It's much easier to accept that someone is wrong (or that you might be wrong yourself) than that someone is uninterested in what's right.
You're demonstrating my point by equating "right" (i.e., "correct") with "logical," and you're also hyperbolizing by suggesting a theist is "uninterested" in logic. Some of the greatest writers in logic and philosophy (Darwin, Descartes, Locke, Jefferson, and many others) were theists: Clearly, they were able to set apart the logical from the intangibles of faith. But modern rationalists are increasingly leveraging people's discomfort at being deemed "illogical" to conflate "correct" and "logical" (and by extension, "intelligent," "enlightened," and a bunch of other positive concepts). Just because someone fails to put logic above all other things, that doesn't mean they're uninterested in it.
Ultimately, it's begging the question. If the rationalist/scientific rules are used as the sole means for determining what's correct, then the results of rationalism/science will by definition be correct. But that means "correct" means "the results of rationalism/science." And so nothing has been proven except that there is at least one viable worldview that is rationalist and scientific. Saying that's correct because it works is circular.
I'm not saying that the atheist perspective is incorrect. Underneath it all, I'm an agnostic, and have no more proof against atheism than I do against theism. After all, atheism's sole proof, the only thing that differentiates it philosophically from agnosticism, is Occam's Razor. But that's not logic per se, it's a rule of convenience.
no subject
You're demonstrating my point by equating "right" (i.e., "correct") with "logical," and you're also hyperbolizing by suggesting a theist is "uninterested" in logic. Some of the greatest writers in logic and philosophy (Darwin, Descartes, Locke, Jefferson, and many others) were theists: Clearly, they were able to set apart the logical from the intangibles of faith. But modern rationalists are increasingly leveraging people's discomfort at being deemed "illogical" to conflate "correct" and "logical" (and by extension, "intelligent," "enlightened," and a bunch of other positive concepts). Just because someone fails to put logic above all other things, that doesn't mean they're uninterested in it.
Ultimately, it's begging the question. If the rationalist/scientific rules are used as the sole means for determining what's correct, then the results of rationalism/science will by definition be correct. But that means "correct" means "the results of rationalism/science." And so nothing has been proven except that there is at least one viable worldview that is rationalist and scientific. Saying that's correct because it works is circular.
I'm not saying that the atheist perspective is incorrect. Underneath it all, I'm an agnostic, and have no more proof against atheism than I do against theism. After all, atheism's sole proof, the only thing that differentiates it philosophically from agnosticism, is Occam's Razor. But that's not logic per se, it's a rule of convenience.