Skeptic Sanctuary

Circular logic argument disproven?

Usually when debating a Christian about religion and the existence of god, you'll find that they'll tend to use bible scripture as a way to prove that what they say is true. It often goes a little like this; "Why, you ask!? Because it says so right there, in the bible!".

The competent atheists are of course quick to point out that this is circular reasoning. Here follows an analogy to try to illustrate this:

Rational people would find it stupid to live his life after those commandments. He would at least question it, and find out if any of it was verifiable. And if not, just throw it away. The reason rational people would find it stupid, is because it correspond to someone saying; "I'm right because I say so.".
Of course, the thought of eternal torture is scary, but if the punishment was something like a slap on the wrist, one wouldn't hesitate to ignore it. Just because the punishment it promises is unthinkably hard, doesn't make it more true, and isn't a reason for being a slave to a piece of paper for rest of ones life. Especially when it is unverifiable, and thousands of different versions of a likewise piece of paper exists.

After that little digression, I now get to what I actually wanted to talk about. Yesterday, I stumbled across this little piece of apologetic, which I accessed through Thewayofthemaster.com, under "Get equipped -> Answers to 100 common questions".

I'm ashamed to admit it, but it actually stumped me a bit(I was pretty tired when I read it). It made sense! I had a hard time figuring out why it did, but it did. Had too much time reading creationist stupidity finally gotten to me? I of course instinctively knew there was fallacy hidden in there. I just couldn't pinpoint why you couldn't compare the two, because they seemed so conceptually similar. I tried to analyze it, and came up with that it was some sort of false analogy. So I tried googling "false analogy", and it turned out there was a fallacy by that very name..

Basically, you can't compare the white house example with the bible-quote example, because the two situations are inherently different. Looking into the white house to observe and establish whether something is true, is not the same as using a text to establish and verify the content of that very same text. A text cannot be proof of its content, it is only a means to carry information, it cannot say anything of the information it carries in itself. In the white house example, you are using observation(scientific method) to verify if a piece of information is true.

Well, that really cleared my head. All of this also illustrates why you shouldn't argue by analogy (Do not argue by analogy).

Jehovah's Witnesses bloodtranfusion debate - Japan gets the idea, but still not quite

Accidentally deleted this post, without having done a backup.

Do people really need religion?

As I said in my latest post, "Adopting militant atheism", I have lately been much more outspoken about by my critical views on religion, whereas I earlier on mostly kept them to myself and similar minded because I didn't like coming off as a negative person.

(The following will contain a lot of paraphrasing since one usually cannot remember an entire discussion word by word)

Well, last weekend I was discussing the global warming issue with a friend. A discussion that quickly led us to discussing Bjørn Lomborg's spin on the global warming debate, and how he via the Copenhagen Consensus turned it into an utilitarian matter. While discussing the idea of the Copenhagen Consensus, my friend then asked, "how one can be so conceited, and claim to know and prioritize the answers to what would do the most good in the world?". To which I semi-jokingly replied, "well, for starters you could rid the world of religion", also kind of deliberately trying to turn the discussion into a debate on (the uselessness) of religion, because I was curious to know exactly where he stood on this issue and why. He disagreed with me on my comment so we started discussing religion.

I don't remember all of the discussion exactly, but I do remember two things he said in our discussion about religion, very clearly. One was - though he is not a religious person - that he needed to know that there was something more after he died, or else he would feel that life had less meaning. To this I first tried to make a rational counterpoint, being, that out of the infinite possibilities of what the afterlife might hold, and because the idea of our soul living on in heaven, or wherever, is a human construct, and that we simply cannot know, it is much more plausible that there is no afterlife. Secondly, I argued from a more philosophical point of view that if there were no afterlife, it would make the life as we live it now so much more precious. I followed up with a Dr. Phill routine, saying, that whatever religious belief he might hold, it sounded as if it originated from an existential fear, the fear of death.

The other thing I remember well was when he tried to refute my notion of a world without religion, with that people need religion. Again paraphrasing, "What about the most unfortunate people in the world, the poor people in Africa? How do they cope with their miserable existence without a religion to cling to?". Not having given this particular aspect of, "people needing religion for comfort", all that much thought - though aware of it - and because we were interrupted by another friend arriving, whom we had been waiting for, I only got to counter with that it was ridiculous to state that they then wouldn't have anything good in their life to live for.

I will however ponder on on this here. For starters, one could argue that AIDS, which is a huge contributing factor to the miserable state of some parts of Africa, is more widespread because of religion and superstition, and that religion might thus be the very cause for which religion is needed. This argument, however, might not hold up. Nonetheless, however comforting that religion might be does not make it true, or for that matter, the best means of comfort. Non-belief does not necessarily give people who are extremely bad off any less reason to live for, in fact, it might actually equip them to better to deal with their situation and do something about it, instead of "leaving it up to the lord".

