[mikeh]

onoway, on May 22 2008, 10:40 AM, said:

Science has, as far as I can see, no restrictions or admonitions whatsoever , in practical terms, as far as moral or ethical imperatives go, and politicians ignore agreements made as soon as the agreement interferes with what they want to do ( if they have the power to do so). I'm not sure either is necessarilly superior to  an organisation which has admittedly had a lot of people abuse their power in spite of the admonition to behave themselves, but which also gave rise to people such as Mother Teresa. In fact, it all seems very similar to me.

While 'science' doesn't impose moral restraints on people, nor (really) does religion.

For every Mother Theresa, I will give you a Spanish Inquisitor. For every saint, a butcher or suicide bomber. For every "thou shalt not kill" a passage in the old testament telling jews to kill all the males in a besieged town (a war of aggression, btw) and to rape all the females.

What science does is to remove the mystical claptrap from the existence of morals.

Evolutionary psychology is a relatively new discipline (but, then, science is a relatively new way of looking at the world), and it reveals logical theories of WHY morality evolved.. why we have love, and friendship, as well as why we have rivalries, wars, murder, rape and so on. As in any scientific discipline, the ideas will continue to develop...one of the major distinctions between science and religion is that science, by definition, incorporates the notion that knowledge can accrue and understanding improve... we find out knowledge.. whereas religion entails knowledge being revealed to us.

If we want to live lifes in which we can avoid instinctive reactions (mob thinking, buying into patriotism as a cover for seizure of power by an elite, or making a war of aggression, and so on) it behooves us to understand the factors that make us tend to think or feel in certain predictable ways.. ways that politicians and religious figures consciously or unconsciously know how to manipulate. It is when we are ignorant of the workings of our own brains that we are at our most vulnerable.

Religion requires the refusal to acknowledge that we are what we are... the result of billions of years of random physical processes mediated by natural selection... it requires that we look outside of ourselves.. to some imaginary higher power... for guidance. Science liberates us from that superstition and proffers hope that we can effect meaningful change, meaningful improvement in the moral behaviour of humans, by understanding what drives us to commit unspeakable acts as well as acts of incredible compassion and bravery.

So, I agree that 'science' contains no moral guidance... but it needn't... religion doesn't either... to the extent that it sets out moral guidance, it does no more than resonate with the innate moral sense that the majority of humans inherit as part of our evolutionary heritage.

BTW, I fail to see any distinction between the propensity of politicians to change their positions due to self-interest and the position of most organized religion. I am, by virtue of my birthplace and current location, more familiar with christianity than other organized religions, but it certainly seems to me that the history of christianity is replete with examples of bending to the wind of prevailing fashion. Heck, most of our holidays (holy-days) are based on pagan celebrations, not christian beliefs. And the church no longer routinely burns heretics at the stake. And the Mormon church backtracked on polygymous marriages only after the government cracked down on the practice.. dressing it up as a convenient 'revelation', and so on. Besides, name a US politician who doesn't wrap himself or herself in the bible! You can't get elected as President without at least professing to be guided by 'god'.

[luke warm]

mikeh, on May 22 2008, 09:09 AM, said:

onoway, on May 20 2008, 10:04 PM, said:

Speaking of conscience brings it all full circle, doesn't it?  Isn't what you know of your conscience (i.e. right vs wrong) a direct  result of your upbringing?Thus, doesn't it almost entirely depend on where and when you were born and the circumstances arising out of those two things?

Not in the least. Do some reading on the subject, and you will learn that morality is, to a very large degree, independent of culture and relgion. Which sort of destroys one of the basic arguments of religious beleivers.. that we need some god figure in order not to become selfish, cheating, lying, philandering monsters....I suggest Pinker (How the Mind Works, or The Blank Slate) if Dawkins is too strong for your stomach. (I miswrote the name of te first book, but helene rescued me )

i would like to know how the fact that morality, or a moral sense, being independent in large part of culture and religion destroys what i've said - that morality (the conscience) presupposes God... maybe i misunderstood what your wrote, if so you can correct me... let me paraphrase your words

since people in different cultures at different times seem to have, regardless of religious beliefs, an innate moral sense, it destroys the notion that God is needed for that sense

Quote

What science does is to remove the mystical claptrap from the existence of morals.

how exactly does science do this?

Quote

Religion requires the refusal to acknowledge that we are what we are... the result of billions of years of random physical processes mediated by natural selection..

and you *know* this to be true? how?

