if you judge faith by a scientific point of view but not science from a faith point of view are you being unscientific? 
Asmodean: I will presume that you’re not just playing stupid semantic games but that you have a real point which I’m not comprehending. Care to elaborate further?
I am an atheist and a strong proponent of logic. However, these sorts of discussions don’t really resonate with me since I’m not interested in pushing religous people to my way of thinking. I have plenty of people in my life who take great solace in their faith, and I respect that. Further, almost to the person, every very religous person I know is hardworking, moral and upstanding. I know plenty of lazy, immoral atheists (but not all, obviously). Though I’m not religous, I do sometimes wonder if our society would be better if more people were.
I think that applying logic to faith is impossible. Faith, by definition must be something which is not governed by the laws of logic (such as believing in things you can’t see), and extreme faith is contrary to the laws of logic (such as believing in walking on water or people being brought back from the dead). As a 20 year old, I used to love arguing with the [insert favorite sect]s who came to the door, because if you can get onto the logic playing ground you’ll always win.
Logic and Faith are by definition non-intersecting. I suspect this is what Asmodean meant.
“Science advances, funeral by funeral.”
Probably Max Plank, although I’ve seen it attributed to Bohr.
jrf
In keeping with the OP I want to mention a fallacy I’ve noted elsewhere. I’ve coined the term argument from stupidity.
This argument essentially boils down to: I don’t understand X, therefore X is false.
This fallacy differs from the classic argument from ignorance which has the form, “Theory X cannot predict phenomenon Y, therefore X is false.”
JonF: I agree completely. Logic and faith are tools for organizing our thoughts. They have vastly different purposes and different powers.
I freely admit that I do not understand the power of faith. For me to argue against it in that basis would indeed be to commit the fallacy of argument from stupidity.
But I do know that faith lacks the power to consistently separate true propositions from false. I can argue that to use faith for such a purpose is as futile and ridiculous as to use a hammer to cut a 2x4 in half.
And yes, Jon, science does advance “funeral by funeral,” an amazingly rapid pace indeed!
If Cecil Adams did not exist, we would be obliged to create Him.
billehunt:
This has not been my observation, unless you define “religious” to mean hardworking, moral and upstanding. In fact, by that definition, I am “very religious!” Otherwise, it’s very easy to fall into the no true Scotsman fallacy.
And I prefer to let a person speak for himself, rather than trying to determine the meaning from an ambiguous or poorly-defined argument. I want to make my own points, not someone else’s.
If Cecil Adams did not exist, we would be obliged to create Him.
Why is it ‘Logical Fallacy’ & not just ‘Illogical’? How does religion get into this?
log•ic "la-jik\ noun [ME logik, fr. MF logique, fr. L logica, fr. Gk logike, fr. fem. of logikos of reason, fr. logos reason — more at legend] (12c)
1 a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning
(2) : a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic>
(3) : a branch of semiotic; esp : syntactics
(4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge
b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty
(2) : relevance, propriety
c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable
d : the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : the circuits themselves
2 : something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason <the logic of war>
lo•gi•cian \lo-"ji-shen\ noun
©1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Logical fallacies are specific arguments that sound plausible but really violate the formal rules of logic. Fallacy is indeed a form of illogic, but it has its own quirks and features.
This thread originally started to discuss the fallacies I observed in the Gun Control thread (or thought I did; as noted, Joe_Cool’s response was actually on point and accurate). CalifBoomer dragged religion in.
I suspect he’s trying to have his cake and eat it too: He wants to justify his use of logical fallacy by falling back on faith when someone points out his reasoning is faulty. I can’t really be sure about this suspicion, because the gentleman does not always make his point of view crystal clear.
I originally created a thread, “Epistemology 101,” to discuss the differences in faith and reason, but without an actual controversy at its core, it quickly sank. I don’t mind revisiting the topic here.
If Cecil Adams did not exist, we would be obliged to create Him.
A minor quibble with that definition, SingleDad - “Logical fallacies are specific arguments that sound plausible but really violate the formal rules of logic.” Many fallacies don’t violate the forms; they are valid, formally speaking. But they are wrong for other reasons. For example:
If X then Y
X
therefore Y
is quite valid. But the problem with many fallacious arguments is that either one or both premises (“If X then Y” and “X”) are simply false. Most texts I’ve seen categorize the various Latin-named fallacies as either those of relevance (premise 1 above is false) or those of presumption (either premise is presumed true without support, or even the conclusion itself is presumed true and simply restated in the premises.) There is also the category of ambiguity where the problem is in the language itself.
