I love this.

Okay. The Bible is infallible. The Bible is the word of God. God is infallible. If God is infallible, so is everything that he creates. If that's so, why was He surprised when something of his creation - Adam and Eve - committed "original sin", disobeyed him and were cast out of the Garden of Eden?

He's God! He's omnipotent and omnicient! Didn't He know that would happen? Does God say, "Nuh-uh! I MEANT that!"

Dammit, shouldn't have designed in that FREE WILL thing.

In Neil's defense, he would not say that God was surprised at this. The argument would flow along the line that we have free will. Because we have free will, we can make mistakes, we can "turn" from God and if we don't correct our course - as punishment I guess - we will be doomed to eternal damnation.

It's an evil game God plays...

It reminds me of that scene in 300 (the movie) when King Leonidas meets Xerxes. Xerxes, a self proclaimed god, says "I will grant you power and wealth beyond your wildest dreams. Your enemies will kneel at your feet, if you will but kneel at mine."

I hate it when fear is used as a motivational technique.

Mark, I'm not big on the fire-and-brimstone stuff either.

What gets me is, how do you know which "originals" are "inspired, and which are not? Why, based on how closely they relate to "Sound Doctrine", of course...and how do we know what "Sound Doctrine is?" Why, it is based on the Bible of course.

And of course it is infallible, because if you choose which documents are "the Bible" and which transations are "correct" according to how well they support "Sound Doctrine, of course the scripture will "infallibly" support sound doctrine...except where it doesn't but then you just have to accept the contradictions and nonsesnical parts on faith. Once you do that, it all makes perfect sense, you understand that it is perfectly "logical".

uh huh.

Somehow, it seems that if you can accept contradictions and nonsense on "faith" that ANYTHING would seem perfectly logical...EXCEPT for logic.

Hence, Dembski's assertion that Intelligent Design need not nail itself down to something as piddly as explaining how their "theory" actually works, or how they expect it to produce results. Typical magical thinking.

Geez! After reading that third paragraph for the third time, I feel like a dog chasing my tail trying to make sense of it. That's how they get people, I suppose. Confuse them with a few logical statements and lots of illogical ones...

Yes, it's interesting how very logical thinkers loose all sense of logic when it comes to religion. I don't get it.

"Yes, it's interesting how very logical thinkers loose all sense of logic when it comes to religion. I don't get it."

It's because they *aren't* logical thinkers. If they were, they wouldn't ignore reality in favor of ideology. The ability to present a viewpoint in an articulate manner is not, in and of itself, logic, nor does it necessarily indicate that the person articulating said viewpoint has the capacity or willingness to use logic.

Sorry Rick. You are soooo wrong.

Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, and many more prominent scientists and mathematicians believed in God. If they aren't logical thinkers, then logic is an impossibility.

"Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, and many more prominent scientists and mathematicians believed in God. If they aren't logical thinkers, then logic is an impossibility."

And the relevance of that to people like Neil is... what, exactly? I did not say that Neil or anyone else are not logical thinkers because of a belief in a god, I said that logical thinkers don't favor ideology over reality. Don't accuse me of something I didn't say, Mark. It makes you look like a buffoon.

I would further point out that the rhetorical stretch you made with that strawman characterization of my position is itself illogical.

Don't be an ass, Rick.

Are you saying that a belief in God is not ideology?

Many people, like Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, and Newton all favored ideology (i.e. had a belief in a supreme being), yet had a profound ablility to apply logic!

Rick

Let me repeat that sentence so that you clearly understand.

"Yes, it's interesting how very logical thinkers (i.e. Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, and Newton) loose all sense of logic when it comes to religion. I don't get it."

These people didn't *merely* have an ability to present a viewpoint in a logical manner. They created entire theories, tested them, refined them, and tested them again, then presented them to others for scrutiny. These were very logical people, yet they threw logic out the window every Sunday morning on the way to church.

Geez! Some people just can't admit when they're wrong.

Mark. It's clear that you don't understand what is being discussed here. I will help you.

The title of the entry that this comment thread follows is "Inerrant, Infallible and Inspired". In it, Teresa links to another blog whose author articulates a position that requires both willful illogic and a measure of dishonesty to cleave to. Her own commentary notes that fact in a colorful and conversational manner. Comments ensue. In those comments you express incredulity that people whom otherwise seem logical to you are illogical with regard to religion. My response to your comment follows from your description; i.e., people who abandon logic in favor of an ideology (in this case a religious ideology) were not logical thinkers in the first place.

You then proceed to conflate the terms "religion", "ideology" and "belief in God" in your responses to me, despite the fact they are not the same things. Here's an exercise in logic to your question above - No. A "belief in God" is most emphatically not an ideology. It can be a basis or justification for one, but is not one in and of itself... and many people have a "belief in God" without an ideology that specifically derives from said belief, or for that matter without having any particular religion or religious beliefs beyond vague fuzzy feelings. Pick up a text on logic and look up the terms "necessary condition" and "sufficient condition" and note how they are different.

As nearly as I can determine from your writing, you must have been assuming that my comment followed from the label ("religion") rather than the description of behavior. This was an illogical assumption to make, as there was nothing in the text to indicate that I was doing so.

To reiterate, having "a belief in a supreme being" is not logically equivalent to "favoring ideology". Not even close. One could use such a belief to justify an ideology, but mere belief does not an ideology make.

Have I explained this well enough?

What is being discussed is your take on a statement I made, that is what's clear. In particular:

Me: "Yes, it's interesting how very logical thinkers loose all sense of logic when it comes to religion. I don't get it."

