Posted by CB on December 19, 2008 at 16:15:39
In Reply to: Re: You're not entirely correct either posted by OT2 on November 25, 2008 at 10:53:59:
Edward's logical argumentation is very faulty.
Was that said with enough "gravitas"? :)
I see the associations Edward is making regarding basic premises of Berg's "moral" teaching: It's not a sin if it's done in love, be prepared to suffer and die for the cause, extreme personal sacrifice is a sign of godly love, etc., etc.
But the logic needed to connect Berg's basic premises to a fully articulated doctrine of revolutionary suicide similar to what Jim Jones preached just isn't present in Edward's argumentation. He draws conclusions without a logic chain that links back to the evidence he cites, and he absolutely refuses to question any of his assumptions about the what the evidence means or how he's interpreting it.
Edward clearly has foregone conclusions that he's attempting to prove, which is a dishonest form of inquiry. Richard Feynman calls it Cargo Cult Science.