation since they have experienced God too. For those of you who have not experienced God, or are unaware of it, I cannot prove it to you but I can suggest that you stop trying to disprove what cannot be disproven as that is silly.

Argument 2

You cannot prove that god doesn't exist so therefore he does.


The first argument is bereft of many conditionals and the second is absurd.

The evidence to support these 'arguments' is a book of fairy stories.

Hmm, I am tempted to become a christian myself.

The arguments are so compelling.

While the first argument is probably something that you have seen people argue the second is not that common and more likely you have misunderstood what people were trying to say.

It is true that God's existence cannot be disproven but I personally know of no one who uses this to conclude that his existence is proven.

Again it appears that you are laying out bad arguments that can conveniently be discredited for the purpose of discrediting Christianity. It is a shame for you that discrediting one or two or three illogical Christians does nothing to discredit Christianity as a whole.

Might you be desperate?