Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
if one needs "logic fallacy", in terms of formal logic, to disprove a claim, or strengthen their stance, in matters of the real world, they don't know enough to tell others what to believe.
Regrettably, I was not taught about logical fallacies until college. That seems like a bad thing. Shouldn't young folks (high school at the latest) learn about some of the most common logical fallacies? Or would the whole American political-religious regime fall because of that?
How old were you when you first learned about common logical fallacies? Did you learn about them in school or on your own?
What does this have to do with atheism/agnosticism? Well, religion makes heavy use of bad logic to seem reasonable. Maybe more people would question religion if they were aware of the fallacious reasoning therein.
Beyond whatever readings and studies I did on my own in the course of being an intellectual-at-heart as a way-of-life (independent of any higher education pursuit), when I finally engaged in the pursuit of earning a college/university degree by my mid-20s (instead of just taking independent or continuing ed adult classes on occasion) for a BA in Psychology, one is required, as part of a broad liberal arts education, to take varied electives in the natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, et al. Well, along with my major's courses and all the other elective courses, I also took 5 courses through the university's Philosophy Department and then through the university's College of Liberal Arts (the Philosophy Dept. courses were "History of Western Phlosophy"; "Logic"; and "Philosophy of Science" . . . and then, in the university's College of Liberal Arts, everyone was required to take the two-course "Intellectual Heritage I & II" over the course of a year). So all this exposed me to formal logic and reasoning and, both through the classes and through my own readings and studies, I became familiar with the philosophical sub-discipline called epistemology (which studies the nature of knowledge: i.e., asking questions like "What does it mean to say that we know something to be true versus not knowing something to be true?" "How do we know that something is true versus partly true versus not true?" and "What criteria and standards are to be adhered to in determining claims of knowledge to be valid or less valid or not valid?", and so on).
So yes, I did get exposed to such content (in a more formal and intensive manner than through just simply engaging in personal readings and research on my own) while in pursuit of my undergraduate degree and continue, to this day (being in my 60s now per this writing), to ever work on honing my critical thinking skills and hence to hopefully avoid or minimize sucuumbing to intellectual unsoundness, intellectual laziness, or intellectual lapses or failings.
Regrettably, I was not taught about logical fallacies until college. That seems like a bad thing. Shouldn't young folks (high school at the latest) learn about some of the most common logical fallacies? Or would the whole American political-religious regime fall because of that?
How old were you when you first learned about common logical fallacies? Did you learn about them in school or on your own?
What does this have to do with atheism/agnosticism? Well, religion makes heavy use of bad logic to seem reasonable. Maybe more people would question religion if they were aware of the fallacious reasoning therein.
Your premise would have more validity if people came to religious beliefs through logic and reason. They do NOT!
Your premise would have more validity if people came to religious beliefs through logic and reason. They do NOT!
Most certainly agreed. And I truly don't say that with smugness but rather that my asserting this reflects a recognition that the myriad religious beliefs and practices that people at-large throughout the ages embrace most certainly cannot be validated by the criteria of formal logic and reasoning and by applying the so-called "standard rules of evidence" to them (as spelled out by the philosophical sub-discipline called "epistemology"). They seem to pretty much "fall to pieces" when subject to such criteria and standards (whether their adherents recognize and acknowledge this in their own minds or not).
But, apart from this expressed opinion or viewpoint on my part, I do not otherwise try to live a life of trying to take away the religious beliefs and practices of others . . . for I am open to the possibility (even if remotely) that they might be right or even partly right. And then, regardless of any degree of rightness that they do or don't possess, the fact is that I don't own their souls or brains and am not trying to own their souls or brains. I aim to respect their individual sanctity to subscribe to that which gives meaning and purpose to their respective lives. I acknowledge to myself and to others that I am not the source and/or possessor of absolute knowledge and hence I have no justification for being so imperialistic with my fellow humans who are otherwise of good heart and behavior apart from their subscribed-to religious beliefs and practices.
But, apart from this expressed opinion or viewpoint on my part, I do not otherwise try to live a life of trying to take away the religious beliefs and practices of others . . . for I am open to the possibility (even if remotely) that they might be right or even partly right. And then, regardless of any degree of rightness that they do or don't possess, the fact is that I don't own their souls or brains and am not trying to own their souls or brains. I aim to respect their individual sanctity to subscribe to that which gives meaning and purpose to their respective lives. I acknowledge to myself and to others that I am not the source and/or possessor of absolute knowledge and hence I have no justification for being so imperialistic with my fellow humans who are otherwise of good heart and behavior apart from their subscribed-to religious beliefs and practices.
I agree at least in principle with this sentiment but find that this often individually innocuous religious faith tends to become systemically toxic at the societal level, all too often. As someone else mentioned in a thread this morning, many of the white nationalist / otherizing / xenophobic / racist / authoritarian / controlling attitudes being advanced and normalized in the US in the past couple of years are rooted in religious ideas, and/or in the fears that come out of those ideas, and/or in a desire for the religious to retain political power and influence that they rightly see to be slipping from their grasp. While sociologists tell us that conservative brains are wired differently, such that it's hard to tell how much religion simply supports and informs conservatism or whether the inverse is true ... I am not so sanguine as you about the harmlessness of religious faith as a substitute for sound epistemology.
In fact it's fair to say that if I truly thought religious faith was totally harmless or even mostly harmless, I doubt I'd even be here engaging with people about it to anything like the degree I am.
Most certainly agreed. And I truly don't say that with smugness but rather that my asserting this reflects a recognition that the myriad religious beliefs and practices that people at-large throughout the ages embrace most certainly cannot be validated by the criteria of formal logic and reasoning and by applying the so-called "standard rules of evidence" to them (as spelled out by the philosophical sub-discipline called "epistemology"). They seem to pretty much "fall to pieces" when subject to such criteria and standards (whether their adherents recognize and acknowledge this in their own minds or not).
But, apart from this expressed opinion or viewpoint on my part, I do not otherwise try to live a life of trying to take away the religious beliefs and practices of others . . . for I am open to the possibility (even if remotely) that they might be right or even partly right. And then, regardless of any degree of rightness that they do or don't possess, the fact is that I don't own their souls or brains and am not trying to own their souls or brains. I aim to respect their individual sanctity to subscribe to that which gives meaning and purpose to their respective lives. I acknowledge to myself and to others that I am not the source and/or possessor of absolute knowledge and hence I have no justification for being so imperialistic with my fellow humans who are otherwise of good heart and behavior apart from their subscribed-to religious beliefs and practices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
I agree at least in principle with this sentiment but find that this often individually innocuous religious faith tends to become systemically toxic at the societal level, all too often. As someone else mentioned in a thread this morning, many of the white nationalist / otherizing / xenophobic / racist / authoritarian / controlling attitudes being advanced and normalized in the US in the past couple of years are rooted in religious ideas, and/or in the fears that come out of those ideas, and/or in a desire for the religious to retain political power and influence that they rightly see to be slipping from their grasp. While sociologists tell us that conservative brains are wired differently, such that it's hard to tell how much religion simply supports and informs conservatism or whether the inverse is true ... I am not so sanguine as you about the harmlessness of religious faith as a substitute for sound epistemology.
In fact it's fair to say that if I truly thought religious faith was totally harmless or even mostly harmless, I doubt I'd even be here engaging with people about it to anything like the degree I am.
Well, the points you made in your response to my own posting was meant by myself to be implicitly underlie what I said. That is. as long as others' subscriptions to their particular religious beliefs and practices can TRULY be characterized as "doing no real or measurable harm to other individuals or to society-at-large" but rather are just personally-held practices which are not used by them to manifest wrongdoing in whatever varied ways I deem that that "wrongdoing" can be manifested. Like (for instance), as far as I can discern (or think that I can discern), the religious outlooks that Miss Blue (C-D Moderator) or LovesMountains (an at-times C-D poster) indiviiduallly subscribe to (as expressed by them) appear to be harmless and innocuous in their impact on the rest of the lot of humanity and on the planet. Whereas, in contrast, the "white nationalist / otherizing / xenophobic / racist / authoritarian" elements that you alluded to are a different story . . . as also are those who do not appear at face value to be violence- or hate-prromoting per se (as far as I can tell) such as varied fundamentalist-types of various differnt religions but who DO, in fact, feel that it is their innate right and duty to transform our nation or even the world-at-large into their vision of an authoritarian top-down theocracy (which includes varied particular posters in the C-D Religion Forum). I wouldn't characterize either the white nationalist / otherizing / xenophobic / racist / authoritarian elements that you alluded to or the hard-core fundamentalists that I alluded to as "doing no harm".
In summary, I do not think that all religious faith is "totally harmless" nor even necessarily beneficial . . . but, if someone's subscriptions to their views are just something they personally use to help them cope with and make sense of this one and only life that they are given to live out and they can't be shown to engage in fomenting "measurable harm or wrongdoing", then it is not my place to assert authority over them and own or micromanage them. Of course, they are expected to show full deference as well to my own prerogative to live my own life as I deem fit (as long as I cannot be shown to engage in fomenting "measurable harm or wrongdoing" by my own choices and practices) and hence they should not aim to tread on me either.
So why do you constantly try to use logic and reason to argue in favor of your religious beliefs?
Because they don't understand logic or reason. To them, something is logical and reasonable if it agrees with what they already believe and think. It has nothing to do with the relation of those beliefs or thoughts to substantiated facts or logical arguments.
Because they don't understand logic or reason. To them, something is logical and reasonable if it agrees with what they already believe and think. It has nothing to do with the relation of those beliefs or thoughts to substantiated facts or logical arguments.
Your premise would have more validity if people came to religious beliefs through logic and reason. They do NOT!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freak80
So why do you constantly try to use logic and reason to argue in favor of your religious beliefs?
I don't have any "religious" beliefs, so I don't. I have logical and scientific reasons for my belief in God that I supplement with reference to the "spiritual fossil record" to communicate them to the religious among us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
Because they don't understand logic or reason. To them, something is logical and reasonable if it agrees with what they already believe and think. It has nothing to do with the relation of those beliefs or thoughts to substantiated facts or logical arguments.
There may be some truth in what you say about the religious theists, but I taught courses in logic and scientific methods, mordant, so your brush is a little broad.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
