Stupid Science Faithist Comment - Circular Reasoning

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Philo Sofee
_Emeritus
Posts: 6660
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:04 am

Stupid Science Faithist Comment - Circular Reasoning

Post by _Philo Sofee »

Joseph F. Merrill, a Mormon scientist during the last century said the jaw dropping faithist comment - "So the direct question arises "Can God be discovered? My answer is yes. Do you think he could have the attributes of parenthood we ascribe to him - love, mercy, forgiveness, justice, etc., if he had so hedged himself about that no one could find him?

But let us now go to the direct question of how God can be discovered. The answer is simple and perhaps obvious to you - we can discover him by use of the methods that he himself has given us." (Science and Your Faith in God, p. 133).

This is proof that religious thinking turns the good scientific mind to mush, and atrophies critical thinking skills necessary to be a good scientist. The circular reasoning here completely escapes the faithist. This assumes what is supposed to be discovered. That is called circular reasoning, something faithists miss time and again. You need an outside confirmation that there is a God first, not merely assume it exists and then ask it, hey dude, do you exist?

And his comment on the parallel to being a good parent is so one sided as to be useless. One can only do this by ignoring all the other negative and damning attributes which the Old Testament proves of their God, namely, a murderer (who has killed vastly more than the devil ever did), a hate-filled evil creator, a slaver, and a hedonistic, mysoginist, all of which are attributes in parallel with only the glorious attributes Merrill imagines ONLY describe the deity. If religion does this to scientific brains, then the religious scientist ought to be given much more scrutiny than ever before. Never trust a Mormon apologist who uses only religious scientists against scientism without giving a more fully rounded out realistic view. Religious scientists are far too biased to have any value in their statements against science. (I won't name the apologist, you all already know who I have in mind, and it's dreary to keep naming him and his silly diatribes against science all the while enjoying its fruits. He won't quit using his computer to spread his anti-science, and instead rely on the Holy Ghost to spread his views. I am simply baffled at his silly insistence on imaging anyone might find his out of context quotes by religious scientists at all credible.)
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
Post Reply