“When I believe in God and go to church every week my life is happier and fulfilled. When I pray I feel like someone is listening to me and it helps me make sense of my life. When I don’t, I feel sad and disconnected from the world. Therefore my belief in God is a good thing.” What is illogical about that statement?
Nothing - because it doesn't say anything about God at all - it merely says things about people actions. If people want to pray, go to church, etc. that's fine. I'm only concerned if they want to make public claims about something they can't back up.
the argument is actually ‘there is no physical explanation for this, therefore there must be a metaphysical one. That is perfectly logical.
No, it's not. "I have no explanation of type X for this, therefore the explanation must be of type Y." makes no logical sense. Having no explanation of type X merely means you don't know what the explanation is, not that it must be of a particular type.
I'm only concerned if they want to make public claims about something they can't back up.
Me too. I entirely disagree with this sort of behaviour from religious groups, too.
No, it's not. It's not the only logical explanation, but it is one. The information is 'there is no physical explanation for x phenomena.' Believing that at face value, they conclude, logically, that the explanation must be non-physical: Where y is a physical explanation and x is some other explanation, if y+x=1, and y=0, x must equal 1.
You do not believe that statement at face value. If I understand you correctly, you hear 'there is no physical explanation for x phenomena YET.' You think that at some point there will be a physical explanation.
So why, at some point, might there not be a physical explanation for god? More to the point, why is it not ok for other people to think there might be (which is the point of what I object to about this campaign)?
The information is 'there is no physical explanation for x phenomena.' Believing that at face value, they conclude, logically, that the explanation must be non-physical: Nope - because "there is no physical explanation for x" means the same as "There is no physical explanation for x _that we know of_".
If people want to posit a physical God - a creator of the universe pottering away with a great big machine then I'm only marginally happier than I am with a non-physical one - i.e. it's an interesting fantasy, but without any kind of evidence it's just an amusing idea, not something to be taken seriously.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
Date: 2009-01-12 12:26 pm (UTC)Nothing - because it doesn't say anything about God at all - it merely says things about people actions. If people want to pray, go to church, etc. that's fine. I'm only concerned if they want to make public claims about something they can't back up.
the argument is actually ‘there is no physical explanation for this, therefore there must be a metaphysical one. That is perfectly logical.
No, it's not. "I have no explanation of type X for this, therefore the explanation must be of type Y." makes no logical sense. Having no explanation of type X merely means you don't know what the explanation is, not that it must be of a particular type.
Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
Date: 2009-01-12 01:58 pm (UTC)Me too. I entirely disagree with this sort of behaviour from religious groups, too.
No, it's not.
It's not the only logical explanation, but it is one. The information is 'there is no physical explanation for x phenomena.' Believing that at face value, they conclude, logically, that the explanation must be non-physical: Where y is a physical explanation and x is some other explanation, if y+x=1, and y=0, x must equal 1.
You do not believe that statement at face value. If I understand you correctly, you hear 'there is no physical explanation for x phenomena YET.' You think that at some point there will be a physical explanation.
So why, at some point, might there not be a physical explanation for god? More to the point, why is it not ok for other people to think there might be (which is the point of what I object to about this campaign)?
Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
Date: 2009-01-12 02:02 pm (UTC)Nope - because "there is no physical explanation for x" means the same as "There is no physical explanation for x _that we know of_".
If people want to posit a physical God - a creator of the universe pottering away with a great big machine then I'm only marginally happier than I am with a non-physical one - i.e. it's an interesting fantasy, but without any kind of evidence it's just an amusing idea, not something to be taken seriously.
Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
Date: 2009-01-12 02:32 pm (UTC)