We are all aware about the differences of every religion in this world. If I was born a Buddhist, I will be following the wisdom of Buddha. If I was born a Muslim, I will be worshipping Muhammed and Allah. If I was born an Indian or Greek, I will be worshipping Vishnu, Krishna, Zeus, Poseidon, Apollo etc. But I was born a Catholic Christian hence, I am in the path and wisdom of Jesus Christ and Yahweh. Look, I am not pertaining to Genetic fallacies here, but to probabilities.
This led me to question the different concepts of Gods and Saviours each and every “Revealed” religion has (excluding the non-theistic religions like Buddhism). Who has the true concept of God? Is it just an idea to represent the mysteries which are soon uncovered by Science? Science itself deals with its finite quality to conceive things, “but to what extent?” is the question.
I have faced so many concepts of arguments on online debates. Theist commoners are fond of utilizing the “God of the Gaps” logical fallacy to portray that ‘what Science still haven’t uncovered is where God is’. It is futile. A big disrespect to Human Rationality, Science, Nature and even to this “God” as an idea which is still hypothetical.
Then, the ‘Faith argument’ follows. For proper comprehension, Faith has two (2) categories:
1.) Blind Faith – belief without true understanding, perception, or discrimination.
2.) Informed Faith - is accepting the probable truth of statements that are based on information one does not have full access to, in situations where one does have access to a reasonable amount of supporting evidence.
By definition, religious believers tend to generalize Faith as Blind Faith which is always subject for correction to avoid confusions. In my stance, I find it very reasonable to “Think first before believing” which signifies my Faith on things I am informed through with sufficient evidences. “Believe first before thinking” is fallacious and self-contradicting. How can you believe something if you have not known well or even just caught a glimpse from a dim light of facts to support such presented idea. Belief on the grounds of Blind Faith will always be put to question and reasonable validation. Unless, if you are wilfuly ignorant.
Sample Analogy:
Unicorn is a presented idea. It exists on fairy tales and other fictional books. I cannot disprove its existence (it may exist on other solar systems of galaxies in the universe). But if we are to deduce its origin (which is just a by-product of imagination; a wonderful hybridization of real-world horses) or asked to provide evidences and researches to prove its actuality (reality-based existence), even our common sense speaks against such stupidity. Ergo, logically without further analysis, we can all agree, that in real-world, it does not exist.
We should always follow the Rules of Universality. It’s very hard to debate a person who utilize differend kinds of sophistry to evade the topic, makes false arguments and falsify questions that is inclined with the topic. To defend one’s valid premise, we should be aware of the logical fallacies created by the person utilizing such.
The common fallacies are:
- ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
- non sequitur – (Latin for “it does not follow”), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.
- appeal to authority – (argumentum ad verecundiam) Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.
And voila! The most outstanding fallacy of all is the previously stated:
[ God of the Gaps ]
― a type of theological fallacy in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God’s existence.
Example of God of the Gaps fallacy:
+There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.
+Therefore, the cause must be supernatural.
All of these concepts I presented were only few of the fishes dwelling in the vast sea of Philosophy and Logic. It coerced me to be critical on perception of all things. To know what is evidently correct from wrong. In my search for Deus Meus, I cannot prove or disprove it. Knowing God (as an idea) empirically is out of human capacity. The evidences to prove or disprove it’s existence are insufficient. If you would ask me: “Does it exist for you?” My answer will be: “Logically, I don’t know.” It’s an intelligent answer rather than [ conclude it does without sufficient, tangible, scientific, philosophical proofs ― which is indeed disrespectful to all premise of universal studies. ]
Then where, what, who is Deus Meus?
I can grasp it and gain knowledge from it.
I can see, touch, hear, taste, smell it.
I can prove its existence.
I have no doubts and have strong faith in it.
It is the unconscious one.
The one which does not enforce mysticism.
The one which does not coerce ignorance.
The one which rejects delusions and magical thinking
The one which is ever present (omnipotent)
– The Cosmos/Nature God
Supporting sources:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
- http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Blind_faith
- http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Informed_faith
.
Latest Comments