Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
>> Or, as one fictional character phrased it:
> 
>> You can't use logic on religious people, if you could, there wouldn't be 
>> any religious people. -Dr. Gregory House
> 
>   I think that's a prime example of flawed atheist thinking. It strongly
> makes the assumption that:
> 
> 1) All religious people who believe in God are unable to think rationally
>    and logically.

No. They are unable to support their religious believes logically. That 
has been my experience. It's also pretty much the definition of faith. 
Most people of faith that I've met are unable to think rationally and 
logically *about their faith*. Note I said most - a fair number can 
manage it, but when pressed, fall back to the same arguments in support 
that I've already found unconvincing to me.

> 2) No rational person who things logically and scientifically can seriously
>    believe in God.

Of course he can. Whether you believe in science and whether you believe 
in God are orthogonal. Many scientists are rather devout. It's *because* 
religion is illogical that this is possible.

> 3) Any logical-sounding statement defending religion made by a religious
>    person must be flawed. It's not possible to approach religion in any
>    logical and rational way. Religion always equals irrationality and
>    illogical thinking.

I don't think that's the case, no. Religion usually is illogical and 
unscientific, but to the extent that there's evidence, I think it's no 
longer faith. I.e., if you could logically convince someone of religion, 
I'm not sure it would be religion any more. When people got convinced 
that Thor wasn't real, it wasn't replaced with a different religion.

I'm pretty sure many atheists have read DeCartes, too.

>   Usually atheist thinking also has strong prejudices, like:
> 
> 4) Any religious person telling something in defense of religion in a
>    calm and rational way is trying to convince me that God exists and
>    that his religion is the truth, and thus I must fight against him
>    with counterargumentation.

Well, it's not so much prejudice as stereotype, methinks. I don't think 
you're trying to convince me to be religious. You seem to think I'm 
attacking you, or insulting you, by denying that I'm convinced.

>   It seems impossible for some people to grasp the concept of a completely
> normal, intelligent and rational person, perhaps one with a degree in a
> scientific area of expertise, talking about something like religion in a
> more or less philosophical way, without trying to "convert" anyone to his
> religion. "He is defending his own religion" always equals "he is trying
> to convert me into his religion, I must fight back".

I'd like to. Usually, tho, when one gets to the hard questions, the 
other side fall back on "you only disagree because you don't understand."

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message