A Light in the Darkness wrote:tojohndillonesq wrote:
Good question; relevance. Atheists claim that they argue against God because such a "superstition" is harmful to the world. (Invalid reasoning - ad consequentiam).
You are mistaken here. Ad consequentiam is when one argues a proposition is untrue because it leads to undesirable consequences. Arguing that something is
worthy of opposition because it leads to undesireable consequences is not an example of this. Indeed, if it were, that would consequentialist theories of ethics a trivial example of a logical fallacy, which it obviously is not. Presumably, the atheist thinks belief is wrong for other reasons. And most of them think - or at least say they think - it is harmful. It is the latter that is the justification for opposition and is no more an example of this fallacy than opposing dietary supplements sold on informercials. There are good and bad ways to confront atheists. In think you are in error here.
Absolutely correct; I mispoke there. The error I wanted to point out was Ad consequentiam; the working in my example was wrong. What I meant to "confront" was the implication that Christianity is untrue because it is harmful... that is ad cons.
The reason I argue this point is that many many atheists believe they have the high ground when it comes to logic. Sadly. they believe, or at least express the belief, that to become a Christian requires the abandonment of all reason. Some fundamentalist sects may require that (do require it) but it is important to show that it is not inherent in the Christian faith. (Noting the Straw Man fallacy; the fact that my arguments are not always valid does not of itself invalidate the premise or conclusion).
I could not quite clarify some typo in your sentence "Indeed, if it were, that would consequentialist theories of ethics a trivial example of a logical fallacy, which it obviously is not." I assume you are saying that ethics would be invalidated by my argument. If so, agreed. But my argument was a mere mis-statement. Kind of like the one above by you.
Trying to determine the best way to talk to an atheist is like trying to determine the best shoe size for a group of people. Different individuals take different approaches. Some think intellectually, some think emotionally, but most won't think about God it at all. In this group the stated value is reason and logic.
I think Christians make a greivous error when they allow the conversation to be moved to pure emotion. This is the approach of the Mormon; "I have no grounds on which to argue, so I advise you to trust the burning in your heart." If the Christian argues on the same emotional basis he validates the idea that reason, logic, and scepticism have no place in faith. That is simply not so. We are to be wise as serpents, gentle as doves, not succumbing to the slippery lies of false prophets. If we cannot logically support other beliefs -be the Christian or Scientist or what have you, then logically refuting Mormonism has no pupose at all.
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the
gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast."