[Serious] Fallacies & Strategies

[Pat Mustard]

My vote for the most used logical fallacy among AF members is category error, placing the God of Classical theism (i.e. Being Itself) in the same category as a particular being among other beings. For example comparing the All with the tooth fairy.

We're only doing what you do every single day of the week, ****.

Moderator Notice
Insult removed, this is a 'Serious' thread.

[Pat Mustard]

Not having access to the relevant facts leads to arguments from ignorance, this much should be clear.. the well-known logical argument from evil is a textbook example, as the premise "There is no good reason for God not to prevent all evil" can't be proven at all, unless one knows all the true propositions about God and evil. And still, many very abled philosophers tried this argument, and this alone is very shocking. I mean, what were they thinking? Obviously, no one can prove than God should or shouldn't do x or prevent x, precisely because no one can have access to all the relevant facts. You need to be omniscient in order to assess the actions of an omniscient being, the same way one needs to be a surgeon to understand why surgeons sometimes intentionally severe arteries and cut chests open.

But sure, we don't need to know everything to form an argument. this implies however that the argument will necessarily have a modest conclusion, not the kind of conclusions that atheists usually have in mind: like God doesn't exist, nature explains everything, etc.

As for comparing beliefs to flavors of icecream... I don't think that's fair -I don't think you think it's fair, either-. Choosing a bad or unusual flavor doesn't have any implications, unlike belief systems that people adhere to, sometimes very strongly.

True when we compare flavours of icecream, at least we're discussing things that exist. That puts them on a few orders of magnitude more important than gods.

[The Grand Nudger]

An atheist asking for evidence of God is a bit like a presentist asking for proof that the past is real. The presentest will say of anything you show them from fossils to documents are all in the present now. Is the past real? The past is just a current memory; the future is just a current hope, right? What is at stake is the notion that there can be modes of being that fall into different ontological categories, just as the past is modally different from the present.

I would invite my atheist friends to consider the idea that to consistantly apply the category error by which they dismiss the existence of God (by putting Him in the same category as one type of being among other beings),...by applying the standard that there is only one way to be real to the issue of time, i.e. a single ontological category,  how could they consider the the past real in any meaningful sense.

I think you've hit the nail on the head, as I commented on a few posts back.  Its the dismissal that you reject, not a category error.  You dismiss the existence of other fairy tale creatures, and so, a comparison between gods an other fairies is, to you, a dismissal of gods.

The same could perhaps be said about holes. IMHO holes are real in a meaningful sense. They are numerable. They have size and shape. Etc. Their being may be contingent, but it is a type of being none the less.

It seems to me that inisting there is only one category of being that counts as real is similar to the "excluded middle", i.e. that the one true way to be real exhausts all the ways something can be real. IMHO the tooth fairy comparision commits one to a very narrow and limited ontology.

Again with what is and isn't real.  Are you sure that people who make the comparison are the ones that dismiss the set in the way that you have? You're entirely wrong about narrow and limited ontologies, and I suspect its more of a negative free association exercise than an accurate view. Do you think it might be the case that a person can compare fairies because they have an expansive view of the set owing to a greater familiarity with the entire number of things that go bump in the night?

[LadyForCamus]

Yes, a theist believes God is real, that's what the word theist means...

An atheist asking a theist for empirical evidence of the divine, for example, has already committed a category mistake.

A god who intervenes in the world may intervene simply by means of natural laws, and a naturalist will obviously be content with these as the final explanation.. All the misconceptions with regards to this crucial issue arise from an unwarranted assumption: that god's intervention should be solely through miracles and jaw-dropping events.

An atheist asking for evidence of God is a bit like a presentist asking for proof that the past is real. The presentest will say of anything you show them from fossils to documents are all in the present now. Is the past real? The past is just a current memory; the future is just a current hope, right? What is at stake is the notion that there can be modes of being that fall into different ontological categories, just as the past is modally different from the present.

I would invite my atheist friends to consider the idea that to consistantly apply the category error by which they dismiss the existence of God (by putting Him in the same category as one type of being among other beings),...by applying the standard that there is only one way to be real to the issue of time, i.e. a single ontological category,  how could they consider the the past real in any meaningful sense.

