In the Round Table Discussion “The Four horsemen”. Dennett points out to notice the bag of tricks that have evolved to protect religion in debate – the arguments that are circular, and could be about anything. They could be used to sustain anything – forms of non argument which con artists use.
What got me thinking was this discussion based on my religion and tolerance blog, the comments which run as follows:
It is self sustanining for this person. Anyone that has a counter argument to his belief is proof that his belief is right is evidence that he is correct. An opposite argument must be wrong and in league with the devil. Now that is not based on reason. It is a logical fallacy and a non argument.
Let us put it to something else. Liberalism is the only right way to care about people. If you have a different political opinion than you do not care about people. An opposite argument must be wrong and in league with President Bush.
Aldershot Town will win promotion to league football this season. This is their destiny. It is going to happen because I am turning 30 this year. I was 16 when I went to my first game, and they have been in existence now for 16 years. Numerology predicts that the shots are going up and now you are going to believe this. My faith in my team means they will be promoted this season. A lack of belief by the faithful will allow the evil one (Torquay) to win and we cannot let that happen. We must believe.
Now if I hold to these circular arguments (not recognising them as such) you will not convince me I am wrong unless I recognise the flaw in the argument. So all I can do is point out how ridiculous the reasoning is. And that all it does is keep you in a rut, while making others dizzy.
Sometimes all you are left with is humour, and thanks to the tag surfer came across this video by Pat Condell, enjoy: