Why is illogical thinking held up as “really good”? I recently clicked on a link to a Youtube video a few Christian family members posted, for my benefit I’m sure:) It was called “The ultimate proof for Creation”. I was hoping for some rational discussion as to why the bold claim it made could be looked at rationally. I’m guessing it must only appeal to those who agree with it and think that somehow it makes their position rational. But even as a Christian in the past, I was finding the many illogical fallacies in the reasoning’s of the group behind this man, called “Answers in Genesis”.
He not only constantly mocked anyone who disagreed with him, but he totally misrepresented their thoughts!
For instance, relativism is condensed as “There is nothing absolute.” So he asks, “Are you absolutely certain?” The dictionary definition: “The theory that knowledge is relative to the limited nature of the mind and the conditions of knowing”, is much harder to mock mind you. Is somebody that holds that theory going to be persuaded by his stupid and mocking question?
The main premise of his presentation was that the “laws of logic” are based on the Bible being true; that, in fact, without the Bible being true, it would be impossible to know anything! In fact, if you believe that the Bible is true, you believe that “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” and that without it you cannot have any knowledge. So before the Bible was translated and put together for the common man, no one knew any knowledge, and no one not fearing God today knows knowledge either? Umm, the very people who have taught us the most about our world down through the ages (the very geniuses that Christians constantly borrow from) have been predominantly unbelievers or Deists at best! So if they are all so foolish, then why don’t the Christians still believe in a flat world that is the center of the universe?
And you certainly can’t use logic, ” just because it works”, you need to have a reason why it works he claims! Backing that up with “adults don’t use things just because they work”. (No, not like cars, phones, electricity, computers, airplanes, microwaves . . .) As a general rule though we do try to test things scientifically, so we can understand the why’s. . . presuming it is a testable thing.
(I recently saw this concept of needing to test the God concept explained in a youtube video here quite clearly, but some Christians like the Christian guy in it still illogically can’t understand the clear comparison. It’s just a case of clear brainwashing and illogical thinking in my mind.)
“Laws of logic cannot exist without biblical presuppositions” he says. His whole presentation is based on this presupposition of his. He says that standing up to a debate with anyone who doesn’t believe the Bible is already winning, because your opponent is choosing to use the laws of logic, which he claims are “God’s laws.” Talk about prideful! Does he really think this works? So, in his thinking, “the laws of logic are God’s (my God, and my interpretation of this principle in His book that I claim as inspired by Him) and you are conceding to me just to use them.” So then logic should not exist in any other worldview, because his God is truth and you are a “fool” according to his source no matter what you know.
He says God is truth, love and consistent because “it is his very nature” to be, as seen by your book and the interpretation of it. If you point out any inconsistency with that perfection, either in history, the Bible or practical life, you are wrong, because the Bible is always right. Furthermore, I can deny it being prideful because my understanding of it is not led by me, but the Holy Spirit. That is both illogical and circular reasoning. Without the Bible and it’s superstitious ideas of the Holy Spirit leading you into all truth, we would all just be reading the Bible for what it says. Now if we believe the Bible, we have to inevitably judge people as not being saved or having the Spirit if their reading of the Bible differs from yours.
Are they consciously trying to breed irrational thinking and being unteachable? How can you talk or reason with someone who believes this?! I guess they cannot make enemies though, because as he said, “everyone in disagreement is already an enemy”. “There is no neutral ground” for him (or anyone else, because he is right you know). If there is no neutrality being a true Bible believing Christian, then we are all in a big fight according to them. (Of course, the religious are the ones starting the fight, because they are the one’s who are defending such a ridiculous claim of truth.) Surely there will never be peace on this world with this type of hate-mongering from any religion! Any religion based on the presupposition that “I’m right, and no amount of logic or science can prove me wrong, because I believe my holy book to trump”. Peace in this world doesn’t fit in with this Christian worldview, anymore than it fits with the Islam extremist worldview. The true followers of their holy books are just driving a big wedge between us, while telling the rest of us that it’s our fault for being blind and foolish for not believing their huge claim of a perfect book. . .as there is no other proof.
He also throws out morality coming from any other source than his Bible. He of course wants to claim absolute morality as God’s law: “[I claim that] the God of the universe said it and that settles it.” Relative morality is seen as useless to him, even though Christian’s morals have continued to change and evolve along with society’s morals. I dare say he would not have the moral character to sign the secular and global moral code called Charter for Compassion.
The best morality we have ever had is based on the golden rule “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” This existed long before the Bible adopted it, but this man would have you believe that using it in your life confirms your reliance on the Bible. Never mind that the OT is full of disregard for this basic principle. Would “love your neighbor as yourself” include mass slaughter condoned by the same loving God? If it does, I don’t want His or your kind of love then, thank you very much.
He says, “Consider a evolutionist who is outraged at watching a violent murder on television.” He thinks they should have no basis to be angry unless they are borrowing from a biblical presupposition. I say, consider a creationist who is not outraged at reading about a violent mass murder in a book. . .like the Bible. Unless they throw out their biblical presupposition of “God’s perfect and has the right to do whatever he wants”, they cannot be outraged or offended, instead they are taught to go against their conscience, just as the Islam extremists are taught to kill Christians. It’s all the same type of brainwashing.
Absolute morals are horrible, because they are based on the absolute that “if God said it, then it is good”. According to the Bible and this guy, God is the standard for goodness. So when God says “don’t kill”, sure don’t kill. We are usually fine with that one. . .until we want to start a war. But then when He (or more like, the leaders that speak for him) says “kill”, we will justify ourselves to do that too, and say he is still loving and consistent. But I’m sure the Christian’s thought is that if God has a good reason for commanding us to kill, then we’d better do it. (And oh I’m sure he does, but we can’t possibly hope to understand what it is as “His ways are higher then are ways.” Or so the Bible likes to use as an excuse for when God’s behavior is confusing.) Fortunately most believers in the Bible and even the Koran say that those violent times are in the past and not for them now, but history bears out that there have always been many believers who continue to live the Bible in that way.
The problem with the believing you have absolute truth and unchanging morals is supposing that anyone at anytime could ever trust their senses enough to say that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, God inspired them to think or do something bad. Without that, you just have the usual person committing an atrocity in the name of a god because they didn’t have enough character to do right (as defined by what they would want done to them).
By the way, the Golden Rule is not all about wonderful character, it is just a great way to serve yourself by serving the group. I intend to love these Christians as best as I can, but I hate that they already see me as an enemy to their God, and thus them. Their God’s enemies have not received the best of treatment at their hands both in the past and now. Just a notice, I will never kill a Christian for their beliefs. It takes religion (a belief system) to do that, and I have blissfully set aside that crutch. I hope you can open your mind enough to question your presuppositions of the authority of the Bible, and then we can actually logically and scientifically prove whether there is a scrap of proof for it being the basis of all these things this guy claims. Then and only then can we have peace.