God and Religion Arguments [Mega-Thread]
We seem to have an influx of religiously inclined threads recently, all of which turn around similar issues of arguments for or against the existence of God, or the belief thereof. They are crowding out many other topics, so for the moment, they will be put into this thread until such time the moderators deem this unnecessary. The forum software is not particularly great at merging, so certain posts - replies especially - might be out of order.
Comments (63)
Why does being omnipotent have to be logically possible, assuming that the definition of logical pertains to something with sound reasoning? To my understanding, the kind of capabilities a being described as omnipotent may possess are far beyond what the definition of logical encompasses.
Think of it this way. If an omnipotent being decided to create a universe, does said being need a reason to do so? If there isn't a reason, then the creation of that universe would prove to be illogical. If there was a reason, then it would be logical. The creation of the universe being logical or illogical doesn't change anything. It really doesn't make sense to determine if something is logically possible or not, especially in this case.
On the argument that you propose here, Quoting xinye
If you bring this argument to the basics, isn't it just stating that infinity = infinity? Creating a rock that God, an omnipotent being, can't lift is something that only an omnipotent would be able to do, and lifting that rock is just as difficult. This is like saying one omnipotent task equals another omnipotent task. Indeed this argument poses a contradiction, but, contradiction aside, isn't said being still doing something that only an omnipotent being can do?
In the end, the contradiction seems to give the same answer as:
1 divided by 0 = undefined
There is no conclusion as the argument contradicts both sides of the coin.
You haven't asked the most important question. Can man create a god who can create a rock he can't lift? Seriously. Think about it.
By bringing reason into this question, it is hindering the possibilities of an omnipotent God to complete this task this is above human understanding.
In a way, even asking this question and trying to answer it logically is a paradox itself due to the limitations of our knowledge.
But when looking at it in a logical perspective, I find Swineburne’s take on this compelling. His argument basically says that God is truly omnipotent at all times and is capable to create a rock so late that he himself would not be able to lift it. But once he creates said rock, then he would relinquish his omnipotence. So then it would be out of God’s character to perform such a task that would limit his own power as a divine being. The stone paradox fails because all that God would have to do is simply decide not to create the stone, which would enable him to keep omnipotence at all times.
Since I am very new to philosophical dialogues, I am curious to what y’all think of Swineburne’s argument?
One horn of the dilemma is immediately ruled out - the option that he can't create such a stone contradicts god's omnipotence.
So, it must be that god can create a stone god can't lift. Say god creates this stone. Now, since the stone's definition is that god can't lift it, god can't lift it. Imagine now, god does lift this stone. What is it about this situation that gets in the way of us accepting its truth? A contradiction: the stone can't be lifted by god AND the stone is lifted by god. What's a silly contradiction to an omnipotent being? The very definition of omnipotence means nothing is impossible for god, and nothing is impossible for god means everything is possible insofar as god is concerned. God must be able to defy a contradiction just as easily as he winks a mote of dust into existence.
It's this definition that is the issue. Omnipotent can just be defined as "Can do everything that is possible" and now there are no problems.
What I'm trying to say here is that omnipotence is logically possible only if with this definition in the parentheses, which is (x is an ability/capability & is logically possible) -> s has x, Sorry for the confusion.
Quoting Isaac242
I agree.Quoting TheMadFool
I agree.Quoting freewhirl
That's right.
There lies the rub. I think the paradox is rigged to quash the notion of omnipotence. There is no necessity that god should find it impossible to handle paradoxes. God, if he exists, created the entire universe - from the nanoscale quantum world to galactic superclusters. We can ignore the very large for the moment and turn our attention to the quantum realm - Schrodinger's cat paradox, double-slit experiment paradox. Surely then, God, capable of these paradoxes, can manage another one.
It seems to me like one of your main arguments has the following form:
1. If the property of omnipotence contradicts itself, then the property of omnipotence does not exist.
2. The property of omnipotence contradicts itself.
3. The property of omnipotence does not exist. [1, 2 Modus Ponens]
While I agree with you on premise 1, I would object to premise 2. I believe that if a being did have the property of omnipotence, then this being would be able to make a rock of maximal size or weight. The being could then also carry any rock of maximal size or weight. In this case, the being wouldn’t be lacking power in any way.
You might think that this just means that the being should be able to make a rock larger or heavier than a rock of maximal size or weight since you mentioned the following:
Quoting xinye
However, the claim that the rock doesn’t exist would not entail that God is not omnipotent. I think the rock doesn’t exist because it cannot exist, and I don’t think it’s required of omnipotence to be able to make things that cannot exist. This would be like saying an omnipotent being needs to be able to make a square circle, which is logically impossible. Being omnipotent seems to only require having maximal power, which would only require the ability to make what is logically possible. The rock in question again would not be logically possible because if a being were omnipotent, he could make anything of maximal size and weight but the being will always be able to lift anything as well.
You also made another claim that Quoting xinye
You said this is because the cases presented all contradict the premise that God is omnipotent. That is the point of the paradox though. If the paradox worked, we would have to choose between God not being powerful enough to make a certain rock or God not being powerful enough to lift a certain rock. Either one was supposed to lead to the conclusion that God is not omnipotent so if they were able to show that God is not omnipotent, the paradox would be successful in disproving God’s omnipotence.
The paradox doesn’t disprove God’s omnipotence, not because of it contradicting itself, but because it is possible to accept that God cannot make the rock because the rock is something that cannot possibly exist.
Similarly, God places people into a hopeless and meaningless situation, before He shows them the way to the truth. God wants them to suffer in this sense. Perhaps they are too stubborn or perhaps one can learn much from pain, etc...
Hope that helps. I have no idea about animals. I don't know if God cares about animals.
Kant did say something like ... "the way we treat animals, is a reflection to our approach to humans." or something like that. Maybe there's something there in that paraphrased quote.
Why would we an omnipotent supreme being have to abide by what we understand as logical or illogical? As freewhirl and Isaac242 were sayng, it seems like we are trying to force our human conceptions of reason and logic onto a supreme omnipotent being which would likely transcend our conceptions of these things. Omnipotence may not be logically possible but it also may not have to be since an omnipotent being could exist outside of time, space, and reason.
And I would also argue that, if god exists, he has done something that is, to us, logically impossible before. The creation of the universe ex nihilo seems to be an example of god doing something logically impossible. This states that god created the universe from nothing, no raw materials or pre-existent material whatsoever.
It is then implied by creatio ex nihilo that God can do/make something that is logically impossible because he has before. So for all we know, he can draw a square circle, we just may not be able to understand it.
This still leaves us with the paradox, but, to play devil's advocate here, the theist may have a third way out. The theist could appeal to his ability to do things which are logically impossible and argue that ipso facto we can not understand the extent of his power opting for an argument that looks something like this:
1. If god can do logically impossible things, then we will not be able to comprehend the extent of his omnipotent power
2. God can do logically impossible things
3. We will not be able to comprehend the extent of his omnipotent power (MP 1,2)
[Post 1]
---
[Post 2]
---
[Post 3]
This is the heart of the matter - the notion of logical possibility. If logical possibility is part of the concept of omnipotence then and only then can the paradox of the stone work as an argument against omnipotence.
However, give it some thought and you'll realize that the paradox of the stone relies on the truth of one premise, this premise is unstated and that's why everyone forgets to examine it closely. This premise is that god can't do logically impossible things. Notice something? The word "can't" in this unstated premise. What is the significance of the word "can't" in all of this?
