[FoRK] TASPOR WAS: Confession

[Jeff Bone]

On Jan 30, 2008, at 6:58 PM, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar wrote:

>> There are many of us who have looked into it, found that there is a
>> common thread of irrationality (and disregarding evidence, etc)
>> running through such claims (apart from the social/psychological
>> forces I mentioned above), and therefore any religion which makes
>> similar claims can be dismissed.
>
> I think you've lost me there.  You're argument seems to be:
>
> a) Person X makes claim "A"
> b) Person X is irrational
> c) Religion Y makes claim "B"
> d) Claim "B" is similar to claim "A"
> e) Therefore, religion "Y" is also irrational
>
> Perhaps oversimplifying, but I want to make sure I'm understanding  
> you correctly, or at least figure out where I'm misunderstanding.

What part of this don't you understand?

The problem is that, if FORM OF A is (substantially) similar to FORM  
OF B, and FORM OF A is found to be invalid for formal reasons,  
therefore it's reasonable to assume that FORM OF B is also invalid...  
and yet, that can NEVER be admitted by e.g. apologist for general  
FORM OF {A,B} because that would invalidate the very subject of  
apologia.  And therefore, said apologists are INCREDIBLE, and said  
apologia are EQUALLY INVALID.

What part of this don't you get?  Where is the mistake?  Given ANY  
point A, skeptics of point A can't possibly be expected to  
individually debate every apologist of point A, *much less* B!  That  
is a completely subjective, solipsistic, *irrational* (for any  
meaningful definition of "rational") expectation!

And therein lies the rub.  Thank you, Dr. Ernie, for so succinctly  
demonstrating the fundamental problem with debating religion.  I  
admire your psuedointellectual attempt to not only proclaim but even  
*justify* your position, but you've just summed up why this discourse  
cannot be had rationally in a very neat way.

>> Furthermore, the kind of thinking which promotes these sorts of  
>> claims
>> is *dangerous*. And so we say that religion itself is dangerous.  
>> It's the greatest
>> source for promoting that kind of thinking.
>
> I fear you've lost me again.  Your argument seems to be:
>
> a) Person X makes an irrational claim "A"
> b) Person X is religious
> c) Therefore, religion promotes irrationality

Same argument.

It hinges on whether or not Person X's "religiousity" is the cause of  
the irrationality of their claim "A."

Said Person X can never admit that.

Some other Person Y may see it clearly.

Therefore, you have an impasse.

jb

>