Freedomain Radio

yes... another one of my blogs, hope you enjoy it.

Perhaps as a child you remember playing some kind of game where one kid would say something to the effect of "Well I have a magic shield and none of your bullets can hurt me" after this statement all chaos breaks loose as the other child replies "well I have an even more magic gun that can shoot through your shield" as the friend snaps back "No! nothing can shoot through my magic shield" and they go back and forth until something else catches their short attention span.  I think most of us have observed this or participated in something similar in our lives. Perhaps we enjoy looking back and having a chuckle due to our childhood ignorance.

Sadly many of us haven't gotten over this childhood phase and use this same argument in our adult lives.  It is not just used from time to time but probably by the majority of mankind! "Nonsense!" you may claim "I have yet to see it!".  Well it is not all that hard to find, all that it takes is a serious talk about religion and god and you will see how childish grown men really are.

In any strenuous debate over religion the theist is always forced to make a separation between logic and reality.  Most theists are quite comfortable with this.  If you ask them "do you believe that logic and empirical evidence do not apply to god?" most of them will agree with little concern. I have heard may theists state flatly that the scientific method does not apply to god.  But usually to get to this point in the arguments contention is already high and the response comes out quite aggressively "god is beyond logic! he created it!" or perhaps "the things of man cannot be applied to god".  Most of us atheists may roll our eyes and shake our heads to this and maybe leave it at "lets agree to disagree", but I am not so sure we truly understand what this Argument means.

When a person says that "logic does not apply to god" what they are really saying is "rationality does not apply to my arguments" In other words the only way we have of determining truth and falsehood doesn't apply to anything they believe. Well that is quite convenient how isn't it?  I will have to remember that trick next time I am in a debate "oh yeah by the way logic doesn't apply to what I believe, oh yeah and the neither does the scientific method, or empirical facts" or in other words: I win because I feel like it. Sounds a lot like the child with the magical shield now doesn't it?

The clear meaning of this "argument" is simply a desperate attempt to believe in something despite reason and evidence. The last resort of some one who is cornered by logic is to claim that it doesn't apply to his beliefs. 

The most basic principle of logic is truth vs falsehood.  To say that logic does not apply to god but in the same breath say that he exists (or that it is true that god exists) is both endorsing and denouncing logic all at once. If I were to tell you that 2+2=5 is true, but truth doesn't apply to my argument all at once, you would call me crazy. Perhaps you should use your definition of insanity consistently.

Oh man and what's worse is when the tolerance and avoidance folks come in and start saying well he's got his ideas and they've got their ideas and this guy over here has his ideas and they're all just ideas and all just as valid, let's just all drink and have fun.

So, I've got my ideas on how to tie shoes which involves a multi-step process of taking two laces, stringing them through a parallel set of holes crosswise, then at the end with plenty of lace left you can cross one over the other and loop it through, pull it tight then take one end and fold it, fold the other end and cross them over eachother, loop them around and pull tight again.

She's got her ideas on how to tie shoes as well, which involves putting the shoe on, tying the laces around her head and then kicking the shoe against the wall 10 times while chanting nursery rhymes. 

All equally valid ways to tie one's shoes... right?

yes... the two go hand in hand don't they.

well, technically Nathan, they are both valid, but only one is truly effective for your implied goal (walking around with shoes that stay on). the other one is much more effective for...well...I dont know, I've never tried it. Maybe it's good exercise? Of course, Im sure you already know this--point being, argument from effect?

Well, an idea that does not accomplish the stated goal is not a valid idea.  A theory which does not work in practice is not in fact a good theory.

I've always liked the one saying that is on t-shirts and posters and all those sorts of things.... "I used to have imaginary friends, then I grew up"

PinkMilk86:

I've always liked the one saying that is on t-shirts and posters and all those sorts of things.... "I used to have imaginary friends, then I grew up"

Or, "I used to have a drug problem, but now I can afford it."