Printable View
By that point though you've already gone beyond the appeal to authority and sought another reason for why the ideas that God apparently embodies are somehow valid. It demonstrates why the appeal to God alone is not sufficient, why the Bible is not a sufficient moral guide within and of itself.
Edit: Your particular example though seems an example of argumentum ad populum.
Good grief! Spare me from logical fallacy experts!
Besides, isn't naming the "logical fallacy" of which one's interlocutor is guilty a form of "argument from authority"? OrphanPip is hoist on his own petard! Uh oh! Now I'm hoist on MY own petard! It's a never-ending circle! Let me out! Let me out!
It's in no way an argument from authority, it's merely short hand for what is recognizable as a fallacious argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
Of course it's an "argument from authority". The "authorities" have established the recognized "logical fallacies". Naming the well-known fallacy of which the other person is supposedly guilty is simply calling on the support of those authorities.
(I give up.) Fiat justitia, et ruat mundus, by the way, since we are speaking in Latin.
Hardly, the fact that they are logical fallacies is not derived from the authority of those who named them, but that they have been argued and demonstrated as such.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
Edit: But sure, let's just leave it at this.
That's correct. Just like the fact that Ty Cobb had a .367 lifetime is not (I assume) derived (strictly) from authority -- although personally, I got the information from the MacMillan Baseball encyclopedia, and I believe it because I have no reason to doubt the authority. Nonetheless, naming the logical fallacy rather than pointing out the logical error is clearly an appeal to authority.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
Also, you are demonstrating a lack of understanding of logical reasoning. We know most of what we know because we have authoritative sources for that knowledge -- if Isaac Newton discovered much it was because he stood on the shoulders of giants (or was that someone else?). The notion that everything must be argued from first principles and that nothing can be accepted as authoritative is sophistry. Were that the case, we couldn't argue for anything.
Argument from authority is NOT fallacious. Why would it be? If I say that I think that Ty Cobb batted .367 because I saw it in the baseball Encycloedia, that's an entirely reasonable argument. I may be wrong -- but my argument is logical and reasonable. The formal logic would go:
P1) The baseball Encyclopedia keeps accurate records of players' statistics.
P2) The B. Enc. states that Ty Cobb hit .367 lifetime.
Conclusion: Ty Cobb hit .367 lifetime.
Where's the logical flaw? Perhaps one of the premises is wrong, but the logic is flawless. I'll grant that argument from FALSE authority is iffy (which is probably what you meant in saying the Bible argues from authority). After all, if God is the actual creator of all moral rules of right and wrong, and the bible is the revealed word of God, appealling to His revealed Word is hardly fallacious. To make any sort of logical argument we must accept some starting premises. On whose "authority" are these accepted?
You're misunderstanding what the appeal to authority means, and why it is fallacious. Your example is not fallacious because you are not claiming the batting average is truth merely because the encyclopedia says it is, you are claiming that the encyclopedia can be reasonably trusted so it is fair to believe the fact. If you claimed that the batting average was that merely by virtue of the encyclopedia's authority you would be committing a logical fallacy. Obviously, the veracity of the batting average is a fact that exists outside of the authority of the encyclopedia and does not derive from the encyclopedia itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
The appeal to morality in the Bible is different. Because it relies on the premise that the Bible's authority is the source of the truth of the claim. This is fallacious because it assumes that authority makes truth, something demonstratively false.
Edit: Not to mention the fact of how you could consider an interpretation of the Bible authoritative when we've already established that it is highly subjective and open to interpretation.
This reasoning is not "fallacious" at all, although it may be incorrect. Not all arguments that are incorrect are fallacious. Obviously, if God is properly the "AUTHOR" of all moral rules, than his "authoritative statements" of what those rules entail ARE the best way to discover moral truths.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
What does morality have to do with religion anyway?
This:Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
People who follow religion have enforced their morality onto society for thousands of years.