Quote

Heck, most of our holidays (holy-days) are based on pagan celebrations, not christian beliefs. And the church no longer routinely burns heretics at the stake.

of course i'm sure you'd agree that neither of those things speak to the truth or falsity of christianity's claims

[mikeh]

Quote

i would like to know how the fact that morality, or a moral sense, being independent in large part of culture and religion destroys what i've said - that morality (the conscience) presupposes God... maybe i misunderstood what your wrote, if so you can correct me... let me paraphrase your words

since people in different cultures at different times seem to have, regardless of religious beliefs, an innate moral sense, it destroys the notion that God is needed for that sense

Quote

What science does is to remove the mystical claptrap from the existence of morals.

how exactly does science do this?

It may not 'destroy' what you have said.. but it renders it irrevelant and unnecessary. The evidence that morality is universal across the human species, independent, in its essence, of ethnic background or religious belief of parents, removes the need to invoke a higher power. An explanation of how we, as a species, evolved that moral sense (because various aspects of it bestowed a reproductive edge on our anscestors) again removes the need to invoke a higher power as the source of the morality.

Why multiply entities when there is no need to do so? Why invoke imaginary beings to explain something for which a more mundane explanation exists?

Quote

Quote

Heck, most of our holidays (holy-days) are based on pagan celebrations, not christian beliefs. And the church no longer routinely burns heretics at the stake.

of course i'm sure you'd agree that neither of those things speak to the truth or falsity of christianity's claims

You are incorrect, sir! Unless the claims of christianity properly change as a function of time, and cultural attitude, then evidence that christian morality has changed over time does indeed speak to the truth or falsity of its claims.

The believers who tortured and murdered heretics did so while full of religious fervour.. certain that they did god's work. They fully believed that they were acting in accord with the teachings of the church. The popes who sanctioned crusades to safeguard or recover Jeruslem may have been cynics but were more likely true believers... certainly many of those who raped and pillaged their way to and through the middle east, did so in the Lord's name.

Were the leaders of the church then horribly mistaken in their view of the principles of the christian church?

If the answer is that they were, how then can we be certain that today's leaders are any more reliably informed? In fact, I suggest that what inferences are available are to the contrary! After all, some christian churches ordain women, some don't. Some ordain gays, while others pretend they don't. Some approve of contraception, some don't. And so on. Clearly most of them must be wrong.. or is there more than one god? Heck, this is just within one religion... look at the Sunni/Shiite divide and we can see that few religions speak with one voice.

No, either we can't trust any old men who claim to KNOW the wishes of god, or god is an intemperate, inconstant force. One day, metaphorically speaking, urging people to slaughter people in his name and the next, urging them to turn the other cheek.

Either christianity's values and morality endorse burning heretics or they don't.. what do you think, LW... and if you say they don't... why should we atheists believe that YOU know better than the leaders of your faith did for so long?

[barmar]

luke warm, on May 22 2008, 06:05 AM, said:

this is possibly the most arrogant and ridiculous post i've read in a very long time

More arrogant than when Pat Robertson claimed that Katrina was God's punishment for the sinning taking place in New Orleans, or that AIDS is because homosexuality is a sin?

Quote

If you allow me to play advocate of the devil, I would argue the opposite: a sometimes-heard objection against atheist worldviews is "science doesn't explain everything".

Science hasn't explained everything yet. Everything we now know in science was once something we couldn't explain, but scientists keep plugging away and discovering more and more. An unknown answer is an opportunity to keep exploring, not a reason to make up something just because you want an answer now. That's what religion is -- a bunch of made-up stories because people are unwilling to wait for answers.

And along with the made-up answers, there's a bunch of commandments that impose rules, often aritrary ones, on life. It wouldn't be so bad if people were just believing in the myths because they need to fill in the holes in their understanding. But when their beliefs result in behavior that affects others, like teaching creationism and persecuting gays, it's a problem. And when it goes as far as suicide bombing and ethnic cleansing, it's a disaster.

[mikeh]

Quote

Science hasn't explained everything yet. 

While I agree with most of what you post, this one is a point on which we may part company.

I previously wrote, on a by now ancient thread, that I thought that there may be limits on the cognitive ability of any human, equipped as we are with a meat-brain evolved to promote reproduction of our genes, to comprehend all of the realities of the universe. There may be concepts that our brains simply can't 'get'.

