I just want to focus on the Abrahamic religions, and on "logic" as, roughly speaking, "the scientific method". While expanding these definitions for the purposes of debate is perfectly valid and I have no objections to doing so in principle, it does little to further the debate I am actually seeking to have other than introduce semantic ambiguity.

Edit: This undoubtedly narrows the position I took in the OP, and I have no issue whatsoever conceding that point.

That sounds fine, but you should realize that words like "logic" and phrases like "scientific method" already have fairly widely-used and well-understood meanings, and "logic" doesn't mean "scientific method". The distinction is meaningful and you'll probably have an easier time communicating if you use those terms in the standard ways. It will also make it harder for Aaron to side-track you from your actual goal

It might also be useful just to be more concrete. Instead of asking "how do you reconcile logic and religion", you might ask "how do you reconcile belief in the resurrection of Christ with scientific epistemology?" or something like that. The point being that if you reject belief in the resurrection it's probably not because you believe that it's logically impossible (again, using the more standard definition), but that the idea is contrary to the evidence of human experience. Presumably, most of the objections you want to raise about Abrahamic religion with regard to "science" or "logic" are similar. For example, I think most questions about the authority or reliability of scripture would be similar.

Would my understanding of what you are saying be accurate if I paraphrased it as: "if we pull precepts from thin air, we arrive at any conclusion we want and our argument is not necessarily fallacious (i.e. illogical)"?

our argument would not necessarily be illogical, yes. I'd avoid the word fallacious just because it's slightly ambiguous, but I'm basically just pointing out the distinction between validity and soundness in a syllogism, and equating "logical possibility" with validity, and saying that from the standpoint of the philosophy of science "soundness" is determined empirically. That epistemological process of science is properly outside the domain of "logic".

And so, "logical possibility" in this sense is a very low hurdle to clear.

So you're basically the horse-whisperer, huh? I just get fed up with the disingenuousness of the arguments put forth by these people and usually give up.

The point is, you can hammer out definitions, you can hammer out the terms of the debate, you can debate minutiae ad nauseam, but you will never get through, because the dogma always prevails.

You could decimate all Aaron's arguments using what we call logic. You think he ever shifts from his position? I'd lay 10:1 that the answer is no, because "belief" is more important to him than anything we say here, or for that matter, anything anyone else says.

Aaron - you are actually the problem. Most people who believe in this **** are too dumb to know any better (see festeringZit as an example). You are ten times worse, because you lend your intellect to legitimising this bull****.

Mostly I'm practicing work avoidance. :P

While I will agree that internet debates can be quite frustrating, and that it often seems like people are arguing in bad faith, I would also suggest that there are plenty of opportunities to to sharpen one's own arguments and clarify one's own thinking. Sure, at some point one has to calibrate one's willingness to engage to the quality of the other parties to a conversation. But I don't think you've reached the point where you should feel so satisfied with the force of your own arguments or the strength of your own understanding that you're justified in brushing aside disagreement as pure unreasoning dogmatism.

Perhaps. I'm a bit rusty on my mythology; did Sisyphus ever get that rock to the top of the hill or not?

ETA: I agree my arguments aren't bulletproof. I just don't see much value in sharpening them when it's literally impossible to get any concession from your interlocutor.

You do it because you'll become more knowledgeable about the thing you're arguing about, not because of what you perceive about what others think. Otherwise, it's just intellectual laziness.

So far, you've presented yourself as the atheistic equivalent of a fundamentalist Christian. Maybe if you thought more carefully about your own beliefs, you might find that you have in common with them than you've realized so far.

That's some inference you made there. I have no idea if he was actually posting in BBV, the comment was meant more along the lines of "the kiddie game is down the street".

Ah, the trusty ole goto "I know you are but what am I?". Fine, if my unwavering belief in reason, logic and the scientific method make me a "fundamentalist" in your eyes, I am not going to debate semantics with you.

The difference between me and a fundamentalist Christian is that belief in god didn't give us the wheel, particle accelerators or heart transplants. Without my method, you'd still be sitting in a cave waiting for your deity to send you some lightning so you could cook your kill.

Logic and most formal languages, in an abstract sense, will allow you to reach pretty much any conclusion you want. Sure, 2+2 will always be four... but X+2 can be pretty much anything. So it's just a matter of adjusting your arguments / assumptions / equations / values.

This is why we separate "sound logic" from "valid logic". Validity only means the logic is applied correctly, logic being sound means the premises are true. Another way of putting it is that with valid logic, the conclusion can be wrong even if the logic is applied correctly. I.e "all apples are green, the apple is therefore green" doesn't yield a good conclusion, but the logic is correct.

Of course it gets tricky once we realize it's very, very difficult to show that a premise is true. But usually we just rely on a middle-ground where the premise is reasonable enough.

I'll defer to your authority on the subject of intellectual laziness: with propositions such as "how can you prove that the universe wasn't created 2 seconds ago?" you appear to be highly proficient in the practice.

It's a valid exercise in its own right, from an intellectual viewpoint. It shows the difference between proof and supporting evidence.

But it's not very useful. The correct "scientific" response is not to holler that someone is a dweeb for positing it, it is to ask them to posit it in a falsifiable form. Which they obviously can't or won't do.

That quote is from Fred Hoyle but he is not talking here about evolution, he is talking more about the origin of life.

By the way, did Darwin himself say anything about the origin of life?

I don't know about the origin of life, but he seemed to have quite a lot to say on the origin of species...

Whether Darwin did or didn't is irrelevant; even if he himself didn't, scientific developments in the 150 years since Darwin have gone a long way towards answering that question.

In science, in contrast to religion, we don't give weight to a given theory because of who came up with it, but rather evaluate it on its merits.

Edit: It's may also interest you to know that "the origin of life" was reproduced by scientists in laboratory conditions as far back as the 1950s.

There are many who say Darwin deliberately avoided the subject of Life's origin on earth. And as far as I know the science still is not even close to explain it or even conscience for that matter.

If your answer to everything that science can't currently explain is "God did it", I am afraid your deity is going to diminish in stature as the inexorable human quest for knowledge marches on, until he is but a husk of the magnificent omnipotent being you believe in.

No, no my friend. We are talking here about logic, that's the subject of this thread, isn't it? I'm not sure you grasp well enough the concept of logic. For example, biologists very often say "it's nature's logic". If it is such a thing as nature's logic, do you think that logic is rational or irrational? Logic is not what you think it is.

I've never heard the term "nature's logic", but the first 2 pages of hits on Google would indicate it to be a pet food brand. I suspect the only serious biologists who have ever used that term (let alone very often) were referring to the nutritious doggy biscuits they had just developed.

The defense rests.

This statement brought to you by the same intellectual powerhouse of ignorance that has thundered its way through this thread.

Not to mention it's the same one that has attempted to rewrite history by redefining aspects of the lives of past figures such as William of Ockham.

Nuts !! You can't get away with this ; play right Sam, or don't play at all.

Quoted for irony.