|
Which error is this?
|
Looking a bit further, there might be another fallacy. It’s not the sort of syllogistic fallacy we were looking for: begging the question.
Comparing the Universal Oneness of All Life to Yo Mama since 2010.
![[Image: harmlesskitchen.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/yxR97P23/harmlesskitchen.png) I was born with the gift of laughter and a sense the world is mad.  (January 3, 2022 at 12:22 am)Rev. Rye Wrote: Looking a bit further, there might be another fallacy. It’s not the sort of syllogistic fallacy we were looking for: begging the question. I did think for a while about whether the argument is circular and begs the question (after what FM said), but is it really? After all, P1 is not really assuming Thor exists. It does almost feel a like a "rigged" argument, because thunder clearly does exist and therefore no questioning P2. On the other hand, P1 can easily be dismissed since we have better explanations for the existence of thunder. It's a bad argument either way. As for Cameron's argument specifically, there is a question of what the author means exactly by moral knowledge and why it should be linked to God. Then once that has been addressed, what other arguments can be provided that compellingly supports both P1 and P2. 
Yeah, there’s really no reason for Thor to be attached to thunder in P1 other than it’s needed for the conclusion.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.  RE: Which error is this?
January 3, 2022 at 12:48 pm
(This post was last modified: January 3, 2022 at 12:50 pm by Angrboda.)
One final note about the moral knowledge syllogism. William Lane Craig uses a version of this argument, but instead of moral knowledge he uses the term objective moral values (link). The difficulty there is assuming that it is evident that moral values exist objectively. (Craig's response is that we just know they do!) Whether moral values are objective or not is one of the primary debates in meta-ethics. Yet it is equally problematic to use the term moral knowledge. There is a group of meta-ethical views known as error theories which hold that morals and moral propositions have no truth value, which is to say that they are neither true nor false. Since knowledge in an approximate formulation is justified true belief, if a moral proposition can neither be true nor false, then you obviously can't have a true belief in the truth of a moral proposition. Thus if an error theory is true, then you can have moral values, but those values and our beliefs about them cannot be knowledge.
So neither premise is straight-forwardly evident in the syllogism about morals. ![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)
Misplaced middle. "All lightening comes from Thor."
 (January 3, 2022 at 12:48 pm)Angrboda Wrote: One final note about the moral knowledge syllogism. William Lane Craig uses a version of this argument, but instead of moral knowledge he uses the term objective moral values (link). The difficulty there is assuming that it is evident that moral values exist objectively. (Craig's response is that we just know they do!) Whether moral values are objective or not is one of the primary debates in meta-ethics. Yet it is equally problematic to use the term moral knowledge. There is a group of meta-ethical views known as error theories which hold that morals and moral propositions have no truth value, which is to say that they are neither true nor false. Since knowledge in an approximate formulation is justified true belief, if a moral proposition can neither be true nor false, then you obviously can't have a true belief in the truth of a moral proposition. Thus if an error theory is true, then you can have moral values, but those values and our beliefs about them cannot be knowledge. For fun ask them why their god creates people who are incapable of grasping morality. Must suck to be born a psychopath. 
The argument is valid, because if one accepts the premises, the conclusion automatically follows.
Its soundness depends on whether one accepts P1 AND P2... (January 4, 2022 at 5:03 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: The argument is valid, because if one accepts the premises, the conclusion automatically follows. Thanks, Klor!
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken. 
Maybe we could use this topic to sort out various fallacies we are not sure of.
Like what fallacy is this: "Trees have a creator because humans make cars." Is this a False equivalence logical fallacy?
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"
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