Few thoughts are truly original, and I doubt that any of mine ever have been, but I was pleasantly surprised (and mildly disappointed) to learn that this notion had actually been written about at least once, and in far more eloquent language than I can muster. Steven Pinker, in How the Mind Works, dealt with this very idea while expressing his lack of a coherent theory for what consciousness 'is'. He posits that maybe we are as incapable of 'getting' this concept as are other (lesser?) animals of grasping concepts that we do understand.

I'm not sure if this is a constraint on 'science' rather than a constraint on humans. Practically speaking, until and unless better-equipped aliens make contact, there is no difference. It is thus possible (I would argue that it is overwhelmingly likely) that there are concepts that science, as used by humans, will never be able to address.

It is in these areas that superstition may find its last refuge... if we cannot explain the issue with science, how can we say that the mystical is untrue... we can't. We can conclude that it is very unlikely and that no mystical answer can ever be complete (who created god? who designed its powers? what existed 'before' it existed?... every answer begs the same question.. and the answer that god created itself is logically impossible.. how could it form the intent to do so before it existed and could have intent? and so on). But this is the fallback position for the Lukewarms of the world, who can challenge us to 'prove' that their mystical being doesn't exist, and take our recognition that we cannot do so as a sign of failure.

I don't see it as a failure at all. I see it as a consequence of who and what we are and I marvel and rejoice that our brains have evolved in a way that, by happenstance, allows us to appreciate as much of the wonder of the universe as we can. Maybe distant descendants, by virtue of genetic manipulation, will be endowed with wider cognitive abilities... but they won't be us anymore

[the hog]

"but which also gave rise to people such as Mother Teresa. "

Mother Teresa? The same Mother Teresa who condemned the use of condoms in India? The same Mother Theresa who said suffering is good for the soul. Please, don't cite this religious zealot as a Christian hero.

[Codo]

barmar, on May 23 2008, 10:45 AM, said:

luke warm, on May 22 2008, 06:05 AM, said:

this is possibly the most arrogant and ridiculous post i've read in a very long time

More arrogant than when Pat Robertson claimed that Katrina was God's punishment for the sinning taking place in New Orleans, or that AIDS is because homosexuality is a sin?

If you want to claim that your statement is as arrogant and dumb as the statements of a Pat Robertson, I won't disagree. But I guess no sane man should compare himself with this pharisae.

Quote

That's what religion is -- a bunch of made-up stories because people are unwilling to wait for answers.

Okay, lets put it in different words: Religion is a way to satisfy people who are clueless what the right behaviour is, people who need a guide in the dark night and who had a big wish to have answers for questions they could not answer.
Hey, put it this way and I agree with you.

Quote

  But when their beliefs result in behavior that affects others, like teaching creationism and persecuting gays, it's a problem.  And when it goes as far as suicide bombing and ethnic cleansing, it's a disaster.

We had been here before: You are right, it is wrong to teach creatonism, persecute others, to bomb etc.
But why on earth do you think that this is a religious problem. Are you really so naive to think that atheists didn't do this?

Please take some lessons in history then.

If you think that 9/11 was a religious act. If you think that Dafur is about religion, or that "freeing" Iraque has anything to do with religion, you have a very different view of the world. All these tragedies have to do with mans wish to have power, more power and with the hate of people who are different. I know that you will claim, that this hate is there because of religion, but that is not true. It is there because people are like they are. Religion is a tool to stop them, but I agreee that this tool is and was often abused.

[Codo]

mikeh, on May 23 2008, 09:14 AM, said:

The evidence that morality is universal across the human species, independent, in its essence, of ethnic background or religious belief of parents, removes the need to invoke a higher power. An explanation of how we, as a species, evolved that moral sense (because various aspects of it bestowed a reproductive edge on our anscestors) again removes the need to invoke a higher power as the source of the morality.

Sorry, this is simply false.

Please name me just ONE culture, where morality grow in the absence of religion.
I am no historican, but as far as I know, the first atheists country had been the USSR. So I know no place, where morality grew without religion.

So for thousands of years there was the need for a higher power as the source
of morality.

We may argue, if we still need this higher power today and I guess we will disagree about this point. But that it was needed in the last two- and more thousand years is a historical fact.

Quote

Unless the claims of christianity properly change as a function of time, and cultural attitude, then evidence that christian morality has changed over time does indeed speak to the truth or falsity of its claims.

