LOGIC. WHAT ARE DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS? PART 4.

ARGUMENT #1.                                                 ARGUMENT #2.

PREMISE 1.                                                      PREMISE 1.

ANYONE WHO BELIEVES IN HUMAN                ALL CHRISTIANS ARE 

EVOLUTION IS AN ATHEIST.                             ANTI-SCIENCE.    

PREMISE 2.                                                      PREMISE 2.      

ALL ATHEISTS DO NOT BELIEVE                     IF YOU ARE ANTI- SCIENCE, 

IN GOD.                                                            YOU DO NOT FOLLOW THE 

                                                                        SCIENTIFIC METHOD.             

                                                  

CONCLUSION.                                                CONCLUSION. 

THEREFORE, IF YOU BELIEVE IN                  THEREFORE, IF YOU ARE A

HUMAN EVOLUTION, YOU DO NOT                CHRISTIAN, YOU DO NOT

BELIEVE IN GOD.                                           FOLLOW THE SCIENTIFIC

                                                                      METHOD.

                                     (REPRINTED FROM PART 2.)

IN #1, THOSE CONSIDERED ANTI-RELIGION OR ANTI- GOD ARE SUBJECT TO FALLACIOUS REASONING BY INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS WHO DEFINE "RELIGION" AND "GOD" SO NARROWLY, THAT ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH THEIR STRICT AND SPECIFIC DEFINITION OF SCRIPTURE ARE ATHEISTS. YET, WE FIND THAT MANY INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE EMPLOYED IN SCIENTIFIC FIELDS ARE CONFIRMED THEISTS, BUT DO NOT MIX THEIR RELIGIOUS FAITH WITH ESTABLISHED SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES.

In Argument #2, we find a Conclusion that, Essentially, Attacks a Section of Humanity that Adheres to More Traditional Religious Beliefs than those in the First Argument. However, like in the first example, we find those who try to use a VALID DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT TO JUSTIFY CONCLUSIONS THAT DO NOT STAND UP TO SCRUTINY, AND ARE ULTIMATELY REVEALED TO BE UNTRUTHFUL.

An Analysis of the Second Argument begins with the Premise:

"ALL CHRISTIANS ARE ANTI-SCIENCE."

THIS IS AN ASSERTION THAT MUST BE DEFENDED, AND CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO STAND WITHOUT PROPER DEFINITIONS OF "CHRISTIAN" AND "SCIENCE" BEING PUT FORTH TO JUSTIFY THE WORDING IN THE FIRST PREMISE.

IF WE TAKE THE FOLLOWING EXAMPLE:

"TO BE A CHRISTIAN, ONE MUST ACCEPT THE DIVINE NATURE OF JESUS OF NAZARETH AS BEING THE SON OF GOD."

AS A PROPER DEFINITION FOR BEING A CHRISTIAN, WE MUST ASK THE FOLLOWING:

WHY DOES SUCH A DEFINITION AUTOMATICALLY PLACE THOSE WHO ACCEPT IT AS TRUE, INTO AN ADDITIONAL CATEGORY OF BEING "ANTI-SCIENCE?"

THE ANSWER USUALLY REVOLVES AROUND THE FOLLOWING LINE OF REASONING...

LOOK FOR PT 5.