I only bring this up is that I think the reason these fallacies are so common is because the form is usually correct. It is very easy to think, “my syllogism is valid, so I must be right.”
I did like the part about science, and I’m adding the Argument From Stupidity to my reference.
An amusing look at various “proofs”:
Proofs that p
More Proofs that p
Plato:
SOCRATES: Is it not true that p?
GLAUCON: I agree.
CEPHALUS: It would seem so.
POLEMARCHUS: Necessarily.
THRASYMACHUS: Yes, Socrates.
ALCIBIADES: Certainly, Socrates.
PAUSANIAS: Quite so, if we are to be consistent.
ARISTOPHANES: Assuredly.
ERYXIMACHUS: The argument certainly points that way.
PHAEDO: By all means.
PHAEDRUS: What you say is true, Socrates.
Do you believe in Rock ‘n’ Roll? Can music save your mortal soul? And can you teach me how to dance real slow?
I like these:
Wittgenstein’s Net:
Wittgenstein uses an image of a group of researchers, who are studying the size of fish in a certain pond. They use a net with a 2 inch mesh to drag the lake, and then pile the fish on the bank. Whereupon, they proceed to measure each fish VERY, VERY carefully with a ruler, and come to the startling conclusion that there are no fish under 2 inches long in the pond. (I have lost the reference to this in his corpus, in the intervening 20 years, but am trying to re-locate this.)
Procrustes:
A mythical Greek giant who was a thief and a murderer. He would capture travelers and tie them to an iron bed. If they were longer than the bed, he would hack off their limbs until they fit it. If they were too short, he would stretch them to the right size. Using Procrustes’ own villainous methods, Theseus killed him.
Procrustean operation: One that relentlessly tries to shape a person, an argument, or an idea to a predetermined pattern.
Peace.
† Jon †
Phillipians 4:13
From the Creationism - 3D thread, Gaudere offers a far superior term: argument from incredulity (I don’t understand X therefore X is false).
Often. But there is that little bit about also discovering stuff we didn’t know about before…
-Steve
“Banned by the Space Pope”
wevets:
People are endlessly creative. We can create an infinity of hypotheses. The true strength of science is the process of weeding out the wrong hypotheses.
Not one shred of evidence supports the notion that life is serious.
Frankd6:
Logic is a belief?
SingleDad:
A rational mind recognizes and acknowledges that it has limitations.
Exactly. I asked you to support your assumption as logical and valid. This you are unable to do. If you cannot support your starting premise, it follows that whatever may be derived from that premise may or may not be valid.
Come on out of the cave and fight with the tools you’ve chosen.
::
Lib
Thanks for elaborating on my example, to which I gave little or no thought.
My simple, if overly belabored point to the conspicuously absent CalifBoomer was this: Debate (or argument) is a process which relies upon the rules of logic to proceed. *Debating * the validity of logic is therefore at best inane and at worst comical.
Been here so long he’s got to calling it Home.
Talk about your ironic simulposts!
To respond:
I would submit that, yes, among other things, logic is a belief.
I have faith in the power and validity of logic. I believe in it. Therefore, my faith in the power of logic as a tool to evaluate the data my senses presented to me is a belief.
For what it’s worth, I would submit that empirically, logic is by far the best supported belief going.
Been here so long he’s got to calling it Home.
Frankd6:
How is this not circuitous? How is this not *argument from authority?
and:
SingleDad sez:
You guys are a great team. You’re making my argument. Keep up the good work.
::
Boomer, I will say this once here, since you didn’t have the guts before to take this to the Pit: Your comments are inane and incomprehensible, and I will waste no more time reading or responding to your posts.
If you like, however, I would be willing to take this to the Pit.
Not one shred of evidence supports the notion that life is serious.
SingleDad:
I challenged you to support your statements and assertions using your rules. Clearly, you are unable to do this. The mere existence of the conundrum I presented destroys your premise, and you know it. Your failure is not my fault. Either grow up, or find someone else to blame.
::