You: "It's because they *aren't* logical thinkers. If they were, they wouldn't ignore reality in favor of ideology. The ability to present a viewpoint in an articulate manner is not, in and of itself, logic, nor does it necessarily indicate that the person articulating said viewpoint has the capacity or willingness to use logic."

You are quite correct when you said I misunderstood what ideology meant.

Ideology:
1: visionary theorizing
2 a: a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture b: a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture c: the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program.

Ooops! My bad. It would appear, though, that one would *not* have to abandon reality to accept an ideology. I mean, these scientists were certainly visionary, and they certainly had a systematic body of concepts about human life and/or culture (umm - RELIGION!).

So, it would appear that you are attempting, in a very smug fashion, to blow smoke up my wazoo. Wouldn't you agree?

What do you do for a living? Are you a college professor or something along those lines? They bore me, too.

a. The fact that one has the capacity to apply (even a well developed one) logic does not mean they apply it in all cases.
b. The fact that one believes in God does not imply one believes the Bible is infallible. there is no reason to believe Cop. Gal. etc threw logic out the window when they went to church. Moreover, there are other pressing concerns in competition; they would have been tortured and burned or lost all social support had they said they didn't believe.

Kristi,
love your line of reasoning! Why does God create beings he will get to send to Hell? I know one answer is God wants us to love him, and true love can only come from free will, and Hell is just punishment for not loving God, but doesn't that just sound petty? worse, God, as the creator of all, created hell (don't give me that Satan BS. God knowingly created Satan so God knowingly created Hell). Why not just die out for not loving God instead of eternal torture? Why does God need such a big stick? Is heaven not really that great? One would only want it if the alternative was MUCH worse?? I'm gonna get a third glass of wine. WHEEEEEEE!!!!

"So, it would appear that you are attempting, in a very smug fashion, to blow smoke up my wazoo. Wouldn't you agree?"

No. I am not. And, no, I would not. The smugness and smoke in this conversation is not being expressed by me.

"Let me repeat that sentence so that you clearly understand.

"Yes, it's interesting how very logical thinkers (i.e. Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, and Newton) loose all sense of logic when it comes to religion. I don't get it." "

It's worth pointing out that the quote above is a combination of two sentences rather than a single one. You initially did not reference these men; doing so later changes the context rather significantly, and makes a discussion of the history of science and logical thought a relevant and worthwhile one to have - a brief comment on them would be to say that what we would recognize as modern science was barely in its infancy centuries ago, the religious involvements of each of these men varied widely and for different reasons and arguably had at least as much to do with the context and limitations of their cultures as with each man's personal convictions, and Newton, though undeniably smart, was a jackass and kind of a nutcase and is arguably rather overrated. A longer discussion would require digging out books by and about each man, and I expect that would get tiresome, though the statement below is revealing and noteworthy -

"It would appear, though, that one would *not* have to abandon reality to accept an ideology. I mean, these scientists were certainly visionary, and they certainly had a systematic body of concepts about human life and/or culture (umm - RELIGION!)."

We have an evidentiary and conceptual foundation today that makes it easier to stand apart from religion that it was in centuries past. The men you list above didn't have it, not in its entirety... *because they were busy building it.* Scoffing at them for whatever religious affiliation they had in their day makes as much sense as mocking Robert Goddard for not having launched a Mars expedition in the 1920's. Logic is the very opposite of intuition, and the scientific method runs counter to the subjective and associative ways that practically everyone lives their daily lives - and both of these things take a certain amount of practice and *commitment* to effectively wield. Falling back on apologetics when confronted with something that runs counter to intuition and subjectivity is much easier than working it out through logic and facing up to the evidence - and retreating to snide condescension is easier still, as your behavior in this thread amply demonstrates.

Now look back at the quote immediately above. And then look back at my first comment on this thread. Read them both. Notice anything?

"It would appear, though, that one would *not* have to abandon reality to accept an ideology."

I didn't say otherwise. What I said - and kept restating - was that someone who favored an ideology OVER reality was not a logical thinker; i.e, a logical thinker will abandon or at least question whatever ideology they hold when they find it to be in conflict with reality. Notice how that's different? Neil, for example (since this all started with him), is either not a logical thinker or goes to great lengths to appear not to be. He has demonstrated so both here and at his own blog on numerous occasions. He is an ideologue. A very smart and articulate one, to be sure, and I addressed the relevance of that in my very first comment on this thread.

"What do you do for a living? Are you a college professor or something along those lines? They bore me, too."

I am not a college professor, as I suspect you know, though the accusation does not offend me. I am merely someone with an IQ higher than room temperature and a reasonable grasp of logic and language, which is the minimum necessary to argue a point. And your boredom is not my concern.

Mark,

Perhaps you could enlighten us with some stories of how they ignored reality in favor of ideology.

Seriously, I don't understand how it is possible to misunderstand the statement "favor ideology over reality"

People who persist in an ideology, despite the proofs of reality that contradict their ideology CANNOT be said to be logical.

now, believeing something that is not supported by reality (yet also not contradicted by it) would not preclude people from being logical in other circumstances.

How is this complicated?

When Copernicus et. al. encoutered physical reality in conflict with their ideology, they abandoned or modified their ideology to accomidate the new information...thus preferring reality over ideology.

Hence, they are not an example of logical people acting illogically per Rick's statement.

unbelieveable.

Everyone stop, take a deep breath, and have another drink, penguin. I know I will.

Teresa, oh Teresa. I expected more from you.

I never said ANYONE ignored or abandoned reality in favor of ideology. In fact, I said quite the opposite. All I said was that there are some very logical people that abandoned their logic when it came to religion. How is THAT so complicated? Rick said that my statement wasn't quite right becasue they aren't logical thinkers. I just tried to pick a few names that anyone would recognize as an example.

