Faith or Reason?

Some 'University'! Balderdash...

Yes. I looked at that when it was posted earlier. It's complete bullshit. If anyone wants to find it comforting, fine, but it's still bullshit.

Rubbish pseudo science. If a belief in a god were rational, most rational people would accept it, which clearly they do not. Even my very intelligent Catholic friend agrees that her faith is not based on logic - it is just something she feels, needs and enjoys.

Balderdash, bullshit and rubbish, all in three short posts!

Must go and watch the video.

No point pussyfooting around, petallus. Enjoy the video.

Can I be bothered?

Nah!

Video boring so read transcript. Ah bless!

Didn't realise Newton believed in God.

Actually this is a good example of how something can be logical but still not convincing.

Logic is not infallible.

Exactly. If your argument is based on a false or dubious premise, the logic it follows may be perfect, but that doesn't mean your conclusion has reached the truth, or even anywhere near it.

Also, isn't the the fact that faith isn't rational one of the main arguments used against comparing it to atheism?

petallus, I would argue with that. People's use of logic isn't fallible but I think logic, correctly used, is.

Sorry... meant infallible! #goodone!

Problem is when someone is using logic to justify a position which often stems from underlying emotion (antipathy to religion say), to them their argument seems impeccable.

I suppose the nice bloke in the video feels he is making a watertight case.

I think logic in itself is fine, but only up to a point. We need other things as well, like morality (which is often completely illogical)

I think most people's morality is logical - we are a pack animal and deviating too far from the pack's norms could lead to exclusion.

Could you give an example of illogical morality, please? I'm finding it hard to think of one.

Not allowing medical experiments on people awaiting execution.

Rescuing dogs and whales but not caring about other animals, in fact eating them.

Not allowing people who are going to die soon anyway to take the euthanasia option.

Not executing murderers, instead spending a fortune keeping them in prison for life.

"Not allowing medical experiments on people awaiting execution."
If it's immoral to allow medical experiments on people without their consent, then it's always immoral. So not illogical.

"Rescuing dogs and whales but not caring about other animals, in fact eating them."
Eating meat does not mean one doesn't care about animals. The 'logic' of the argument is false.

"Not allowing people who are going to die soon anyway to take the euthanasia option."
I wouldn't call this moral. The law is based on religious conceptions of the sacredness of life. Laws on this are beginning to change because many people think it is wrong to let someone continue to suffer when they (the sufferer) would choose to end the suffering by getting help to die. See Dignity in Dying and similar organisations.

"Not executing murderers, instead spending a fortune keeping them in prison for life."
You might execute the wrong person. It has happened. Is execution 'moral' anyway? I wouldn't have said so, even if it's desirable in the sense of ridding society of burdens it can do without.

So, in all these examples, either the logic or the so-called morality is faulty.

Ergo, it's not illogical morality. Nor is it logical immorality.

You can't allow .medical experiments on people just because they are awaiting execution! The execution is their punishment. They don't suddenly become the property of the state holding them!

Agree about getting sentimental about some animals whilst eating others. 'twas ever thus though. I don't want to eat cat anyway. Or dog.

Agree about getting sentimental about some animals whilst eating others. 'twas ever thus though. I don't want to eat cat anyway. Or dog.

Sorry. On Fire.

Capital punishment belongs in the dark ages. Think about the person pulling the bolt back.

Not sure about euthanasia.

I have watched the vid. So, is he saying believing in a creator is logical. If so, why is Bags posting this?