Your Right To Say It

Well, to tell you the truth, I would have to disagree with the a couple of things in the post. (Are you surprised? ) First is the assertion that atheism is a religion. Atheism is not a religion. Religion is defined as “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.” Atheism is defined as “a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.” Atheistic thought, when yo study it, is completely based in the empirical and rational. (Take a quick intro. course to Epistemology for a full explanation and exemplification of these fields.) They are not part of a religion. They have no observances, no worship, no catechism, no Doctrine of Belief, no communion in the ecclesiastical sense with non-believers, and so on.

Second thing that I disagree with is the assertion that it takes just as much faith to believe in Evolution as it does to beleive in Special Creation. Um… no, it does not. As I’ve stated before, the proof for the fact of evolution exists by the truckloads. (Literally, in some cases!) The proof of the theory of evolution exists by the truckloads as well. Here, I’m using the term “theory” in the scientific sense, which is the same as the “Theory of Gravity”, “Theory of Special Relativity”, “Theory of Electromagnetism”, and so on. In science, a theory is a model that has been based on empirical evidence, and can consistently predict future interactions based on repeated observations. Evolution fits this category well, for it has been seen in action time and time again. All our advances in biology, medicine, pharmacology, and genetics are based on the theory of evolution! Not one whit of science that has gone on in the medical fields since Darwin has been based on the hypothesis of Special Creation.

Another thing that I have to disagree with is the assertion that “Buddhists believe in many impersonal gods.” Um, no they don’t. Pure Budhism is nothing more but a Praxis, not a religion in the proper term. They follow the Eight-Fold Path, which deals with right living. Very little of Buddhism actually deals with the supernatural or the after life, but rather show the way to think right and live right in order to free oneself from suffering. Now, there are many religions that are based on the core tenets of Buddhism that concern themselves with actual religious indoctrinations, but these are not pure Buddhist thoughts. You can see the same parallels within some Christian Sects.

Lastly, something else that I disagree with is the use of Circular Logic. This would be “The Bible is true because it states that it is true.” You are deriving your conclusion from the assertion, a logical fallacy.

Well, to tell you the truth, I think Nick is quite aware of my stance on religions right now. As I’ve said before on my blog, my mind is always open to new evidence and rationales. In fact, if you would consider yourself to be a rational person, you would have to adhere to that standard, as rationality dictates changing your theories to suit the evidence, not the other way around.

As to if Atheism should be considered a religion, you are very much wrong. I know it is in style for churches and ministers to call atheism a religion, as it helps propagate their world view, but just because your pastor said it does not make it so. When it comes to empiricism and rationality, those are not worshipped. Held in high regard, yes, but not worshipped. Just like critical thinking is the bedrock of a life well lived, and is held in high regard by others, does not mean that songs are sung about it, and general adoration in the religious sense is poured out over it. Of course, I realize that you are coming from an almost fundie point of view when it comes to misrepresenting other points of view other than your own.

As far as Evolution is concerned, I have a post on my blog entitled “Where’s the Proof?” where I challenged people to post proof of Special Creation. So far, no one has done so. Care to submit some links for discussion? The one thing that I must point out at this juncture is that there is to this date no evidence for ID. That’s right, absolutely NO EVIDENCE!! All of the “evidence” that has been touted in the Scientific Journals and even in court (Dover, PA anyone?) is nothing more but the Argument from Incredulity, a logical fallacy. In fact, Behe’s original argument is nothing but this logical fallacy writ large. Please, submit some links defining your evidence.

As far as the circular logic, yes, it is very much there. “Christians believe this, not because they made it their rule, but because Jesus Christ and the Bible, their source, state it.” Of course, this statement was begging the question, which is why you probably didn’t see the circular logic here. In order for the statement to be true, then the Bible has to be true. How do most (fundie) Christians verify that the Bible is true? Because the Bible states that is true! Circular Logic, in effect, is what is begged by the question of the statement.

When it comes to evidence, though, I would suggest that most Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and other religious groups only view the evidence that already conforms to their world view. This is the reason why most Christians usually get blind sided in debates, because they think that they are reasonably well read on a subject, only to find out that they only knew a tenth of the material that was out there on the subject. I’ve seen many debates between Christians and Atheists, specifically on the Inerrancy of the Bible, where the Christians had to walk away ashamed because the Atheist knew more about their scriptures than they did. I’ve also seen debates between “Liberal” Christians (what the fundies in the Mega-Churches are starting to call main-line protestant denominations like mine, the Lutheran Church) and the fundies on various subjects where the fundies do nothing but rant and rail about the subject matter, but do not submit any proof. Ad hominem attacks, perjoratives, and the like do not constitute proof! To explore this further, evidence can only be upheld and regarded as “genuine” when it is picked apart. If it can’t, then why build a hypothesis on it? This is the whole reason for the Scientific Journal process, so people may submit their studies to BE picked apart! If they can withstand the test, then they know that they are on solid ground and may proceed with their hypothesis/theories. By stating that you won’t submit evidence because all that will be done to it is to pick it apart is disingenuous on your part. If the evidence can’t withstand scrutiny, then neither can the opinion of the person who submitted the datum.

