I fail to see how it is deductively correct when the second postulate of the premise is based upon an undefineable moral value?
Wouldn’t that make logical failure?
R > P
P > E
R > E
In the way it is structured, it’s validity is a given, but it’s soundness could be held in question.
Pretty much.
The syllogistic argument is valid: the conclusion certainly flows legitimately from the premise. The issue is, I guess, whether the premises are valid to begin with: are all people evil all of the time? If not, the argument is unsound not on logical grounds but on empirical ones. Inductive reasoning is useless without empirical support and that is where this “argument” falls down.
I think a greater evil , if we are going to use the word “evil” , is not to be present in the now , but wrapped up in all sorts of BS . For example , if I thought religion was really evil , if I thought that was “the truth” , as you say , I would just do what everyone else I know did who never fell for the organized religion thing , ignore it , never mention it , if your still talking about something you say doesnt bother you then it means it still bothers in you in some way , or at least has you thinking , but thinking about what ? Thinking about something which means nothing and has no value anyway . I think there should be a limited amount of time spent on these things , you make a conclusion and you get off the subject , focus on something else worthwhile , like women & drink
If you couldnt care less about religion you wouldnt talk about it … does it make an Interesting debate ? Well it really depends on who you are but I dont think so , especially if your minds already made up that religion is BS , who wants to talk about religion at a party full of people havin a good time ? Unless its a party full of dorks . Why would you want to even convert someone from being theist to atheist through discussion and debate , since if what you know is the truth then its a matter of time before they see the light anyway , so the time is wasted really . It would be be better to discuss food instead of religion . Its thinking about religious & philosophical problems constantly thats “evil” . I admire Dorkins too , but he has to let it go or have a heart attack thinking about it
.
Realising that in technicality you are correct, I prefer substance over construct. Thanks Tristan.
No problem, comrade. I was waiting to put my Logic 101 class into use.
In technicality, PM is not correct. The statements are not conditionals. If they were, Tristan, your summary would be accurate. But the argument is not
“If it is religion then it is people
If it is people then it is evil
Therefore if it is religion then it is evil.”
The argument presented is much more subtle.
It is more like
C(p,r)…people created religion
E(p)…People are evil
For all{{E(x)&C(x,y)}->E(y)}…For all x and y, if x is evil and x created y, then y is evil
|- E(r)…therefor religion is evil
R implies P
If P then E is established
-so–
R then implies E
It’s what I went from. I haven’t yet covered what you speak of, but by the looks of it, it makes more sense.
Logic doesn’t care what the content of the premises is. It is deductively valid and you can criticise his premises all you like but his argument/logic is valid. Please see “Introduction to logic” sticky thread in the philosophy forum.
Sorry Obw, then logic fails to be a useful tool, language is about content, more than semantics. Logic would naturally fall into the latter category, which makes it only useful for mind stroking and ego petting.
Which is of no use at all.
Not at all. There’s [in]validity determined on the structure of argument, and soundness based on the content of the argument.
To be sound, it has to be both valid, and with true premises.
Please see the “Beginners Guide to Logic” sticky in the philosophy forum.
Here’s an audio recording of a recent interviews of Dawkins and Geneticist Francis Collins:
Felix, are you quoting that horrible argument because you think it deserves to be discussed again? I’m just curious. Will check out the link as soon as I’m off work.
No I just meant to pick up the Dawkins thread where it left off rather than start a new Dawkins thread. Dawkins seems to have mellowed a bit in his conversation with Terry Gross. His main beef with Christianity is over the Intelligent Design issue and resistence to teaching evolution in the schools. He affirms of the mystery of the universe. I found myself agreeing with him on some things. I haven’t had a chance to listen to Collins yet. Maybe I can do that now. If the argument was horrible, maybe these interviews will elevate it.
Oh no! Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Project, is proponent of religion/science compatibilism that Twiffy thinks is “crap.”
03.30.07.2093
You chose this thread out of these other possibles I’ve produced?
Richard Dawkins Interviews & Root of All Evil Doc
Stephen Colbert Vrs. Richard Dawkins
Richard Dawkins Reading “God Delusion” Excerpts
…oh, and a favorite of mine…
[size=200]Ted Haggard EXPOSED![/size]
…and yet…
If he’s not an atheist, he’s [size=125]really[/size] close.
It has a more succinctly relevant title: Dawkins and Religion. Don’t you think?
03.30.07.2095
No, I don’t. The title alludes to a different topic than the one that was actually presented. The main case issued in this thread is that “religion is evil”, while only briefly mentioning the kind Oxford professor. If this thread really were about Dawkins and religion; exclusively, we would see something wholly regarding his latest book.
Oh yeah, and Dawkins “pwned” Collins.
I’m referring to the title not the discussion. How do you figure Dawkins pwned Collins? I didn’t know it was a debate. You’re so competitive.