A powerful argument against any specific religion

Post Reply New Topic

The problem with this argument is that it isn't an argument against religion, it's an argument against *any* opinion or belief that you may have that is popular where you live or that your parents taught you.

You're a Capitalist, whose parents were Capitalists, in a Capitalist country? Then Capitalism must be false!

You're a Socialist, whose parents were Socialists, in a Socialist country? Then Socialism must be false!

You're a Atheist, whose parents were Atheists, in a country where Atheism is accepted? Then Atheism must be false!

I can see this illogical argument having a shock value on someone not used to using their brain, but it has no other value.

I would argue, it shows no such thing. The fact there are so many different religions might show that religion has been extreemly hybridized by man. However the fact remains; 90% of the world believes there is something out there greater than them...they believe in a creator. That in itself must say something.

I think you have made the best arguement in this thread.

Well, the issue is how this argument is formulated. Former apologist John Loftus puts this objection into the form of the idea that a person can ask themselves what an outsider to this view would think about it, and then answer those objections as an outsider to see whether or not this view would stand. A capitalist will then have to make sure that their ideas seem plausible to a socialist objector, rather than just having a conversation with themselves and fellow capitalists about this. He puts this forward to Christians, along with a number of other objections to build a cumulative case.

You are right though, that this argument in and of itself is problematic, if left to itself, as it can only spur thoughts but it does not force it's conclusion at all. It could only sustain itself with additional argument, such as about the salvation of individuals if these individuals show a lack of ability to find truth as seen by the overwhelming power of geographic tendencies. Or with additional arguments on the just ability to know whether or not X is true.

A counter-response would be the following: that there is no good outside position to move to. This could lead to a number of epistemic issues.

If it's worthless by itself, why not just go all the way and say it's worthless? If it needs the support of other arguments, doesn't that show that the other arguments are the worthwhile ones?


You completely lost me here.


I think you could demonstrate the existence of something to move to, simply by negating all of your assumptions. If you can't self-consistently negate them all at the same time, then you can negate them one at a time. But you can't prove that the new view, or any other view you could think of is actually objective, because you won't be able to consider assumptions that are so basic you never think of them.

Besides, arguing over what is actually objective is exactly the same as arguing over what is actually right. And we're already arguing about that.

I've seen Muslims try to get around this by claiming that everyone is born Muslim. People who convert to Islam say instead that they have "reverted" to Islam.

That the same argument is useful in many way does not negate its worth against religion. That a hammer can knock in a nail does not negate its usefulness in cracking nuts.

That's a question that I'd like to think everyone asks themselves. In the end it is wisest to compare the dogmas and see if they really fit your world view or, in the end, the evidence that the world dishes in at you. I don't think its really a powerful argument against a particular religion as much as it is something that should shut someone up who hasn't thought it through.

A hammer made of paper is pretty useless, though.

Even showing that it is highly likely that someone was influenced by their surroundings in believing something doesn't mean they believe it because of that influence. That's the post hoc ergo propter hoc (meaning, "after this, therefore because of this") fallacy. And if there's something that's true that you believe in for the wrong reason, that doesn't change the fact that it's true.

To be useful against anything, it would have to make it over both hurdles, and it can't get over either one.

Salt and Pepper alone taste terrible, but on eggs, they're great. Sometimes background ideas can be useful for making a point, and in this case, this point is worthless for changing a position, but it is great for reducing confidence.


I just presented the additional arguments.

Let's say that God saves those who believe him, a common theme, right? Well, if we show that belief is dictated by the arbitrary will of location, it becomes morally problematic to claim that God saves a certain set of people and damns the rest if the real underlying factor isn't moral goodness but just geographic location. Not only that, but it seems strange and unbelievable that a deterministic God(assuming there is one) would just favor certain parts of the world to the exclusion of others. Both of these create problems for a theist.

Not only that, but if I am claiming that God exists, or communism is true, or something, then knowing that this is partially culturally conditioned loosens my ability to believe that I am just saying the truth, because I know that my claim also includes the ability to transcend culture, which weakens whatever claim I am making, and points more to agnosticism.


Well, and that is difficult, and pulling up an objection like this gets people to look at their assumptions more critically, as we often overlook the strong influence of culture on what we think.

The more I think about it, I have to disagree with it even being good for reducing confidence. Someone supporting religion could use the same arguement and say, If I were born into a different time or culture I would most likely have a religion and believe in God.

No, an argument from culture is not deductive, but rather inductive. So, your logical fallacy is not valid to address this.

This argument, being inductive(as many arguments are), only suggests that one's reasoning is personally flawed, as there is no reason to think that your accident of birth was more fortuitous than another person's, and so it causes greater uncertainty about the person's arguments. The reason being that most people argue from emotional certitude rather than logical proof or inference. Because of this, such an argument reduces the certitude that the person has, allowing for additional arguments to move forward. You are right, it does not outright invalidate a belief, but reducing emotional confidence is something it does in fact do, and it is effective for doing this, which is why it is put forward.

So yes, it really can get over both hurdles to an extent such that it would be useful. I've even read a book where this argument was used to a significant extent to make a background-based argument atop of which the other arguments were supported. This book was written by former apologist John Loftus, and he makes his case for this approach here:
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.c ... th_20.html

Now you can still dissent, you can even not look at the link as I am not trying to argue from his authority, but I think he answers your objections with greater polish than I could provide. Even if his approach is valid, this still does not invalidate the Christian faith, and I am not arguing it must, but rather it promotes some self-skepticism that is useful for being more objective in an argument. I am also admitting that this kind of argument has a weakness, if you do not think that an objective outside stand for a person is possible or meaningful, then that is a way out, but that isn't the kind of argument you've made so far.

Well, actually, that's the apologist using the argument correctly to reduce your confidence. So, it works, but the issue is that it does not prove anything. Even if the apologist makes his point, he'll perhaps reduce your ardent disagreement with him, but he still hasn't blown past your stance, he just cut down the bluster of a person who said "Any fool can see why God shouldn't be believed", by showing that IQ isn't the real factor, but rather culture, pushing a more critical analysis. This is good for a person who thinks that the rejection of their position is based upon weak reasoning.

In any case, the relevance of cultural issues is relevant for both sides of the debate, so this isn't just an atheist argument to be made either.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/2d/talking_snak ... nary_tale/

As notions of absurdity are culturally conditioned, so one of Bill Maher's claims "Religulous" could also be argued against as too much of an argument from culturally conditioned absurdity rather than good evidence, thus undercutting it.

This does not mean that a talking snake has ever existed, but it means that "that's absurd" is not a valid argument against it, as absurdity is based upon a cultural notion. This ends up undermining underprepared thinkers, and if one makes a solid case(as the user imagines themselves as doing) then undercutting this BS layer to do this is a relatively solid approach.

I think with any argument, the best a person can really do is just equalize the next. We're all really building towers on wet sand just because, there's nothing better to work with. Some people may have had better luck, they're definitely not in the majority and their experiences aren't something that can pull physical proof of.

Also, Claire, were you making the argument earlier that one really has no idea whether it is true that where a person is born is anything like random probability? If so I think that's a very good observation about the nature of the question as well. Sure, making the model of geopolitical/cultural predestiny as something completely random helps at least as an empathetic exercise but past that its not something that can be used to make claims about anything past human behavior, and even that its suspect if its taken too far.

No. I was saying the point seems moot. Although your interpretation of what I said sounds much better.