Argument from pompousness?
August 31, 2018 at 4:48 am
(This post was last modified: August 31, 2018 at 4:54 am by Fake Messiah.)
Or it could be called an Argument from decency where person considers himself/ herself too "decent" (too Christian) to even acknowledge the argument in question.
Like when bishop Samuel Wilberforce dismissed Darwin's theory of evolution by saying to Thomas Huxley that he certainly didn't have grandparents as apes. Like something is shameful and too indecent to be true. And, indeed, Huxley was recorded of retorting: “[A] man has no reason to be ashamed of having an ape for his grandfather. If there were an ancestor whom I should feel shame in recalling, it would be a MAN, a man of restless and versatile intellect, who, not content with an success in his own sphere of activity, plunges into scientific questions with which he has no real acquaintance, only to obscure them by an aimless rhetoric, and distract the attention of his hearers from the real point at issue by eloquent digressions, and skilled appeals to religious prejudice.”
I mean have you noticed it, and similar situations? Or maybe it all falls under The Argument From Authority? Or does it fall under Ad hominem fallacy? Or is it indeed an Argument from pompousness?
Also Ken Ham is is so snobbishly against the idea that he is an ape that there are memes about it like:
![[Image: HWLDwE6V_o.jpg]](https://images2.imgbox.com/a1/ca/HWLDwE6V_o.jpg)
And when a person "establishes" his pompous position like that, where he is this privileged, exalted and, if not, infallible person (frequently talks with god) then afterward what ever he/ she says is then a sermon which people should listen without the question, because he certainly doesn't question it.
I mean here is another example of what I'm talking about where I was browsing trough a book on flat Earth on Amazon which is all about the argument in which author claims he is too decent, too cleanly shaven, too Christian and too well dressed to be wrong, unlike those smelly pagan punks:
-first he writes about a subject he doesn't like with a tone total disgust
![[Image: 5pV2M4K4_o.jpg]](https://images2.imgbox.com/59/e8/5pV2M4K4_o.jpg)
-then he states that there is no evidence
![[Image: KYLJgzAr_o.jpg]](https://images2.imgbox.com/6f/63/KYLJgzAr_o.jpg)
-although there is evidence he doesn't pay attention to what that evidence says but is preoccupied with people around it and how it's all obviously too indecent and deviant for him to accept
![[Image: rwdbMLt9_o.jpg]](https://images2.imgbox.com/b0/c6/rwdbMLt9_o.jpg)
-and then he settles the indecent deal and goes into persecution mode
![[Image: Pk2mBfrC_o.jpg]](https://images2.imgbox.com/be/5f/Pk2mBfrC_o.jpg)
I'm sure plenty of people noticed this and yet I never heard it named or talked about, where religious people dismiss something because they deem it too "incident" to be true.
Like when bishop Samuel Wilberforce dismissed Darwin's theory of evolution by saying to Thomas Huxley that he certainly didn't have grandparents as apes. Like something is shameful and too indecent to be true. And, indeed, Huxley was recorded of retorting: “[A] man has no reason to be ashamed of having an ape for his grandfather. If there were an ancestor whom I should feel shame in recalling, it would be a MAN, a man of restless and versatile intellect, who, not content with an success in his own sphere of activity, plunges into scientific questions with which he has no real acquaintance, only to obscure them by an aimless rhetoric, and distract the attention of his hearers from the real point at issue by eloquent digressions, and skilled appeals to religious prejudice.”
I mean have you noticed it, and similar situations? Or maybe it all falls under The Argument From Authority? Or does it fall under Ad hominem fallacy? Or is it indeed an Argument from pompousness?
Also Ken Ham is is so snobbishly against the idea that he is an ape that there are memes about it like:
And when a person "establishes" his pompous position like that, where he is this privileged, exalted and, if not, infallible person (frequently talks with god) then afterward what ever he/ she says is then a sermon which people should listen without the question, because he certainly doesn't question it.
I mean here is another example of what I'm talking about where I was browsing trough a book on flat Earth on Amazon which is all about the argument in which author claims he is too decent, too cleanly shaven, too Christian and too well dressed to be wrong, unlike those smelly pagan punks:
-first he writes about a subject he doesn't like with a tone total disgust
-then he states that there is no evidence
-although there is evidence he doesn't pay attention to what that evidence says but is preoccupied with people around it and how it's all obviously too indecent and deviant for him to accept
-and then he settles the indecent deal and goes into persecution mode
I'm sure plenty of people noticed this and yet I never heard it named or talked about, where religious people dismiss something because they deem it too "incident" to be true.
teachings of the Bible are so muddled and self-contradictory that it was possible for Christians to happily burn heretics alive for five long centuries. It was even possible for the most venerated patriarchs of the Church, like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, to conclude that heretics should be tortured (Augustine) or killed outright (Aquinas). Martin Luther and John Calvin advocated the wholesale murder of heretics, apostates, Jews, and witches. - Sam Harris, "Letter To A Christian Nation"
