Particularly aimed at those into politics and religion.
The reasoning that if A does not work, B will automatically work is not logical.
If political party A is making a complete mess of things, it does not mean automatically that party B will do a good job. In fact it is just as likely that they will do as badly. In an entrenched two-party system, you unfortunately get stuck with this nonsense. Both parties are often, in fact usually, the next worst thing to totally useless, and choosing between them is virtually impossible. In Germany with five serious alternatives the problem does not exist so much, in the US and the UK .... well can you seriously expect things to improve? NIML.
Then for the person who the other day decided to lecture me on my (lack of) religious beliefs - I did anyway point out that this is how I see things personally, and I am not concerned with changing other people's beliefs. Still - if I turn round and tell people that I do not think (for reason A, B and C) that there is any God of any description, these are my personal conclusions. The logic comes back at me, you cannot be certain, there are many things that are unknown in the universe (logical so far) .... therefore God exists (and not merely God as per any religion, distinctly the Christian God). Such a quantum leap of thinking breaks every rule on logic going.
A logical conclusion to the argument is that agnosticism is the only acceptable solution. Somehow though a confused version of Descartes has emerged. I believe, therefore it is true. I believe there is a God, therefore there is a God ....
Believe all you want, by all means (as long as you do not try to impose this belief on other people by force), but do try and persuade me that this is a logical argument.
The second part of this discussion will follow in the next posting.
No comments:
Post a Comment