In my studies of religion, I keep running across a very common fallacy, the appeal to consequences. It is very widespread. Basically, this fallacy is arguing that some proposition is either true or false based on the consequences of that proposition. For example, one might argue that without a belief in God, one cannot have a belief in absolute moral values, and therefore God must exist to allow us to believe in absolute morality. Another example would be that evolution leaves no room for God, therefore it must be wrong. It is usually an emotion driven argument, primarily propped up by fear or anger, although sometimes it is simply a lack of understanding or imagination. In the case of the "existence of God" example, it was driven by a fear of having one's moral grounding undermined. In the second case, the person was simply unwilling or unable to imagine the possibility that there could be some form of theistic evolution.
I bring it up, because I just got done listening to a partial sermon by the Christian apologist, Ravi Zacharias. His entire message was based on this fallacy(although his further sub-arguments revealed a few more fallacies): I can not be an atheist because I can not live with the consequences.
Of course, such a statement has no bearing on whether Ravi's god actually exists. One way to point this out to someone using such an argument is to turn it around: I cannot be a Christian because I can not live with a god who would create Hell, for example. You can then point out that your feelings about a god who would act in such a way have no bearing on whether that god exists, a point which they would certainly agree with as a theist. But, be ready to deal with an emotional blockade whenever this argument rears up, because in my experience, it is almost always driven by pure emotion.
PS - I did find it funny that Ravi took the time to point out his respect for agnostics who have taken the time study the issue of the existence of god seriously. He is a little mixed up as to the difference between atheism and agnosticism. One is a question of knowledge(can we know that god exists?) and one is a question of belief(do I hold to a belief in god?). So, he really spent the time lauding every atheist who is not just a knee jerk non-believer. Thank you, I guess.
EDIT: I just noticed the Wiki link for this fallacy:The Appeal to Consequences
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
I'm far too slow
I hate it when I find an interesting conversation online, and realize that it took place months ago. Case in point: Jacob Stein's blog from August 24, 2007.
Jacob brings on a few tired old saws about atheism, but this one gets my goat the most:
I'm pretty mild mannered in person, but I think that this would have elicited quite a heated discussion, to say the least. I can think of many people I know personally who fit the first three criteria without a doubt. This group includes every single atheist I know personally, myself included. I strive for honesty. I treat others with respect and dignity, including giving to charities that I think are worthwhile and personally handing out food to the homeless, among other things I think elevate my character to kindness at the least. And, while I enjoy a drink of wine or a beer now and again, I am in no way a drunk. And the same goes for all of the people I mentioned!
Now, the last qualification is vague, at best. I think it is obvious that Jacob has a certain sexual morality in mind when he says "sexually responsible." He later attempts to link pornography with atheism, by linking to a "Smut for Smut" table set up by a college group, exchanging religious writings for porn. If that's his proof, it's little surprise that he is incapable of grasping the basic use of logic that underlies atheistic reasoning. I can't even say "correlation without causation" because he doesn't even get to the point of proving a correlation!
Personally, I have no problem with most pornography, nor with adults enjoying it. I don't commit adultery(outside of the Christian view that any sexual thought not centered on a spouse is adultery). I don't long for relationships outside of my marriage. So, I feel perfectly fine laying claim to being sexually responsible as well. I happen to know that the most committed atheists I know eschew even that, and actually behave more in line with Judeo-Christian sexual morality than ANY religious person I have ever known well enough to be able to say anything about their sex lives.
He goes on to ramble on about science disproving the underpinnings of atheism. Newsflash, Jacob: neither quantum mechanics or the Big Bang disprove any part of the idea that there is no God. Pick up a book other than your segment of the Bible sometime, and read all about it. You might be a bit surprised about how few physicists agree with you.
The crux of Jacob's argument is that atheistic arguments are "clearly just excuses atheists use to justify their own addictions." I would simply reply that his arguments are clearly just an excuse to justify his immature insecurities about an uncertain universe and his fear of death.
He continues to babble on in his comments, dredging up such chestnuts as this:
when science, such as the anthropic principle, proves atheists wrong, they become apologetic and come up with fanciful speculation such as multiverses to explain the contradiction.
This proves absolutely nothing of the sort, which he would know if he had read the article he linked to. I assume that he hasn't, or is perhaps too indoctrinated to see the counter arguments.
Later in the discussion, he comes out with this gem(the quote in quotation marks was a previous reply from an atheist):
"Atheism contains no specific ethos."
Exactly my point. Leaving atheists to behave like animals if no police are watching them.
Ahh, another piece of grand old stupidity. Apparently, Jacob can only behave humanely because he is worried that God will smack him down. I say this, because he is apparently unable to grasp that people can and do live moral lives without fear of hellfire and damnation, even morality on his terms. I'm sad that he is so sociopathic that he is brainwashed into believing that everyone else must be, too. Of course, given the psychotic murderer he takes as his god, he is just being true to his beliefs. If you'd like to debate that last bit, Jacob, feel free. We can run through your holy books and point out all the fun places where your god reportedly acted like a murderous bastard.
In short, Jacob, if you ever happen to read this, I think you are a stunted, bigoted little man. I'd like to see you present a logical defense of your beliefs, if you ever manage to grow a brain cell.
Jacob brings on a few tired old saws about atheism, but this one gets my goat the most:
It is apparently impossible to find a well-documented case of an atheist who was kind, honest, sober and sexually responsible.
I'm pretty mild mannered in person, but I think that this would have elicited quite a heated discussion, to say the least. I can think of many people I know personally who fit the first three criteria without a doubt. This group includes every single atheist I know personally, myself included. I strive for honesty. I treat others with respect and dignity, including giving to charities that I think are worthwhile and personally handing out food to the homeless, among other things I think elevate my character to kindness at the least. And, while I enjoy a drink of wine or a beer now and again, I am in no way a drunk. And the same goes for all of the people I mentioned!
Now, the last qualification is vague, at best. I think it is obvious that Jacob has a certain sexual morality in mind when he says "sexually responsible." He later attempts to link pornography with atheism, by linking to a "Smut for Smut" table set up by a college group, exchanging religious writings for porn. If that's his proof, it's little surprise that he is incapable of grasping the basic use of logic that underlies atheistic reasoning. I can't even say "correlation without causation" because he doesn't even get to the point of proving a correlation!
Personally, I have no problem with most pornography, nor with adults enjoying it. I don't commit adultery(outside of the Christian view that any sexual thought not centered on a spouse is adultery). I don't long for relationships outside of my marriage. So, I feel perfectly fine laying claim to being sexually responsible as well. I happen to know that the most committed atheists I know eschew even that, and actually behave more in line with Judeo-Christian sexual morality than ANY religious person I have ever known well enough to be able to say anything about their sex lives.
He goes on to ramble on about science disproving the underpinnings of atheism. Newsflash, Jacob: neither quantum mechanics or the Big Bang disprove any part of the idea that there is no God. Pick up a book other than your segment of the Bible sometime, and read all about it. You might be a bit surprised about how few physicists agree with you.
The crux of Jacob's argument is that atheistic arguments are "clearly just excuses atheists use to justify their own addictions." I would simply reply that his arguments are clearly just an excuse to justify his immature insecurities about an uncertain universe and his fear of death.
He continues to babble on in his comments, dredging up such chestnuts as this:
when science, such as the anthropic principle, proves atheists wrong, they become apologetic and come up with fanciful speculation such as multiverses to explain the contradiction.
This proves absolutely nothing of the sort, which he would know if he had read the article he linked to. I assume that he hasn't, or is perhaps too indoctrinated to see the counter arguments.
Later in the discussion, he comes out with this gem(the quote in quotation marks was a previous reply from an atheist):
"Atheism contains no specific ethos."
Exactly my point. Leaving atheists to behave like animals if no police are watching them.
Ahh, another piece of grand old stupidity. Apparently, Jacob can only behave humanely because he is worried that God will smack him down. I say this, because he is apparently unable to grasp that people can and do live moral lives without fear of hellfire and damnation, even morality on his terms. I'm sad that he is so sociopathic that he is brainwashed into believing that everyone else must be, too. Of course, given the psychotic murderer he takes as his god, he is just being true to his beliefs. If you'd like to debate that last bit, Jacob, feel free. We can run through your holy books and point out all the fun places where your god reportedly acted like a murderous bastard.
In short, Jacob, if you ever happen to read this, I think you are a stunted, bigoted little man. I'd like to see you present a logical defense of your beliefs, if you ever manage to grow a brain cell.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Prayer
I have received several emails from someone who has a sister in the hospital. The sister has been sick for several weeks now. She has been on a roller coaster of a ride, in terms of how she has responded to treatment. Every improvement, no matter how small, is seen as a sign of God answering prayers, while the declines are ignored.
It's sad. The situation is heart-breaking. It's clear to me that this is a case of a slow physical decline, with the body fighting as best it can to survive. It explains the ups and downs so much better than assuming that a god is listening, and chooses to have the woman dangle on the edge of death for no good reason.
The problem is, of course, that actually saying anything like this would be horrific to the family. Expressing such doubts would irreparably mar our relationship, perhaps to the degree of complete separation. It is my hope that she gets better, but I hold out no hope that a divine intervention will occur.