The believers who tortured and murdered heretics did so while full of religious fervour.. certain that they did god's work. They fully believed that they were acting in accord with the teachings of the church. The popes who sanctioned crusades to safeguard or recover Jeruslem may have been cynics but were more likely true believers... certainly many of those who raped and pillaged their way to and through the middle east, did so in the Lord's name.

The popes in the middle age are no religious leaders. They had been more like kings, trying to get more influence and power. The "honour" of being pope was not given by God, but they bought it. So these guys are no real good examples of how a christ should act.
And we all know that it was a well known trick to tell the troops that the opponents are evil, of different religious believe, that they are cruel, eat our children or harm our wifes. So the army leaders used these wrong pictures to let their troops fight. But this abuse of religion takes nothing away from the truth of religion.

Quote

No, either we can't trust any old men who claim to KNOW the wishes of god, or god is an intemperate, inconstant force. One day, metaphorically speaking, urging people to slaughter people in his name and the next, urging them to turn the other cheek.

No it is not, nobody claimed this. Read the ten commentments and follow them. It is so "easy". There are socalled christians who acted or act different? So what exactly does this proove? That we make mistakes? That religious leaders are sometimes/often wrong? IS this a surprise for you? It isn't to me.

Quote

Either christianity's values and morality endorse burning heretics or they don't.. what do you think, LW... and if you say they don't... why should we atheists believe that YOU know better than the leaders of your faith did for so long?

You mix two things: The idea of being a christian and the reality. In reality people don't act as they should. This is true in all parts of life. But this does takes nothing away from the ideas. It is much better to follow an ideal and fail to be ideal then to have no ideal at all.

And this is true for religious and for atheists people. It is like Bridge: Better to have a game plan, even if this plan sometimes does not work then to have no plan at all.

[kenberg]

I have always had a problem with this idea that religion is needed to promote morality. I believe that something is true, or I believe it is false, and then I do my best to deal with the consequences. But my assessment of whether it is true comes first.
The argument is not new. Dostoevsky made it in the Brothers K, Michael Gerson made it a while back in an op-ed piece, in one form or another I have heard it all of my life.

Constructing a lasting society not based on religious faith is a challenge. No doubt about that. Actually it isn't so easy when based of faith either. For me, it does not follow that I must therefore decide that statements I believe to be false should be taken as true.

We see what we see, we conclude what we conclude, we do our best to deal with it.

[PassedOut]

Codo, on May 23 2008, 02:18 AM, said:

And this is true for religious and for atheists people. It is like Bridge: Better to have a game plan, even if this plan sometimes does not work then to have no plan at all.

In bridge we take the line we think most likely to be successful. Often we do so for the mere chance of success, knowing full well that the odds are against us. Our plan in no way requires a belief that it will work.

So if you mean that we should live good, moral lives without necessarily believing that this will gain some supernatural reward after death, Roland, I totally agree with you. But if you are arguing for actual belief, I disagree.

kenberg, on May 23 2008, 07:25 AM, said:

Constructing a lasting society not based on religious faith is a challenge. No doubt about that. Actually it isn't so easy when based of faith either. For me, it does not follow that I must therefore decide that statements I believe to be false should be taken as true.

For me, this last statement of Ken's gets right to the heart of the matter. How can one ever accept an argument like this?

1. It would be wonderful if statement A were true.
2. Therefore statement A is true.

[luke warm]

[quote name='mikeh' date='May 22 2008, 07:14 PM'][quote]i would like to know how the fact that morality, or a moral sense, being independent in large part of culture and religion destroys what i've said - that morality (the conscience) presupposes God... maybe i misunderstood what your wrote, if so you can correct me... let me paraphrase your words

since people in different cultures at different times seem to have, regardless of religious beliefs, an innate moral sense, it destroys the notion that God is needed for that sense
[quote]What science does is to remove the mystical claptrap from the existence of morals.[/quote]
how exactly does science do this?[/quote]

