Harris Vs Sullivan - Atheism vs Catholocism

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't see the irrefutable claim is a reason it is refutable?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Come again? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean it isn't obvious?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont even understand what you're saying, it looks like a semi-random collection of roughly connected words to me.

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't see the irrefutable claim is a reason it is refutable?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Come again? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I think his point is that as far as intellectuals are concerned, the fact that a concept is inherently infallible and or unfalsifiable makes it an illegitimate theory about reality. Unfortunately this is not an indicator of faith's inadequacy as a theory but rather a simple demonstration that it operates on a level that defies rationality.

[L'ennemi.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't see the irrefutable claim is a reason it is refutable?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Come again? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I think his point is that as far as intellectuals are concerned, the fact that a concept is inherently infallible and or unfalsifiable makes it an illegitimate theory about reality. Unfortunately this is not an indicator of faith's inadequacy as a theory but rather a simple demonstration that it operates on a level that defies rationality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, for the believer, the faith argument is irrefutable
as by nature it defies rationnality

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
no, he's thinking

all atheists deny the existence of god.
no infants deny the existence of god.
therefore
no infants are atheists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's see, a baby is born to a Buddhist family, the parents are atheists. There is no discussion of god in the household. At what age does the child become an atheist like the parents?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

whenever he loses his free pass to heaven, i guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

I await Brad1970's wisdom on this very tricky point.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly, for the believer, the faith argument is irrefutable
as by nature it defies rationnality

[/ QUOTE ]

Harris addresses the difference between non-rational & ir-rational. Emotions are non-rational. Certain types of faith are irrational.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't see the irrefutable claim is a reason it is refutable?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Come again? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean it isn't obvious?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont even understand what you're saying, it looks like a semi-random collection of roughly connected words to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was referencing your "when it seems obvious to me, others contest it."
oh, you mean the refuting the irrefutable part? That has several points to it, but I'll just add perhaps the top layer one, of these two different claims -
1) I believe X is true because I believe it is true.
2) I believe X is true because I believe it is true AND that is irrefutable.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe the faith argument to be irrefutable, simply because it's difficult to argue with I believe because I believe

[/ QUOTE ]

In general, the more attributes you claim the easier it is to challenge. Here, it is no longer necessary to deal with (1) because we can merely show (2) is refutable ... we don't have to refute X.

On a more head-on attack, the theist disproves (2) all the time. Else they would have the same beliefs at 72 as they had at 11. Their changing beliefs disprove the claim that current beliefs are irrefutable even on the 'faith method of proof' because they must have found something that refuted their past beliefs in order not to have them anymore.

that's a start, what am I missing with those? luckyme

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
On a more head-on attack, the theist disproves (2) all the time. Else they would have the same beliefs at 72 as they had at 11. Their changing beliefs disprove the claim that current beliefs are irrefutable even on the 'faith method of proof' because they must have found something that refuted their past beliefs in order not to have them anymore.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think a theist would just argue that their faith is in constant transformation towards a more "perfect" form. The "journey of faith" implies that they are learning more as they become closer to god.

Thus whatever they currently believe is unquestionably true - but it leaves some wiggle room in case they change their mind about certain things later.

Ex: babies and limbo. Was limbo incorrect? No, just an "imperfect" understanding. But the option is still open to reinstate it, in case limbo ever comes back in style.

[m_the0ry]

Religious faith is also often reducible to circular reasoning (as in the "I believe X to be true because I believe it is true" example). These are all intellectual dishonesties. It seems obvious to many that this undermines critical thinking. The problem with faith, however, is a different one; one that can be seen here on this board and Sullivan's closing comments.

It is analogous to arriving at a checkmate only to have your opponent declare, 'I am not and have not been playing chess, therefore you do not win'.

[L'ennemi.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't see the irrefutable claim is a reason it is refutable?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Come again? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean it isn't obvious?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont even understand what you're saying, it looks like a semi-random collection of roughly connected words to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was referencing your "when it seems obvious to me, others contest it."
oh, you mean the refuting the irrefutable part? That has several points to it, but I'll just add perhaps the top layer one, of these two different claims -
1) I believe X is true because I believe it is true.
2) I believe X is true because I believe it is true AND that is irrefutable.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe the faith argument to be irrefutable, simply because it's difficult to argue with I believe because I believe

[/ QUOTE ]

In general, the more attributes you claim the easier it is to challenge. Here, it is no longer necessary to deal with (1) because we can merely show (2) is refutable ... we don't have to refute X.

On a more head-on attack, the theist disproves (2) all the time. Else they would have the same beliefs at 72 as they had at 11. Their changing beliefs disprove the claim that current beliefs are irrefutable even on the 'faith method of proof' because they must have found something that refuted their past beliefs in order not to have them anymore.

that's a start, what am I missing with those? luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah your argumentation is flawed, because the argument is more like this:
I believe X is true and my belief is irrefutable because it is not based on anything that you can prove to be false but simply on my absolute belief.

The main problem is what is X. IF X is there was no dinausaur are a fairy tale, then you can easily refute this claim. Your argumentation will be heard by every rationnal person, by not but the religious nut who is not looking for any reasonning outside the bible. And actually is dogmatic refusal is not as absurd as it may seems if you think a little about Berkeley's idealism.

Then Of course, when X become the simple religious feeling, the belief in the existence of something else, it becomes completly irrefutable, as you cannot rationnaly demonstrate the absence of god, or his exitence for that matter. (see Kant)

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]

Then Of course, when X become the simple religious feeling, the belief in the existence of something else, it becomes completly irrefutable, as you cannot rationnaly demonstrate the absence of god, or his exitence for that matter. (see Kant)

[/ QUOTE ]

See the celestial teapot argument.