Of course, but religion employs grossly FAULTY logic, hence it is illogical. Every argument claims some kind of logical progression, but we can examine the steps of reasoning to show that they do not follow.
Ah, so religion
does employ logic after all! Concession accepted.
Not at all. Does logic disprove the notion that "all Chinese are communists, therefore all communists are Chinese?" Yes. Does this mean that the notion itself is logical? Of course not. Something is shown to be illogical by demonstration that its conclusions do not legitimately follow from its premises.
The notion is not logical? It consists of two propositions, a sentential connective, and deductive inference, albeit invalid. What we have here is logic.
Your problem is that you have confused the terms "logical" and "rational." Though colloquially synonymous, you must learn to distinguish between the two if you wish to assert yourself as a logician. Formally speaking, "logical" means "of or pertaining to logic." This definition does not allow for you to say that something which may be merely fallacious is "not logical." Hence the term "fallacy of logic" or "
logical fallacy." If logical were the same as rational, as you imply, then "logical fallacy" would be a contradiction of terms. Again, formally speaking, "all Chinese are communists, therefore all communists are Chinese" is logical but not
rational, a term meaning "reasonable" or "sensible." Try not to conflate "logical" and "rational" any more - remember that anything involving logic is logical by definition.
Objective reality is the observable universe. We discover its nature and properties by observing them. You're being an idiot.
Or am I being thorough?
So, to sum up what you folks have told me, explicitly and implicitly, regarding science and objectivity:
Science observes the observable universe,
by definition.
The observable universe is objective reality,
by definition.
Objective reality is true,
by definition.
Therefore, science is true,
by definition.
In other words, science is tautologous, being true because it is defined as true. Your justification of science is trivially valid,
assuming what it seeks to prove: science is true, therefore science is true. A perfectly sound argument, though apparently I am the only one here who questions its premise.
By direct observation. Science authenticates through observation, and no other means. Religion, on the other hand, is circular; it authenticates its own claims by citing its own claims.
Whereas science takes this route - "science observes, therefore science is true"? How does that follow?
...Especially if the observed is false?
See above. Science brings in a completely external factor as the ultimate form of evidence: observation of the universe around us. Religion, on the other hand, makes its ultimate arbiter of truth into something which is ultimately internal; a deity whose existence is known only because you feel it in your heart, believe in it, etc. There is no objective substance to it, hence it falls flat on its face whenever it tries to justify itself, because it has no truly external source of evidence to support itself.
Oh I see. So science, for whatever reason, gets to set the rules: "external" evidence is definitive, while "internal" evidence is unacceptable. How interesting that religion "falls flat on its face" when it attempts to
scientifically prove itself. Why do you expect religion to be able to scientifically establish itself if you also maintain that science and religion are incompatible? If such incompatibility exists, then religion's inability to ascertain itself by its antithesis's methodology
means nothing.
Here is a crucial area in which you must try to let go of your presuppositions. Do you give any regard to science's inability to justify itself
spiritually, by religion's methodology? Probably not, but why? Because religion is bunk and science is clearly true. And how do we know that? Because religion cannot scientifically justify itself. More circular reasoning due to overbearing presuppositions.
Also regarding internal and external evidence: how exactly do you make this distinction?
If a congregation of Christians is kept earthbound by gravity, how is that any more external than the same congregation of Christians experiencing the presence of God during worship? Both are universal.
If a Christian perceives God speaking to him during a sermon, how is that any more internal than the same Christian feeling dizzy after riding the Tilt-a-Whirl? Both are personal.
This is subjective, not objective. It is neither empirical or independently repeatable. At best, you can only compare subjective descriptions of impressions; it is impossible to know whether the experiences actually match because they cannot be quantified in any way, thus you rely on interpretation of language as the sole arbiter of repeatability. As the lawyers have shown us, interpretation of language is a poor standard.
Interpretation of language is all science has, too... or anything, for that matter.
Anyway, if my perception of God is subjective, then how is my perception of Zoink's computer screen not also subjective? In fact, how can there be such a thing as an
objective perception (unless one is a sollipsist)? It seems to me that all perceptions are subjective, by definition, and also that perception is our only interface with objectivity. This means that no experiences, observations, apprehensions, etc., are objective. What scientists observe may indeed be objective, but the
observations themselves must be subjective... just as what Christians experience spiritually may indeed be objective, but the
experiences themselves are subjective.
His computer screen is objective. It can be photographed, measured, detected with various instruments, etc., all with an excellent degree of quantifiability and repeatability. Your subjective impressions of God, on the other hand, do not come anywhere close to meeting this standard. You still fail to recognize the entire concept of objectivity.
Who sets the "standard"? Why is it true? But this is not the point.
His computer screen is objective (if existent), yes, but again, our perceptions of it are not. God is objective (if existent), but our perceptions of Him are not. Why is this so hard to understand? I recognize the concept of objectivity perfectly. That is why I cannot claim the ability to ascertain it.
Actually, true humility comes from recognizing that the universe is not defined by our wishes. The religious person seeks something which is greater than us, and in his haste to ensure that he has some modicum of control over this greater entity, he defines it and then worships it. In the process, he overlooks the fact that the universe is already waiting there, already greater than us, and quite easily subject to analysis, unlike his own manufactured deities.
OMG STRAWMAN
Wrong. They can be based on the evidence of our senses, with the possibility of individual delusion compensated for by the use of impartial instrumentation and independent, empirical repeatability as a yardstick.
In other words, based on what feels right. In other other words, based on what makes sense.
...The same with the rest of your post: you only second my points, with a few errors and misunderstandings.
"We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."
2 Corinthians 10:5
)