The same could perhaps be said about holes. IMHO holes are real in a meaningful sense. They are numerable. They have size and shape. Etc. Their being may be contingent, but it is a type of being none the less.

It seems to me that inisting there is only one category of being that counts as real is similar to the "excluded middle", i.e. that the one true way to be real exhausts all the ways something can be real. IMHO the tooth fairy comparision commits one to a very narrow and limited ontology.

I would agree with what you’ve said here except for the very real problem that crossing off tangible evidence as a means to detect god does that and only that. It does not provide us with an alternate method to reach the conclusion that god exists that is at least as consistent and reliable as the method you’ve ruled out as not applicable.

[The Architect Of Fate]

There is no meaningful distinction in terms of evidence between a god and a character of fiction except that the former has a heap load of fanatical followers willing to waste their lives trying to use it as a bandaid for their ignorance and an excuse for their inhumanity and are willing to tie themselves into knots trying to defend it. Cries of "category error" are not logical objections their an emotional indignation at the idea other people don't take absurdities seriously and aren't just willing to give them undo charity. Then they try and turn the tables on you trying to become a parody of a skeptic and failing miserably.

[R00tKiT]

There's a difference from being wrong in-fact, and mounting an argument from ignorance...though I suppose the terms in plain english probably lend themselves well to that conflation.    

Perfectly fair, and another good comparison.  States of belief are facts of a subject, just as their tastes in ice cream are facts of a subject.  Rationalizations or justifications for those states of belief or taste are overwhelmingly ex post facto - and both can and have and do have far reaching consequences. I knew vanilla was the best flavor of icecream before I could articulate why...and some chocolate loving filth will be around shortly to explain why I'm wrong in-fact.  Further, they'll explain, vanilla accelerated the deforestation of madagascar.  Long hair, don't care, still the best flavor of ice cream.  

IDK about these requirements for understanding.  I'm not a surgeon, and I understand why surgeons sometimes intentionally severe arteries and cut open chests.  Even if it were true, despite that observation...that you might need to be a god to understand a god (which probably holds some weight)... I don't think that people with moral disagreements are looking to understand a god, but a moral agent - and we're moral agents...so...surgeon to surgeon, right?  Ultimately, though, the idea that any moral disagreement with gods -must- be an argument from ignorance is an implicit admission that there doesn't appear to be any good reason for many states of affairs.  This defense of a gods alleged existence comes at the cost of it's moral warrant - which is going to be the final word in what and whether a person could cosign or worship - as that's referent to yet another set of facts of a subject.  What they can personally stomach.  You can probably imagine some world with a bad god you wouldn't worship.  You don't believe that this is that world - but...for example, you might not be thrilled to find it was zues or wotan or the dagda or kali running the show, eh?.  

If gods could be bad, and were bad, would it mean they couldn't exist?  Well, no, that's a bad argument..i agree... but not on any point of fact.  It's the structure.  A bad existent god is still an existent god.

I'm inclined to agree that post hoc justifications are common when it comes to religious beliefs. But we know that people can change their religion or give up on it, or become deists, etc. There is clearly room for objective evaluation of facts to make an informed decision. But I don't see how that's comparable to icecream flavors.. one prefers the flavor that tastes well for them, and the story stops here.. because it involves immediate senses, namely the taste. Religious belief is much more complicated, and it's usually the basis for the individual's entire worldview.

Now about the possibility of there being a deity which is not benevolent .. First, I don't see why anyone would be interested in this possibility, let's assume there is a perfectly sound.and valid argument for the existence of a supreme malevolent entity, so what? How would that have any bearing on how anyone lives their life?
Secondly, no one ever proved that there is unnecessary evil in this world, ever. Consider Rowe's famous example of a fawn trapped under a giant tree trunk, in the middle of wildfire, the fawn slowly agonizes to death for several days, while vultures are feeding on its living flesh. Now clearly, the suffering of the pawn seems unnecessary for everybody. In stone cold rigor, however, it doesn't follow its suffering is really unnecessary. We know we're not omniscient -a trivial fact that is always worth mentioning. So nothing justifies the move : apparently unnecessary => unnecessary, no matter how much one feels sorry for the fawn. It's worth mentioning that there is inherently an upper bound for suffering in this world, too much pain numbs the senses and death also means the absence of pain. Is death evil? No, because death is a negative concept.