I don't know about you, but I run into people all the time that obviously have a high capacity for logical thought. They apply it everyday of their lives. Except for Sundays when they go to church and throw logic out the window. Don't try to tell me that you and Rick don't understand what I'm saying.

If you need specific names of people in this situation CURRENTLY, I'll try to come up with a few:
Alan Sheppard - Astronaut
George Lemaitre - Roman Catholic Priest! He proposed the big bang theory!
William Phillips - 1997 Nobel Prize (physics) winner.
Fancis Collins - Directory of the US Human Genome project.

These are all logical thinkers, you cannot deny that fact, yet they hold strong beliefs in religion.

I'll take that drink now.

Rick
Some of your arguments:

"It's worth pointing out that the quote above is a combination of two sentences rather than a single one." Oooh! Got me, there. Why do you feel it necessary to pick on insignificant points?

"You initially did not reference these men; doing so later changes the context rather significantly..." No, it doesn't. That is exactly what I meant the first time. I merely had to add some names so you would get the point. Insert any name, from any time in history, as long as they are clearly very logical people and believe in a supreme being. The meaning doesn't change at all. The fact that you want to insert historical context into any names that appear is your problem, not mine.

"Falling back on apologetics when confronted with something that runs counter to intuition and subjectivity is much easier than working it out through logic and facing up to the evidence - and retreating to snide condescension is easier still, as your behavior in this thread amply demonstrates." Read the thread, Rick. Who began the snide condescension? In fact, all it took was for me to say you were wrong. I only returned fire after attacked.

"I am merely someone with an IQ higher than room temperature and a reasonable grasp of logic and language, which is the minimum necessary to argue a point." I can believe that, though it is obvious to me that you have been educated beyond your intelligence.

"I didn't say otherwise. What I said - and kept restating - was that someone who favored an ideology OVER reality was not a logical thinker." Wrong again, Rick! Your original statement was that these people "ignore[d] reality in favor of ideology." hmmm. Ignored. Abandoned. Sorry, Rick, but in this context, they carry the same meaning. They both reflect a knowledge of reality and a decision not to use it. Uh-oh. I said he was wrong again. Does this mean another direct attack is imminent?

Gosh this is fun. You get to be sly and sideways with your insults. I would try that, too, but like you said, retreating to snide condescension (like you aren't) is easier.

Speaking of sideways, this thread has been turned completely on it's ear because you cannot imagine yourself being wrong. Look, we generally agree with each other. However, I have a real problem with personalities like yours. People like you "talk down" to everyone else and then act incredulous when called on it.

Mark,

"I never said ANYONE ignored or abandoned reality in favor of ideology. In fact, I said quite the opposite. All I said was that there are some very logical people that abandoned their logic when it came to religion."

Um. you did. When you claimed that they disproved Rick's assertion that people who abandond reality in favor of ideology were incapable of logic.

You used them as examples that disproved his claim. So I am simply asking. How do these people disprove his claim that people who choose ideology over reality are illogical?"

It is very simple. if you introduce someone as an example that disproves a rule, you are claiming that they disprove the rule. I am simply asking you HOW these people disprove the rule.

And you react by saying you expected better of me? Are you for real?

Teresa

I just explained my position to you in very clear terms. I will try - again - to explain it.

Are you trying to tell me that Allen Sheppard is incapable of logic? If that is the case, then how did he get through the training required to become an astronaut? Not having been through the training myself - duh - I can only assume that a great deal of logical thought must be applied to succeed in that position. It's a very safe assumption. I'm sure that very high levels of mathematics and physics were involved. To understand these topics at the level he must have, logical thought is a definite requirement.

Are you trying to tell me that George Lemaitre is incapable of logic? If that is the case, then how did he manage putting all those "2+2s" together to propose the Big Bang theory? Again, massive quantities of mathematics and physics with a large dose of visionary thinking must have been involved in its development.

Are you trying to tell me that William Phillips is incapable of logic? You cannot understand physics at the level he does if you are devoid of logical thought.

Are you trying to tell me that Fancis Collins is incapable of logic? Then how do you explain his immense understanding of Human DNA? Surely a high level of logical thought must be involved in gaining an in depth understanding of such a highly complex structure.

Obviously, all these people are very logical thinkers. They didn't just memorize a set of facts to pass a test. Yet, everyone of them attends church and are religious. Thus, they don't apply their obviously high capacity for logic when it comes to their religious ideology. Either that or they understand much more than we think...

So as you say, it is very simple, I have introduced examples that disprove a "rule" - Rick's assertion that people who abandon reality in favor of ideology are incapable of logic - and now I have explained HOW these people disprove it.

Why do I have to go to such great lengths to explain this position to you? Are YOU for real? Yes, I absolutely expected better...

There is a small penguin running around that nailed the point earlier. Even a penguin understands that very logical people don't apply said logic in all cases.

Sorry small penguin, I didn't mean to ignore you.

Mark,

Sigh. Same problem, different list of people.

Logical people do not apply logic in all cases. Rick himself has said as much.

None of the people you listed has, as far as I know, ever come up against a situation where their logic contradicted their religious belifes (since you insist on conflating religion with ideology) and chose their logic over their ideology.

The religious beliefs that they maintain are compatable with their logic. Those that were not are abandoned.

Therefore, they do not meet the conditions of Rick's statement. Try again.

LOL! What part of "incapable" did you mean?

Geez! Why are you bringing up the "conflating religion with ideology" BS again. If religion is not "a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture" then nothing in this world could possibly match your contorted definition.

