[Dragaera] agnosticism (no flame) (was, long ago: (no spoilers) The 17 [Great Weapons])

[Steve Rapaport]

> Because as I understand what you are saying, belief (in God/No-God) =
> assumption. But the basis of trusting in logic also requires an assumption,
> a faith in the existance of reality (cause/effect &tc.). I may be wrong, but
> I believe not. ;)


No, that's clever but faulty in several ways.

1.  The tautology argument states that belief without proof is faith-based,
not assumption based. So the correct version of the argument you're
refuting, in your terms, would be

belief (in God/No-God) = faith

The original author is saying that there's nothing wrong with having such
faith, but it's by definition not logic, it's faith.

2. There is no need to "trust in logic" in order to accept such an argument,
nor to understand his definition of faith.  But there is a need to "trust in
logic" in order to bother having a logical discussion.  If you honestly
think that you or someone you're discussing this with doesn't trust logic,
then there's no point in arguing at this level.  You should simply whack
them in the kneecaps with a 2x4, or pour honey on their head, and say "I
win."   That's how to win an argument without logic.

StY