It may not 'destroy' what you have said.. but it renders it irrevelant and unnecessary. The evidence that morality is universal across the human species, independent, in its essence, of ethnic background or religious belief of parents, removes the need to invoke a higher power. [/quote]
the problem is, you state things as if they are true but offer no reason why they should be... all you've done here is restate an earlier premise... ask yourself this question: if God does exist and if he is responsible for man's conscience, would you still be able to make the same claim? if the answer is yes, and i'm pretty sure it is, then your claim has no logical basis
[quote]An explanation of how we, as a species, evolved that moral sense (because various aspects of it bestowed a reproductive edge on our anscestors) again removes the need to invoke a higher power as the source of the morality.[/quote]
you haven't given an explanation, you've given an opinion... again, if God does exist and if he is responsible for man's conscience, would you still be able to make the same (reproductive edge) claim? of course you would...
[quote][quote] [quote]Heck, most of our holidays (holy-days) are based on pagan celebrations, not christian beliefs. And the church no longer routinely burns heretics at the stake.[/quote]
of course i'm sure you'd agree that neither of those things speak to the truth or falsity of christianity's claims[/quote]

You are incorrect, sir! Unless the claims of christianity properly change as a function of time, and cultural attitude, then evidence that christian morality has changed over time does indeed speak to the truth or falsity of its claims.[/quote]
you are saying that since
1) christian holidays are based on pagan celebrations, and
2) the church no longer burns heretics,
then christianity is false
[quote]Were the leaders of the church then horribly mistaken in their view of the principles of the christian church?[/quote]
i hope this isn't a serious attempt on your part to make a point... there are people who pervert a lot of good things, is that not true? does the fact that this perversion exists mean the good thing is false? pedophiles say they are doing nothing wrong, they are exhibiting love... of course, in a subjective morality sense that might be true... even so, there is such a thing as love and its perversion does not negate the fact of it
[quote]No, either we can't trust any old men who claim to KNOW the wishes of god, or god is an intemperate, inconstant force.[/quote]
these are the only two options?
[quote]Either christianity's values and morality endorse burning heretics or they don't.. what do you think, LW... and if you say they don't... why should we atheists believe that YOU know better than the leaders of your faith did for so long?[/quote]
burning heretics was a perversion of christianity... you can choose to believe i know better than they or not... they said it was right, i say it was wrong... you choose
[quote name='barmar' date='May 22 2008, 08:45 PM'][quote name='luke warm' date='May 22 2008, 06:05 AM'] this is possibly the most arrogant and ridiculous post i've read in a very long time [/quote]
More arrogant than when Pat Robertson claimed that Katrina was God's punishment for the sinning taking place in New Orleans, or that AIDS is because homosexuality is a sin?[/quote]
well i did use the word "possibly" ... both statements are arrogant
[quote name='PassedOut' date='May 23 2008, 08:15 AM']For me, this last statement of Ken's gets right to the heart of the matter. How can one ever accept an argument like this?

1. It would be wonderful if statement A were true.
2. Therefore statement A is true.[/quote]
who is making such an argument?

[blackshoe]

Codo, on May 23 2008, 02:18 AM, said:

So for thousands of years there was the need for a higher power as the source of morality.

You confuse existence with need.

[kenberg]

Actually quite a few people make essentially this argument, on the forum and elsewhere.

Religion gives comfort. True, at least for some. But in a discussion of whether religious statements are true it is irrelevant.

Religion is the basis for a good society. Debatable, but if true it doesn't make religious statements true.


It is my possibly incorrect understanding that the Jewish religion pretty much avoids this trap. Daniel was thrown in the lion's den and the Lord kept the lions from eating him. I think (I am off my reservation and would appreciate correction) you can be a Jew in good standing while being skeptical of this story.


Many Christians take this view as well. Phil, a Catholic, said he regards much of the Bible as symbolic. I hope I am not putting words in his mouth. Many folks, very religious, avoid being pinned to overly literal acceptance of religion's factual statements. I can almost always come to a meeting of the minds with these folks.

[jdonn]

luke warm, on May 23 2008, 08:43 AM, said:

PassedOut, on May 23 2008, 08:15 AM, said:

For me, this last statement of Ken's gets right to the heart of the matter. How can one ever accept an argument like this?

1. It would be wonderful if statement A were true.
2. Therefore statement A is true.

who is making such an argument?

As usual, I don't believe you are making any argument in favor of your belief, simply trying to refute all arguments against it. Thus it become difficult to argue against because what can anyone refute from you?

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on May 23 2008, 08:43 AM, said:

PassedOut, on May 23 2008, 08:15 AM, said:

For me, this last statement of Ken's gets right to the heart of the matter. How can one ever accept an argument like this?

1. It would be wonderful if statement A were true.
2. Therefore statement A is true.

who is making such an argument?

It seems to me that religious leaders who ask folks to take on faith the existence of an afterlife reward for believing and following their doctrines make that argument. And their adherents accept it.

