> What's the point on logically arguing from a position of faith anyway? Doesn't that defeat the point?
What point is that? On the contrary - it is necessary for certain "beliefs" be exempt from doubt in order for any logical discourse to be possible in the first place.
When historians are trying to reconcile contradictions in ancient texts in order to better understand history, it makes little sense (for most people) to say "I wonder if any of these historians will ever change the direction of their logic. It's funny that things like this are said 'How to reconcile those contradictions?", and not 'if contradictions exist, is it possible that none of it happened, and the entire universe along with everything in it appeared 5 minutes ago?' ".
It isn't too hard to imagine that some people think of religion and the existence of god in the same way as others do about - for example - philosophical realism. It seems to "defeat the point" only because your "point" is drastically different from that of those people.
I recommend reading Wittgenstein's On Certainty [1] for a much more sophisticated treatment of similar ideas.
What point is that? On the contrary - it is necessary for certain "beliefs" be exempt from doubt in order for any logical discourse to be possible in the first place.
When historians are trying to reconcile contradictions in ancient texts in order to better understand history, it makes little sense (for most people) to say "I wonder if any of these historians will ever change the direction of their logic. It's funny that things like this are said 'How to reconcile those contradictions?", and not 'if contradictions exist, is it possible that none of it happened, and the entire universe along with everything in it appeared 5 minutes ago?' ".
It isn't too hard to imagine that some people think of religion and the existence of god in the same way as others do about - for example - philosophical realism. It seems to "defeat the point" only because your "point" is drastically different from that of those people.
I recommend reading Wittgenstein's On Certainty [1] for a much more sophisticated treatment of similar ideas.
[1] - http://www.amazon.com/On-Certainty-English-German-Edition/dp...