Reguarding what Rick said, you must mean this: "...a logical thinker will abandon or at least question whatever ideology they hold when they find it to be in conflict with reality."

Well that's my whole point!! These people on my list do not find their religious beliefs to be in conflict with reality!!! Well why not? They are obviously logical thinkers.

You aren't seeing the forsest because all the trees are in the way!

Mark,

I may have figured out the disconnect here.

Rick is making a distinction between those who belive things that are not proven by logic...and those who belive things that are disproven by logic.

People who belive things that are unproven by logic...but abandon those beliefs when confronted by tangable disproof are, according to the test Rick provided, logical. Even though they believe things that are unproven, they do not persist in beliefs that are disproven.

You then provide, as proof that he is wrong, people who actually prove he is right.

The people that Rick said are "incapable of logic" are the people who continue to in beliefs that have been disproven. This is true. No matter how logical your argument, if you proceed from assumptions that are proven to be false, you are incapable of logic on that foundation.

If you teach and school and discipline yourself to always choose your ideology over reason, demonstrated fact, and logic, then you have made yourself incapable of logic. You may be able to ape the forms of logic (apologetics, polemics, strctured argument) but you have gutted logic when you insist on false premises. The ability to ignore the illogic in your position is a skill demonstrated in Neil's post.

Both sets of examples you provided are full of people who conform to Rick's rule, rather than disproving it. They hold belifs that are not proven by logic, but at clearly not incapable of logic, because they do not chose ideology over fact.

I don't know how you continue to miss this crucial point.

Sigh

This is the whole basis for Rick's argument: "It's because they *aren't* logical thinkers. If they were, they wouldn't ignore reality in favor of ideology."

Since we're talking about religion, I - *cough*, *hack* - wrongly assumed that the "ideology" to which Rick is referring meant religion? Give me a break! Then I provide numerous real life examples of people that are obviously logical thinkers, yet held/hold their beliefs in religion (i.e. "magical thinking"). Yet somehow I'm the one missing the "crucial point." LOL

Here's another one for you: "Both sets of examples you provided are full of people who conform to Rick's rule, rather than disproving it. They hold belifs that are not proven by logic, but are clearly not incapable of logic, because they do not chose ideology over fact." Ok. So are you saying that this "typical magical thinking" is now factual? I'm saying I'm confused about their beliefs in things you'd only normally find in fantasy novels (magical beings with super powers, heaven, hell, etc.) when they are obviously smart, logical people. And now you are reversing course and telling me that they aren't choosing "ideology over fact."

Oh, brother. Thumbs up to you for backing your friend, though.

"Gosh this is fun. You get to be sly and sideways with your insults. I would try that, too, but like you said, retreating to snide condescension (like you aren't) is easier."

"Speaking of sideways, this thread has been turned completely on it's ear because you cannot imagine yourself being wrong. Look, we generally agree with each other. However, I have a real problem with personalities like yours. People like you "talk down" to everyone else and then act incredulous when called on it."

Really?

"Read the thread, Rick. Who began the snide condescension?"

You did, and continued alone. Some of your arguments, from the top -

"Sorry Rick. You are soooo wrong."

"Don't be an ass, Rick."

"Let me repeat that sentence so that you clearly understand."

"Geez! Some people just can't admit when they're wrong."

"So, it would appear that you are attempting, in a very smug fashion, to blow smoke up my wazoo. Wouldn't you agree?"

And it gets better -

"Why do you feel it necessary to pick on insignificant points?"

Have you stopped beating your wife? They aren't insignificant. The point Teresa was making, that responded you to, and that I responded to you on, was about Neil and, by extension, people who make the same sorts of arguments using the same thought processes. Your counter to that was the list of long-dead proto-scientific minds who lived in very religious times - and were vastly different from Neil and his comrades. There is no reason to believe that these men thought the same way as Neil or for the same reasons, and it would be asinine to assert otherwise.

" "You initially did not reference these men; doing so later changes the context rather significantly..." No, it doesn't. That is exactly what I meant the first time. I merely had to add some names so you would get the point. Insert any name, from any time in history, as long as they are clearly very logical people and believe in a supreme being. The meaning doesn't change at all. The fact that you want to insert historical context into any names that appear is your problem, not mine."

If you are asserting that all religious thought and/or feeling, in whatever forms they take, however concrete or vague, in all cultures and all swaths of history are intellectually and morally indistinguishable from each other... that would certainly explain why you don't distinguish the thought processes of many of the grandfathers of science from modern science from modern right-wing evangelical apologists like the one Teresa referenced in this post. And that would be a separate and possibly quite interesting discussion. And it would have been helpful if you had made that clear early on. But it was not the topic at hand. And everyone got that except you.

"In fact, all it took was for me to say you were wrong. I only returned fire after attacked."

A lie. And another lie. This is a problem.

"it is obvious to me that you have been educated beyond your intelligence."

I was wondering when that schoolyard-level taunt would make a reappearance.

"Ignored. Abandoned. Sorry, Rick, but in this context, they carry the same meaning. They both reflect a knowledge of reality and a decision not to use it."

Precisely the point that you failed to grasp above. The men you referenced as examples did not have the same knowledge of reality that we do today. They were groping their way towards such knowledge, and their efforts, though in many ways crude and clumsy by our standards, gave us the intellectual breadth and depth that we enjoy today.

