Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.
In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
I am also impressed that you are such a deep thinker at an age of 14 or 15.
Your question is, I think, “If there is no god, then where did logic come from”. Christians and atheists have different presuppositions. Most Christians believe that everything comes from god. For instance, most Christians believe that without god there would be no morality. Atheists have an explanation for this. Being good to your fellow man has survival value. You are good to others and this helps you and your community survive. So people are good to each other because this helps them survive and not because god arbitrarily made it so. Asking why we have logic is like asking why we reason at all. Atheists believe that we evolved the ability to reason. We have complex brain which evolved from a need to adapt, survive, and thrive in a social environment. Logic, reason, justice, philosophy, etc, emerged from our complex brains. No God required. |
answered on Wednesday, May 16, 2018 04:23:35 AM by noblenutria@gmail.com |
Comments |
|
|
Okay, let's see if we can peel some of this back and find a way to the center of reason. If for nothing else just as a logical exercise.
You begin by stating unequivocally "I am a Christian." Okay, fine, but what exactly does that mean? Because of your age and other telltale signs of inquiry we might assume a great many things. But those assumptions are just that, assumptions, and assuming things sets us off of on a whole slippery slope of speculation. We need more information. There are three main branches of early Christianity: Jewish, Pauline, and Gnostic. Which tradition are you? Why is it necessary to declare you are a Christian in the first place.? What exactly does being a Christian mean? Does being a Christian excuse you from the confines of logic, reason, science and The Laws of Physics? If you believe this to be true, in logical terms you're asserting the fallacy of Special Pleading. See Dr. Bo's explanation. By declaring your Christianity you are holding yourself subject to a whole other set of principles than the rest of us do but with scant evidence to support it. That would be the first glitch in your line of inquiry. As the late great Christopher Hitchens wrote: Anything that can be introduced without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Christianity has many different denominations but if we are to accept the main credo it is the belief that a supernatural being created the universe and when he became displeased it elected to wipe it out and start a new time and time again over 6,000 years (if we adhere to the Judeo Christian canon). As a Christian, you propose that this same Supreme Creator traveled across the infinite (13.7 billion-year-old universe) and incarnated on Earth as his own SON and subjected himself to a human sacrifice to save his creation from a 6,000-year-old blood curse he levied on his own people. Obviously, to most logicians, this is a highly implausible, improbable, and, well, illogical. For one we know blood magic doesn't work. It doesn't work for Satanists, Haitians Vodou practitioners, nor does it work for Christians. Science has proven this belief to be false. But by proclaiming you are a Christian you're saying that the Laws of Physics, Quantum Field Theory and The Standard Model of Particles don't apply to you. Looking at it subjectively we might be able to see that what you are proposing is the stuff of fantasy, magic, and superstition but not real. It's like looking for a food recipe in an auto mechanic's manual. Another example might be standing in your backyard and believing that what you see to be all there is, or because the world looks flat then it is flat. Or, looking up at the night sky it's easy to believe that you are standing at the center of the universe, but through science, logic, reason, and knowledge you begin to learn that to get a truer picture you need to have better tools than just belief and religion. The great Joseph Campbell wrote: There is no conflict between science and religion there is only a conflict between the science of the 6th Century B.C. and the science of the 21st century A.D. Logic is just one of a number of those tools that have proven to be more accurate than belief. There's another saying that goes: science flies rockets to the moon, religion flies airplanes into buildings. It might be rather harsh, but you can see the difference between logic and belief in one pithy observation. |
answered on Wednesday, May 16, 2018 04:02:50 PM by mchasewalker |
Comments |
|
|
I will not get into the question of fallacies, as all that is important has been said here already. But just what I stated before: it usually goes wrong when one tries to seek justification for personal religious believes in logic. Great minds have failed in trying so. It is probably best to just consider them to be both unjustifiable and unrefutable and matters that can never be conclusively concluded.
Think of it this way: if we found a conclusive logical proof that god does not exist, would you change your believes? Probably not. If the opposite was true: would any of the atheists change their point of view? I much doubt that either. The good thing is that there are neither of these - so we can be sure that the arguing about it never has to cease. And as long as this is done with respect for each other and by arguing on the matter and not attacking the person, it is an argument by which everybody can win. Before you ask: I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic: I don't know and I don't care ;-) |
answered on Thursday, May 17, 2018 05:17:25 PM by Ad Hominem Info |
Comments |
|