Reflecting further on this subject of defending reason, I've explained to you that the use of science and reason are preferences. We see the results of civilizations where reason and science are ascendant, compare them with ones, past and present, where superstition and religion are ascendant, and we prefer the results that come from science and reason. Stat Wal seems to agree (part in bold, my emphasis):
I'm lost on the point of why I need to offer any further justification than "I'm going with what's proven to work" but I'm going to let that argument rest until someone can explain why this reason is insufficient.
What I'm going to turn to now is the hypocrisy of anyone who's such a sophist as to log onto the internet (a product of science and rational thinking) and log onto a forum to enter a rational discussion to demand that someone rationally justify the use of reason. We agree that it works so you are being a sophist for questioning why it should be used.
I don't know that I have. The word "should" is the word you used, not me. If you wish to live in a society that forsakes science, technology and rational thought, I'm sure the Amish community could use another member. I'm certainly not going to advocate that we invade Amish compounds and force them into the modern age. If their life makes them happy and they harm no one else, I'll leave them to it. As one famous deist once said, "It neither breaks my leg not picks my pocket."
But if you log onto the internet to even question the use of rational thought and scientific inquiry, then you are the one who "borrows in order to attack", not me. You apparently use the gifts of science when they suit you but cherry pick the findings so you can reject evolution or rational inquiry into the claims of religion.
Your only escape clause from this bit of sophistry your assertion that the Christian god "commands you to be logical" and you are simply following orders. Yet where in chapter and verse can such commands be found and how can they square with the use of faith, which by definition is belief without reason and against all reason?
(August 19, 2011 at 5:31 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I know it works, but saying it works didn’t answer the question. You didn’t give a justification for why it works in the first place.
I'm lost on the point of why I need to offer any further justification than "I'm going with what's proven to work" but I'm going to let that argument rest until someone can explain why this reason is insufficient.
What I'm going to turn to now is the hypocrisy of anyone who's such a sophist as to log onto the internet (a product of science and rational thinking) and log onto a forum to enter a rational discussion to demand that someone rationally justify the use of reason. We agree that it works so you are being a sophist for questioning why it should be used.
Quote:You also would have no right to tell anyone else they should behave logically if you yourself cannot justify its use, right?
I don't know that I have. The word "should" is the word you used, not me. If you wish to live in a society that forsakes science, technology and rational thought, I'm sure the Amish community could use another member. I'm certainly not going to advocate that we invade Amish compounds and force them into the modern age. If their life makes them happy and they harm no one else, I'll leave them to it. As one famous deist once said, "It neither breaks my leg not picks my pocket."
But if you log onto the internet to even question the use of rational thought and scientific inquiry, then you are the one who "borrows in order to attack", not me. You apparently use the gifts of science when they suit you but cherry pick the findings so you can reject evolution or rational inquiry into the claims of religion.
Your only escape clause from this bit of sophistry your assertion that the Christian god "commands you to be logical" and you are simply following orders. Yet where in chapter and verse can such commands be found and how can they square with the use of faith, which by definition is belief without reason and against all reason?
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