So what does that mean? It simply means we have no reason to postulate malevolent entities. We do have good reasons in favor of benevolence, however. The emergence of ife in its most rudimentary form isn't something a malevolent entity would do, let alone the emergence of conscious agents with free will, capable of experiencing pleasure and achieve various forms of welfare.

[The Grand Nudger]

There's a difference from being wrong in-fact, and mounting an argument from ignorance...though I suppose the terms in plain english probably lend themselves well to that conflation.    

Perfectly fair, and another good comparison.  States of belief are facts of a subject, just as their tastes in ice cream are facts of a subject.  Rationalizations or justifications for those states of belief or taste are overwhelmingly ex post facto - and both can and have and do have far reaching consequences. I knew vanilla was the best flavor of icecream before I could articulate why...and some chocolate loving filth will be around shortly to explain why I'm wrong in-fact.  Further, they'll explain, vanilla accelerated the deforestation of madagascar.  Long hair, don't care, still the best flavor of ice cream.  

IDK about these requirements for understanding.  I'm not a surgeon, and I understand why surgeons sometimes intentionally severe arteries and cut open chests.  Even if it were true, despite that observation...that you might need to be a god to understand a god (which probably holds some weight)... I don't think that people with moral disagreements are looking to understand a god, but a moral agent - and we're moral agents...so...surgeon to surgeon, right?  Ultimately, though, the idea that any moral disagreement with gods -must- be an argument from ignorance is an implicit admission that there doesn't appear to be any good reason for many states of affairs.  This defense of a gods alleged existence comes at the cost of it's moral warrant - which is going to be the final word in what and whether a person could cosign or worship - as that's referent to yet another set of facts of a subject.  What they can personally stomach.  You can probably imagine some world with a bad god you wouldn't worship.  You don't believe that this is that world - but...for example, you might not be thrilled to find it was zues or wotan or the dagda or kali running the show, eh?.  

If gods could be bad, and were bad, would it mean they couldn't exist?  Well, no, that's a bad argument..i agree... but not on any point of fact.  It's the structure.  A bad existent god is still an existent god.

I'm inclined to agree that post hoc justifications are common when it comes to religious beliefs. But we know that people can change their religion or give up on it, or become deists, etc. There is clearly room for objective evaluation of facts to make an informed decision. 

Sure.

But I don't see how that's comparable to icecream flavors.. one prefers the flavor that tastes well for them, and the story stops here.. because it involves immediate senses, namely the taste. Religious belief is much more complicated, and it's usually the basis for the individual's entire worldview.

It's comparable to ice cream flavors because, ultimately, whether they change their religion or give up on it..become deists...or, in my case, never assume god beliefs in the first place, is down to specific facts of the subject in question which are, themselves, brute facts.  Inarguable.  

Now about the possibility of there being a deity which is not benevolent .. First, I don't see why anyone would be interested in this possibility, let's assume there is a perfectly sound.and valid argument for the existence of a supreme malevolent entity, so what? How would that have any bearing on how anyone lives their life?
Secondly, no one ever proved that there is unnecessary evil in this world, ever. Consider Rowe's famous example of a fawn trapped under a giant tree trunk, in the middle of wildfire, the fawn slowly agonizes to death for several days, while vultures are feeding on its living flesh. Now clearly, the suffering of the pawn seems unnecessary for everybody. In stone cold rigor, however, it doesn't follow its suffering is really unnecessary. We know we're not omniscient -a trivial fact that is always worth mentioning. So nothing justifies the move : apparently unnecessary => unnecessary, no matter how much one feels sorry for the fawn. It's worth mentioning that there is inherently an upper bound for suffering in this world, too much pain numbs the senses and death also means the absence of pain. Is death evil? No, because death is a negative concept.