Communists all over the world have forced their morality onto society for a hundred years. What Im saying is that Religion is not inherently the problem. It's like saying the reason we have murder is because of guns, not true you can replace that gun with a sword or knife or poison and we still have the murder. Human nature is the problem here, Religion, Communism, fascism and a million other ideologies are all interchangeable as tools of oppression.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
(when I say religion, I mean the big three monotheistic ones, It's kinda hard to oppress a society with Buddhism or Taoism.)
Communism not all that highly regarded, is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
Certainly, but religion's been a great enabler of oppression for much longer than any other ideology, and as with the Communism example, gets a lot better press.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
:smilielol5:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
True!
Yes, religions make up just one set of excuses used to bully other people. Other excuses would pop up to take their place if the current three monotheistic religions became marginalized.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
I am beginning to think that one reason to classify these three religions based on the Genesis (J-authored) story of Abraham as primitive is because they are overly concerned with (1) belief and (2) morals rather than self-realization. I suspect other traditions use less belief and need morality as one might need a healthy diet, that is, as a starting point, not an ending point.
Here's a beautifully written essay by a professed atheist on the need for humility:
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/...certainty.html
Ms Cupp writes:
"The militant atheist wants nothing more than to spoil the believer's spiritual journey. That's both mean spirited and radically unenlightened."
and as an illustration:
"I wonder what they'd say to someone like Immaculee Ilibagiza, a survivor of the Rwandan genocide who says that her faith in Jesus Christ got her through 91 days of hiding in a 3x4 foot bathroom while her family was murdered outside. Would they tell her she was crazy? Delusional? To just deal with it? I would hope not - but I am not sure."
Religion, Communism, fascism and .....atheism?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
You make a valid point...
I think Ms Cup has drawn a beautiful strawman.Quote:
Originally Posted by AuntShecky
I keep asking for evidence that these "mean spirited" atheists actually exist, but I'm still waiting for evidence. I don't know of atheists that hassle the bereaved or turn up and laugh at religious funerals or ceremonies.
Refusal to give religion a free pass is not "being mean".
In the case of Immaculee, I'd simply suggest that she would have found something else to believe in had she not been indoctrinated with her god-belief. Herself maybe.
Just peruse your own posts...but I doubt that you be able to see the religious intolerance within them. The Bible speaks of those who have seared their own consciences. I wish that I would be able to give you evidence that you'd be able to understand, but none exists. The problem does not lie within the evidence, but the perspective of the critic.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Being intolerant of religion is not "being mean". I will admit to attacking religion, but it isn't done to be mean to theists. That was the point I was making. Religion is usually attacked by atheists because left unchecked, we know for a fact that religions will try to enforce their beliefs in the classroom and in public arenas.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
I would class tolerating religion as giving it a free pass, which is what the author seems to be pleading for.
Quite amsuing, really, all these people pleading for religion to be given a special place. Should I give the same free pass to homeopaths, UFO believers, mediums and psychics?
Well, I can only disagree with that. Saying that the evidence isn't in a format I can understand is just a cop out.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
You mean like atheists enforce their beliefs of evolution in the classrooms?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
But evolution isn't a belief in the way you're thinking as it is evidence-based. It has stood up to challenges against it and shown itself to be true up to this point, nor is it atheist-enforced. I want evolution taught in my classrooms and Creationism kept the hell out.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
:smilielol5:Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Oddly, I don't have any problem with teaching of peer-reviewed science. Especially ones that have been peer-reviewed to extreme lengths, like evolution.
____________________________________
I've now had time to go through the article critically and would make the following comments:
Where are atheists who suggest accumulation of wealth?Quote:
Originally Posted by S Cupp
This is an outrageous strawman argument. I would like to see evidence that any atheist has ever suggested accumulation of wealth as an alternative to religion.
The christmas tree comment isn't just wrong, it's stupid. The German tradition of christmas trees has only a tenuous connection to christ, which has long been superceded by commercialism. I have never heard an atheist railing against christmas trees and every atheist home I've been into this christmas has a christmas tree.
>95% is a false claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by S Cupp
Even Adherents, a religious organisation, lists agnosticism at 16% worldwide.
I feel that's a little low, given China alone, where a high percentage of the population does not practice any form of religion, but as the numbers at Adherents already negate her argument, I'll leave it there.
Assertion without foundation, which is no doubt why she has again failed to provide evidence. There are certainly examples of atheists attacking theists' intelligence, but saying it takes up "most of their time" is totally dishonest.Quote:
Originally Posted by S Cupp
Again, this is completely fallacious to the point of fantasy.Quote:
Originally Posted by S Cupp
Almost no atheists claim certainty, and Richard Dawkins' well-known 6.9/7 comment regarding certainty embodies this precisely for the vast majority of atheists. To claim that atheists talk of certainty and theists of doubt is a travesty of reality.
Poor article, badly written, using several fallacious arguments, actual falsehoods and argument from personal assertion.
Thanks, Aunt Shecky, for the link, because it goes right to the heart of my OP. She has created a strawman of atheism to attack, which is a pretty easy target in 90% theistic USA.
I couldn't have found a better example!
I don't see how the "mean spirited" comments of either atheists or Christians can "spoil" someone's spiritual journey. Cupp's own article seemed "radically unenlightened".Quote:
Originally Posted by AuntShecky
That's a very good point too.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
I often ask christians why they get angry at atheism when their personal pal just happens to run the entire universe.
What are they really afraid of?
Then the comments about "Christian fundamentalists" are without any legitimacy. Most of the issues that many atheists have are about the opinions of "Christian fundamentalists". Why don't we all just have our own opinions and leave each other alone? That would also mean that BOTH evolution and creationism should be taught in schools.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
There's a fundmental and important distinction between questioning ideas and attacking people. All ideas should be constantly and rigorously tested and retested. They should never be left alone.
And as the ideas have to be expressed by people, people tend to be involved in that process.
That doesn't mean that the people involved are being attacked. It's possible to simultaneously be happy for people to have their own opinions and also to want to talk about the ideas that support those opinions.
I honestly don't understand why some people - of many persuasions - don't want to have their ideas questioned, but that's their choice of course. The rest of us, on the other hand, might want to carry on with that exchange.
Yet there is currently an ongoing movement to stifle the discussion of religious matter in any public school. The "new" "militant" atheism doesn't want any discussion of "intelligent design". They want to monopolize the discussion and the evidences. I've raised the question many times, but it is never answered. Why do we continue to teach in our schools that it takes millions or billions of years for coal to form in nature, when scientists now know for a fact that it only takes decades? There are SOME who don't want to address truth, but they revel in their theories....theories that don't match the evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
Intelligent design is not science, not only that the major proponents of it, like Michael Behe, have been shown countless times to be outright liars that are just taking advantage of the scientifically illiterate by using just enough scientific jargon to confuse the layman, even though everything they say has been thoroughly debunked.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Teach ID at home if you like, but science courses should teach science.
That's patently nonsense, it does take millions of years for coal to form, on another note there haven't even been complex plants around for a billion years. Not only that, but coal formation requires extended anaerobic conditions, i.e. they have to occur in marshes, lakes or bogs. The early stages of coal formation, which can occur in a few decades, is peat, which makes a far less effective fuel.Quote:
Why do we continue to teach in our schools that it takes millions or billions of years for coal to form in nature, when scientists now know for a fact that it only takes decades? There are SOME who don't want to address truth, but they revel in their theories....theories that don't match the evidence.
Have you ever been to a strip mine where they mine coal, the depth coal is found at couldn't even be possible if it only took decades. Stuff from a few decades back, without disturbance, would only be under a couple feet of ground at most. Not to mention the fact that coal formation requires decaying plant material to originally be under water.
This is a horrible suggestion, and I would fight it to my death.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
It isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact vs belief.
As to leaving each other alone, that's a goal I'd love to see realised, but it would require theists to keep their faith to themselves, and I will wait until that happens before I put down the artillery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
So would it be better if nothing was taught in schools that anyone anywhere disagreed with? Or should everything be taught in schools that someone somewhere feels ought to be?
Because so-called 'Intelligent design' works in reverse to defeat itself
'Why do we have two legs?'
