Christian logic

Let me start out with the obvious first: The Bible bears no relation to any actual science. It is a wildly inaccurate account of nature, it has no evidence for any of its significant claims, and it offers zero methodology for determining what is true. That said, I have an analogy I would like to make.

Christians love to look at their cute little holy book and see how it matches up to the world. Sometimes they’ll find something – a battle here or a town there. They never uncover anything of significance – a large boat or a big ol’ tomb, for instance – but the trivial things they discover seem to be rather important to them. The reason is clear: Any confirmation of something in their particular, cultural book is seen as indicative of the truth of the fundamental claims they make (such as Jesus’ existence and divinity, two things for which there is no convincing evidence). This makes for yet another logical fallacy by Christians.

To put things in perspective, imagine taking a 19th century science text and seeing where it matches up today. Except instead of saying, “Okay, these few things are true, but we know where the book has things wrong”, suddenly we’re taking the book to be entirely true. “Well, we can confirm that 19th century scientists knew X, and well, X is actually true, therefore Y and Z must also be true.” The flaw in logic is obvious here. And this all must make one wonder: If the flaw is so obvious in one place, why is it not obvious when religion is involved?

I don’t think it’s too difficult to figure out why Christians are so willing to make an exception to logic: they have no evidence for any of their major claims. Zero. Zip. Zilch. The only option that leaves them is to support their silly beliefs by proxy. It’s just too bad for them they haven’t been very good at doing that either.

About these ads

16 Responses

  1. And the clergy act Luke P.T. Barnum, but worse.

  2. I’m still amused by your notion that it actually matters whether or not any of it is true. I’m not going to get into a big argument, but I’m guessing about 99% of science that conflicts with religion, or the other way around, has no effect on peoples everyday lives and likely never will. So it makes no real difference whether or not there is a Buddha, reincarnation, Jesus, Thor or anything or anyone else.

    I’m beginning to think that religion is a construct of atheists over the past few millennia. A construct to give them something the whine about in perpetuity.

  3. but I’m guessing about 99% of science that conflicts with religion, or the other way around, has no effect on peoples everyday lives and likely never will.

    this, of course is so wrong that I am surprised anyone would say it.

    With so many politicians praying for things instead of taking proper action and many of them basing public laws on unbelievable superstitious religious dogma such as opposition to stem cell research, opposition to gay rights, opposition to civil rights, opposition to choice,etc. And opposition to science and science funding, your above statement is not only wrong but borders on malicious.

  4. Well you have to understand, I don’t really think the government should be so deeply involved in funding science (and many other things). Once upon a time universities and private companies handled the overwhelming majority of scientific research. Even today that is true, though to a slightly lesser extent.

    I think its a pretty fair statement that the vast majority of scientific research has no effect on individuals and so individual opinions, wherever they may come from, are almost completely irrelevant.

    I would even go so far as to say that government funding ties the hands of researchers more than private funding does and is thus it’s own impediment to discovery.

    Like I said though, I’m not really interested in getting into a protracted discussion on this. I just find it perfectly reasonable that people oppose government funded research into this or that, on whatever grounds they do so, they are the ones paying for it. If a company or an individual is paying, I don’t see that it is any of my business what they are researching.

  5. I think its a pretty fair statement that the vast majority of scientific research has no effect on individuals…

    Except for all of medicine, electronics (TV, cell phones, all other communications, laser applications, fuel technology and transportation, etc.

    Therefore the above statement is complete nonsense and inane.

    Of course you don’t want an extensive discussion since you are 100% completely wrong.

  6. Let’s take a look at the 1600′s. Now let’s take a look at the 2000′s. Guess what the big difference maker has been.

  7. Bob, unless much of that is government funded or unless people are unwilling to buy the products (for whatever reason) than religion has nothing to do with the research. The biggest one, medicine is also mostly funded by private enterprise, not the government.

    You’ve also just handpicked a bunch of things that do affect individuals. Do I need to list billions of dollars in studies and research that is completely superfluous and wasteful? Or can we just agree that there is a lot of waste in science, by necessity, that’s how it works? (trial and error, I’m not belittling the process.)

    I’m just arguing that the biggest and perhaps only way that religion finds itself into scientific research is through government funding. I’d also say that for every religious person protesting government funding of something there are tons of other people protesting it for a plethora of other reasons.

    Michael, I’d say the biggest difference maker has been the rise of the corporation and before that the rise of the university and before that the rise of the individual inventor.

  8. And just for the record Bob, I’m not interested in a long discussion because I’m just not interested. I’m simply not taken by the subject at the moment.

  9. No, I will not agree with any of your statements. They are all bogus.

  10. Medical research is not mostly funded by private means?

    Wow, someone better let some medical researchers know. You would have thought they would have noticed whether their checks come from the US Treasury or not.

  11. As usual, you divert the discussion from religion versus science to your pet Libertarian brain anomaly of government should not fund anything.

    Religion is often anti-science, including ant- medicine. Religion is in the way of stem cell research among many other areas. The crap that Gallileo put up with has been going on for thousands of years.

  12. As usual you think you suffer from the delusion that you are the sole determiner of where a topic begins and ends. You seem to suffer from the liberal “brain anomaly” of government must have its fingers in every pie for anything to work.

    And I don’t think the government should fund nothing, I think the government, and you, should remember where the government gets it’s money and that regardless of the reasons, the people do and should have a say in how their money is spent.

    Government is not the boss of the people, quite the opposite. You would put the cart before the horse if you had a chance.

  13. Once again, you are off topic. This is MICHAEL’s blog and the topics are his.

    You are the one who misunderstands government. A small minority of Libertarians and right wing Republicans want to dismantle social security. Why has it not happened? Because the overwhelming majority of citizens want it.

    The overwhelming majority want stem cell research to possible cure ir mitigate several diseases.

    People want roads and public transportation. They want police protection and national defense. They want clean food and water. They want to be healthy. they want a safety net if needed. All this is wanted by the majority.

    People want to educate their children. They want equal opportunity to get jobs, go to schools, hospitals, stores and other places. These have been accomplished via government.

    Back to the topic- when religion interferes with this, it is time to cut it offs at the knees.

  14. See, I think all of that is completely germane. You disagree, but seem perfectly happy to go on with it yourself.

    It really shouldn’t be an issue of religion or not anyways, but an issue of any belief that doesn’t totally line up with the scientific facts of the day. From environmentalism to religion, from liberalism to conservatism, everyone has their own reasons why the government should fund this or that and they may or (more often) may not line up with the views of those entrenched in the subject.

    You seem to have confirmed the point I made about you, that government is the driving force behind everything, when in reality it is more often a drag chute.

    And it is never time to cut the first amendment off at the knees, Bob, never. Well unless it interferes with science right? I guess I can see your point. People don’t need rights if those rights enable them to stand in the way of science.

  15. Wow, so many wrong points from you.

    Your disgusting habit of putting words in my mouth. I never said government should take care if everything.

    You twist words to produce nonsense. It is the religious who are trying to rob people of first amendment rights and that illegal interference that should be cut off. I didn’t think you were so malicious in distorting what I said, but you are.

    I have doubts that you even understand what science is.

  16. Rabble rabble rabble.

Can I haz commentz?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 199 other followers

%d bloggers like this: