In Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric.

by Blueblades 5 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Blueblades

  From Howard Kahane of Bernard Baruch College.

  There are "Methods of Argumentation"

  Honest and Dishonest

  Principled and Unprincipled

  Genuine and Artificial----including, mere assertions, one sided presentations where contrary evidence is suppressed or ignored.

  We often accuse the watchtower society of using these methods of argumentation and rightfully so. We too have been guilty of using this method of argumentation when we went out to preach what the watchtower printed.

  Now that we are no longer associated with the watchtower how are we doing when we post a new topic and respond to other poster's who may have certain belief systems of their own.

  Do we truly use the left side of the methods shown above or do we sometimes use some of the right side of the methods shown above to get our own way of thinking across.

  I try to stick with the left side of the methods shown above.

  I'm not accusing anyone of doing anything but what they truly believe to be right in their own mind.

  For myself, I think that I may have been guilty of using the right side of the last method, and that is using the artificial method which includes, mere assertions, one sided - presentations where contrary evidence is suppressed or ignored because deep inside myself I can't believe what some believers tell us what they believe. And it's very hard to convince the true believer otherwise. I will try very hard not to impose my will or thinking on others and stick to the left side of the method of argumentation.

  Thanks for responding.

  Blueblades
• 

  Terry

  Logic is the art of non-contradictory measurement.

  Religious discourse deals with the undemonstrable all the time. Assertions fly which may or may not be metaphorical, symbolic, literal, conjectural or downright wrong!

  Without an ostensible (you can point to it) referent (concrete example) the conversation becomes quicksand.

  The appeal to Authority is the card which is played constantly. "Because I said so." Or "Because the Bible said so."

  In the final analysis, all such arguments over God, theology, doctrine and orthodoxy are really arguments about words contained in the Bible.

  The only argument worth having, IMHO, is about the history of the transmission of what we call the bible.

  When you find contradiction internal to doctrine you see the red flag of LIE waving in front of your face.

  Without knowing if the Bible is a "constructed" argument from oral opinions, myths, stories and hearsay---you cannot defend what is written as directly from the mind and will of a Supreme Being.

  FAITH is the only strategy people without proof can use to push an agenda forward without evidence.
• 

  Blueblades

  "FAITH is the only strategy people without proof can use to push an agenda forward without evidence."

  May I use an example: When we look at human life from two diametrically opposed points of view, those of the believer and the unbeliever, we have two conflicting points of view. No one is neutral on such an emotionally charged issues.

  None of us can tolerate the notion that our worldview may be based on a false premise and thus, our whole life is headed in the wrong direction. Because of the far-reaching implications for our lives, we tend to dismiss and contradict agruments for the worldview we reject.

  Sir Francis Bacon advised: "Read not to contradict...but to weigh and consider."

  Socrates said "the unexamined life is not worth living."

  Blueblades
• 

  Terry

  None of us can tolerate the notion that our worldview may be based on a false premise and thus, our whole life is headed in the wrong direction. Because of the far-reaching implications for our lives, we tend to dismiss and contradict agruments for the worldview we reject.

  Sir Francis Bacon advised: "Read not to contradict...but to weigh and consider."

  When the contradiction between the real world and the "belief" comes to a "rubber meets the road" conflict: CLARITY ensues!

  Example: A mother who lets her little girl die rather than submit to a medical procedure because she believes GOD DESIRES OBEDIENCE rather than preservation of a child's life----is morally demonstrating contradiction. LOVE contradicts obedience in this instance.

  If this isn't a wrong view---what could ever be? God cannot suffer death. God cannot lose what the child can lose. There is no guarantee the child has achieved special status in the afterlife. It is a roll of the dice and the child is the loser. Making this sort of gamble for FAITH is reprehensible irresponsibility.

  That sort of choice is impossible to an irrational person---i.e. one whose premise is not logic, but, obedience!
• 

  Mr. Majestic

  Faith has been a bane and scourge of mankind for centuries. It papers over the prodigious cracks of doubt associated with every belief system.

  Never seen faith as detrimental or as misleading as I do now.

  Logic doesn’t always ascertain truth though, being that logic is relative to perspective.

  Hypothesis can also be defined as putting forward an agenda of unprovable facts and theories but has the luxury of partial or unknown probability. In the realm of science it can sometimes be the only means of progression to the next plateau of truth and understanding. Can sometimes be associated with faith and dogma, and can also prove to be as misleading.

  Intellectual dishonesty is pretty universal to the human condition. No surprise it would also be on an ex religious forum.
• 

  amicus

  *Intellectual dishonesty is pretty universal to the human condition. No surprise it would also be on an ex religious forum.*

  One could say that "Dishonesty is pretty universal to the human condition." "No surprise it would be on" *any* forum.

  At present I pay closest attention to research provided by college/government grants as the cheaters are usually sorted out in time. Our more popular religions to date have for the most part *horrible* histories and have difficulty dealing with concepts like critical thinking.

  Sadly even our Governments (USA here) embrace dishonesty. I really don't know of an exception. Bush rubs our nose in it, but why not? He sure as hell dosen't have to worry about a bullet to the head like some of our more honest leaders. He'll kill 100,000's or 1,000,000's and be considered a hero by modern "Christians" and right wing American *patriots*.

  Intellectual dishonesty perhaps *is* the human condition.