I’m not suggesting that any religion is “The Truth” (certainly they can’t ALL be!), but I’m suggesting that the “Elvis lives” argument isn’t the argument that proves anything false. The skeptic had a much bigger opening (which I would have been interested in seeing pursued) when the religious speaker talked about religious people living in harmony with things (though he was careful to talk about HIS experience with certain human beings). I think that this would have been a much more interesting discussion point than the simplistic (and easy to shoot holes in) Elvis argument.

Actually, I think that this religious speaker’s explanation of his philosophy and experiences are hard to dispute so easily. The skeptic’s assertion that the claims were scientific was simply false. (There’s a separate philosophical question about what – if anything – constitutes metaphysical truth.) It is true that claiming that Elvis is alive carries with it a certain price, but it is also true that MANY beliefs carry a similar (though likely smaller) price. A belief that all men are created equal is not looked upon favorably in all parts of the world (or even in all parts of the United States). A belief that a candidate’s given name ought not disqualify them from public office is not universally held. These are beliefs, but are not subject to scientific scrutiny. We can argue whether or not they ought to be held by enlightened individuals, but it’s not a scientific argument. In my mind, religious beliefs fall into exactly the same category.

I’m not suggesting that any religion is “The Truth” (certainly they can’t ALL be!), but I’m suggesting that the “Elvis lives” argument isn’t the argument that proves anything false. The skeptic had a much bigger opening (which I would have been interested in seeing pursued) when the religious speaker talked about religious people living in harmony with things (though he was careful to talk about HIS experience with certain human beings). I think that this would have been a much more interesting discussion point than the simplistic (and easy to shoot holes in) Elvis argument.

Actually, I think that this religious speaker’s explanation of his philosophy and experiences are hard to dispute so easily. The skeptic’s assertion that the claims were scientific was simply false. (There’s a separate philosophical question about what – if anything – constitutes metaphysical truth.) It is true that claiming that Elvis is alive carries with it a certain price, but it is also true that MANY beliefs carry a similar (though likely smaller) price. A belief that all men are created equal is not looked upon favorably in all parts of the world (or even in all parts of the United States). A belief that a candidate’s given name ought not disqualify them from public office is not universally held. These are beliefs, but are not subject to scientific scrutiny. We can argue whether or not they ought to be held by enlightened individuals, but it’s not a scientific argument. In my mind, religious beliefs fall into exactly the same category.

Just because someone finds the ludicrousness of their own argument to be funny (which is what Sam showed him), doesn’t mean they gain points. In fact, it’s the opposite.

What is your bar for “winning”. When the moderator laughs, as does the entire audience, I think that’s a pretty good sign that major points were scored.

But aside from the humor thing–the point stands. Outrageous claims are…outrageous in all other areas of life. Religion is the only refuge for this type of illogical behavior, and that was his point. In short, if you think this type of behavior is silly elsewhere, then you need to consider whether or not it’s silly in this case as well.

What do you find lacking in that argument?

Just because someone finds the ludicrousness of their own argument to be funny (which is what Sam showed him), doesn’t mean they gain points. In fact, it’s the opposite.

What is your bar for “winning”. When the moderator laughs, as does the entire audience, I think that’s a pretty good sign that major points were scored.

But aside from the humor thing–the point stands. Outrageous claims are…outrageous in all other areas of life. Religion is the only refuge for this type of illogical behavior, and that was his point. In short, if you think this type of behavior is silly elsewhere, then you need to consider whether or not it’s silly in this case as well.

What do you find lacking in that argument?

Just because someone finds the ludicrousness of their own argument to be funny (which is what Sam showed him), doesn’t mean they gain points. In fact, it’s the opposite.

What is your bar for “winning”. When the moderator laughs, as does the entire audience, I think that’s a pretty good sign that major points were scored.

But aside from the humor thing–the point stands. Outrageous claims are…outrageous in all other areas of life. Religion is the only refuge for this type of illogical behavior, and that was his point. In short, if you think this type of behavior is silly elsewhere, then you need to consider whether or not it’s silly in this case as well.

What do you find lacking in that argument?