Rational Responders - Installment 3

In the previous installment I shared a high level view of logic. We discussed conclusions and how to evaluate the truth of conclusions based on the strength of supporting premises. The primary purpose of this series is to provide a list of supporting premises for the conclusion that there is a God and that God is involved in the world and wants to have a relationship with us. Beginning with the next posting I will begin laying out those premises.

Before I start, however, I would like to make a comment about the organization 'The Rational Response Squad' whose stated purpose is to 'free humanity from the mind disorder known as theism'.

When I first learned of the Rational Response Squad website I though it might be interesting to visit their site and to learn about the reasons or premises that the group holds for their belief that there is no God. I went to the site expecting to see a 'rational', logical list of evidence for the non-existence of God. They pride themselves in being rational, right?

Let me credit them with having an interesting, in your face approach. How many STRONG premises did I find on their site for accepting atheism? None. How many premises at all? None.

The site lists their top 10 contributors. They have links where you can make contributions. They have a pile of Google adds. There is a posting that attempts to thoroughly outline the number of times the Bible records incidents where God killed people, however the numerous biblical references in the posting might lead one to conclude that the writer believes the Bible is true. There is also an encouragement by the group for individuals who are atheists to record YouTube videos stating that they don't believe in the Holy Spirit. A lot of colorful stuff .... but not a single premise.

My next posting will delve into premises that support Christian theism.

Rational Responders - Installment 2

In installment 1 I wrote about the opinion of Neal Boortz and the Rational Responders that creationists and Christian theists are unreasonable and irrational. So what does it mean to be reasonable and what is rational thinking?

Logic is the process of offering reasons (or premises) for holding a specific belief (or conclusion). Logic requires the proposal of a conclusion along with a list of premises for believing that the conclusion is true. Logic involves the critical examination of the reasons for a held belief and an evaluation as to how well they support the belief.

I could say that I believe that the Carolina Panthers will win the Super Bowl in 2008. A New England Patriots fan may challenge me on that belief and when he does, if I respond by saying 'BECAUSE' then I have provided the weakest of all arguments! My argument becomes stronger if I can provide one or more reasons to support my belief. Coach Fox plans to beef up the offensive line. Injured players will have recovered by next season. I could provide this argument ....

premise 1 - the offensive line will be 'beefed up'
premise 2 - injured players will return

premise 3 - we've still got Jake
__________________________________________

conclusion - the Panthers will win the 2008 Super Bowl

Above I've depicted a relatively weak argument for believing that the Panthers will go all the way. But at least it is a stronger argument than 'BECAUSE'! By adding additional premises I make my argument stronger. I can also help my argument by making each of my premises stronger. For example, my argument would be much stronger if one of my premises truly read: 'all of the other NFL teams have replaced their players with three year olds'.

So this is a 'crash course' in logic. In future installments, logic will be applied to the comments made by Neal Boortz and the Rational Responders.

Rational Responders - Installment 1

While I don't have that much of an opportunity to listen to nationally syndicated talk show host Neal Boortz on the radio, I do read his news commentary daily on his website, http://www.boortz.com/. One of the hot topics of conversation on Neal's show revolves around the evolution/creation debate. So I was surprised to read on the website the other day Neal's comment that, on the radio, he would no longer be discussing the origins controversy. His reason? Boortz believes that you can't reason with creationists!

One definition in Webster's dictionary for reason is: 'a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense'. Another definition reads: 'something that supports a conclusion or explains a fact'.

So Webster is saying that reason involves a logical explanation given in defense of a belief or something given in support of a conclusion. Philosophers call those 'somethings' premises.

Joining the chorus with Boortz is another group with a presence on the web called the 'Rational Responders'. The Rational Responders are a group of outspoken atheists who are trying to convince everyone else that Christian theists (people who believe in the one God described in the Bible) are irrational.

In this series I will delve into the topic of atheism, theism, reason, rational thinking and logic.