Let's look at the definition of omnipotence and this unstated premise together
Omnipotence means Nothing is impossible for god
The unstated premise "god can't do logically impossible things" means Something is impossible for god
Nothing is impossible for god contradicts Something is impossible for god
Why did I bring up the issue of contradictions? I did so because the refutation of one solution to the omnipotence stone paradox that involves god creating such a stone and then lifting it is that god can't do logically impossible things, contradictions being one of them. After all, this solution entails that God can lift the stone AND God can't lift the stone, a contradiction (logically impossible).
The problem here is that to say that an omnipotent being can't do logically impossible things is to undermine the very definition of omnipotence - it modifies omnipotence to the power to do everything except logical impossibilities. That, in other words, is the same thing as saying there's something an omnipotent being can't do but this is a contradiction: God is omnipotent (nothing is impossible for god) god can't do logically impossible things (something is impossible for god).
Since to change the definition of omnipotence is like removing the character Frodo from The Lord Of The Rings - the notion of god collapses just as Tolkein's fabulous tale does - the only option for us is to discard the idea that god can't do logically impossible things. What this means is that god can create a stone god can't lift and god can lift that stone.
There is nothing logically inconsistent with an electron displaying wave and particle properties.
Paradox: a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true.
Quoting TheMadFool
These are examples of things that seem not to make sense. What's being asked here is entirely different from creating an electron that behaves two different ways. It is asking for something that doesn't make sense. Something that can't exist by definition.
You are trying to apply logic to something that is based entirely on interpretations, assumptions, beliefs and faith. Any monotheist would say right away that your premise is wrong because God simply "Is". Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence are incomprehensible and in fact contradictory concepts when a mortal mind tries to conceive them.
Systematic Theology - by Berkhof, L. -:
"Christians believe God to be both transcendent - wholly independent of, and removed from, the material universe - and immanent - involved in the world -."
Will you try to apply logic to this?
Athanasian Creed - by Athanasius of Alexandria -:
"The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal."
Will you try to apply logic to this?
We live in times where everyone knows very well how to deny God, however, they forget that the most difficult question is to affirm its existence.
With sincerity, from an atheist.
I've noticed this! :rofl:
As a believer in .. something or another .. (that's essentially the only thing 9 out of 10 religious people can ever agree on) I found it neat yet of course somewhat detrimental to raw logical discussion seeing as the major element of all religion is faith ie. lack of evidence or rational thought that follows observable laws.
Of course, the general subject itself can easily spill into many decent discussions. Some of which being effect on society, general idea of lack of proof not being solid grounds for disproof, and of course religion-specific stories and happenings. I'm sure as discussion grows any warranted arguments will be granted independent topics.
Do you talk about whether religious arguments become obsolete over time? If so, no doubt.
This happened with the pantheistic religion of the ancient roman civilization. Over the centuries, and with the absence of any proof that the Gods - or in the case of monotheism, God - exists, civilization begins to doubt the figure of worship, and eventually, the arguments that support its religion. It is not by chance that the roman pantheon raised and brought down several Gods of the title of the highest deity - Jupiter, Heliogabalus, Sol Invictus, etc ... -. One of the weaknesses of any religion - it seems to me - is that it is partly founded on the belief that metaphysical events can - and should - manifest in the real world, which does not happen.
If you prove to me that humanity has developed another set of moral values ??that defend the freedom of the individual like Christianity, we can talk. However, so far you have brought only conspiracy theories and opinions without any historical foundation that only proves my argument that contemporary society is a symptom of the dogmatic weakness of Christianity itself.
The new generation is rejecting theism. Fifty percent of young people don't believe in God. Good luck trying to convert over half the population someday
And this is the portion that will cause the West to fall ... Good luck in rebuilding it. I guarantee that I will be laughing while dead.
Well I'm sure fifty percent of young people don't understand how an automobile functions. Not quite the same argument, granted, however ignorance whether it be a blessing or a curse is an inherent part of growing up. No need to rush anyone.
Around 9 minutes 28 seconds Trey Parker says he believes in god. He's not a Christian though..
Please visit the wikipedia page on Paradoxes and scroll down to Double-slit experiment
Quoting khaled
A contradiction is the linchpin of the refutation of the obvious solution to the omnipotence or stone paradox. The solution is that god can lift the stone god can't lift. The refutation is that that's a contradiction: god can't life the stone AND god can lift the stone. Contradictions are a part of our reality as the list of paradoxes I've linked you to demonstrate. In other words, assuming God created this universe, contradictions are as easy as ABC for God.
The problem with the philosophical discussions is that belief in God is a question of faith. There's no discussion to be had as they are ontological assumptions about how the world works. If you believe God exists then you will look at the world through that assumption. There's nothing here to disprove that assumption because it's a way of looking arrived at through faith not through a scientific enquiry.
Is this like a Donald Trump megathread :smile:
As far as I'm aware, Heliogabalus was another name for Elagabalus, one of the more curious Roman emperors. Though the cult of the emperors was widespread, and some of the madder emperors may have considered themselves the highest deity, I don't think Heliogabalus or any emperor was considered such by "ancient roman civilization."
You seem to insist that Christianity is the basis for all that is best in Western Civilization, while acknowledging its problems in (I think) a rather dismissive fashion. You also seem hesitant to acknowledge the great debt Christianity owes to ancient pagan thought and civilization (being largely based on it and having incorporated it) and their influence on the West. I may be wrong, though.
Aelagabalus, Heliogabalus, or even Elagabal, was an arab-roman sun God. He was initially venerated in Emesa - modern-day Homs, Syria -. The name is the Latinised form of the Arabic "Ilah Al-Gabal", and the cult of the deity spread to other parts of the Roman Empire in the second century, where he would be revered as "Elagabalos" by the Greeks and "Elagabalus" by the Romans.
The cult statue was brought to Rome by the Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus - also known as Heliogabalus -, who, before his accession, was the hereditary high priest at Emesa and was commonly called Elagabalus after the deity.
In a way, this cult driven idolatry of Heliogabalus, paved the way for Sol Invictus - late roman period version of Jupiter - to become the single most worshipped god of the pantheon, and when emperor Aurelian - emperor from 270 AD to 275 AD - ruled, the idolatry was so strong on Sol Invictus, that Aurelian considered banning all the other gods and establishing Sol Invictus as the sole God of Rome. He is famous for saying: "One God, One People, One Empire". Indirectly, this kind of accommodated the roman population to the concept of a single all-powerful God, who would eventually come to be formally established with Christianity.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
In fact, I focus on the positive aspects of Christianity, as it has now become the rule to tarnish the image of the religion by focusing only on its rare cases of darkness. This is a perfect example of the decadence and secularization that I speak so much. Why don't they ask the same questions and make the same statements about Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Shintoism, etc ...? It is very easy to criticize your parents when they are old and have built the entire foundation on which you currently live. Our society lives kind the same relationship with Christianity - as the romans lived with theirs during the "Dominatus" period of the Empire -.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
At no time did I even mention anything against greek philosophical influence on Christianity; in fact, I actually criticize Christianity for stealing greek ideas - Plotinus, as an example, practically developed the concept of the christian trinity with his " The One", " The Intellect" and " The Spirit" -.
I seem to be an extreme defender of Christianity, but in reality we live in a time where it has become the rule to defame your own past, and I wont allow it.
Thanks for the clarification.
As I recall, Constantine himself was a fan of Sol Invictus--for a time and as convenient. A canny fellow, Constantine, but not one of my favorites among the emperors.
Not to spend too much time on religion, but the transition from traditional paganism to Christianity in the Empire is something I find fascinating. I wish we knew more about the so-called mystery religions, especially the cult of Mithras regarding which we know very little.
Constantine was successful because he was astute, charismatic, and populist. He told what the people wanted to hear, and told the senate and the elite what they didn't want to hear. I for sure don't like him in personality. And yes, the use of Sol Invictus and then Christianity was a good move.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Then we are two.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
What do you think about it?