As to a mere "belief in a god", covering the many things that means to many different people could take weeks, though I did touch on it above. You mentioned Francis Collins as an example of a logical thinker who cleaves to illogic - Does Collins say "I believe in a God, therefore Creationism/Intelligent Design is the truth of our origin and evolution is a lie?" If so, then I would say that he is NOT a logical thinker, merely a methodical one at best as the evidence would logically force him to a different conclusion. If he says, "I believe in a God, therefore I bring a moral sensibility to my work that derives from that belief," then I would be interested in what his assumptions are and what steps he takes to keep any personal biases from influencing his analysis of the data - but I wouldn't worry to much, because science manages to correct for such biases over the long haul. Obviously, there is a range of possible responses from him that would go far beyond these two; these two are useful as a layman's illustration of the weight of someone's beliefs versus their logic.

"Uh-oh. I said he was wrong again. Does this mean another direct attack is imminent?"

Have you stopped beating your wife? You play the persecution card clumsily.

"Gosh this is fun. You get to be sly and sideways with your insults. I would try that, too, but like you said, retreating to snide condescension (like you aren't) is easier."

And you still haven't stopped beating your wife. No, Mark; I have not been using snide condescension. You have, all by yourself. I have been using logic and facts in a calm (though admittedly rather cold) manner. And that's all. Obviously, that's an approach that you respond badly to. Arrogant condescension is not logic, Mark. And berating people who have valid reasons for disagreeing with you, or argue a point a different way than you would choose, is not rational discourse. It is a pitiful imitation of a garden variety schoolyard bully, and the common refuge of the intellectual coward.

"Speaking of sideways, this thread has been turned completely on it's ear because you cannot imagine yourself being wrong."

Projection.

"I have a real problem with personalities like yours. People like you "talk down" to everyone else and then act incredulous when called on it."

Pro. Jec. Tion. Can you say "projection"? I knew you could.

Mark,

Are you seriously expecting me to believe that you don't know the difference between someone who believe things that are not supported by logic and reason, and people who believe things IN SPITE of logic and reason?

The distinction is very clear, important, and critical to this discussion.

Calling Rick an ass will not fix the fact that you do not recognize the fundimental distiction of his argument.

And you've seen me call bullshit on Rick here when I thought he was being wrong. So stop trying to imply that I'm only supporting him as a friend.

I am trying to explain to you how you are misunderstanding hsi entire argument. Name-calling and smug condescention will not change that.

Once again.

People who believe in God are not necessarily incapable of logic. This is not what Rick said. Rick said that people who deny reality (IE evidence, logic, reason, demonstrable proof) in favor of their beliefs are incapable of logic (because they proceed from false assumptions).

Neil, for instance, "accepts" contradictions in the Bible and accepts the Bible as infallible, despite the fact that an infallible document would not contradict itself.

A logical person can still believe in God, because God has not been disproven. However, to believe that the Bible is literal and infallible, a person must have a brain that has been trained to defy logic.

The people you describe have not, to my knowledge, displayed such behavior. In fact, as far as I know, they have consistantly chosen to believe logic and reason wherever it conflicts with their ideology.

Therefore, they have not chosen ideology over reality.

Therefore, they do not meet the requirements necessary to disprove Rick's rule.

[Jaw hits floor]

Amazing

"They won't understand because they just refuse to try, I can't make it any more plain," he mumbles to himself..

[shakes head and walks away]

OK Mark, just in case you are reading this still, one more try.

Has the exsistance of God been disproven?

No.

Therefore, believeing in God is an unproven assumption. Something allowed in logic.

However, the inerrancy of the Bible is disproven by the fact that the Bible contradicts itself. Even Neil has said that he has examined the contradictions in the Bible and chosen to ignore them and believe in it's "inerrancy".

Disproven assumptions ARE a violation of logic. You can't base an argument upon disproven assumptions and call it logic.

The willfull act of accepting a disproven assumption and using it as a foundation for an argument is illogical.

A person who trains their mind to do this consistantly, and considers it to be their highest virtue (proof of "faith") has made themselves incapable of logic.

The people you listed held many unproven assumptions. But on the occasions when their assumptions were DISproven, they abandoned them.

This is why they don't fit the rule that Rick proposed at the beginning of the argument. They do not wilfully persist in disproven assumptions.

Ok, fine. I "get it." To you and Rick, it is possible God exists and is a reality because he has not been scientifically disproven. I suppose on that basis, that a belief in ghosts, witchcraft, etc. is logical since their existence has not been disproved. Real proof that a supremem being does not exist is something that will never, ever, happen. So I guess I should just give in and start going to church. How are you going to prove that 70 virgins are *not* going to be available me if I strap on a bomb and kill a few infidels? You can't, so it must be logical for me to accept the Muslim faith and learn how to kill as many infidels as possible while killing myself at the same time.

Look, Rick's points are all well and good in *normal* circumstances. Religion is *not* a normal circumstance because it requires a great deal of blind faith. Blind faith is not something to which logical thinkers are normally prone - except when it comes to religion. There are many, many people that have a tremendous capacity for logical thought yet hold strong beliefs in religion because they release their capacity for logic to blind faith.

There are so many ideas in this world that are yet to be disproved. If I accepted all of them on that basis I'd be tossed in a "looney bin" and be forcibly kept as far from society as possible - and rightly so.

Mark,

You are confusing "sensible" with "logical".

But that's another matter.

Rick's point was simply that people who conciously train themselves to accept demonstrably, disproven things as fact are incapable of logic.

People who accept things based on "faith" that are not disproven may not be being sensible, but it does not preclude than from applying logic.

You are arguing a completely different point than Rick is. Rick's statement was meant to be applied only to those who ARE incapable of logic. Not those who are capable of logic in some circumstances, and who accept things that logic cannot disprove. His statement was narrow, specific, and catagorical. And deliberatly so.

The fact that it cannot be applied uncataorically does not make it false for the catagory he applied it to.