'One for the accelerator and one for the brake'
'Why do we have two ears?'
'So our spectacles don't fall off'
'Why do we have two eyes?'
''In case we poke ourself in one by a burnt stick, and what could be better than that?'
My biology teacher DID teach us about intelligent design in highschool. Of course, he first taught us about natural selection, mutation and evolution but after he was done each section of study he always went over the social implications of what we learned and after evolution we learend about the "intelligent design controversy." He was a great guy, he didn't say "and then some people believe in THIS nonesense," he just let the facts speak for themselves. It's important to know what other people believe in, this is as close to allowing intelligent design into a science classroom as I will condone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Both sides could use a little dose of healthy doubt once in a while:
"There lives more faith in honest doubt,
Believe me, than in half the creeds."
--Tennyson [/COLOR][/
Trust me, I hate the term myself, but it's the only thing which fits in these cases. The premises are made up, and made up for the sole purpose of supporting an argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by AuntShecky
What else can I describe it as?
If you can find some evidence that any of the premises are true, fire away.
I have bolded the appropriate part, because you're falling into exactly the same error. Who says it will create a vacuum? Why would it create a vacuum?Quote:
Originally Posted by AuntShecky
You are making up things to suit your argument.
My primary point - which you didn't answer - was that I have never heard of atheists complaining about christmas trees.Quote:
Originally Posted by AuntShecky
The idea is made up.
Again, you're missing the main point. The numbers used in the article were made up. I gave you a religious organisation's estimate, which proved her wrong. Whether or not the number is higher, it is unarguable that she made up the "95%".Quote:
Originally Posted by AuntShecky
Of what? That people believe in god/s with all of their being?Quote:
Originally Posted by AuntShecky
I already knew that, and many suicide bombers have confirmed it since then.
The stories may have moved me more had I been sure they were true. When I read an article which has glaring dishonesty, I find it hard to be moved by the emotional bits - they're probably as false as the data used.
I find it hard to disagree with Dawkins on this one. The idea that religion is merely human construct is so obvious that it is often hard not to be too dismissive.Quote:
Originally Posted by AuntShecky
Let's agree that's one area where militant atheism could improve itself.
I won't agree with that, though. I will never be able to respect theism, nor do I believe that I should. I don't respect people who believe in psychics, astrology or alien lizards running the planet earth, so I think seeking respect is the wrong approach.Quote:
Originally Posted by AuntShecky
This is another of those made-up ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by AuntShecky
In what way do atheists behave like fundies? Do they tell those who disagree they're going to hell? Do they have atheist exorcisms, exorcising the spirit of Jesus? Do they pay for television stations to broadcast daily messages to the faithful?
I see a lot of conflating atheism and fundamentalism, but I think it's highly dishonest.
I repeat that atheists actually exercise a lot more doubt than you're suggesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by AuntShecky
True...it is your belief that...Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
...everything came from nothing
...life came from non-life
...consciousness came from unconsciousness
...intelligence came from non-intelligence
...morality came from amorality
But NONE of that comes from facts. There are NO facts that support evolution. Science does not support your beliefs. But you'll just deny it...that doesn't really make your case though.
This is a bit silly Shecky. You're conflating very different meanings of materialism. Dialectical materialism is a theory from Marxism about capitalism's tendency to work towards maximum efficiency in a way that is self-destructive to the capitalistic system. I.e. The move of factories towards robotic workers that puts factory workers out of work, and in turn creates less customers for the factory would be an example of dialectical materialism.Quote:
Originally Posted by AuntShecky
I just don't get what this has to do with the accumulation of wealth replacing any spiritual thing for atheist.
And really let's look at Calvinist, who used to see material wealth as a sign of God's Grace, thus they were very actively involved in the accumulation of material wealth. I don't see why atheist would be more likely to look for satisfaction in wealth than religious people.
Most scientist are atheist, most scientist are not working in fields likely to get them rich.
If we're talking about philosophical materialism, obviously this is a worldview many atheist are likely to support, but this has nothing to do with the accumulation of wealth. It just means that you believe the world around us is real and understandable and there is no supernatural.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
........er......