Rather, religions are weakened by a loss of meaning, which can result from metaphysical events failing to manifest.
Religion loses its meaning because it has been weakened by the loss of its metaphysical legitimacy, not the other way around.
Metaphysical legitimacy, as you call it, in religion is necessarily derived from a chain of hierarchical authority. This chain is comprised of people, and also doctrine written by people. People are ‘only human’, as the popular saying goes. This realization and the corrosion of this great chain can also lead to a loss of meaning. Meaning can be lost in many ways but the general thrust is simply that we eventually outgrow childish things.
Are you arguing that religion is a childish thing? If so, why?
Why do we eventually tell children that there's no Santa Claus? Because it's time for them to grow up.
What if they let themselves be blinded by another idea for the simple fact that they cannot stand their existence without purpose? This is the problem in our current society. We are denying your "Santa Claus" but we are not putting anything new in its place. Its common sense to criticize religion, but I dare any of you to construct something so complex and meaningful as to be the new "ideal" as religion was - and lets be honest, still is and will be -.
Then obviously they haven’t sufficiently matured.
Quoting Gus Lamarch
Look at the current democratically elected leader of the free world and tell me that we live in a mature society.
Quoting Gus Lamarch
Adults don’t need to be spoon fed a “complex” system of meaning. We’re free to discover meaning and purpose for ourselves. Part of that discovery may include the fulfillment of being part of something greater than ourselves, and significantly in the context of religion, something greater than our tribe. One of the inescapable failings of religion is that it cannot extend beyond the tribe or in-group.
I guarantee you one thing:
We have been living in the "Dominatus" for longer than everyone thinks ... He is not the worst, there are still worst rulers to come - at least for the mean time, I'm in a privileged position - here in Brazil - to watch the fall of the West - commonly known as Europe and North America -.
Quoting praxis
I'm not getting your use of "maturity" to criticize the institutions of order of humanity. In what respect has humanity really matured? In relation to whom? We are what we are, the only thing going foward is time...
Quoting praxis
The mere fact that Christianity and Islam are multi-cultural religions refutes his argument. It is no accident that they have persisted until today. Both are religions that do not differ between their converts. That's why we have christian japanese, and muslim american people. Religion unifies people more than it divides...
Lol, true dat, and good luck with your privileged position.
Quoting Gus Lamarch
Suffice to say as Fredy say: God is dead.
Quoting Gus Lamarch
The Enlightenment endows us with the wondrous power to distinguish religion and culture.
Quoting Gus Lamarch
Right, they don’t differ between converts, they differ between in-groups or tribes. Those who subscribe to the same values, moral framework, and exalted purpose.
Quoting Gus Lamarch
So we agree that it divides, cool. :cool:
Leaving aside our previous religious discussion, your statement intrigued me. What do you understand when Nietzsche says:
"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? "
My understanding of why you quote him this way is in effort to substantiate your belief that people require some contrived fiction in order to be lead around like cattle.
No. You who noticed that you interpret Nietzsche wrong as the whole crowd of people that claims to have read him. You don't cut a quote in pieces from someone so that they agree with your baseless opinion. If you want to quote someone, start being less biased, and be kind enough to project what the author really wanted to say.
And you didn't answer my question, so yeah...
My understanding, which could be wrong, is that you are in agreement with Nietzsche, and we are not in agreement. My reference to Nietz was only to signify The Enlightenment, because you asked how humanity has matured.
And did the Enlightenment make religion become something less than reason? Indeed it did. But I don't get why you quoted Nietzsche in this case, but ok.
Quoting praxis
And Nietzsche disagrees with you too.
Right, I don’t know how you interpreted otherwise. My fault for being unclear, I suppose.