Oh my word, Ben, you are absolutely right! I re-read my comment that I left, and it did sound condescending, preachy, and down right arrogant. I do apologize!

I stand by the points that I made, but I am absolutely ashamed of the tone of writing that I used in order to convey them.

Okay, let me start over. In order for this argument to be true, the argument would have to prgress from a point where it is shown that a Bifurcation Error is not present. For instance, from the quote that Nick provided: “If we should say we would like to change this truth and vote in something more inclusive, here is our dilemma. We would be changing something that is not humanly changeable. It is fixed and is either completely true or completely false.” Let’s assume some things as given for the sake of the argument: that there is a God, that all parties have already agreed to the definition of God, and that God left some sort of Scripture through some yet to be defined agency. Here are the problems to be ironed out:
1> Should the interpretation of the particular passage that was quoted be only carried out in the basest, most literal sense? Or is their allegory at play?
2> The nature of Objective reality versus the metaphysical reality
3> The difference between morality, ethics, and divinely mandated laws
4> The nature of truth, or, in this case, the system of epistemology that one will employ for determining truth
5> The determination that this particular scripture is what was inspired rather than some other scripture

And the list goes on and on. The Theosophists pretty much ignore most of this with some of their mandates that they don’t bother to back up, which shouldn’t be too surprising because they study religion in the light of Hindu understanding. (Or at least that’s what I’m assuming, as their seems to be plenty of references to Hindu Scripture and Myth that I’m unfamiliar with when I’ve read some of Blavatsky’s essays.) In short, I think they are advocating a modern refinement of pan-theism. (I think that’s the term, where the belief that “God is in Everything and Everything is God.”)

Basically, I think this argument is a poor argument for the validation or falsification of any religion. There’s just too many gaps and premises that are left out of the loop.

Free will? Now aren’t you opening a can of worms!

The last time I wrote about free will, my head was splitting open, but that was for an essay assigned in my philosophy class. Too many variables to be defined, too many options to be covered, and in the end, my logical argument became an inconcise, utter mess. I still got an “A” for it, though, as everyone else in the class seemed to be asleep at the wheel when it came to utilizing the material from the 100 level logic course that was a pre-requisite for constructing logical arguments. I still think everyone should have flunked, but then again, I’m extremely hypercritical… (as if you haven’t noticed by now! )

@a2jbigdaddy

The whole assertion of more proof for Christ’s Resurrection seems to come straight from Josh McDowell. His assertion has been refuted over and over again within this arena. If you used this rationality, you could also say that there is more proof for Beowulf killing Grendel then there is proof of Napolean being defeated. It’s an empty assertion that distorts the rules of logic and evidence. In fact, it doesn’t even look at the evidence.

As far as any belief system being categorized as religious, this is dishonest semantics. I’ve already posted the definition of religion and atheism, and shown that the two are not compatible. However, it seems that certain apologists will always try to arbitrarily redefine these to suit their whims.

The posts about evolution I will leave alone until Nick posts his article. (Um, Nick, that was supposed to be a not-so-subtle hint. )

You have a point. I went ahead and typed a lot of stuff without backing it up with some basic groundwork first. I apologize.

The one thing that disturbs me is that I think I detect a little bit of subservience to others in your post when it comes to certain fields. Especially when it comes to Josh McDowell. For a little bit of background on why I said what I said about the evidence, go to The Jury Is In. This is a comprehensive set of documents that shows the errors, the fallacies, and the out-right deceptions that McDowell used in his book Evidence That Demands A Verdict. He is definitely not to be considered a luminary among apologists. Especially when there are so many other apologists that actually can formulate the reasons without resorting to the deceptions that McDowell uses.

When you read through this, you will also find why I quoted the Beowulf line. Yes, I should have taken the time to clarify where I was coming from, but this document well spell it out a lot better than I can.

As far as Gish, he is definitely not to be admired. He has been caught in so many falsehoods and cons in the past that I’m simply amazed that others still respect him. Not to mention that both he and Kent Hovind are both under investigation for tax evasion.