[luke warm]

jdonn, on May 23 2008, 10:17 AM, said:

luke warm, on May 23 2008, 08:43 AM, said:

PassedOut, on May 23 2008, 08:15 AM, said:

For me, this last statement of Ken's gets right to the heart of the matter. How can one ever accept an argument like this?

1. It would be wonderful if statement A were true.
2. Therefore statement A is true.

who is making such an argument?

As usual, I don't believe you are making any argument in favor of your belief, simply trying to refute all arguments against it. Thus it become difficult to argue against because what can anyone refute from you?

that's very perceptive and almost correct... what i'm doing is showing that the arguments to date devolve into incoherence... i'm saying that such things as morality and logic presuppose christianity... iow, i can account for such things from within my worldview while atheists can't... the atheist can't account for an objective morality, which is why he is forced to say there is no such thing... the materialist can't account for transcendental entities such as logic or love or any number of things... i can

PassedOut, on May 23 2008, 10:25 AM, said:

luke warm, on May 23 2008, 08:43 AM, said:

PassedOut, on May 23 2008, 08:15 AM, said:

For me, this last statement of Ken's gets right to the heart of the matter. How can one ever accept an argument like this?

1. It would be wonderful if statement A were true.
2. Therefore statement A is true.

who is making such an argument?

It seems to me that religious leaders who ask folks to take on faith the existence of an afterlife reward for believing and following their doctrines make that argument. And their adherents accept it.

well "it seems to me" might be fine as an opinion, but you were building a strawman with your argument

[helene_t]

luke warm, on May 23 2008, 04:48 PM, said:

i'm saying that such things as morality and logic presuppose christianity... iow, i can account for such things from within my worldview while atheists can't... the atheist can't account for an objective morality, which is why he is forced to say there is no such thing... the materialist can't account for transcendental entities such as logic or love or any number of things... i can

Come on, the fact that you can't imagine thinking about logic, love and morality as detached from your christian worldview doesn't mean that non-christians cannot relate to those concepts. Of course we can.

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on May 23 2008, 10:48 AM, said:

i'm saying that such things as morality and logic presuppose christianity...

Okay, what is your basis for saying that morality presupposes christianity? That is certainly not self-evident.

And surely logic has nothing whatever to do with christianity (and predates christianity by centuries).

[luke warm]

helene_t, on May 23 2008, 11:09 AM, said:

luke warm, on May 23 2008, 04:48 PM, said:

i'm saying that such things as morality and logic presuppose christianity... iow, i can account for such things from within my worldview while atheists can't... the atheist can't account for an objective morality, which is why he is forced to say there is no such thing... the materialist can't account for transcendental entities such as logic or love or any number of things... i can

Come on, the fact that you can't imagine thinking about logic, love and morality as detached from your christian worldview doesn't mean that non-christians cannot relate to those concepts. Of course we can.

you're absolutely right, helene... i'm not saying (some, maybe most) atheists don't believe that transcendental entities exist, i'm saying they can't account for them from within their worldview... i know on a personal level some atheists who even believe such a thing as objective morality exists (for example, they believe that the torture and murder of very small children is immoral across the spectrum of culture or environment), however they can't account for such a thing from within atheism

PassedOut, on May 23 2008, 11:11 AM, said:

luke warm, on May 23 2008, 10:48 AM, said:

i'm saying that such things as morality and logic presuppose christianity...

Okay, what is your basis for saying that morality presupposes christianity? That is certainly not self-evident.

And surely logic has nothing whatever to do with christianity (and predates christianity by centuries).

i don't know what you believe re: morality, so i'll wait before addressing it... i'll just say that when i speak of it i'm referring to morality in an objective sense... as for logic, i can account for its existence while the atheist can't... i'm *not* saying that the atheist doesn't use logic or doesn't believe it exists... i *am* saying that when he does he has to use my worldview

[TimG]

luke warm, on May 23 2008, 12:06 PM, said:

i'm *not* saying that the atheist doesn't use logic or doesn't believe it exists... i *am* saying that when he does he has to use my worldview

Does that mean that religious non-Christians also use your world view when using logic?

I'm not following the all the arguments (from either side), but I am particularly confused by the idea that logic is dependent upon Christianity. Back in 7th grade when I was first introduced to logic in math class, I learned that true implies false is false. Was my teacher actually teaching me religion? And, was this bit of logic non-existent before Christ? (Or, before Judaism came to be practiced?)