I am much the same way. He also said religion is dangerous. My argument against Pascal's wager is not simply that we could be in a different epoch than early Christians (the past need not resemble the future says Hume), but also that God (assuming he exists) may not want us to make gambles of this sort. He may not want us to seek him or pray to him in any way.
It's hard to say anything about it because its initiates apparently kept its secrets so well. Unless more is discovered, we're limited to the archaeological evidence and what Porphyry and a few of the Church Fathers say about.
The tauroctony and other imagery, largely astrological, are certainly interesting, as are the seven grades of initiation and the fact that the ritual involved a communal meal. I know it was once thought that Mithraism would have triumphed if Christianity didn't, but I don't think that's likely as its initiates were exclusively male. Still, the cult was apparently very popular, especially among the legions if the location of the Mithraeums are any indication.
Mithras, Helios and Luna are depicted in the imagery. Possibly Sol Invictus also. These depictions and astrological symbols indicate a variant of sun worship; maybe combined with Orphism ("I am a child of the earth and the starry heavens" was an Orphic inscription found on a funerary monument, I recall reading).
The triumph of Christianity was so extensive I don't know if we can ever know what or how initiates of Mithras, or Isis, or Cybele or participants in other mysteries like those of Eleusis believed and felt., except perhaps by inference from what we know of early Christianity's assimilation of them. I wish we could.
This is a subject that fascinates me too much. Christianity completely deconstructed the classic mentality of the people of the time - from ethics, values, morals, virtues, stereotypes, prejudices, taboos, fetishes, dress, language, etc ... - It was like a complete deconstruction of the structuring of the human mind of the time - of course, over the years and not in a single moment -.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
They probably venerated a holy version of a zurvanist demon:
One of the most characteristic and poorly-understood features of the Mysteries is the naked lion-headed figure often found in Mithraic temples, named by the modern scholars with descriptive terms such as leontocephaline - lion-headed -. Based on dedicatory inscriptions for altars,[f] the name of the figure is conjectured to be Arimanius, a Latinized form of the name Ahriman - a demonic figure in the Zoroastrian pantheon -.
Arimanus:
I agree there was a reconstruction if not deconstruction in several ways. I think it a great loss, myself.
Whether its a case of Christian "conditioning" or not, there is much about pagan worship that strikes us as bizarre and inexplicable. You mentioned the lion headed figure found in Mithraeums. How may someone raised in a Christian society think of it as anything but demonic? How can we understand animal sacrifice, or the significance of the bull not only in the Mithras cult but the worship of the Great Mother, and earlier in the worship of Dionysus and in Minoan and Egyptian religions? The significance of sacrifice and salvation are there in Christianity as well, of course, but on its face is so different. Nonetheless, it would seem the same needs and desires are being addressed.
Early Christianity had its own sects or heresies which would strike us now as bizarre as well. The Gnostics most especially I think. Gnosticism may have been influenced by Hermes Trismegistus and pagan cults emphasizing secret knowledge as necessary for salvation. And certainly Christian beliefs can be bizarre themselves; the Christian rituals as well. But not as bizarre--to us, in any case.
Then we are two. Even trying to understand the symbologies that such practices and customs could have for them, we will never perceive these symbols with the same passion and mentality as them, because we - the descendants of the Christians who would dominate European civilization - were completely mentally reconstituted to see the practices classic as you put it: - As something evil, demonic, strange.
It was such a huge loss, that I doubt if ever again the individual human will have such freedom and "happiness".
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Read answer above.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
For example, for the short time in my life that I considered myself a Christian, I understood the concept of trinity in this way:
"Denial of the true divinity of Jesus Christ taking various specific forms, but all agreed that Jesus Christ was created by the Father, that he had a beginning in time, and that the title "Son of God" was a courtesy one."
Years later, studying the Christian faith, I ended up discovering that my past Christian belief was nothing more than the Arian interpretation of Arianism - a Christian heresy from the 3rd and 4th centuries, and which was widely adopted by the Germanic barbarians who invaded the Roman Empire - later, all of them would convert to Catholicism in the most diverse ways - -.