The notion of people needing religion, I think stems from people getting too dependent on it, and not knowing how to deal with "life" without it. They are seeking answers that they think can only be found in religion.

Adopting militant atheism

Lately, I have been much more outspoken about atheism and about how religion gives a poisonous taint to everything that even remotely smells of progress, rationality, or logic, than I usually have. I have been deliberately adopting the very stigma that religious people, using their usual hypocritical and highly fallacious rhetorics, tend to apply to atheists, i.e. the atheism pre-fix "militant".

However, when using the word militant, I am strictly speaking about the non-physical verbal kind of militant, meaning, not dodging arguments, and not holding back criticism out of overly respect for religion - though this has really never been the case with me - and entering into debates despite knowing that they, for some people, tend to make emotions run high - which sometimes can be a problem with family and friends, where I usually try to be overly diplomatic. This might just sound as a healthy way of participating in the debate, and to a certain degree it is, but personally I'm also reacting to the increasing religious fundamentalism (based on my impression, but I'm pretty sure this tendency is true), by taking a more activistic approach to this. The way I see it, the struggle against religion might very well be the most important intellectual fight of the 21th century - yeah, pretty big words, I know - but believing this, I just can't sit idly by. I need to partake a more active role.

Also, however passionate atheists at times can seem to be - which is the reason why atheists tend to come off as militant - this passion should not be confused with fundamentalism, just as atheism should not be confused with religion. Holding an opinion passionately, does not make it fundamentalist, nor does it make it a religion. After reading the wiki-article on fundamentalism, it appears that a clear cut definition on fundamentalism is hard to make. The wiki-article, however, do provide a reference to atheism.about.com, which features a series of well-written articles by Austin Cline (The Logic is great in this one), debunking the myths and fallacious accusations concerning atheism, and pretty much covers all of the points I was going to make about how atheism is not fundamentalist nor a religion. And since Austin Cline has already covered this very well, I won't get into this here, but I will instead encourage you to read the various articles on atheism.about.com (e.g. Myth: Militant Atheists are Atheist Fundamentalists, a New Atheism).

Still, most people would just classify me as a "scientific atheist", at least, that is what this test I took says - so it must be true.

Nevertheless, I don't mind being called a militant atheist, in fact, I think I got a little disappointed when I didn't score in at top as a militant atheist in the above test...Oh, well.

My path towards atheism

The fact that I haven't been baptized or brought up with any religious nor anti-religious indoctrinations, has always left me kind of blank towards religiosity.

When I was introduced to the concept of God in school, by the other kids and in Christianity-education class, it seemed kind of silly to me, but since all of the other kids seemed to believe in God, I was put in a rather difficult spot. All of the other kids had this strange knowing that I didn't understand, and I had this weird feeling of being left outside the loop on something. It was the same old story about not wanting to be different, about wanting to be part of the group. I guess it was about that time that I was in trying to find the answers to, and understand some of the most profound and complex philosophical questions through time - where does everything come from? etc, you know the ones.

All in all, I had a really hard time understanding this new concept. It was very hard for me to accept such a thing as faith as it was unnatural to me. So I started asking the other kids skeptical questions without getting any satisfying answers, because the others kids only just "knew" there was a God, since this was what their parents had told them and didn't know much else about Christianity and religion. I also asked our Christianity-class teacher whether he believed in God or not(Denmark is a not a very religious country, so this question wasn't as stupid as it seems). He told me that when he walked among the golden corn fields on a beautiful Summer day, and when the birds were singing high in the sky, this was when he felt in his heart there was a God. I interpreted this romantic analogy of "God is all around us", as God being more just a concept of the beauty of life and nature, rather than God being a supreme being creating the universe. From then on, I guessed I believed in God - as I believed in the beauty of nature and life - but I still didn't believe in a God - a creator of all things. I also still hated Christianity-classes, and were generally a troublemaker in these classes(when not coloring pictures of Bible sceneries...oh brother).

Later on, as I developed a better understanding of religion, and developed a more critical sense, I came to reject the God notion completely. Since then, when looking at how high a percentage of conflicts around the world that has roots in religious differences, and as I generally got smarter, my atheism has just grown stronger and stronger. I have come to the exact same conclusions that Richard Dawkins have through rational thinking and general philosophy. Nothing about faith, religion, and God, adds up.

Today I tend to loose respect for people who aren't atheists, and I truly don't deem a person as truly intelligent unless the person has eliminated the notion of God from their mind. Atheism has, to me, become a stage of enlightenment. This might be a very arrogant and condescending way to look at other people, but everything about religious people scream irrationality and plain wrongness to me.

It seems that my atheism might be headed in a more activistic and "militant" direction. I'm at this point extremely fed up with religion, and kind of wish I lived in the USA, where I would have more opportunities to express my points about religion to religious people.