What do you find more offensive to reason, apologetics or circular reasoning?

Answer 1

Nothing offends reason. It simply exists, watching our mild attempts at it with simple, curious fascination.
Reason being the basis for the rational person, offense being the basis for irrational bias, then no rational person may be offended. Therefore the premise of the question dissolves in that neither reason nor the rational person may find offense.

Apologetics mix reason with emotional bias to defend their faith, but the two are easily separable when they are understood correctly. Emotional bias may easily be illuminated with logic, usually being the source of the inconsistencies.

Circular reason is a contradiction, in that it establishes two events as causes of each other (i.e. the classic "chicken and the egg" paradox), and is therefore irrational also. Every contradiction may be illuminated by the proper use of reason.

The offense exists in the subject's desire that the speaker, in claiming rational thought, not deviate far from it. But there exists no offense in irrationality, except in the belief that one can discern rationality beyond one's own abilities

No, neither apologetics nor circular reasoners offend reason, but they certainly do lay claim upon it far beyond their actual adherence to it.

PS: A defense of one's religion doesn't intrinsically imply a willingness to abandon reason, though such seems to be the custom/precedent.

Answer 2

Circular reasoning.

Apologetics actually makes SENSE, if it is used as it is meant. Apologetics is meant to be a philosophy of a religion, built up by logic. The reason apologetics sometimes looks irrational is because the religion's core beliefs are accepted as axiomically true. I once made a point of positing 'Jesus is Messiah' as the sole axiom and was able to reasonably deduce or induce 99% of the Roman Catholic Catechism. The obvious first step, of course, is, "If Jesus is Messiah, then the New Testament of him must be true, and the Old Testament must be true and points to him. Otherwise, we could not know Jesus as the Messiah." By negation, I was able to prove from that ONE axiom, the validity of the entire Bible (though not literal fact, but at least symbolic validity).

Where apologetics fails is when people try to use it to disprove otherwise testable hypotheses or theories. Evolution is a well-established fact, and the theory describing it is called natural selection, but many evangelical apologists try to redefine 'theory' to meet their needs (they use the common definition that a theory is a guess, when science uses the term as 'an evaluation of the evidence such that to come to any other conclusion would be considered extensively in error').

Answer 3

I don't know, the straw men around here are rather offensive as well. Though the circular reasoning is pretty bad too.

Could you define apologetics for us?

Answer 4

Apologetics mostly makes use of circular reasoning. It is an attempt to show the Bible to be true through showing Bible verses that indicate the Bible is true (and rationalizing those that don't make sense).

Answer 5

Circular reasoning is often found within apologetics... for that reason i think C.R. is probably the greatest culprit, though they are both equally offensive to reason.

Answer 6

Being an apologeticist and seeing that those who fancy evolution (which is and has been debunked, even by Darwin) rely on circular reasoning, you can deduce that circular reasoning essentially circumvents reasoning.

Think about this circular reasoning - He's an Apologeticist so therefore he's against circular reasoning and if he's against circular reasoning then he must be an Apologeticist.

Answer 7

What I find offensive is someone who cannot let me believe what I like when they dare anyone to tell them what to believe. I find it offensive when someone makes fun or blittles someone else's beliefs simply because they do not understand it or do not agree with it. At what point do we all say religion is a subject on which we will never have absolute unity over and get on with discovering more about each other and how we can all work toward the greater good of the world?

Answer 8

a million. it particularly is authentic because of the fact a lot of his non a hundred innings have been a key to achievements for community indian community. 2. certainly bogus because of the fact it exchange right into a unforgettable bypass with and a regularly occurring of its variety. 3. certainly because of the fact he has carried out above 450 fits and it would certainly effect his extensive-unfold even though it continues to be properly above 40 8. 4. certainly. Indians be counted on him plenty. 5. could be. it particularly is complicated to declare. fairly he has carried out extra fits so for sure he would have extra advantages to his call. 6. comparable recommendations because of the fact the 5th. 7. in all hazard no longer. there are various extra complicated gamers than him. 8. i do no longer think of so. He has have been given many different hen ans man or woman huge decision scores. 9. until eventually 2008. Then there exchange right into a large variety of opposition. Sehwag, Gambhir, Yuvraj, Dhoni and now Kohli. yet he's definitely a tale. 10. confident. because of the fact until eventually Nineteen Nineties no longer many ODI mathces have been carried out. He and ODI have began jointly.

Answer 9

Apologetics. Beyond a doubt.

Answer 10

The most offensive thing I have found is Infinite Regression. It runs neck and neck with Preconeived Notions, but IR wins out in the end.