It's sad. The situation is heart-breaking. It's clear to me that this is a case of a slow physical decline, with the body fighting as best it can to survive. It explains the ups and downs so much better than assuming that a god is listening, and chooses to have the woman dangle on the edge of death for no good reason.
The problem is, of course, that actually saying anything like this would be horrific to the family. Expressing such doubts would irreparably mar our relationship, perhaps to the degree of complete separation. It is my hope that she gets better, but I hold out no hope that a divine intervention will occur.
Friday, December 28, 2007
My conversion
For a long time, I've been a faithful Christian. Even before my conversion in college, I held basic Christian ideals, and was always uncomfortable with anti-Christian art and literature.
I remained Christian until several years ago, when personal issues led me to reevaluate the basis for my beliefs. As a Christian, one of my favorite activities was Christian apologetics. I loved to argue, and it was fun to pry into someone's arguments and take them down.
My conversion began for two reasons: 1) the conversion of someone near to me to another religion and 2) the realization that I was not applying the same rigorous standards of belief to my own faith as I was to other religions.
The first forced me to look at my religion from a neutral standpoint. If I were to honestly evaluate this person's new claims, I would have to be dispassionate about it. Begging the question by assuming either viewpoint would obscure the truth.
The second came at about the same time. As I was grappling with this perceived attack on my religion, I also became aware of the fact that I let a lot of claims about Christianity slide. While I was perfectly happy to debunk Mormon claims to miracles, for example, I was unwilling to see that my on religion had its set of outlandish beliefs.
So, I set out to rebuild my faith, seeking a more mature and defensible position. And that's where it all fell apart. All of the little doubts I had about Christianity came back, and this time I couldn't just sweep them under the rug.
So, one night, after reading for yet another several hours on the Internet, I sat back, took a deep breath and admitted out loud that I no longer believed in God. It was an odd moment, full of fear, yet also in a way freeing.
I'm still in the closet about my new position. It's a painful place to be. I go to weekly services. I play the part of the Christian parent, while at the same time, I worry about the things people are teaching my children. My family are almost all strongly religious, and they will view my conversion as a direct attack upon them, no matter how I approach it. Many of my customers are Evangelical Christians, and they tend to try to avoid atheists. I am without a doubt going to lose business if I go public.
But then, how much longer can I go on? It's becoming increasingly apparent to some that something has changed in me, and this will eventually be brought out in the open, since I am not going to lie about it. In addition, my children are getting to the point of life where they begin questioning, and I am not going to lie to them. At that point, I would imagine that it will be impossible to hide.
I remained Christian until several years ago, when personal issues led me to reevaluate the basis for my beliefs. As a Christian, one of my favorite activities was Christian apologetics. I loved to argue, and it was fun to pry into someone's arguments and take them down.
My conversion began for two reasons: 1) the conversion of someone near to me to another religion and 2) the realization that I was not applying the same rigorous standards of belief to my own faith as I was to other religions.
The first forced me to look at my religion from a neutral standpoint. If I were to honestly evaluate this person's new claims, I would have to be dispassionate about it. Begging the question by assuming either viewpoint would obscure the truth.
The second came at about the same time. As I was grappling with this perceived attack on my religion, I also became aware of the fact that I let a lot of claims about Christianity slide. While I was perfectly happy to debunk Mormon claims to miracles, for example, I was unwilling to see that my on religion had its set of outlandish beliefs.
So, I set out to rebuild my faith, seeking a more mature and defensible position. And that's where it all fell apart. All of the little doubts I had about Christianity came back, and this time I couldn't just sweep them under the rug.
So, one night, after reading for yet another several hours on the Internet, I sat back, took a deep breath and admitted out loud that I no longer believed in God. It was an odd moment, full of fear, yet also in a way freeing.
I'm still in the closet about my new position. It's a painful place to be. I go to weekly services. I play the part of the Christian parent, while at the same time, I worry about the things people are teaching my children. My family are almost all strongly religious, and they will view my conversion as a direct attack upon them, no matter how I approach it. Many of my customers are Evangelical Christians, and they tend to try to avoid atheists. I am without a doubt going to lose business if I go public.
But then, how much longer can I go on? It's becoming increasingly apparent to some that something has changed in me, and this will eventually be brought out in the open, since I am not going to lie about it. In addition, my children are getting to the point of life where they begin questioning, and I am not going to lie to them. At that point, I would imagine that it will be impossible to hide.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Hello, I suppose
I opened this blog to post musing about the world as I see it. I've been going through a lot of changes in my beliefs, and I'd like to have some outlet to express them. I'm not sure this is a good idea. After all, people have a nasty habit of seeing a change in belief as a betrayal of the ideals you used to share. This usually results in broken relationships, which is sad, since both sides are denied a chance to grow at that point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)