Tea, anyone?
Actually, while the kettle's boiling, I would like to ask a question. Given that so many of us believe that science does support evolution, solidly, consistently and pretty much definitively, then - if you're right, Bienvenue - all of us are either gullible or in some way involved in the promotion of this nonsense.
The latter group - those perpetuating the falsehood - would have to be quite small in order to keep it quiet, so do you suggest that the vast majority of us are stupid?
I mean, you've seen through it all, so we must at the very least be less bright than you.
Nope, I don't have any belief in those things. As I say consistently, the only belief I have is that reality exists.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
By evaluating the evidence available, I think they are most likely true - except for the top one - it's theists who believe a god made the universe from nothing, most rationalists think the big bang had some substance behind it.
That is so wrong I won't bother arguing against it - there have been thousands of textbooks which detail the physical evidence of evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Good spot - it never occurred to me that that was the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
As with The Atheist's "It isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact vs belief...." there are hidden postulates in this statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
The "real" world might be most completely “understandable” through fasting and meditation, or it might be “understandable” through observation, induction, and experiment. What OrphanPip and The Atheist mean to say (I think, correct me if I’m wrong) is that the world is “real” and that it is “best understood through observation, induction, and experiment”. In other words, it is best understood through the use of scientific methods and techniques.
If that’s what they are saying, I agree with them both (although I don’t necessarily distrust non-scientific approaches as much as the do). However, if they are saying that everything in the world IS understandable through the scientific method, then they are either mistaken, or making a gigantic leap of faith. Obviously, there are plenty of things that we don’t understand, and some that we may never understand, or that may not lend themselves to scientific explication.
Let me give an example of what I’m talking about:
The Christian says, “Who can know the Mind of God?” He means that the Mind of God is incomprehensible to puny humans, we can only approach knolwedge of it through stories and metaphors.
Ths materialist might reasonably say, “Who can know what lies beyond the boundries of the known universe?” After all, those things moving away from us at the speed of light are not only unknown, but unknowable. Does this mean they are not “real” (as OrphanPip’s comment would suggest)?
The premise is a bit more nuanced than that though, if something is immaterial, in the sense of the supernatural, then it is never measurable and has no effect on the material world, thus the question of its existence is inaccessible and can be effectively ignored.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
The philosophical materialist would say that all that meaningfully exists for us is discernible through observation of its effects, either directly or indirectly. This doesn't say that things which we haven't measured don't exist, but it postulates that things which we haven't found to exist that do exist should still have effects that would be observable if we knew how or could get to them.
I suggest that there are a great many things that are “immaterial” (so in one sense they are “supernatural”, although I doubt that OrphanPip would call them “supernatural”). Among them are such things as “consciousness”, “ideas”, “beliefs”, etc. Of course, as OrphanPip suggests, these immaterial things do have observable effects, although it’s difficult to tell what those effects are, since it's difficult to observe connections between the abstract concept of “consciousness” and how it affects observable reality. So while scientific approaches often offer the most enlightening methods of looking at things, other approaches (philosophy, literature, religion, etc.) may be more enlightening methods of looking at some things.
Here's one example: Philosoher differentiate between "experiential knowledge" and other forms of knowledge. A scientist may be able to describe the physics behind one's ability to ride a bicycle, but his "knowledge" of how to ride a bike is different from that of the Tour de France professional (who may know nothing about physics). One has the "experience" of bike riding, and "knows" something the other does not. Similarly, the religious mystic, who spends his life meditating and flagellating himself may “know” something about the religious experience that is a complete mystery to the student (scientist) of religion. The mystic may not be able to measure this knowledge nor the scientist observe it, but the mystic has a form of experiential knowledge that a great many people have said is “enlightening”. Even if it is not particularly enlightening, at least from Orphanpip's and The Atheist’s point of view, it remains a form of knowledge they do not have – just like the bike rider’s knowledge of bike riding is a form of knowledge that non-riders don’t share.
(p.s. I couldn't resist the "flagellating himself" bit.)