What makes you think I don’t do that?
You maintain your belief inspite of more convincing evidence (psycology, neurology...).
Because I don’t find the scientific explanation for my feelings of the soul to be accurate?
No, because your 'feelings of the soul' are incompatible or at least unnecessery in order to explain (at least partialy) the phenomenum you are perceiving.
And I’ve found that many aspects of my religion are still compatible with the “new information.
Such as? are these important enough to disreguard all those aspects that aren't compatible?
Catholic Scientist writes:
So, all-in-all, I’d say that my religion IS logical
those aspects that aren't compatible are exactly what I'm talking about when I say that faith is dangerous.
I’m saying that there’s more going on than what science and logic have concluded and you have to look past them find out whats really going on. I think there is a spiritual existence in us, with its own world that science cannot touch, because of science’s necessary limitations. I’m also saying that if you limit your beliefs to that which science and logic will allow, then you’ll be missing out on a whole aspect of whats really going on.
Thats just an assertion - you have to
proove that there is something outside science. I never said there was not anything outside science - I just need evidence for it (any kind of evidence).
Now, if I believe science and logic’s limitations prevent them from accessing this spiritual existence, then how can you expect me to use science or logic to ”prove’ to you that it exists?
You know what...? use whatever you want to proove it - I would like to see what evidence you could possably bring to support such a claim.
Again, what makes you think I don’t do this? Because I believe in my soul?
I dont have a problem with you believing in a soul - it that you do it on faith that bothers me. Now, if you were actually convinced by
some sort of objective evidence that your soul actually exists - I would have no problem with that.
What about these things that cannot be proven?
What things? (I'm reffering only to important things - I cant proove
everything)
come on now.
Thats not even an arguement.
And if logic isn’t required then it doesn’t. So now what?
I'm just saying that the root of the problem is also the title of this thread.
What is the 'it' refering to? Then what is a fallacy? The religion or the appeal?
The appeal to authority is a fallacy (thats the 'it').
Your quote seems to support my claims.
Not really - your arguement was:
Catholic Scientist writes:
I mean, when I think about all the great minds throughout history that have questioned the existance of god and concluded that he does exist, it makes it easier for me to believe in him too, no matter that I'm using a logical fallacy and being a little illogical.
This is in line with:
(Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it, where an unsupported assertion depends on the asserter's credibility).
and
A (fallacious) appeal to authority argument has the basic form:
1. A makes claim B;
2. there is something positive about A,
3. therefore claim B is true.
An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy: authorities can be wrong, both in their own field and in other fields; therefore referencing authority does not automatically imply truth. However, referencing authority may carry a high enough probability of truth that it would be correct to base decisions on it.
reguarding the last part - I dont think
Catholic Scientist writes:
all the great minds throughout history
is specific enough to warrent 'a high enough probability of truth that it would be correct'. If that were true then the earth would be flat.
Plausibility
Plausibility of what?
Nope, not for some things. And for some things logical support just isn’t possible.
Like religion?
Of course you can’t go by anything you want, but I still don’t think logic is all you crack it up to be.
Of course not - its just the foundation of rational thought.
Why don’t you use logic to back up that claim.
Whats the problem, if you take something on faith, which is defined by believing something without proof, them you have no reason to look for a different answer to that specific question. Just like there is no reason for people who believe in the bible to look for another answer for the diversity of life - so they stopped where they are, never giving it another thought. There is actually more then that, but I'll stop here for now.
you pointing out one tenet that must be believed in does absolutely nothing to my claim that you don’t have to believe every prediction(tenet) to be a part of the religion.
My point is that you have to have at least one thing (usualy very
central to the religion) that you take on faith to be a part of a religion. Taking things that massive on faith is obviously illogical and so religion is illogical.
™ Version 4.2