Gnosticism was - in my view - almost an identical religious cultural movement as the contemporary one - everyone has a personal god and interpretation of it, and everyone has to respect each other gods and interpretations -.
Emperors were Arian as well. For example Contantius, the predecessor and cousin of Julian the Apostate (those were interesting times). Have you ever read Gore Vidal's Julian? One of my favorite historical novels.
I've always thought the Arian view of Jesus is more acceptable, more reasonable (if that can be said of a religious belief), than the Nicene view, though I dutifully recited the Credo in Latin and English for many years.
The Emperor Valens - sucessor of Julian in the East - was an Arian too. I don't know if you agree, but for me, this period of religious diversification that was in its full swing in the 3rd century is identical to our current period.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
No, but now I'm interested.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
The Arian interpretation is much more logical and rational to the human mind and vision. "Jesus was simply a prophet of God who was adopted by him as his son". This sounds to the least studied - Germanic barbarians, and anyone without a theological and philosophical study today - as me when I was younger - - much more attractive and personal, than a "Person" of God coming to Earth to live and die between the humans.
I recommend it highly. He seems to have done a great deal of research, and wrote well. Of course, it's also a fascinating subject.Quoting Gus Lamarch
I live in the U.S., and am largely ignorant of religion in other countries. I see no diversification here for the most part; mostly dull forms of Protestantism (when not fundamentalist, in which case it's incredible and somewhat disturbing) and an uninspired form of Catholicism.
I'm going to take a look soon. :smile:
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Yeah, here in Brazil is the other way around...
From your post:
1. If a belief is widespread, there must be something reasonable in believing in it.
2. The Soviet Union had widespread beliefs.
3. These beliefs resulted in many atrocities against other human beings.
4. When a belief causes widespread harm to other people, it is not reasonable.
5. Therefore, even if a belief is widespread, it is not always reasonable.
A regimented summary of my argument is as follows.
1. When a belief is widespread, it is not inherently unreasonable.
2. It is a widespread belief to stop, drop and roll if your clothing catches on fire.
3. It is reasonable to not want your clothing to be on fire.
4. Not all widespread belief is inherently unreasonable.
Some reasons why theism, a widespread belief, is not unreasonable.
The Soviet Union as a generalization of an unreasonable, widespread belief is not a proper analogy to theism."
My objection to your argument:
My question is, regarding your conclusion and Russell's conclusion, do they not claim the same thing? Russell claims that just because a belief is widespread does not necessarily mean it is reasonable; your claim is that just because a belief is widespread does not necessarily mean it is not reasonable. You are both claiming that the popularity of a belief does not automatically mean it is either reasonable or unreasonable, you both just approached the same claim from different directions. I think you took Russell's claim to be much more binary than it is, at least in how you transitioned from his conclusion to yours. Your counter-argument would work if Russell claimed that all widespread beliefs are not reasonable, but his claim of them not necessarily being reasonable is more conservative.
However, I do agree with your objection about how using the Soviet Union as an example cannot be a proper analogy. Russell claims that when a belief causes widespread harm to others, it is not reasonable. The disanalogy here, though, is the bridge between belief and practice/actions, which you sort of implied in your reasoning but is not entirely obvious. The people of the Soviet Union holding their beliefs of equality is not inherently harmful; it is the way that these beliefs were the basis upon which misguided regulations and laws were carried out that caused this harm to others. The ill-thought-out actions were the cause of harm, not the holding of a belief in itself (unless, of course, that belief implies the need to harm others, which is a different case, as you demonstrate). Anyways, as far as you laid out Russell's argument and your counter-argument and other objections, I think that your numerically-laid-out argument, in the end, is moot since I do not think it really serves as a counter-argument, but pointing out the false analogy serves to undermine his argument, at least as you laid it out here, in the end.