It would be like me saying "Labradores come in three colors yellow, chocolate and black", and you answering "Dogs come in more colors than that!"

"Yes, but I'm talking about labs"
"But labs are dogs, and I'm talking about dogs!"

I would have expected a computer expert to have a better sense of sets and subsets.

Religious people who have rendered themselves incapable of logic (by basing their thought process on disproven assumtions) are a subset of religious people (who base their thought processes on many unproven assumtions) some of whom use logic in some situations, but not in others.

Atheists tend to only accept proven assumtions, and agnostics and Deists tend to strongly prefer proven assumptions, but not rule out unproven assumptions (some Deists allow only the unproven assumption that a Creator exsists).

The fact that you only accept proven assumptions as a basis for logic is your decision. You require a very high standard of reliability. This is probably also why it is difficult for you to understand why someone would weight the importance or reliability of information differently than you would.

Just because other people weigh and evaluate the quality of assumptions differently than you would doesn't mean you have to. That's just silly, and in no way follows from anything either Rick or I have said in the course of this conversation.

(I got an "A" in logic. In fact, in my second trimester of logic, I got 100% of the points)

:-)

I've gotten sloppy since then, but I still remember it when I have to.

Jesus! I *know* you get my point. And - trust me - I get yours and Ricks.

I guess I should've said, "Yes, it's interesting how normally very sensible people loose all sensibility when it comes to religion. I don't get it."

I didn't know I needed to aim my remarks to an anal audience. Now I do - thanks for the info.

"Ok, fine. I "get it." To you and Rick, it is possible God exists and is a reality because he has not been scientifically disproven."

No. You do not get it. I was not making any sort of statement regarding the existence or nonexistence of God, or a god, or gods. I made a statement about how logical thinking can be identified.

"I suppose on that basis, that a belief in ghosts, witchcraft, etc. is logical since their existence has not been disproved."

The logical fallacy of false equivalency. People who believe in ghosts and witchcraft have made testable claims about them that have been successfully falsified. The various questions of "god(s)" run the gamut from falsified claims to vague fuzzy feelings that are logically and scientifically irrelevant. Biology, for example, does not specifically say that no god or god-like being exists in the universe, it merely recognizes that such a being does not need to be proposed in order to account for the existence, history, and diversity of life. Partly as a consequence, I put my money on the nonexistence of god - but even more so because I simply don't care. But the creationist/ID types DO need a god, desperately, and as result are willing go to great lengths to convince themselves and others of the existence of, not merely a god, but a specific and detailed characterization of one - regardless of specific and detailed
evidence that either falsifies particular claims or makes those claims morally untenable.

"Real proof that a supremem being does not exist is something that will never, ever, happen."

Note that "a supreme being" is not the same thing as specific claim of a specific god. False equivalency again. I realize that this probably seems a subtle distinction to you, but the subtlety is only superficial.

Someone who shrugs and says "I think there's some kind of god" may be wrong - and I certainly think a.) that they're wrong, and b.) that if they're right I am unlikely to have reason to care - BUT unless they specify what they mean by the word "god", seek out data to confirm or deny the specifics of their claims about that god, find sufficient data to falsify that claims, and then say "Despite evidence that contradicts certain claims I've made about God, I continue to believe in all the specifics I've previously claimed,"... then they are arguably being intellectually lazy, but NOT necessarily illogical.

When ID was first proposed, I was intrigued by the sound bites; if scientific inquiry did indeed reveal something that indicated intent in the existence and growth of the universe that would be fascinating. Once I got a look at what the ID folks actually had to say in detail, I was appalled. They were not performing science. They used the same long-debunked creationist arguments with new terminology plugged in in an effort, not to demonstrate the value of their proposition, but to devalue a successful and useful body of interdisciplinary work that had proven itself over and over for generations - and in order to devalue it, they had to lie. Because they didn't like the honest answers and what those honest answers implied about what they wanted to believe.

The hardest thing for them to grasp, that science is not merely what we know but HOW we know what we know, is also hard for many other people to grasp and therefore easy waters to muddy. Logic is the same way; logic is about HOW you get the right answer. It's a process. An argument or investigation can proceed from an incorrect assumption or faulty data and therefore get the wrong answer - while still being perfectly logical. History is replete with examples of this, especially in science. The greatest strength of science is its ability to accept and evaluate new data in such a way as to extend and deepen theories where appropriate or discard them where necessary; there is no "scientific orthodoxy", contrary to the shrill jeremiads found at places like Uncommon Descent or Answers in Genesis or Telic Thoughts.

"How are you going to prove that 70 virgins are *not* going to be available me if I strap on a bomb and kill a few infidels? You can't, so it must be logical for me to accept the Muslim faith and learn how to kill as many infidels as possible while killing myself at the same time."

Non sequitor. The second assertion does not logically follow from the first.

"Look, Rick's points are all well and good in *normal* circumstances. Religion is *not* a normal circumstance because it requires a great deal of blind faith. Blind faith is not something to which logical thinkers are normally prone - except when it comes to religion. There are many, many people that have a tremendous capacity for logical thought yet hold strong beliefs in religion because they release their capacity for logic to blind faith."

Not everyone's religious involvement is the same. Not everyone who has what could be described as a "religious feeling" has the same ones. Not everyone who is involved in some kind of religious activity is there for the same reason (I have personally known a few who did so specifically to raise the bar on logic in that environment!).

