Reading...
The Case for Faith now, by some guy called Lee Strobel. Lent to me by my well meaning neighbour. Slow going, full of arguments from authority, false analogies and circular reasoning. ESPECIALLY arguments from authority. Must be something about Christianity that makes this sort of fallacy common; I've seen it in quite a few books I've read so far.
Page 43-51 of the first chapter of the main argument as an example of faulty reasoning--first he appeals to the fact that finite humans cannot understand an infinite God, and therefore certain evils are tolerated for the greater good. Then he limits God by defining Him by human definitions: That an All-powerful God cannot commit mistakes, therefore claiming to understand one aspect of God.* If this Lee Strobel guy can claim to understand this part of God, why can't another person claim to understand another aspect? He does use the clever technique of seperating these two parts of the contradiction with another case study in between to conceal the fallacy though.
Two other aspects trouble me.
1) In the Old Testament, God does change his mind. Ref: Book of Jonah. Given that God is all knowing...
2) The acceptance of the premise that certain evils can and should be tolerated for the greater good is a very dangerous thing. For example, it could lead to the acceptance of the persecution of various groups (numbering 6 million) for the improvement in the life, morale and overall outlook of the remaining 81.1 million people. After all, it is only 6.8% of the population that is affected adversely, right? People may accept evil for the greater good but this acceptance should be entirely voluntary.
*Ref direct quote: Even an all-powerful God could not have created a world in which people had genuine freedom and yet there was no potentiality for sin, because our freedom includes the possibility of sin within its own meaning.
Seems logical right? But remember that if this argument is logical, then we would have to apply finite human definitions to an infinite God and so Lee Strobel is commiting the very same thing he condemned as wrong.
It is really, REALLY hard to find the fallacies in religious arguments, and many people like myself often fail to do so. But, remember that these arguments have been honed over centuries and centuries of debate, so the fallacies should be hard to find or else the arguments would be thrown out altogether already! So, don't give up.
A constantly questioning mind is the only thing that leads to progress. And if you do believe in anything divine, I'm sure that divine being would appreciate someone who constantly questions rather than someone who is satisfied that the truth has been found and that is all there is to it, which is what most monotheistic religions would like to have you believe.
Page 43-51 of the first chapter of the main argument as an example of faulty reasoning--first he appeals to the fact that finite humans cannot understand an infinite God, and therefore certain evils are tolerated for the greater good. Then he limits God by defining Him by human definitions: That an All-powerful God cannot commit mistakes, therefore claiming to understand one aspect of God.* If this Lee Strobel guy can claim to understand this part of God, why can't another person claim to understand another aspect? He does use the clever technique of seperating these two parts of the contradiction with another case study in between to conceal the fallacy though.
Two other aspects trouble me.
1) In the Old Testament, God does change his mind. Ref: Book of Jonah. Given that God is all knowing...
2) The acceptance of the premise that certain evils can and should be tolerated for the greater good is a very dangerous thing. For example, it could lead to the acceptance of the persecution of various groups (numbering 6 million) for the improvement in the life, morale and overall outlook of the remaining 81.1 million people. After all, it is only 6.8% of the population that is affected adversely, right? People may accept evil for the greater good but this acceptance should be entirely voluntary.
*Ref direct quote: Even an all-powerful God could not have created a world in which people had genuine freedom and yet there was no potentiality for sin, because our freedom includes the possibility of sin within its own meaning.
Seems logical right? But remember that if this argument is logical, then we would have to apply finite human definitions to an infinite God and so Lee Strobel is commiting the very same thing he condemned as wrong.
It is really, REALLY hard to find the fallacies in religious arguments, and many people like myself often fail to do so. But, remember that these arguments have been honed over centuries and centuries of debate, so the fallacies should be hard to find or else the arguments would be thrown out altogether already! So, don't give up.
A constantly questioning mind is the only thing that leads to progress. And if you do believe in anything divine, I'm sure that divine being would appreciate someone who constantly questions rather than someone who is satisfied that the truth has been found and that is all there is to it, which is what most monotheistic religions would like to have you believe.
posted by edwin at 7:21 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home