So what does that mean? It simply means we have no reason to postulate malevolent entities. We do have good reasons in favor of benevolence, however. The emergence of ife in its most rudimentary form isn't something a malevolent entity would do, let alone the emergence of conscious agents with free will, capable of experiencing pleasure and achieve various forms of welfare.

Well, if we're interested in gods we might be interested in the consequences of a god being a bad god.  Worshipping a bad god must have an effect on peoples lives.  You yourself just explained how consequential such beliefs could be no more than a post or so ago?

If we have any reason to postulate entities, we could also conceivably have reason to postulate the moral nature of those entities.  You say that the emergence of life isn't something a malevolent entity would do...but...have you thought it through?  Rocks don't suffer.  Life certainly suffers.  Any deity that creates life...like the life here....necessarrily creates the conditions for suffering itself.

Eaten alive, asshole first. You've insisted in thread previously that any disagreement with this state of affairs is an argument from ignorance, but as I explained, this conceded the moral argument in defense of the existential argument. You acknowledge that there is no apparent good reason for x y or z....but that doesn;t mean theres no reason. You, yourself, have invited bad reason. Have given reason to posit malevolent entities (if we needed more than our mere observation of the same in reality). That's the cost. No free lunches.

It's all of these logical consequences of your own stated position that lead you to hope that you could dismiss moral disagreement as a logical fallacy, imo. What do you think?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Not having access to the relevant facts leads to arguments from ignorance, this much should be clear.. the well-known logical argument from evil is a textbook example, as the premise "There is no good reason for God not to prevent all evil" can't be proven at all, unless one knows all the true propositions about God and evil. And still, many very abled philosophers tried this argument, and this alone is very shocking. I mean, what were they thinking? Obviously, no one can prove than God should or shouldn't do x or prevent x, precisely because no one can have access to all the relevant facts. You need to be omniscient in order to assess the actions of an omniscient being, the same way one needs to be a surgeon to understand why surgeons sometimes intentionally severe arteries and cut chests open.

But sure, we don't need to know everything to form an argument. this implies however that the argument will necessarily have a modest conclusion, not the kind of conclusions that atheists usually have in mind: like God doesn't exist, nature explains everything, etc.

As for comparing beliefs to flavors of icecream... I don't think that's fair -I don't think you think it's fair, either-. Choosing a bad or unusual flavor doesn't have any implications, unlike belief systems that people adhere to, sometimes very strongly.

If humans cannot judge god evil because humans lack omniscience, it follows that they also cannot judge him to be good, precisely because humans lack the knowledge needed for that judgement too.

That means that all this yammering about "god is good" etc is just so much blather-- according to your own logic, you worship a god who may or may not be good or evil, and you too cannot know one way or the other.

[Deesse23]

Yes, a theist believes God is real, that's what the word theist means...

An atheist asking a theist for empirical evidence of the divine, for example, has already committed a category mistake.

And an atheist asking you for any evidence?
Stop whining and bring some evidence to the table. Why do you believe in your god. Bring your best evidence, dont bother with the second best. Bring the top one here, right now.

A god who intervenes in the world may intervene simply by means of natural laws, and a naturalist will obviously be content with these as the final explanation.. All the misconceptions with regards to this crucial issue arise from an unwarranted assumption: that god's intervention should be solely through miracles and jaw-dropping events.

Thats, almost, comical.
Who invented (jaw dropping) miracles? Naturalists?

[Deesse23]

I would invite my atheist friends to consider the idea that to consistantly apply the category error by which they dismiss the existence of God (by putting Him in the same category as one type of being among other beings),...

So your god is in another category than every other being, a completely separate category, right? He is not a "being", right? I personally go as far as saying since beings "are", you god, by your admission, "is not". What *is* he if he "is not"?
What is he then, please explain the attributes of this new category, and please give it a descriptor (a verb other than "be" would be nice as well, just to make sure we can avoid category errors in the future, so next time he is mentioned, we can properly address his category).

Thanks.