I read the passage quoted above and I am strongly inclined to agree with every word. I strongly *feel* that it is true in its entirety. *But my feeling alone does not constitute a logical argument*, therefore I must look more carefully. A blanket statement like the one above belies very real complexities - of personality, of history, of culture - that comprise relevant data. I ignore this data at the cost of my integrity. Or, to put it another way, recognizing the presence of this data and choosing to ignore it is both illogical and dishonest. I have every reason, based on prior data and experience, to expect that I will find the religious views of most everyone to be both false and devoid of logic - but I cannot assert that for every single case without *some kind of data* to support that conclusion. I don't need much... but I need *something*.

For example, if someone whose judgement I trusted were to come to me and say "Neil is not a logical thinker," I might be inclined to accept that statement at face value, but that wouldn't mean that they had made a logical case for that assertion. If, on the other hand, someone (whether they were someone I trusted or not!) came to me and said "Neil is not a logical thinker because he disregards evidence he doesn't like, blatantly promotes his own personal biases as a standard by which data should be judged, makes false accusations of ad hominem attacks when factual statements are made that contradicts his position (and makes sly ad hominems of his own in an obvious attempt to discourage people from making further factual statements that undermine him), and generally goes about declaring the importance of logic *without actually using it*"... and then provided the evidence from Neil's own blog and Neil's past comments on this blog... then they will have conclusively demonstrated the truth of their assertions, as well constructed an example of an argument that is both logical and supported by evidence. If they simply said, "Neil isn't logical; he's religious!", then that statement, though true, would NOT be a logical one.

"There are so many ideas in this world that are yet to be disproved. If I accepted all of them on that basis I'd be tossed in a "looney bin" and be forcibly kept as far from society as possible - and rightly so."

Quite true! But we are not bound to the false dichotomy of "proved/disproved = logical/illogical". No one can be required to accept as true an unproven assumption, and no one in this thread has made or even implied such a thing. Such an oversimplification is not... (wait for it...)logical.

Rick

"I read the passage quoted above and I am strongly inclined to agree with every word. I strongly *feel* that it is true in its entirety. *But my feeling alone does not constitute a logical argument*, therefore I must look more carefully. A blanket statement like the one above belies very real complexities - of personality, of history, of culture - that comprise relevant data. I ignore this data at the cost of my integrity. Or, to put it another way, recognizing the presence of this data and choosing to ignore it is both illogical and dishonest. I have every reason, based on prior data and experience, to expect that I will find the religious views of most everyone to be both false and devoid of logic - but I cannot assert that for every single case without *some kind of data* to support that conclusion. I don't need much... but I need *something*."

LOL - Like I just said to Teresa, I didn't know I needed to aim my remarks to an anal audience.

Oh - one more thing - about who started the snide condescension (I mean, since we're being anal). I don't view me stating you are wrong as matching that description. Thus, my comments about your lack of ability to admit when you're wrong. However, your comment about me looking like a buffoon definitely fits.

Humor and bad conduct (mostly mine and I apologize) aside, you are a trip! I get what you are saying - completely. It just befuddles me that, while you knew exactly what I meant when I said that "logical thinkers loose all sense of logic when it comes to religion," you felt the urge to educate me on the definition and science of Logic. You took the spirit of the statement and contorted it's meaning on a so-called technicality.

Honestly, most people do not view the word "logic" when used in a statement like that with the *science* of Logic. Most people would use this definition (yes, it's in the dictionary): "a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty." But hey, no problem. Now I know that all my replies will be picked apart word by word without regard for the spirit of their content. I'll just start attaching my preferred definition to them from now on...

Mark,

You obviously don't understand our point, or you would not claims that certain things follow from our assertions, when they clearly don't.

I don't think we're going to resolve this.

Here's the message where it all starts to go wrong.

I started out talking about Biblical literalists.

Yo reponded with what I now understand was a general statement about ALL religious people (I thought you were just being imprecic, and were still talking about Biblical literalists...I didn't realize you were expanding the conversation until very recently)

"Yes, it's interesting how very logical thinkers loose all sense of logic when it comes to religion. I don't get it."


Here Rick responds, still thinking that we are talking about Biblical literalists:

It's because they *aren't* logical thinkers. If they were, they wouldn't ignore reality in favor of ideology. The ability to present a viewpoint in an articulate manner is not, in and of itself, logic, nor does it necessarily indicate that the person articulating said viewpoint has the capacity or willingness to use logic.

Then you go onto tell him he;s sooooo wrong. Biblical literalists are perfectly capable of logic.

No, they are not. They base all of their thought processes on things that are completely disprovable (specifically, in this case, Neil out-and-out saying that he believes in the inerrency of a document that HE ADMITS contradicts itself.)

YOU were the one who changed the focus of the conversation...without alerting us.

If anything, our mistake in this is not being anal and super-analytical enough to realize earlier that you were changing the subject form a specific sub-section of religious people to a super-set of ALL religious people.

Our mistake was not realizsing that you are tone-deaf to the specifics of the conversation.

Sorry about the typos. My concentration is a little more rattled than usual because I have a Halo 3 frag-fest full of howling teenagers going on all around me.

The kids have the day off school.

"LOL - Like I just said to Teresa, I didn't know I needed to aim my remarks to an anal audience."

Mark, it's not about being anal. You argued at length about logic in a way that completely misconstrued what logic is and how it works. The misrepresentation of logic is one the primary tools of the Religious Right, so it's necessary to stand up straight and tell the truth about it.

But my first comment wasn't even about that. And it certainly wasn't about you. You made a comment (that implied a question) about certain people and I gave you my observation of those people. I didn't realize until much later that you were referring to a much broader category of people than those Teresa addressed, and I certainly didn't anticipate that you would get upset over it. I thought I was in for a brief and diverting discussion...

"It just befuddles me that, while you knew exactly what I meant when I said that "logical thinkers loose all sense of logic when it comes to religion," you felt the urge to educate me on the definition and science of Logic. You took the spirit of the statement and contorted it's meaning on a so-called technicality."

Honestly, Mark, I didn't realize that you meant that statement in a conversational and imprecise way. I thought that you were using the term in the same way that Teresa was using it in reference to the essay she had linked to, and that the essay claimed while failing to demonstrate. That was, after all, the main topic. That was the apparent "spirit of the statement", so that's what I responded to. There was no "contortion" or "technicality" involved here. I did not "feel an urge to educate", I wanted to make sure that you were clear on what I was saying and why so that there would be no misunderstanding.

"Honestly, most people do not view the word "logic" when used in a statement like that with the *science* of Logic."

That's because critical thinking is seldom taught in school anymore. A lack of critical thinking skills leads to sloppy thinking, which creates an opening for what the ID crowd openly calls their "wedge".

"Now I know that all my replies will be picked apart word by word without regard for the spirit of their content. I'll just start attaching my preferred definition to them from now on..."

[deep breath]

Mark. Don't. Overthink this. This was not, and is not, an attack - directly or otherwise - against you. It is not a put-down. It is not a rant. It is not about me trying to avoid being wrong, or me trying to make you be wrong. It is nothing more or less than a genuine attempt at communication, and an opportunity for you to communicate as well. If you play the victim card here, if you retreat behind scorn when the conversation turns from your preferred course, then we all lose. Teresa doesn't welcome you to her blog so that she or I or anyone else can have someone to beat up on. she enjoys spirited discussion. This discussion went way beyond spirited. She and I each - independently - sought to moderate that. You may be among opponents (or sparring partners) here, Mark, *but not among enemies* unless you yourself choose otherwise. Please be clear on that. And then, let us reason together.

Thanks, Rick. I comment here precisely because I DO like spirited debate. I also apologize for many of my statements (you know which ones). I did get carried away because of an apparent refusal to see my point (which I still don't understand).

However, I still stand by my statement. Look, I read Neil's blog on a regular basis. I do not agree with him on most topics, but there are some political issues where we do agree. I have had rather lengthy discussions with him and his readers. And - I have to say that I disagree completely with your assertions. Neil is very capable and logical (any definition) in much of his writings.

Focus on Neil in particular or biblical literalists all you want. My point still stands.

Biblical literalists are perfectly capable of logic. Just because they refuse to apply it to religion (or an ideology - sigh) does not mean they are incapable of logical thought.

I specifically pointed to their loss of logic when dealing with religion, and their apparent ability to use it when dealing with other topics. You decided to take my use of the word logic and apply it in a scientific manner. Thus, this long drawn out stalemate.

I'm sorry, but I'm still shaking my head in disbelief at this whole conversation.

Mark,

I havn't seen any true "logic" from Neil. I see that his worldview is orderly and consistant...

...but it is organized on first priciples that are demonstrably untrue, and that even he often admits are in contradiction to "logic" and "reason", which he overcomed through faith.

It is consistant with first priciples that are, in large part disproven, and in main part, unproven. He often makes compelling statements which are excellent examples of logical fallacy. You may argue that this is only on the subject of religion that he does this...but his devotion is so perfect that EVERYTHING he does is informed by his religious belief. He does and says nothing that is independant of Sound Doctrine.

As Luther said "Faith" and "Reason" (as he defined faith as Sound Doctrine) are incompatible. Both Luther and Calvin (widely and abundantly referenced by Neil) both absolutly insisted on the subversion of reason to faith as essential to Sound Doctrine (a principle that poor Severtus found profoundly disasterous).

Everything that Neil believes is based on the organzing priciple that logic and reason be subverted to faith. Any resembelance or assonance with logic is purely coincidental. (and yes, with the choice of the word assonance, there was word play involved. What can I say, I'm easily amused.

I admire his discipline, and tenacity, but I'm afraid that I can't admire the way he wastes it.

"assonance" - I like it!!

" admire his discipline, and tenacity, but I'm afraid that I can't admire the way he wastes it." - I can't argue with that! He has an abundance of both.

Ok. I had to go back to work and now I am at the party late again, but two things.
Mark. I am with you on this one. Something about this whole converstion seems...unnecessary. A fight amongst friends over nothing of consequence. I go back to your original sentence: "I feel like a dog chasing my tail trying to make sense of it". That is what Logic does to us sometimes. That which is perfectly logical can seem wrong and that which is not can fail to seem logical to us. It becomes a strange choice between logic and what seems logical. Isn't great for some of us that what seems logical to us is what our professors of logic agree is logical? i.e there can be a question of what counts as logical and why. well, most of what is logical is what agrees with human reason. hmm. there is the trouble. Some don't think that human reason can access God's reason (note that the political founding fathers thought human reason could figure out God's reason. The relgious founders didn't think quite so much of human reason, but they thought more of it than some do today).

Side note, really, Trees: "Atheists tend to only accept proven assumptions." there is nothing in the concept of being an athiest that makes this be true. I know you said "tends to" but I have reservations about making such a sweeping statement. I know a lot of athiests who are not logical, in the broad sense, because they reason from poor assumptions, usually derived from a misunderstanding of what other's mean. in particular, they often underestimate the complexity of some theistic beliefs. That being said, I still take your original point that there is a kind of theistic belief gaining ground that is rabidly against critical assesment. Ie. the group today believes that human reason cannot understand God's reasons. This just seems untenable. if Human reason is as flawed as they say, well. Ain't we up a creek without a paddle. We must be so stupid we can barely breathe without drowning in our own spit.