Joined: Mar. 2008
> What you are criticizing is, I believe, “reductio ad absurdum”.
No, this is a perfectly sound form of argument, however, it relies, like any other form of argument, on the validity of each of its statements, if one of the statements in the argument is unsound (a non-squter, or simply false), then the argument false apart.
> rather than simply equating the logic of science with that of
> biblical literalism.
I am not equating the logic of science with that of biblical literalism, (though my original post was breif and it is an honest miscommunication) but simply asserting that if you wish to attack the logic of biblical literalism, you should not do so in an irrational way, which I think is obvious. All rational beliefs should be formed in a rational way, and one should not attack irrational beliefs with irrational arguments. I do not disbelieve in santa clause because santa clause kills babies, but rather disbelieve in him because it is impossible for him to exist in a meaningful way, which I will not argue here.